Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
16.3.3.1
Corpus Examples
In a fragment of the Wassink scenario, the officer and the suspect start to speak more
easily and freely to each other after a period of hesitant, slow interaction. The officer
starts making gestures and the suspect has her full attention on his comments and
responds quickly, without much hesitation. Soon after this, the suspect assumes a
more interested body posture and finally both parties start laughing together. What is
clear here is that the parties have mutual interest in each other and their coordination
increases, resulting in them being “in sync”.
The opposite occurs in a fragment of the Van Bron scenario, in which Van Bron
is not listening to what the officers are asking (or does not want to hear what they
are saying) and starts making indecent comments about the female officer. In this
case, there is little attentiveness of the suspect as well as a lack of intention to
be positive towards the officer, resulting in an unpleasant atmosphere in which the
police officer is not sure what to say any more.
16.3.3.2
Systems Using This Concept
Huang et al.'s work on the Rapport Agent 2.0—a virtual agent designed to build
rapport with users—focuses on backchannelling and turn-taking at the correct
moments (Huang et al.
2011
). Here, backchannelling and turn-taking are used to
inform the user of the attention of the virtual agent. Cassell et al. (
2007
) address
long-term effects of rapport and how these could be modelled by looking at
differences in interactions between friends and strangers. In their research, it became
apparent that strangers tend to acknowledge each other more—that is, they make
sure that the other party understood that they themselves understood what was being
said. Friends are much more direct in their interaction, gazing at each other directly
and being less explicit about their understanding of each other, which is explained
by them having more rapport.
16.3.4
Information Exchange and Framing
Suspect factors 6 (questions) and 7 (lies) and police factor 3 (lies) were interpreted
as having to do with information exchange. The discussion between the interpreters
revealed more descriptions of information exchange than just “lies” and “questions”,
but for these other categories no consensus was reached and they are not included
in Tables
16.2
and
16.3
. A factor analysis where the questions answered from the
points of view of the suspect and the police were taken together revealed more
information exchange descriptions during interpretation of these factors, including
give information
,
withhold information
,
lie
, and the notion of
topic or frame
.
Information is exchanged during all conversations between multiple interac-
tion partners. Austin (
1975
) conceptualised an illocutionary act as the intended
Search WWH ::
Custom Search