The Detectability of Socio-Egocentric Group Speech

Scholars interested in group phenomena generally conceive of communication as either a conduit for, or as constitutive of, group decisions. Hewes's socio-egocentric model contends that we possess no unambiguous proof of any communicative impact on decision making. This study asks whether contrived socio-egocentric group speech is distinguishable from real group speech, and therefore whether the socio-egocentric model is even a plausible depiction of interaction. We developed a simulation that produces socio-egocentric speech and report on its use in a study that asked naïve raters to discern human-generated from simulated socio-egocentric group discussion. Results indicated that participants correctly judged the source of transcripts at rates worse than chance. Furthermore, heuristics employed by the participants can explain their poor performance, because criteria that produced accurate judgments of human transcripts produced inaccurate ones for the simulated transcripts and vice versa. We conclude that the model must be taken seriously as a depiction of plausible group interaction, and that in future studies a distinction between local and global features of conversation is important for studying socio-egocentric interaction

Cognitive psychology · Conversation · Depiction · Group (periodic table · Heuristics · Linguistics · Test (biology · Turing test · Communication · Computer Science · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence · Psychology · Social Psychology · Team Dynamics and Performance · Artificial Intelligence

• A valence-based account of group interaction and decision making

  Joseph A Bonito, Joann Keyton•Communication Monographs•2021

  Incluir item

• Examining Functional Communication as Egocentric or Group-Centric

  Joseph A Bonito, Renée A Meyers•Communication Monographs•2011

  Incluir item

• Conversational Argumentation in Decision Making

  Craig O Stewart, Leslie D Setlock et al.•Discourse Processes•2007

  Incluir item

• Making Foundational Assumptions Transparent

  Open Access•Renée A Meyers, David R Seibold•Human Communication Research•2009

  Incluir item

• A Local Model of Information Sharing in Small Groups

  Open Access•Joseph A Bonito•Communication Theory•2007

  Incluir item

• A Sympathetic Reaction to the SM and DLCM as Group Communication Theories

  Open Access•Charles Pavitt•Human Communication Research•2009

  Incluir item

• The Influence of Communication Processes on Group Outcomes

  Open Access•Dean E Hewes•Human Communication Research•2009

  Incluir item

• A Bottom-Up Approach to Examining Group-Level Communication Patterns

  Open Access•Joseph A Bonito•Human Communication Research•2019

  Incluir item

• Computing Machinery and Intelligence (1950)

  Alan Turing•The essential Turing•2004

  Incluir item

• Gpower

  Open Access•Edgar Erdfelder, Franz Faul et al.•Behavior Research Methods,…•1996

  Incluir item

• Two-Person Cooperative Games

  John Nash, John C Nash•Econometrica•1953

  Incluir item

• The conduit metaphor

  Open Access•Michael J Reddy•Metaphor and thought•1993

  Incluir item

• I.—computing Machinery and Intelligence

  A M TURING, Alan Turing•Mind•1950

  Incluir item

• Communication Yearbook 25

  William B Gudykunst•Communication Yearbook 25•2001

  Incluir item

• Dynamic Social Impact

  Open Access•Bibb Latane•Journal of Communication•1996

  Incluir item

• Two Models of Group Behavior in the Solution of Eureka-Type Problems

  Open Access•Irving Lorge, Herbert Solomon•Psychometrika•1955

  Incluir item

• Do conflict management styles affect group decision making? Evidence from a longitudinal field study

  Open Access•Timothy Kuhn, Marshall Scott Poole et al.•Human Communication Research•2000

  Incluir item

• Structuration Theory in Small Group Communication

  Bryan Seyfarth•Annals of the International…•2000

  Incluir item

• Models of jury decision making

  Steven Penrod, Reid Hastie•Psychological Bulletin•1979

  Incluir item

• Jurors' intuitive rules for deliberation

  Sunwolf Sunwolf, David R Seibold•Communication Monographs•1998

  Incluir item

• A comparison of normative and interactional explanations of group decision‐making

  Marshall Scott Poole, Robert D Mcphee et al.•Communication Monographs•1982

  Incluir item

• The Group Problem Solving Process

  Mary L Gick, Mary Gick et al.•Contemporary Sociology A Journal…•1982

  Incluir item

• Communication Yearbook 3

  Graham B Kerr, Dan Nimmo•Contemporary Sociology A Journal…•1981

  Incluir item

• A Simple Comment Regarding the Turing Test

  Open Access•Benny Shanon•Journal for the Theory of Social…•1989

  Incluir item

• Group decision and social interaction

  Janet Haggerty Davis, James H Davis•Psychological Review•1973

  Incluir item

• Reflections on the Turing Test

  Open Access•Charles Karelis•Journal for the Theory of Social…•1986

  Incluir item

• The Valence Model Unveiled

  Robert D Mcphee, Marshall Scott Poole et al.•Annals of the International…•1981

  Incluir item

• Group decision making and social influence

  Garold Stasser, Janet Haggerty Davis et al.•Psychological Review•1981

  Incluir item

• Cognitive Flexibility, Communication Strategy, and Integrative Complexity in Groups

  Open Access•Deborah H Gruenfeld, Melissa C Thomas-Hunt et al.•Journal of Experimental Social…•1998

  Incluir item

• A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation

  Open Access•Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A Schegloff et al.•Language•2025

  Incluir item

• Handbook of Personal Relationships

  Chalandra M Bryant, Steve Duck•Journal of Marriage and the Family•1998

  Incluir item

• Individual and Group in Group Problem Solving The Valence Model Redressed

  Open Access•L Richard Hoffman, Gary Bruce Kleinman•Human Communication Research•1994

  Incluir item