ORI GIN AL PA PER

Does Frequency of Interruptions Amplify the Effectof Various Types of Interruptions? ExperimentalEvidence

Augusto Gnisci • Ida Sergi • Elvira De Luca • Vanessa Errico

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract The aim of this experiment was to determine if the frequency of interruptions

during an interaction amplifies the effect of the type of the interruptions on the interruptee

(the amplification hypothesis). While interviewing 90 participants, two confederates

manipulated four different kinds of interruptions (change-subject, same-subject, disagree-

ment, and supportive interruptions) at two different frequencies (mean rates, 1.58 and 2.94

per minute), in addition to a no-interruption control condition. At the end of the interview,

the participants were asked to answer questions about themselves, the interlocutor, and the

situation. The results showed that the negative effects of change- and same-subject inter-

ruptions were amplified when they were more frequent, as were the positive effects of

supportive interruptions. Contrary to expectations, disagreement interruptions were regar-

ded as positive. All the results provide support for the amplification hypothesis.

Keywords Effect of interruption � Face management � Politeness � Experiment �Nonverbal behavior

Even though there have been many contributions on interruptions from many different

perspectives, until now, the number of experimental studies on the effects of interruptions

has been limited. We count only eight contributions in all, including ten experiments

(Chambliss and Feeny 1992; Coon and Schwanenflugel 1996; Farley 2008; Hawkins 1988,

1991; LaFrance 1992; Orcutt and Mennella 1995; Robinson and Reis 1989). This line of

research was inaugurated by pioneering and encouraging studies at the end of the 1980s

(Hawkins 1988; Robinson and Reis 1989), and the majority of the publications were

concentrated in the first 5 years of the 1990s. These studies were quite heterogeneous as far

as sources and cultural background: two of them are from the Journal of NonverbalBehavior, two are from scientific feminist journals, one is from a cognitive field, one is

from social psychology, one is from sociology, and one is from the interdisciplinary field

on discourse. However, five of them share an interest in language or communication.

A. Gnisci (&) � I. Sergi � E. De Luca � V. ErricoDepartment of Psychology, Second University of Naples, Via Vivaldi, 43, 81100 Caserta, Italye-mail: augusto.gnisci@unina2.it

123

J Nonverbal BehavDOI 10.1007/s10919-011-0121-6

In sum, notwithstanding this heterogeneity, the 1988–1996 period can be labeled as a

golden period because it saw the most research on the effect of interruptions until now.

It is interesting to note that from the time of the last experiments (Coon and Schwa-

nenflugel 1996; Orcutt and Mennella 1995) of the golden period, it took 12–13 years for

novel experiments on the topic to be published (i.e., Farley 2008). The experiment that we

present here was carried out at about the same time as the two experiments by Farley (2008),

and hopefully their independent appearance is indicative of renewed interest in the matter.

Despite many differences, almost all of the classical experiments were carried out

following an experimental paradigm in which a prepared audio or video of an interaction

with one interlocutor interrupting another was administered to subjects who provided an

evaluation of the interruptee, the interrupter, or the interaction. We describe in detail the

study by Robinson and Reis (1989) as an example of the paradigm.

They audiotaped an interaction of 4 min wherein one interlocutor interrupted the other

10 times, thus at a rate of 2.5 interruptions for each minute. Typically, the video was taped

in two versions: an interaction regarding either recruitment for the campus newspaper staff

or raising the voting age to 21. Then, 187 participants listened to the audiotapes and rated

both conversants on a questionnaire that included a masculine and feminine adjective

checklist together with a number of items aiming to measure sociability, competence,

traditionality, assertiveness, and attractiveness, as well as the items for the manipulation

check. In this study, five independent variables were manipulated: the sex of the recorded

interrupter and of the listening participant, the status of the interrupter (senior/freshman),

the version of the conversation, and, finally, the sentence associated with the interruption

(statement, question, no-interruption) according to the hypotheses of the study. The results

suggest that, in general, interruptions, regardless of the sex of the interrupter, led to

negative personality attributions, although they were seen as more assertive and masculine

and less feminine. No difference was found between interrupting by questions versus

statements. Finally, the results did not confirm the prediction that females who interrupt are

perceived more negatively than male interrupters.

The study by Robinson and Reis (1989) had many strong and weak points. It used an

adequate control condition, that is, a group that listens to a tape without interruptions.

However, the authors did not state which kind of interruptions they used, and their tapes

did not contain same-sex dyads (female–female and male–male).

Although the sex of the perceiving participant has been controlled in almost all the

studies, the gender composition of the dyads negatively affects at least three studies

(Chambliss and Feeny 1992; Crown and Cummins 1998; Orcutt and Mennella 1995) and

limits their conclusions given that no same sex dyads (F–F and M–M) were involved. With

respect to the scenario used for the interaction, few studies have used multiple scenarios as

did Robinson and Reis (1989); one such study employed and manipulated stereotypically

masculine and feminine scenarios (‘‘war’’ and ‘‘daycare’’) to control for an alleged effect

of salience for the different sexes. However, no such effect was found (Chambliss and

Feeny 1992). Finally, regarding dependent variables, many studies have used the semantic

differential scale for the interrupter and/or for the interruptee (Hawkins 1991; Farley 2008;

LaFrance 1992).

Regarding the type of interruption, five contributions have used deep and/or intrusive

interruptions. Farley (2008), for example, combined aspects of deep and intrusive inter-

ruptions using an interruption with a change in topic that prevents the other from speaking.

Deep and/or intrusive interruptions are more aggressive than cooperative ones, and they

threaten the ‘‘territory’’ of the speaker by means of topic-changing, floor-taking, or dis-

agreement (Murata 1994). However, the debate in literature has established many different

J Nonverbal Behav

123

kinds of interruptions according to criteria such as their form (with or without overlapping

among the turns of the interlocutors) (Ferguson 1977), their precociousness (earlier or later

intrusions of the interlocutor into the turn of the speaker) (Hawkins 1988; West and

Zimmerman 1983), links between the content of the interrupting turn with the interrupted

turn (i.e., changing subject, agreeing, disagreeing, supporting) (LaFrance 1992; Murata

1994; West and Zimmerman 1983), the positive or negative intentions of the interruptee

(supportive or disruptive interruptions) (Goldberg 1990; Li 2001; Murata 1994), and the

outcome of the interruption itself (successful or not) (Roger et al. 1988). The use of deep

and/or intrusive interruption in those studies was a natural point of departure to highlight

the differences with a non-interruptive conversation, given that the strength of its negative

impact could be used to determine whether an interruption influences perceptions (Farley

2008). However, there is no reason to study only that one type of interruption because it is

only one among many and itself consists, in turn, of many subtypes (Murata 1994). This is

the reason why the present experiment considers various types of interruptions within and

beyond deep and/or intrusive interruptions.

Another critical point of the golden period research is that different studies used taped

interactions of different lengths—for example, 45 s (LaFrance 1992), 1 min (Orcutt and

Mennella 1995), 2 min and 30 s (Chambliss and Feeny, 1992), 4 min (Robinson and Reis

1989), and 5 min (Farley 2008, first experiment). Most importantly, they used different

rates of interruptions per minute (respectively, 2.3, 4, not understandable, 2.5, and 1), even

if this information is not always clearly deducible. These differences should not be con-

sidered as confounding because most likely each researcher made the most adequate choice

according to the situation and the population of the specific experiment. This is an implicit

recognition that the effects of interruptions may vary culturally (Bull 2002). Thus, the

choice of the number of interruptions per minute should be made considering how many

interruptions in a specific culture are considered sufficient to have an effect.

Two considerations are relevant in this regard. First, establishing a precise duration for

the interaction and an exact interruption rate (interruptions per time) is adequate for the

paradigm of the classical experiments wherein a tape that presents an interaction in which

types of interruptions are manipulated have to be prepared and then shown to perceiving

participants to detect their impressions. If this is the case, it guarantees methodological

correctness. However, in experiments carried out with a different paradigm, wherein

confederates administer interruptions directly to naıve participants (see below), estab-

lishing and structuring the themes and phases of the interaction, rather than the times and

rates, seems more appropriate. Indeed, what needs to be balanced across the conditions is

the unfolding of the themes of the discourse, and therefore, what is important is the

completeness and naturalness of the conversation. Actually, in the unique published

experimental study with confederates, rather than establishing a determined length and a

rate of interruptions, Farley (2008) established a given number of interruptions for each

theme. Also, in Farley’s (2008) study, the confederates were trained with scripts to manage

the interaction and to follow rules for responding to pre-established behaviors of the

interlocutor, such as what to do when the participant asks a question. In sum, for this novel

paradigm, rather than fixing an exact duration for the interaction and a prefixed number of

interruptions (and thus a determined rate), it is desirable to train the confederates with a

sequence of themes and with rules for managing the interaction and manipulating the

interruptions, and to let the interaction length and the number of interruptions vary within a

determined range. In this kind of study, one interaction may last longer than another, but it

has a similar course and development. Of course, if the interaction is an interview, a

structured interview seems the best choice; this is what we do in our study.

J Nonverbal Behav

123

Second, no previous study has manipulated the frequency of the interruptions within the

population target of the experiment. Indeed, we regard the effects of interruptions not in

isolation, but as cumulative. Their effects are not due to the fact that a person is interrupted

once, but to their systematic effect, that is, to how frequently interruptions of the same type

are administered during an interaction. Constant and systematic interruptive activity will

probably push the interruptee to evaluate positively or negative not only the single

interruption, but also the person who administers them. What we are trying to study,

therefore, is not the effects of single or rare interruptions, but the effects of people who

systematically interrupt. This is why this study manipulates the frequency of the inter-

ruptions together with their type.

We have seen that the experimental paradigm of all the above-mentioned studies (but

one) asks participants not involved in an interaction to evaluate a taped interruptive

interaction. This ‘‘external’’ perspective was revolutionized by the second experiment by

Farley (2008) we hinted at above. For the first time, in fact, four trained confederates,

balanced for sex, interrupted participants (targets) while discussing an article in order to

get from the participants themselves, at the end of the interaction, an evaluation of the past

interaction in which they were involved. Given that this paradigm tries to capture the

attitude and the sensations of the people really involved in an actual conversation, it was

carried out according to an ‘‘internal’’ perspective in which what is at stake is the real

perception of the target.

Results from both the experiments by Farley (2008), carried out by the ‘‘external’’ and

the ‘‘internal’’ paradigm, show that interruptors (actors or confederates) were seen as more

competent, assertive, dominant, and influential, but they were disliked more. The main

outcome of that study showed that interrupters attained status with respect to interruptees,

but they lost likeability and attractiveness. Although there is in that study some evidence of

a gender effect (interruptive females being evaluated less favorably than interruptive males

because of their allegedly lower status), there was actually only limited support for this

hypothesis; there is a general tendency for both female and male interrupters to attain

status and lose attractiveness.

Brief Hints of a Theory on Perception of Interruptions

It is possible and fruitful to apply the face management model of politeness (Brown and

Levinson 1978, 1987) to interruptions. One’s ‘‘face’’ is an image of self delineated in terms

of appreciated and approved social attributes (Goffman 1955): a positive face is the desire

to be approved by others, a negative face is instead the desire to have autonomy of action.

Politeness is essentially the linguistic means by which facework, which is the continuous

use of a set of strategies that allow one to avoid threats to face, repairs damage to one’s

face, and improves one’s positive face (Holtgraves 2001).

According to the face management model of politeness applied to interruptions, an

interruption perpetrated by A is seen as pleasant or weighty by B depending on three

elements (Brown and Levinson 1987):

Wx ¼ Rxþ PðA;BÞ þ DðA;BÞ

Wx is the degree of pleasantness or weightiness of an interruption x. It is a function of: (a)

the degree of support/imposition the interruption provides (Rx); (b) the power of B in

relation to A ðPðA;BÞÞ (e.g., the more one’s power, the more one’s right to interrupt

J Nonverbal Behav

123

negatively); (c) the degree of social distance between A and B ðDðA;BÞÞ (e.g., friends may

interrupt each other more than unacquainted people).

If the last two are held constant (e.g., a dyadic interaction among equals structured as an

interview, thus slightly asymmetric, and no prior relationship, as in the interaction realized

for this study), the evaluation of the interruption by the interruptee depends solely on the

degree of support or imposition of the interruption. Of course, support/imposition is a high-

level, abstract variable that subsumes more specific variables (Holtgraves 2001). One such

variable is the type of interruption. Interrupting an interlocutor with no regard for what

they are saying and changing the subject abruptly can be seen as a strongly imposing act;

interrupting to agree or disagree, to support or threaten one’s interlocutor, are acts per-

ceived with different levels of support or imposition. As we have explained above, how-

ever, effects of the types of interruptions must be influenced by their frequency. Receiving

a single deep interruption may threaten the face of the interruptee, but bearing a repeated

assault of multiple interruptions can be a much more serious threat. Therefore, regarding

interruptions, the best candidate for Rx is the type of interruptions modulated by their

frequency.

Moreover, combining the types of interruptions with their frequency allows the various

thresholds that in different cultures transform a chance interruption into a ‘‘small insult’’ to

be explored (West and Zimmerman 1983). A culture and its values may lead to different

views on an interruptive activity (e.g., what in some Western societies is regarded as

negative behavior can be not salient in others; cf. Holtgraves 2001), and different cultural

values may be attached to the different types of interruptions. Consequently, the roles of

expectations and of violations of expectations become paramount (Burgoon and Burgoon

2001; Burgoon and Dunbar 2006; Dunbar and Burgoon 2005). A culture’s (or subculture’s)

perspective on interruptions informs how many and which interruptions are positive,

negative, and neutral, how they should be evaluated, and what is the appropriate behavior

for responding to them (Burgoon and Ebesu Hubbard 2005). There is evidence, for

example, that Americans speak in turns and Italians interrupt or overlap much more (Bull

2002); moreover, non-New Yorkers find it difficult to speak at a party because New

Yorkers expect shorter inter-turn pauses and take their turn earlier (Tannen 1984). This

aspect, of course, becomes critical in inter-cultural interpersonal interactions.

Aim and Hypothesis

In light of the above discussion on how interruptions are perceived, it is worth listing the

weaknesses and the strengths of the different studies: (a) few experiments have used a

control group, i.e., a condition in which no interruption is administered; (b) no experiment

has used multiple kinds of interruption, that is, other than deep and intrusive or subtypes of

them; (c) no experiment has manipulated the frequency of interruption in order to

understand its effect by itself and in interaction with the types of interruptions; (d) not all

the experiments have perfectly balanced the sexual gender of the actors and the partici-

pants; (e) all the experiments take an ‘‘external’’ perspective with the unique exception of

Farley (2008) who assumes an ‘‘internal’’ perspective.

In sum, the experiment presented here takes an ‘‘internal’’ perspective, making con-

federates interview naıve participants during an alleged interview on love carried out in

view of the participant for part of research towards the degree of two university students;

and it manipulates for the first time the types of interruptions and their frequency in a

J Nonverbal Behav

123

comprehensive manner. The interviewer-confederates supplied what the literature sug-

gests to be four of the most important types of interruptions (change-subject, same-

subject, disagreement, which Murata 1994, sees as intrusive, and supportive) at two

frequencies (lower and higher); moreover, a no-interruption control condition was

included. The participants, after having actually been in a condition where they received

a particular kind of interruption with a set frequency, were asked at the end of the

interview to answer a number of questions concerning themselves and the interruptive

speaker (the confederate).

In general, we expected that frequency would amplify the effect of interruption type,

that is, the negative/positive effect of negative/positive interruptions will be amplified

when they are more frequent than when they are less frequent (amplification hypothesis).

Based on the literature, we formulate a main general hypothesis: the negative effect

of negative interruptions will be amplified when they are more frequent compared to

when they are less frequent. Thus, if an interviewer provides a negative interruption,

that is, interrupts by changing the subject, maintaining the same-subject, or con-

tradicting, the interruptee will evaluate themselves and the interviewer as more negative

when the interviewer interrupts more frequently than when he/she interrupts less fre-

quently; if the interviewer provides a positive interruption, that is, interrupts supporting

and agreeing, the interruptee will evaluate themselves and the interviewer more posi-

tively when the interviewer interrupts more frequently than when he/she interrupts less

frequently.

Method

Participants

The sample was selected from a pool of 115 participants interviewed for the experiment

who were recruited from the Second University of Naples. Twenty-five interviewees

were eliminated a posteriori because in their interviews the interviewers had not been

able to provide the number of interruptions in the two ranges planned for this research

(see below). The final sample was formed by 90 participants (45 male and 45 female;

18–31 years old).

Procedures

When recruited, the participants were told that they were going to partake in a study based

on an interview dealing with the different modalities of experiencing and conceiving love,

emotional life, and relationships with their partner. They were informed that the interview

would be audio-recorded and that the material would be used to complete the degree

research of the two students.

The topic of the structured interview was love, distinguished in its many different

aspects, such as: falling in love, betrayal, marriage, and jealousy. It was conceived as an

experiment utilizing 80 possible questions with similar content. The two interviewers were

instructed to follow pre-determined rules in order to provide consistent behavior for all the

subjects (except, of course, for the manipulation of the independent variables). The

sequence and the formulation of the questions were kept consistent by creating a scheme of

reference for the interview that was then adapted to the different conditions. Therefore,

J Nonverbal Behav

123

many possible specific questions were prepared for each condition (e.g., questions aiming

to change subject or to contradict). The interview was led by two female interviewers in

order to characterize the interview as being as natural as possible and to avoid it becoming

a kind of inquisitorial examination. However, the topic chosen (i.e., love) was very

emotionally involving for the target population, and there was the added fact that the two

interviewers really were conducting research towards their degree (even if with a different

aim than the one declared to the participants). All this made the interviews very fluid and

natural, although structured.

The interviewers were trained for the conditions of the experiment, that is, to simul-

taneously manipulate both the frequency and types of interruptions during their interviews.

The aim was to adequately manage the questions and contents of the interviews so that

each condition could be manipulated in the right way. In the training of the confederates,

particular care was given to two methodological concerns. First, they were instructed to

manipulate type and frequency of interruptions depending on the combinations of the

conditions. They were trained to limit their interruptions to the range 10–25 in the lower

interruptions condition and to the range of 26–45 in higher interruption condition. Second,

they were instructed to behave similarly across all five conditions as far as different

behaviors such as smiles, back-channels, facial expressions, and gestures are concerned. In

particular, they were told to keep in hand a sheet with the scheme of the interview to avoid

hand gestures and to naturally shift their glance between the eyes of the interviewee and

the scheme itself.

Initially, the interviewers proceeded to undertake some trial interviews. Then, each trial

was monitored by the other interviewer, who usually provided suggestions and discussed

with the interviewer alleged deviations from the behavior demanded by each different

condition. Finally, every 2 weeks for 3 months, a third expert experimenter supervised,

typically by listening to the two interviewers and then simulating the interview by the

confederates. In this phase, the supervisor focused particularly on the correctness with

which the confederates manipulated type and frequency of interruptions while maintaining

the same behavior across conditions.

Once brought to the Laboratory of Observation of the Department of Psychology at the

Second University of Naples, the participants were randomly assigned to experimental

conditions, in which interviewer-confederate balance was maintained. Particular care was

given to the assignment of male and female participants to the conditions so that the same

number was present in each combination of conditions. If a participant was assigned to a

particular interviewer, he/she was automatically assigned to the research assistant who

actually was the second interviewer. Therefore, the two interviewers were, in turn, each

other’s assistant (hereafter, interviewer and assistant).

The Lab consisted of two different rooms (A and B). The participants were brought to

room A by the assistant, where they answered a personality questionnaire (not used for the

present research). They were then accompanied to room B where they met the interviewer

and were interviewed for about 10 min (with manipulation of both interruption types and

frequency).

Just after the interview, the participants were accompanied back to room A where they

completed a questionnaire to evaluate themselves, the interviewer, and the interactive

situation (see below). In fact, the questionnaire presented first was a mock questionnaire

(filler) on the themes discussed in the interview, meant to keep the participants involved in

the experimental deceit.

In the last phase, the participants were debriefed about the real aim of the experiment

and about the specific condition in which they partook. They were provided with all the

J Nonverbal Behav

123

information needed to establish the reality of the experiment. They were informed, in

particular, that they were still able to refuse to participate in the experiment, and the

recordings would be erased. No one refused. The participants were asked to allow the use

of material only for scientific aims by signing a written form and they were guaranteed that

their anonymity would be protected. Finally, they were asked if there were any questions,

doubts or requests about the experiment. They were told to refer to the leading researcher

for any issues regarding the experiment in the future and then thanked and told they could

leave.

Experimental Conditions

Frequency of interruptions and types of interruptions were the two independent variables in

this study.

The first independent variable (frequency of interruptions) consists of two conditions,

lower and higher interruption frequencies. In the lower frequency condition, the inter-

viewers actually provided from 10 to 23 interruptions during the interaction with an

empirical mean rate of 1.58 per minute (SD = .38), that is one interruption per 40 s; in the

higher frequency condition they actually provided from 28 to 45 interruptions with a mean

rate of 2.94 per minute (SD = .51), that is one interruption per 20 s.

The second independent variable (types of interruptions) consists of four conditions:

change-subject, same-subject, disagreement, and supportive. Moreover, a fifth control

condition consisting of synchronized turn-taking served as the ideal conversation (no

violation of rules on turn alternation) to be taken as a reference for the previous ones. All

the conditions except for control were combined with the lower and higher interruption

frequencies.

The change-subject, same-subject, and disagreement conditions are regarded as nega-

tive conditions because they violate the regular and orderly alternation of turns and aim to

take the floor from the actual speaker, even if with different interactive strength. Sup-

portive and control are positive conditions: supportive is not at all intrusive or competitive,

but collaborative and supporting; control does not imply an interruption.

For the sake of clarity we will provide the exact definition of each condition and an

example extracted from the transcripts of our interviews.

The change-subject condition consists of structural interruptions (i.e., those that truly

interrupt the flow of the conversation) that do not present a semantic link of pertinence to

the current speaker’s turn. Indeed, there is a link but it is marginal. The interruptions try to

change the subject or the point of the preceding turn while (of course) remaining within the

general theme of the conversation (i.e., love), but dealing with a very different aspect

(hereafter, * means the end of the turn, ? indicates the beginning of the interruption, and

the arrow / indicates the interrupting turn).

Int. Cosa ti fa capire che una persona e innamorata di te?How do you know that a person is in love with you?

Part. Mi cerca di piu, mi guarda in maniera particola?reHe/she looks more for me, looks at me in a particular?way

Int. ?Come vive l’amore una persona anziana? /?How does an old person experience love?

The same-subject is a structural interruption that establishes a peripheral link of

semantic pertinence to the speaker’s turn that aims to deepen or clarifying its content with

J Nonverbal Behav

123

no regard for the contents of the speaker’s turn. The interruptive turn consists of questions

or assertions such as asking for specifications or details.

Int. Da cosa capisci che sei innamorata?How do you know that you are falling in love?

Part. Beh ho piu voglia di? *Beh I feel more like? *

Int. ?Cioe quali sono i segnali che piu ti fanno capire che sei /innamorata??I mean, which are the signs that make you understand morethat you are falling in love?

Part. Sı lo cerco di piu magari ?quando *Yes I look more for him possibly ?when *

Int. ?Ma c’e qualche vissuto in particolare? /?But is there some particular experience?

The disagreement condition consists of a structural interruption and a disagreement

regarding the content of the current speaker’s turn. In this case, a link of semantic perti-

nence is provided but it denies the contents of the previous turn, contradicts its words, and

presents opposite arguments. In general, an interruptive turn disagrees, raises doubts and

contradictions, or brings into question the other’s opinions or assertions.

Int. Si puo perdonare un tradimento?Is it possible to forgive a betrayal?

Part. No.No.

Int. Quando si tradisce una persona?When can a person be considered to be betrayed?

Part. Quando l’amore e finito, quando subentra ?la *When love is finished, when it ari?ses the *

Int. ?Ma tu credi davvero si possa essere fedeli sempre? /?But do you really believe that you can always be faithful?

The supportive condition is a structural interruption that maintains a link of semantic

pertinence with the interruptee’s turn and encourages, facilitates, supports, agrees, sustains,

and/or confirms the interruptee’s turn. Sometimes they are lexical suggestions or confir-

mations, sometimes they anticipate the words of the interruptee’s turn, often they agree

with it; always they have to express involvement and participation.

Int. Da cosa capisci che sei innamorato?How do you know that you are falling in love?

Part. Mh, bella domanda mi ?sento *Mh, good question (-) I?feel *

Int. ?Ti senti che ti batte il cuore /?You feel that your heart beats

Part. Sı anche, non vedo eh ? /Yes too, I can’t wait eh ?

Int. ?Non vedi l’ora di vederlo?You can’t wait to see him

In the control condition there is no structural interruption but instead an effort to locate

the beginning of the interviewer’s turn at the transitional relevance point when the other

J Nonverbal Behav

123

speaker is just about to finish. It anticipates a perfect synchronization of turns and therefore

a total absence of interruptions and topic changing between the speakers.

Questionnaire Administration and Measures

Filler Questionnaire on Love

An initial filler questionnaire on the topic of the interview was implemented by the

experimenter in order to strengthen the participants’ belief in the experimental aim. It

appeared as a (5-point) 18-item array.

We used two scales to capture the perceptions of the participants regarding the general

aspect of the interview, namely the socio-interactional climate and the conversation (for all

the following scales, Cronbach’s a is calculated after having reversed the measurement

scale of the reversed items).

Socio-Interactional Climate

Socio-interactional climate refers to the perception of interpersonal relationships that

develops during the interaction (Gnisci et al. 1999). A (5-point) 5-item scale asked if the

interpersonal climate was perceived to be friendly, collaborative, positive, participative,

and/or promoting agreement (a = .85).

Evaluation of the Conversation

We used a scale adapted from Sellen (1995) for the perception of structural aspects of

conversation (0–10 points). This is an 8-item scale asking if the conversation was unnat-

ural, strongly interactive, easy to follow; if there were unnatural and annoying pauses or

inadequate interruptions; if the participant was able to speak and express him/herself

freely; if the participant was able to take their turn when they wanted; if they knew when

the interlocutor was paying attention to them (a = .82).

Then, the questionnaire presented the five measures intended to be affected by the

independent variables. They were: satisfaction toward the performance of the couple,

satisfaction toward their own performance, evaluation of the interlocutor and of them-

selves, and evaluation of the interviewer as an interlocutor.

Satisfaction Toward the Performance of the Couple and of Themselves

We used two items from Omoto and Snyder (1995) to evaluate the participant’s satis-

faction toward the performance of the couple and toward the performance of themselves

(1-10 points).

Semantic Differential Evaluation of Themselves and the Interlocutor During

the Interview

We used one bipolar adjective (7 points) drawn from the Semantic Differential of Osgood

et al. (1957) to establish how well or poorly they evaluated themselves and the others (1–7)

during the interaction.

J Nonverbal Behav

123

Conversational Evaluation of the Interlocutor

This scale was built ad hoc for this experiment in order to evaluate from the view of the

participant how the interlocutor behaved and interacted during the interaction. It is a

(11-point) 3-item scale (a = .72). The questions were ‘‘The interviewer’s way of dis-

cussing was in general adequate’’ (from Canary and Spitzberg 1987), ‘‘The interviewer’s

way of interacting was friendly,’’ ‘‘The interviewer paid no attention to what I was saying’’

(both from Livi et al. 1999).

Questions to Check the Manipulation

At the end, three questions (0–4 points) regarding the manipulation were asked: ‘‘Did you

notice interruptions aiming to change the subject?’’ meant to distinguish conditions with

interruptions that maintained or changed subject; ‘‘Did you notice interruptions that con-

tradicted your assertions?’’ meant to distinguish conditions with interruptions that sup-

ported or contradicted the interlocutor’s preceding turn; and, finally, ‘‘Did you feel

interrupted?’’ meant to distinguish conditions with interruptive turns from the control

condition with no interruptive turns.

Manipulation Checks and Controls for Sex and Interviewer:Procedure and Data Analysis

Manipulation Checks

We executed two kinds of manipulation checks. The first was based on the real number of

interruptions. Two independent observers coded the type of interruptions on the basis of

the four categories (change-subject, same-subject, disagreement, and supportive) (intra-

class correlation coefficients for observer agreement were .99 for both the total number of

interruptions and for all the specific categories of interruptions). An ANOVA was per-

formed on the total number of interruptions with frequency of interruptions as the inde-

pendent variable, and four ANOVAs were performed with type of interruption as the

independent variable and the four categories of interruptions as dependent variables. A

second manipulation check was performed on the perception of the types of interruptions

in the different conditions.

Controls for Sex and Interviewer

We performed two MANOVAs on the five dependent variables to control for the sex of the

participants and/or interviewers affecting the results directly or by interaction. The first was

Type X Sex X Interviewer, the second was Frequency X Sex X Interviewer.

Data Analysis

Hypothesis testing was carried out by a Type X Frequency 4 9 2 ANOVA on each of the

five dependent variables. Given that the amplification hypothesis provides guidance as to

what to expect in case of significant interactive effects, we planned comparisons between

lower and higher interruption frequencies within each type of interruption condition. This

hypothesis-driven strategy reduces the number of comparisons and limits Type I errors.

J Nonverbal Behav

123

A one-tailed t test for independent samples was employed (with a = .05) for the com-

parisons. Finally, we compared each group with the no-interruption condition (control) by

means of a t test.

Results

Manipulation Checks

Manipulation of the Frequency of Interruptions

The ANOVA showed that frequency affected the number of actual interruptions perpe-

trated by the interviewers (F(1, 78) = 349.77, p = .000). The mean frequency in the

higher frequency of interruptions condition was 33.37 (SD = 4.35) whereas in lower

frequency condition it was 17.12 (SD = 3.36).

Manipulation of Interruption Type

Four ANOVAs with type of interruption as the independent variable and the actual

frequencies of the four categories of interruptions as dependent variables were performed.

All ANOVAs were significant (F(3, 76) = 73.71, p = .000 for change-subject;

F(3, 76) = 75.61, p = .000 for same-subject; F(3, 76) = .79.38, p = .000 for disagree-

ment; and F(3, 76) = .78.29, p = .000 for supportive).

Comparisons within each category of interruption are all significant at the p = .000

level: the average number of change-subject interruptions was significantly higher in the

change-subject interruptions condition (�xCSI = 14.25, SD = 5.09) than in the three

remaining conditions; the average number of same-subject interruptions was significantly

higher in same-subject interruptions condition (�xSSI = 16.05, SD = 6.92) than in three

remaining conditions; the average number of disagreement interruptions was significantly

higher in the disagreement interruptions condition (�xDIS = 14.45, SD = 4.54) than in the

three remaining conditions; and the average number of supportive interruptions was sig-

nificantly higher in the supportive interruptions condition (�xSUI = 15.85, SD = 6.59) than

in the three remaining conditions.

Manipulation of the Perception of Interruption Type

In order to check if participants perceived the change-subject and same-subject conditions

correctly, we performed an ANOVA on the item ‘‘Did you notice interruptions aiming to

change the subject?’’ (0–4). The comparison between the two conditions just failed to reach

significance (F(1, 38) = 3.51, p = .069; �xCSI = 2.35, SD = 1.09 vs. �xSSI = 1.65,

SD = 1.27). Note that the two mean values straddle the central value of the scale (i.e., 2).

In order to check if participants perceived the two conditions that differed regarding

agreement (disagreement vs. supportive interruptions) correctly an ANOVA on the item

‘‘Did you notice interruptions that contradicted your assertions?’’ was performed. The

mean value of the first condition was significantly higher than that of the second

(F(1, 38) = 22.0, p = .000; �xDIS = 1.85, SD = 1.39, vs. �xSUI = .25, SD = .55). Note that the

mean value of the first condition was just lower than the median of the scale (i.e., 2).

Finally, to check if the control condition was different from all the other conditions

involving interruptions, an ANOVA on the item ‘‘Did you feel interrupted?’’ was executed.

J Nonverbal Behav

123

All the 10 subjects taking part in this condition rated ‘‘0 = not at all.’’ The ANOVA shows the

presence of differences between the conditions (F(4, 85) = 18.61, p = .000). Comparisons

show that the participants in the control condition felt significantly less interrupted than

those in the change-subject (p = .000; �xCSI = 2.45, SD = .95), same-subject (p = .000;

�xSSI = 2.15, SD = 1.39), and disagreement (p \ .05; �xDIS = .95, SD = 1.05) conditions, but

they did not differ from the supportive condition even if the mean value was higher

(�xSUI = .40, SD = .82).

Controls for Sex of the Participants and Interviewers

To check if the sex of the participants and interviewers affected the participants’ evalu-

ations of any of the five dependent variables, directly or by interaction with the inde-

pendent variables (type and frequency of interruptions), we performed two analyses, the

first involving type of interruptions (including control) and the second involving frequency

of interruptions. In the first analysis, a Type X Sex X Interviewer MANOVA was per-

formed on the five dependent variables (N = 90). No significant effect involving sex or

interviewer emerged. In the second analysis, a Frequency X Sex X Interviewer MANOVA

was performed on the five dependent variables (N = 80). Again, no significant effect

involving sex or interviewer emerged.

General Picture of the Interviews

To depict the general features of the interviews in our sample, we will provide descriptive

data with no reference to the type or frequency of the interruptions.

In general, the social climate of the interviews was seen as very friendly, collaborative,

agreeable, participative, and positive (�x = 8.01 in a scale from 1 to 10, SD = 1.60), and

the conversation was seen as natural, free, interactive, and easy to follow (�x = 7.51 in a

scale from 0 to 10, SD = 1.70). The participants were satisfied with the performance of the

couple (�x = 7.63 in a scale from 0 to 10, SD = 1.76) and of themselves (�x = 7.46 in a

scale from 0 to 10, SD = 1.79), and they regarded the interviewer as conversationally

adequate (�x = 8.48 in a scale from 0 to 10, SD = 1.57). The evaluation of themselves

(�x = 5.93, SD = 1.08) and of the interviewer (�x = 5.97, SD = 1.08) by the item from the

7-point semantic differential scale was very good.

When asked if the participants felt interrupted in a 5-point scale (0–4), the average level

of answer was �x = 1.32 (SD = 1.36), which is just up to ‘‘a bit.’’ This moderate level of

perception of interruptions seems adequate because we did not want to risk being involved

in a study where the participants refused to give their consent during the experiment

because of being treated badly (cf. similar arguments in Burgoon et al. 1995).

Hypothesis Testing

Five ANOVAs were performed in order to establish if the type and frequency of inter-

ruptions interacted with respect to any of the five dependent variables. Type X Frequency

interactive effects were significant for each dependent variable (apart from one that just

failed to reach significance): for satisfaction toward the performance of the couple

(F(3, 72) = 4.01, p = .011, g2 = .14) and toward their own performance (F(3, 72) = 3.09,

p = .033, g2 = .11), for good or bad evaluation of the interlocutor (F(3, 72) = 2.30,

J Nonverbal Behav

123

p = .084, g2 = .09) and of themselves (F(3, 72) = 2.76, p = .048, g2 = .10), and, finally, for

conversational evaluation of the other (F(3, 72) = 3.89, p = .012, g2 = .14).

Planned comparisons between the lower and higher interruption frequencies within each

interruption type were performed (one-tail t test, a = .05). Table 1 shows the tests with

mean values and standard deviations.

The planned comparisons between the lower and higher frequencies of change-subject

interruptions showed four significant differences (Table 1). The participants interrupted by

more frequent change-subject interruptions were significantly less satisfied with the per-

formance of the couple, they evaluated themselves and the interlocutor worse, and they

judged the interlocutor as a worse conversant with respect to the participants that were

interrupted less frequently. For same-subject interruptions, the lower and higher frequency

conditions were significantly different in two cases (Table 1). Participants who endured

more frequent same-subject interruptions were less satisfied with the couple and judged the

interlocutor more poorly. For disagreement interruptions, the planned comparisons show

two differences (Table 1), both opposite to expectations: participants were more satisfied

with the performance of the couple and of themselves when they were more frequently

interrupted by disagreement interruptions than when less frequently so interrupted. Finally,

for supportive interruptions, four comparisons were significant (Table 1). Participants who

received more frequent supportive interruptions were more satisfied toward themselves,

evaluated their performance better, and judged the interlocutor as a better and more

positive conversant than those who received less frequent supportive interruptions. Overall,

although not significant, all the differences between the mean values of the remaining

comparisons showed the same pattern of the significant results described.

We then compared each of the eight groups to the no-interruption control condition

(one-tail t test, a = .05) for each of the five dependent variables. In Table 1, asterisks show

significant comparisons between the experimental and control group.

Eight out of ten comparisons between the change-subject interruptions and control

group showed the same significant pattern. Participants who endured change-subjects

interruptions provided lower scores than controls. When receiving change-subject inter-

ruptions, they evaluated themselves more poorly and the interlocutor more poorly in

general and as a conversant with no regard to interruption frequency; and they were less

satisfied toward the performance of the couple and of themselves when receiving more

frequent change-subject interruptions. Only four out of ten comparisons between the same-

subject interruptions and control conditions were significant, and three of them involved

more frequent same-subject interruptions. Participants receiving either more or less fre-

quent same-subject interruptions evaluated the interlocutor’s conversation significantly

worse than did controls; and they evaluated the interlocutor worse and were less satisfied

when they received more same-subject interruptions. For disagreement interruptions, four

out of ten comparisons to the controls were significant and all involved the lower inter-

ruption frequency; all the comparisons regarding higher frequency same-subject inter-

ruptions revealed no significant difference from the controls. The participants were less

satisfied toward the performance of the couple and of themselves and regarded the other as

a worse interlocutor than did controls. Finally, supportive interruptions showed a pattern

similar to that observed for disagreement interruptions, but more marked: when partici-

pants received many supportive interruptions, in all cases the means mirrored the control

means; when the supportive interruptions were provided at a lower frequency the means

were always significantly different from the control means. In particular, participants who

were interrupted with few supportive interruptions were less satisfied with the performance

of the couple and of themselves, they evaluated both the interlocutor and themselves more

J Nonverbal Behav

123

Ta

ble

1P

lan

ned

com

par

ison

sam

on

glo

wer

and

hig

her

freq

uen

cyo

fin

terr

up

tio

ns

wit

hin

each

typ

eo

fin

terr

up

tio

n,

and

com

par

iso

ns

wit

hco

ntr

ol

Ty

pe

Fre

quen

cyS

atis

fact

ion

tow

ard

cou

ple

’sp

erfo

rman

ceS

atis

fact

ion

tow

ard

ow

np

erfo

rman

ceB

ad-g

oo

dev

aluat

ion

of

the

inte

rlocu

tor

Bad

-go

od

eval

uat

ion

of

the

them

selv

esC

on

ver

sati

on

alev

aluat

ion

of

the

oth

er

M(S

D)

M(S

D)

M(S

D)

M(S

D)

M(S

D)

Ch

ang

e-S

ub

ject

Lo

wer

7.7

0a

1.3

47

.50

1.7

26

.00

a*

.81

5.6

0a*

.97

8.4

7a*

1.1

7

Hig

her

6.3

0b*

2.0

06

.60*

2.0

15

.20

b*

1.3

14

.80

b*

1.1

46

.60

b*

1.8

0

Sam

e-S

ub

ject

Lo

wer

8.5

0a

1.1

87

.80

1.4

06

.30

a.9

56

.50

.53

8.4

3*

1.2

6

Hig

her

7.1

0b*

1.6

06

.90

2.2

35

.50

b*

1.2

76

.20

1.0

37

.43*

2.0

7

Dis

agre

emen

tL

ow

er7.0

0a*

1.6

37

.10

a*

1.7

35

.70*

1.2

55

.90

1.3

78

.23*

1.3

9

Hig

her

8.7

0b

1.1

68

.60

b1

.17

6.0

01

.15

6.1

01

.20

8.8

31

.49

Su

pp

ort

ive

Lo

wer

7.1

0*

2.2

36

.40

a*

2.4

15

.90

a*

1.1

05

.50

a*

1.1

89

.00

a*

.82

Hig

her

7.7

02

.21

7.9

0b

.88

6.5

0b

.53

6.5

0b

.53

9.6

0b

.38

Con

tro

l8

.60

.97

8.3

01

.25

6.6

0.5

26

.30

.48

9.7

0.3

7

a,b

Dif

fere

nt

sup

ersc

rip

tsin

dic

ate

dif

fere

nce

sam

on

gav

erag

ele

vel

so

flo

wer

and

hig

her

freq

uen

cyfo

rea

chty

pe

of

inte

rru

pti

on

(on

e-ta

ilt

test

,a

=.0

5)

*in

dic

ate

gro

ups

that

sign

ifica

ntl

yd

iffe

rfo

rco

ntr

ol

(on

e-ta

ilt

test

,a

=.0

5)

J Nonverbal Behav

123

poorly, and they judged the interlocutor as conversationally less adequate than did the

control group.

Discussion and Conclusions

We executed two kinds of manipulation checks, one on the actual frequency of interrup-

tions, the other on the way the participants perceived the manipulation of the interruptions.

Both provided reassuring results. Moreover, the results were not affected by the two

different interviewers or by the sex of participants. In sum, manipulation checks and

controls revealed a good basis for our experiment. Finally, in interpreting the results of this

experiment, we should keep in mind that, as planned, the participants judged the interview

in which they were involved with the confederate as highly positive, satisfying and natural,

its climate as friendly and collaborative, and the interviewer-interrupter and themselves as

good and conversationally adequate.

Change-subject interruptions were, in general, evaluated very negatively; moreover, all

the significant comparisons among groups show the same pattern: their negative effect is

amplified when they are very frequent. Even though we used different scales, our results

are consistent with results on the likeability of interrupters from recent literature (Farley

2008): they are evaluated negatively (even if in Farley 2008, they also attain status).

However, in this study, we have demonstrated that this negative effect regards not only the

interviewer-interrupter, but also the self-evaluation of the participants and their evaluation

of the interactive couple.

Even the same-subject interruptions were evaluated negatively with respect to the

controls, but more so when they were more frequent. Moreover, significant comparisons

among groups showed that when same-subject interruptions are more frequent, participants

see them as more negative, supporting the amplification hypothesis. Thus, even if there is

evidence that they are regarded as negative, in the eyes of those who endure them they

seem less strong than change-subject interruptions (as expected). When they are few, their

effects are not particularly noxious.

Supportive interruptions show a clear pattern. Only when they were less frequent did they

differ from the controls, scoring more negatively; when they were higher, they did not show a

difference. Therefore, if used rarely or sporadically, supportive interruptions may be

counterproductive; if used more frequently, they reach the positive level of the controls.

Moreover, all the significant comparisons among groups demonstrated that the more this type

of interruption occurs, the more positive their effect, supporting the amplification hypothesis.

The result on disagreement interruptions seems at first sight to contradict the hypothesis:

when disagreement interruptions are frequent, they do not differ from controls, but when

they are less frequent, they score more negatively. Moreover, the significant comparisons

between groups show a pattern opposite to what we expected: when disagreement inter-

ruptions were more frequent they were evaluated more positively than when less frequent.

Unexpectedly, disagreement interruptions show a positive pattern similar to that of sup-

portive interruptions, at least under the conditions of the interview in our experiment. This

positive pattern, which links disagreement and supportive interruptions and distinguishes

them from negative ones, is probably due to the fact that change- and same-subject

interruptions, to differing degrees, demonstrate disregard toward the interviewee, whereas

disagreement, like agreement, implies careful attention to the interlocutor. In other words,

disagreement interruptions need a specific semantic link with the interlocutor’s previous

turn in order to propose a counterargument, whereas the link is absent or marginal in the

J Nonverbal Behav

123

two negative types of interruptions. Considering the positive general climate in which the

interviews were conducted, the disagreement interruptions were experienced as a sign of

interest from the interlocutor. Probably, the possibility of expressing their own position in a

dialectic interaction in which a same-aged interlocutor is trying to challenge their ideas and

arguments may be, in the positive context of our interview, much more lively and attractive

than a more regular base interaction. In sum, even if we erroneously considered dis-

agreement interruptions as negative, the amplification hypothesis still proves valid but in

the opposite direction. Comparisons among groups showed that disagreement interrup-

tions, once regarded as positive, follow the logic of the amplification hypothesis.

In conclusion, this experiment provides evidence in favor of the amplification

hypothesis wherein negative and positive interruptions exert amplified negative and

positive effects when they are administered in a more systematic and insistent way. In turn,

the amplification hypothesis provides support to the face management model of politeness

(Brown and Levinson 1978, 1987). When applied to interruptions, it provides a valid and

comprehensive framework for understanding the subjective effect of interruptions on the

interruptee. This framework allows the effects of power and social distance among in-

teractors to be considered and the inclusion of a third term for the type of interruptions

modulated by their frequency.

Passing from an average rate of one interruption per 40 s to one every 20 s (the way we

operationalized lower and higher interruption frequencies) may transform an interruption

regarded as chance into a small ‘‘insult’’ or ‘‘compliment.’’ It is probable that, in the con-

ditions of our study (interviews among same-aged young students on a lively subject such as

love) and taking into account the particular culture we are studying, which frequently uses

interruptions (the participants were Neapolitans, belonging to a wider culture, the Italian, that

is more indulgent towards interruptions than others; cf. Bull 2002), the passage from one rate

to the other could constitute a threshold that makes a violation of shared expectations

apparent regarding the rules of turn taking (Burgoon and Dunbar 2006; Burgoon and Ebesu

Hubbard 2005). Therefore, in addition to representing a replication in a different language

and culture of the results of literature regarding deep and/or intrusive interruptions (Farley

2008), this study stresses the importance of the degree of tolerance different cultures have

towards different kinds of interruptions and their degree of systematicity.

It is worth noting that, although our study was not focused primarily on gender dif-

ferences, the analyses that we made for controlling the effect of sex, addressed also the

gender hypothesis, whereby females interruptions to males are regarded as more serious

violations than females interruptions to females, but failed to find evidence for it. Indeed,

even though our study tried to address weaknesses of the studies in the literature (such as

by using an ‘‘external’’ perspective, using multiple interruptions, manipulating frequency,

using a no-interruptions control group, and controlling for interviewers) it has the limi-

tation of not having balanced the sexes of the interviewers-confederates. Therefore, we

encourage future studies to address this issue. Finally, provided that this and other studies

(Farley 2008) deepen our comprehension of how interruptees feel and perceive, it is time to

address to how people behaviorally react to interruptions (Farley et al. 2010).

References

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody(Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 53–310). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universal in language use. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

J Nonverbal Behav

123

Bull, P. (2002). Communication under the microscope. The theory and the practice of microanalysis.London: Routledge.

Burgoon, J. K., & Burgoon, M. (2001). Expectancy theories. In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The newhandbook of language and social psychology (pp. 79–101). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Burgoon, J. K., & Dunbar, N. E. (2006). Nonverbal expressions of dominance and power in human rela-tionships. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication(pp. 279–297). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burgoon, J. K., & Ebesu Hubbard, A. S. (2005). Cross-cultural and intercultural applications of expectancyviolations theory and interaction adaptation theory. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about inter-cultural communication (pp. 149–171). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burgoon, J. K., Le Poire, B. A., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). Effects of preinteraction expectancies and targetcommunication on perceiver reciprocity and compensation in dyadic interaction. Journal of Experi-mental Social Psychology, 31, 287–321.

Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1987). Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of conflict strat-egies. Human Communication Research, 14, 93–118.

Chambliss, C. A., & Feeny, N. (1992). Effects of sex of subject, sex of interrupter, and topic of conversationon the perceptions of interruptions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 1235–1241.

Coon, C. A., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1996). Evaluation of interruption behavior by naıve encoders.Discourse Processes, 22, 1–24.

Crown, C. L., & Cummins, D. A. (1998). Objective versus perceptive vocal interruptions in the dialogues ofunacquainted pairs. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 372–389.

Dunbar, N. E., & Burgoon, J. K. (2005). Perceptions of power and interactional dominance in interpersonalrelationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 207–233.

Farley, S. D. (2008). Attaining status at the expense of likeability: Pilfering power through conversationalinterruption. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32, 241–260.

Farley, S. D., Ashcraft, A. M., Stasson, M. F., & Nusbaum, R. L. (2010). Nonverbal reactions to conver-sational interruptions: A test of complementarity theory and the status/gener parallel. Journal ofNonverbal Behavior, 34, 193–206.

Ferguson, N. (1977). Simultaneous speech, interruptions and dominance. British Journal of Social andClinical Psychology, 16, 295–302.

Gnisci, A., Papa, F., & Spedaletti, S. (1999). Usability aspects, socio-relational context and learning per-formance in the virtual classroom: A laboratory experiment. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18,431–443.

Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18,213–231 (Reprinted in (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior (pp. 5–45). GardenCity, NY: Anchor.

Goldberg, J. (1990). Interrupting the discourse on interruptions: An analysis in terms of relationally neutral,power- and rapport-oriented acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 883–903.

Hawkins, K. (1988). Interruptions in task-oriented conversation. Effects of violations of expectations bymales and females. Women’s Studies in Communication, 11, 1–20.

Hawkins, K. (1991). Some consequences of deep interruption in task-oriented communication. Journal ofLanguage and Social Psychology, 10, 185–203.

Holtgraves, T. (2001). Politeness. In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The new handbook of language andsocial psychology (pp. 341–355). New York: Wiley.

LaFrance, M. (1992). Gender and interruptions: Individual infraction or violation of the social order?Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 497–512.

Li, H. L. (2001). Cooperative and intrusive interruptions in inter- and intracultural dyadic discourse. Journalof Language and Social Psychology, 20, 259–284.

Livi, S., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (1999). Adeguatezza Conversazionale: Validazione di una misura dicompetenza comunicativa interpersonale. Quaderni di Psicologia del Lavoro, 6–7, 77–86.

Murata, K. (1994). Intrusive or cooperative? A cross-cultural study of interruption. Journal of Pragmatics,21, 385–400.

Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation, longevity of service,and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,68, 671–686.

Orcutt, J. D., & Mennella, D. L. (1995). Gender and perception of interruption as intrusive talk: Anexperimental analysis and reply to criticism. Symbolic Interaction, 18, 59–72.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. M. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: Universityof Illinois Press.

J Nonverbal Behav

123

Robinson, L. F., & Reis, H. T. (1989). The effects of interruption, gender, and status on interpersonalperceptions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 141–153.

Roger, D., Bull, P., & Smith, S. (1988). The development of a comprehensive system for classifyinginterruptions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 27–34.

Sellen, A. J. (1995). Remote conversations: The effects of mediating talk with technology. Human-Com-puter Interaction, 10, 401–444.

Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style. Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex PublishingCorporation.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1983). Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex conversationsbetween unacquainted persons. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender,and society (pp. 103–117). Rowley, MA: Newbury.

J Nonverbal Behav

123