Maurice Part 2 Flashcards
Applause In political speeches
Atkinson analysed use of rhetorical devices to invite applause. Rd are features of a speech that show when applause appropriate, usually show completion point. Examples are contrasts (two parts similar that are compared) and 3 part lists
Heritage and great batch
Studies uk political parties, contrasts responsible for 33% and lists 12% applause (most affective). Also found puzzle solution, headline punchline, position taking, combination, pursuit (trying again) but still leaves a third unexplained
Synchrony
Atkinson: applause starts at completion point but bull and wells found only 65% so may be overestimation
Content
Bull 2000: analysed applause not linked to rds, applause often interruptive, not synchronised and all about statements of policy, atkinson said occurs when praising or attacking- content important. Atkinson said more likely to applaud when used W rd, bull says content can induce applause W no rd
Invited and non
Bull and wells: 86% invited, 14% not, reasons were direct response to content or misreading of rds, Atkinson didn’t discuss uninvited
Delivery
Bull: delivery showed wether a rd is an ivitation to clap, Atkinson said delivery increases clappping from rd. when delivery did show sync claps 98%, when didn’t indicate claps, nonsync 98%. Delivery as important as rds for sync
Culture
Atksinon based in uk. Bull: Japanese speeches more likely to use explicit invitations to clap 68%. In us speeches, claps less common than uk, cheering most 66% and chanting
Equivocation and type of interviewer
Occurs in response to threat to personal, party or sig other face. Bull: politicians answered more audience questions 73% than interviewer 47% as interviewers asked more cc questions. Face of interviewer like reputation or pressure to be tough
Types of questions in research
Split into interrgoative syntax (yes/no, alternative/disjuntive: seeking response from a range like a or b) interrogiative words: who, what when, where, why, how. non (declarative, statements proposed like a question, moodless: same but no verb, indirect asking on behalf of another person
All the 11 rds
Contrast, 3 part lists, puzzle-solution, headline-punchline, position taking, pursuit, expressing gratitude, naming, - naming, joke and combination
Tutorial
De bento: doctors use implicit/indirect lang when delivering bad news- used fake ps so may understand info better and have no emotional connection. Endres: med students, only good communicators improved after micro expression training, small difference, ocse doesn’t represent communication, only top and bottom, bottom may not be that bad. Warren:better at telling emotional lies but only looked at disgust
Facial expression accuracy
Hall 78: reviewed studies looking at gender diff, looking at posed/ asked to adopt or spontaneous expressions. 24/75 that showed sig diff and found women were better at judging, in further 50 studies, women also better/ but in a lot theres no gender diffs
Expression accuracy
Hall: how easily emotions can be judged, found gender diffs in majority, in favour of women.Women encode more clearly- womens behaviour are easier to read but depends on social context as to wether a good or bad thing. E.g. in poker,
Channel diffs-smiling
La france and hecht: meta anal of gender and smiling, found sig diff, women smile more, diff most pronounce for age group 18-23. Some cultural diffs, white had more compared to african and asian americans
Channel diffs gaze
Hall- review of 119 studies gaze and gender, every study w sig diff showed females gaze at others more/convo partner, results consistent w female advantage on tests of judgement accuracy
Reasons for gender diffs- power and socialisation
If less social power, more important to read cues or more power from concealing emotions, smiling submissive. Women socialised to be more accommodating- make own message easy to understand
Lakoff
Deficit model- male speech is normative but females deviate. Female speech more polite, lower authority, hedges (devices to lessen impact like perhaps), tag qs like isn’t it, better grammar, intensifiers, low in humour. Men’s more direct, interruptions, simple, foul, humour
Evidence for or against lakoff
Holmes: studies use of you know informal or formal, used for certainty or uncertainty, women use for certainty, men not. Holmes analysed hedge I think, deliberative form as booster or tentative form as hedge, women use as a booster, men not- dispute lakoff
Tag qs
Holmes found 4 functions: convey uncertainty, facilitate convo, confrontational, soften force of criticism. Uncertainty tags more by men, facilitative more by women- opposite of what lakoff would expect
Summary of lakoff criticism: function of an utterance cant be understood from anal of its ling form alone
Powerful lang interruptions
Zimmerman and west 75: covert obs of opposite sex convos, men interrupt more and use to assert dominance. Murray and covelli: women interrupt men twice as often. Anderson and leaper: meta, all interruptions men more than women, when trying to take control/intrusive interruptions, stronger effect in men
Culture theory
Maltz and borker: m and W differ in rules for interpreting lang. W listener responses mean I’m listening please continue, for mean it means I aggree. For meaning or as, men see questions as requests for info but women use as a convo facilitator. Females dislike verbal aggression but men see it as banter. Tanner: responsible for miscommunication
Eval of two cultures approach
Mulac: men rated listener response and as as more controlling but women rated listener responses as more other focused. Men rated as as more sensitive. Polarisation- aries: anyone can display masc and fem, not mutually exclusive, depends on status, goals, situation, partner.
Cameron-social roles-critique of two cultures
underestimates diffs within genders, diffs may reflect diff social roles rather than sex diffs e.g. tags. assess ppl in diff jobs, use of tag qs predicted better by social role than gender, faciliative tags used more by professionals regardless of gender to encourgae interaction e.g. doctors, tv presenters, teachers, info checking tags used by audience members, pupils
Gender stereotypes in politics
Brooks 2013: to what extent are gender stereotypes applied to political candidates. Ps read newspaper article about fictional candidate, either karen or kevin bailey. Measured favourability, effectiveness in senate, effectiveness as president in 10 years. Few gender diffs, no experience in office or emotional displays- supports women candidates. Courtemanche- voter preference for women but held to higher standard in scandals
Interruptions in politics
From uk gen lec 2015: Found men spoke more than women, could reflect diffs in party status
Interruptions from all speakers, most aggravated examples from females- overall no sig diffs
Andalusia
In spain, men and w must have equal representation by law, at all levels or parliament
Fuentes rodriguez 2-16: m and w use similar strategies of persuasion and argument, diffs may reflect party roles- gender not sig diff
