Mayor, Eric

2023, Bangerter, Adrian, Mayor, Eric, Skanda Muralidhar, Emmanuelle P. Kleinlogel, Daniel Gatica‐Perez, Schmid Mast, Marianne

AbstractStructured interviews often feature past‐behavior questions, where applicants are asked to tell a story about past work experience. Applicants often experience difficulties producing such stories. Automatic analyses of applicant behavior in responding to past‐behavior questions may constitute a basis for delivering feedback and thus helping them improve their performance. We used machine learning algorithms to predict storytelling in transcribed speech of participants responding to past‐behavior questions in a simulated selection interview. Responses were coded as to whether they featured a story or not. For each story, utterances were also manually coded as to whether they described the situation, the task/action performed, or results obtained. The algorithms predicted whether a response features a story or not (best accuracy: 78%), as well as the count of situation, task/action, and response utterances. These findings contribute to better automatic identification of verbal responses to past‐behavior questions and may support automatic provision of feedback to applicants about their interview performance.

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.

2015-11-6, Mayor, Eric, Bangerter, Adrian

2013-8-1, Mayor, Eric, Bangerter, Adrian

2020, Bangerter, Adrian, Mayor, Eric, Knutsen, Dominique

2016-11-9, Mayor, Eric, Bangerter, Adrian

2014-1-1, Roulin, Nicolas, Mayor, Eric, Bangerter, Adrian

2020, Skanda Muralidhar, Emmanuelle Patricia Kleinlogel, Mayor, Eric, Adrian Bangerter, Schmid Mast, Marianne, Daniel Gatica-Perez

2016-11-9, Brosy, Julie, Bangerter, Adrian, Mayor, Eric

2013-10-22, Mayor, Eric, Eicher, Véronique, Bangerter, Adrian, Gilles, Ingrid, Clémance, Alain, Green, Eva G. T.