Vignette d'image

Bangerter, Adrian

Nom
Bangerter, Adrian
Affiliation principale
Site web
Fonction
Professeur.e ordinaire
Email
adrian.bangerter@unine.ch
Identifiants
https://libra.unine.ch/handle/123456789/498
_
0000-0001-6989-8654

Résultat de la recherche

Filtres

1
4
4
31
Réinitialiser les filtres

Paramètres

Voici les éléments 1 - 4 sur 4
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    Procedural coordination in the matching task
    (2019-2-2)
    Knutsen, Dominique
    ;
    Bangerter, Adrian 
    ;
    Mayor, Eric 
    Participants in conversation who recurrently discuss the same targets require fewer and fewer words to identify them. This has been attributed to the collaborative elaboration of conceptual pacts, that is, semantic coordination. But participants do not only coordinate on the semantics of referring expressions; they also coordinate on how to do the task, that is, on procedural coordination. In a matching task experiment (n = 22 dyads), we examined the development of four aspects of procedural coordination: Card placement (CP), implicit generic coordination (IGC), explicit generic coordination (EGC) and general procedural coordination (GPC) in two conditions (the classic condition where targets remain the same over trials, and a new cards condition, where they change at each trial, thus increasing the difficulty of semantic coordination). Procedural coordination constituted almost 30% of the total amount of talk in the matching task. Procedural coordination was more effortful when semantic coordination was more difficult and the four aspects of procedural coordination developed differently depending on participant roles.
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    Managing Third-Party Interruptions in Conversations: Effects of Duration and Conversational Role
    (2010)
    Bangerter, Adrian 
    ;
    Chevalley, Eric
    ;
    Derouwaux, Sylvie
    Dealing with interruptions in collaborative tasks involves two important processes: managing the face of one’s partners and collaboratively reconstructing the topic. In an experiment, pairs were interrupted while narrating personal stories. The duration of the interruption and the conversational role of the target were manipulated. Listeners were more polite than narrators, and longer suspensions caused more effort in reinstatement than short suspensions, but participants were not more polite when suspensions were long.
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    Suspending and reinstating collaborative activities
    (2010)
    Chevalley, Eric
    ;
    Bangerter, Adrian 
    There is an interest in how people coordinate multiple activities with multiple partners, and in particular, how people deal with interruptions. Interruptions happen unexpectedly. They can cause errors and loss of productivity. Effects of interruptions have been studied in individual tasks, but not in collaborative tasks. When pairs deal with an interruption, they have to jointly suspend their activity, address the matter, and later jointly reinstate their activity. The main goal of the dissertation was to define a model of suspensions and to measure constrains on the suspension and the reinstatement steps. Pairs suspend momentarily without taking leave of each other. This requires the coordination of two important processes: Politeness and common ground. First, politeness is often involved in suspensions, because asking one's partner to wait while one does something else is facethreatening. Two factors affect politeness: The degree of personal responsibility of participants proposing suspensions and durations of suspensions. Second, continuing tasks requires reconstructing joint representations of the tasks (common ground). Several factors affect the reconstruction of common ground: The persons interrupted the timing of suspension and the availability of cues about the state of the task. Five studies were conducted. Study 1 used naturally-occurring suspensions in telephone conversations from a corpus data. Study 2 & 3 used suspensions triggered with a cover story in laboratory. Study 2 & 3 manipulated participants’ roles in conversations and durations of interruptions. Results revealed that participants were more polite when suspension lasted longer, and it took more collaborative effort to reinstate conversations. Also, initiators of suspensions were more polite when they were listening than speaking. Study 4 & 5 manipulated the duration and the timing of interruptions during a goal-oriented task. Additionally, Study 4 manipulated the participants’ role during interruptions, and Study 5 manipulated the visibility of workspace between participants. Results showed that participants took more time to reinstate tasks when interruptions lasted longer and when it happened in the middle of sub-tasks, compared to when interruptions were brief and happened between sub-tasks. Also, they took more time to reinstate when both participants were distracted during interruptions, rather than when just one was distracted, and when participants did not share their workspace, rather than when they did share a workspace.
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    Flexible Coordination of Stationary and Mobile Conversations with Gaze: Resource Allocation among Multiple Joint Activities
    Mayor, Eric 
    ;
    Bangerter, Adrian 
    Gaze is instrumental in coordinating face-to-face social interactions. But little is known about gaze use when social interactions co-occur with other joint activities. We investigated the case of walking while talking. We assessed how gaze gets allocated among various targets in mobile conversations, whether allocation of gaze to other targets affects conversational coordination, and whether reduced availability of gaze for conversational coordination affects conversational performance and content. In an experimental study, pairs were videotaped in four conditions of mobility (standing still, talking while walking along a straight-line itinerary, talking while walking along a complex itinerary, or walking along a complex itinerary with no conversational task). Gaze to partners was substantially reduced in mobile conversations, but gaze was still used to coordinate conversation via displays of mutual orientation, and conversational performance and content was not different between stationary and mobile conditions. Results expand the phenomena of multitasking to joint activities.