Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

NONVERBAL > theoretical issues > Flashcards

theoretical issues Flashcards

1
Q

define social cognition

A

mental processes used to make sense of the world

how we process info from the environment and understand them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

define cues of NV

A

specific things within the environemnt which we use to make inferences about others, determine how we rlate and interact with others
ie expressions, eye gaze and beh of others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

define inferences in NV

A

traits/dispositions/goals/intentions
make initial inferences which can alter based on experience
BUT gernerally determines the character of others and how act to them/around them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

proffitt 2006

economy of action

A

organisms must take in more enegry than they expend in order to grow, reproduce and survive
bonds with others help us conseerve enert
network of familairity, joint attention and shared goals
do not need to expend as much energy when shared amongst a group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

hand movements vs hand gestures

A

all hand gestures are hand movements

not all hand movements are gestures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

kendon 1983 hand gesture/movement distinction

A

can categorise in terms of degree of lexicalisation

extent to which the movement is ‘word-like’ and communicate to others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

spectrum of hand movements

A

high lexicalisation - symbolic gestures

mid: conversational gestures
- lexical movements > lexicalisation > motor movements

low lexicalisation - adaptors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

define symbolic gestures

A

/emblems
hold specific and conventional meanings that are clearly communicative
specific to cultures (ekman)
ie thumbs up

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

define adaptors

A

not symbollic
no clear communicative function
meaning may be conveyed in terms of ones internal state ie nervousness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

define iconic gestures (conversational)

A

illustrators/representational
concrete referents
illustrate what is being said in conjunction with verbal encoding
neither entirely devoid of meaning nor important within conversation - not likely to add anything new
temporally coordinated to speech - pre or post speech may determine if conscious or subconscious, and its role in conversation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

define beat gestures (conversational)

A

single or repetitive movements - rhythmically entrained to speech
motorically simple but do not represent speech content (low lexicalisation)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

define regulators

A

indicate conversational flow

ie when want to say something / to indicate turn taking in conversation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

define dietic gesutres

A

spatial
metaphoric/abstract
convey direction of movement
allow for joint attention ie capture a concrete obect via pointng
or indicate the passage of time ie left to right

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

theories of hand getures and conversational meanin

A

communicative function hyp (birdwhistekl 1970)
atavistic vestige of evolution (hewes 1973)
dissipation of tension (kauss et al 1991)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

define communicative function hyp

birdwhistell 1970

A

certain getures may function as the structural equivallent of certain linguistic forms
used as substitutes to spoken language
- USED TO CONVEY MEANING TO THE LISTENER NOT TO HELP THE SPEAKER

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

how can you investigate how helpful a gesture is to speech communication?

A

compare conversational gesture visibility nd see if influences understanding compared to beat/low lexical

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

cohen and randall 1973

FOR CFH

A

male undergrads in face to face or intercom
explain directions on campus - vary difficulty
sig increase in iconic gestures when explain directions in face to face>intercom
- increased freq = used to facilitate understanding

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

prob cohen and randall 1973

FOR CFH

A

did it improve understanding? - comprehension of listener not measured
could it be due to a change in speech? - more descriptive in intercom?
some gestures still performed in intercom: habit? social facilitatin?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

social facilitation arguement against CFH

zajonc 1965

A

gesture increase because the presence of others heightens arousal, not to facilitate understanding
may find more difficult to form speefch
- tendency to gaze away when hesitant, pauses filled by gestures thought to represent planning of semantics

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

krauss et al 1995
AGAINST CFH
METHOD

A

3 exp: to what extent to spontaneous gestural accompaniments enhance communcation?

  1. encode task - describe stimuli face to face or intercom ie abstract designs, synth sounds, tea
  2. decode task - videos to new pps, half hear and see, half only hear
    - - measure communication accuracy (rate select correct answer_
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

krauss et al 1996
AGAINST CFH
RESULTS

A

encode and decode no diff between face to face or interface
only decode of tea dlightly increase in face to face
- being able to perceive gesture notinclude message efficacy and not because less gesuring
- not redundant but may be more important for communicator than listener

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

problems with looking at gesures face to face vs intercom

A

not controlling for how verbal expressions might influence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

alibali health and maters 2001
FOR CFH
METHOD

A 
do speakers use diff gestures when potential to aid communication than when they dont? 
animated cartoon (s+T) to describe to other with screen or face to face
measure representational or beat freq across conditions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

alibali health and maters 2001
FOR CFH
RESULTS

A

only rpresenttions gestures produced at higher rate in face to face
75% iconic, 16% metaphorical 8% spatial dietic
beat/non narrative no diff across conditinos

no words, quality of lanuage no change across conditions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

alibali health and maters 2001
FOR CFH
PROBS

A

still use representational in screen

  • habit?
  • imagined interactions?
  • social facilitation?
  • help communicator in some way?

increase in face to face may only be because they are reinforced by the listener ie nodding

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

alibali health and maters 2001
FOR CFH
alt for representational

A

GESTURES MAY ONLY BE COMMUNICATIVE WHEN SUPPLEMENT OR MISMATCHED WITH SPEECH
- gestures and speech = integrated unit dependent on speakers intentions

reduction in representational in screen coincides with decreased rate of speecg, increase in filled pauses and increased dysfluency - play a role in speech production ie help conceptualise message or help lexical accesss

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

alibali health and maters 2001
FOR CFH
alt for beats:

A

beats slight inrease in face to face but only when bound to non narrative speech units (ie cam movement)

mcneill 1992 - rep may accompany narrative and beats non narative to help the listener recog different parts of the communication

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

tuite 1993 vs mcneill 1992 hyp on representational vs beats

A

tuite - beats -rhythmical pulse hyp - beats are representational without a semantic overlay
mcneil - beats are non narrative and representational are narrative

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

krauss, morrell-samuels and colasante 1991
for and against CFH
METHOD

A
  1. view gestures - what words accompany them
  2. read gestures interpretations - what words accompanied them?
  3. recog gestures prev seel with and without speech
    • assign gesture to semantic categories based on g+speech or g alone
30
Q

krauss, morrell-samuels and colasante 1991
for and against CFH
RESULTS

A
  1. view gesture - can discriminate lexical affiliates of differential gestures above chance
  2. read interpretations - jjudge gesture affiliates based on interpretation
  3. recog prev seen - accuract prev above chance but worse when speech not accompany
  4. judge gestural category when speech is accessible based on paralinguistic content of speech
    - gesture alone conveys little info
  • conversation gestures may convey semantic info directly related to speech but without this, little info anf imprecise - more likely to help the speaker
31
Q

graham and argyle 1975
for CFH
speaker

A

speakers to desribe abstract line drawing
half with gestures half prohibited
accruact less accurate when prohibited

32
Q

graham and argyle 1975 probs

A

prohibitino may have interfered with capacity to speak fluently - ie white bear
-o alter semantic verbalisation

33
Q

atavistic vestige or evolution theory

hewes 1973

A

gestures once conveyed meaning when speech limited in ancestors but not fully effective
- helped in speech development

34
Q

dissipation of tension hyp

krauss et al 1991

A

not meaningful - relieve tension so can speak fluently

** but do seem to have some meaning

35
Q

likely link with speech and gestures

A

gestures do convey meaning
but tightly linked to speech
meaning likely illusory - based on interpretation

36
Q

lexical retrieval hypothesis

rauscher et al 1996

A

speaking
gestures play a rol ein the retrieval of words from lexical memory
enhance acess to obscure/unfamiliar words
involved in generating surface forms of utternaces

37
Q

krauss et al 1991

lexical retrieval

A

iconic gesture derive from spatially encoded knowledge

facilitate access to lexical entries incorporated with their syntactic and semanitic info

38
Q

alt to krauss et al 1991

lexical retrieval

A

gestures derive from non propositional representation (imagery>symbolism) in wm and assist the retrieval of forms

39
Q

information packaging hypothesis

kita 2000

A

thinking
gestures represent the conceptual packaging of info before it is coded into its linguistic form
involved in conceptuaal planning of the message to be verbalised (preverbal)
assists speaker in packaging spatial material into appropriate units for verbalisation
gestures encode and organise spatial and perceptual info

40
Q

levelt 1989 lexical retrieval hyp

A
  1. gestures conceptualise a communicative intention - 2. form preverbal message
    preverbal transformed into a linguistic structure - entry into mental lexicon and select itsems corresponding to semantics, forms a surface structure
  2. surface structure processed by phonological encoder into articulatory plan = speech
41
Q

chawla and krauss 1994

lexical retrieval

A

in rehearsed/preplanned narratives - 72% pauses fall within grammatical junctures
only 40% fall in grammatical junctures when spontaneous
- reflect non juncture pauses when problems in lexical access

42
Q

Rauscher, krauss and chen 1996
lexical retrieval
METHOD

A

41 undergrads 2x3 within subj
x2= gesture or no gresture (elextrodes to feet or hands)
x3 = free speech, obscure (use as many odd words as poss) or constraint (avoid using words with certain letter)
retell cartoon of road runner to partner

43
Q

Rauscher, krauss and chen 1996
lexical retrieval
DVS

A 
transcribed speech: 
type ie spatial
dysfluency ie pauses - grammatical or not
complexity of speech 
coded gestures
44
Q

Rauscher, krauss and chen 1996
lexical retrieval
FINDINGS - gestures and speech constraints

A

spatial speech increase gestures
when restrained, spatiial speech more dysfluent

when speech is obscure/constrained, and when gestures restrained, less filled pauses at grammatical junctures (more intraclausal dys)

obscure/constraint make lexicalisation harder - use longer words, more diverse and complex verbal output

constraint reduces gestures for both spatial and nonspatial speech

45
Q

Rauscher, krauss and chen 1996
lexical retrieval
intraclausal dysfluencies

A

thought to be assoc with problems in lexical access, retrieval and search

46
Q

Rauscher, krauss and chen 1996
lexical retrieval
FINDINGS - speech fluency

A

gestures increase verbal fluency
obscure/constraint decrease verbal fluency
gestures impact spatial>nonspatial
- more dysfluent in spatial when restrained

47
Q

alt explanation for Rauscher, krauss and chen 1996
lexical retrieval
finding that restraint and speech complexity increased intraclausal dysfluencies

A

gestural restraint may require cog effort - not srapped down - had to actively stop self
- dysfluencies may be a rflection of diminished processing capacity

BUT not specific to spatial content where gestures (a spatial movement) would likely interfere with this specific proces
- that influences non spatial suggests not just a limited cog capacity, but something else going on **specifically the role of gestures on verbal fluency

48
Q

frick-horbury and gutentag 1998
for lexical retrieval
METHOD

A

2x2 between groups
x2= hand restrict of control
x2= high or low verbal scores (natural ability)
- pps given 20 definitions and asked to provide target word (TOT)
DV: lexical retrieval and free recall

hyp: if lexical - gestures increase TOT because facilitates lexical access

49
Q

frick-horbury and gutentag 1998
for lexical retrieval
RESULTS

A

lex retrieval and free recall better when unrestricted gesture and high verbal ability
NO INTERACTION
unrestricted > restricted
high verbal ability>low VA

50
Q

frick-horbury and gutentag 1998
for lexical retrieval
possible explanations

A
  • gestures aid lex retrieval, reduce TOT states
    may act as rhetorical retrieval cue
    motor memory assoc with lexical access
51
Q

pine bird and kirk 2007
for lexical retieval (ALT ALIBALI)
METHOD

A

TOT children
pic naming task
restrained or not
compare lexical acces

52
Q

pine bird and kirk 2007
for lexical retieval (ALT ALIBALI)
RESULTS

A

lexical access reduce when restrained - less pics correct

frequency of TOT not differ between conditions
BUT gestures facilitate faster TOT resolve (+more correct) - facilitate lexical access

no sig diff in amount of speech but did not control for quality

53
Q

pine bird and kirk 2007
for lexical retieval (ALT ALIBALI)
RESULTS PROBS

A

self adaptor gestures (comforting) highest, especially for correct TOT resolves - cant be explained by authors where icionic always believed to be most important

54
Q

ravizza 2003
lexical retrieval
mechanisms

A

motor system may be the mechanism wihch may facilitate lexical access
help activate linguistic system

55
Q

pine bird and kirk vs ravizza motor system hyp

A

pine - there does seem to exist a different in the extent to which different gestures faciliatate lexical access
- more in depth than just ~any~ motor movement

56
Q

goldin-meadau 2003

lexical retrieval mechanisms

A

gestures reduce cog resources?

more getures when find difficult - gestures free up cog resources

57
Q

prob goldin-meadau 2003 mechanisms

A

argued more likely gestures have direct access to mental lexicon by conveying target word in visuo-spatial format

58
Q

deruiter 2000 lexical retrieval mechanisms

A

iconic gestures relate to content of lexical affiliate
maintain link between word and visuo-spatial image of it
ie arc = bridge
maintain spatio-dynamic features of the lexical affiliate

59
Q

alibali kita young
info packaging hypothesis
method

A

gestures facilitate thought - help speaker packacge conceptual plan into units for verbalisation
- are gestures involved in concept plan or generation of surface forms?
piaget conservation
- explain (conceptual demand) or describe (lexical demands) judgement

60
Q

alibali kita young
info packaging hypothesis
HYP

A

if lexical - no diff between tasks in gestures
if info pack - diff between explain and describe - more gestures rep physcial properties and convey info not expressed in speech

61
Q

alibali kita young
info packaging hypothesis
TYPES OF GESTURES

A

substantiative (convey info on dimension ie shape) vs dietic gestures (convey info on JA ie pointing)
+
redundant (already in speech) vs nonredundant (adds new info)

62
Q

alibali kita young
info packaging hypothesis
RESULTS

A

surface forms of utterances comparable across tasks

more substantiative/rep and more non-redundant gestures in explanation - spontaneous gestures involved in conceptual planning

more gesture-speech mistmatch in explanation condition - provides info but cant verbalise

63
Q

alibali kita young
info packaging hypothesis
RESULTS PROB

A

still cant disprove lexical retrival

- may still occur although unlikely to be the only function of gestures

64
Q

lexical retrieval re-explained by info packagin

A

LR: more substantiative gestures when speech restricted
- IP: restricted speech requires speaker to explore alt means of packaging info trying to be conveyed

LR: restricting G reduce speech rate and increase non-juncture dysfluencies assoc with lexical access
- IP: prohibiting makes conceptualisation of spatial info more difficult

LR: asynchrony between gesture onset + lexical affiliate increases for less familiar lexical items

  • IP: familiarity with lexical items may also corr with reduced ability to accurately conceptualise the info being expressed
  • delay speech as must explore alt ways to packagin info
65
Q

LR: more substantiative gestures when speech restricted

A

IP: restricted speech requires speaker to explore alt means of packaging info trying to be conveyed

66
Q

LR: restricting G reduce speech rate and increase non-juncture dysfluencies assoc with lexical access

A

IP: prohibiting makes conceptualisation of spatial info more difficult

67
Q

LR: asynchrony between gesture onset + lexical affiliate increases for less familiar lexical items

A

IP: familiarity with lexical items may also corr with reduced ability to accurately conceptualise the info being expressed
- delay speech as must explore alt ways to packagin info

68
Q

kita + ozyurek 2003 STUDY 1
interface hypothesis
hyp

A

gestural expression differs across cultures
- diff lang shaped by diff linguistic formulations and spatial properties
gestures both conceptual and lexical but formulation is based on linguistic forms
- rules of speech constrain gestures

69
Q

kita + ozyurek 2003 STUDY 1
interface hypothesis
METHOD

A

USA, UK turkish and japanese speakers watch sylvester and tweety
- describe to partner free to gesture

coing: arc/swing, straight, left to right
- describe cat swinging from post to ledge

70
Q

kita + ozyurek 2003 STUDY 1
interface hypothesis
RESULTS

A

all english use swing (arc and directional)

japanese and turkish use seperate gestures to encode motion and direction STUDY 1

71
Q

kita + ozyurek 2003 STUDY 1
interface hypothesis
EXPLANATION

A

swing not part of japanese or turkish language
- use diff gestures to explain - not arc
english have “swing” which encodes both in one

72
Q

kita + ozyurek 2003 STUDY 2
interface hypothesis
METHOD

A

act of rolling own the hill

  • japanese use word with two connectives to explain the manner and trajectory - two diff gestures
  • english “roll” - one main gesture

NONVERBAL (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions