1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Nota Bene
  4. Volume 2, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 2 Number 1
  • ISSN 2950-189X
  • E-ISSN: 2950-1881
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores integrating quantitative methods into Conversation Analysis (CA) to examine psychological reactance in face-to-face interactions. Although extensively studied in mediated contexts, psychological reactance – a motivational state triggered by perceived threats to autonomy – remains underexplored in natural conversations. Addressing this gap, the study investigates how reactance manifests and affects conversational dynamics, such as stance-taking and disalignments. Video-recorded interactions were collected where participants faced reactance-inducing conditions (, limiting smartphone use). Using GAT2 transcription and multimodal annotations, a systematic triple manual coding was used to identify markers of reactance. For statistical tests, the averages of the coding decisions were used to utilize the interpretative flexibility inherent in coding. Quantitative analyses showed significant relationships: reactance correlated positively with perceived freedom restriction, negatively with stance, and predicted conversational disalignment. Findings demonstrate that integrating quantitative methods into CA enhances its capacity to analyze complex phenomena like reactance, linking interactional practices with psychological concepts and advancing methodological discussions within CA.

© 2025 The Author(s)
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00023.kru
2025-09-26
2026-03-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/nb.00023.kru
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nb.00023.kru.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00023.kru&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Almazyad, Fadi, Purvi Shah & Eleanor T. Loiacono
    2023 Social media activism for resurrecting deleted brands: the role of consumers’ psychological reactance. Journal of Brand Management30(4). 367–380. 10.1057/s41262‑022‑00307‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-022-00307-4 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arminen, Ilkka
    2009 On comperative methodology in studies of social interaction. InMarkku Haakana, Minna Laakso & Jan Lindstrom (eds.), Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions, 48–69. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Baumann, Adrian A. W., Neal Conway, Claudia Doblinger, Stefanie Steinhauser, Agata Paszko, Ferdinand Lehmann, Gerhard Schneider, Christian M. Schulz & Frederick Schneider
    2022 Mitigation of climate change in health care: A survey for the evaluation of providers’ attitudes and knowledge, and their view on their organization’s readiness for change. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen1731. 108–115. 10.1016/j.zefq.2022.05.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2022.05.013 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brehm, Jack W.
    1966 A Theory of Psychological Reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Butler, Carly W., Susan Danby & Michael Emmison
    2011 Address Terms in Turn Beginnings: Managing Disalignment and Disaffiliation in Telephone Counseling. Research on Language & Social Interaction44(4). 338–358. 10.1080/08351813.2011.619311
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.619311 [Google Scholar]
  6. Button, Graham, Michael Lynch & Wes Sharrock
    2022 Ethnomethodology, Conversation Analysis and Constructive Analysis: On Formal Structures of Practical Action. 1st edn.London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003220794
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003220794 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clayton, Russell B., Glenn Leshner, Ashley Sanders-Jackson & Joshua Hendrickse
    2020 When Counterarguing Becomes the Primary Task: Examination of Dogmatic Anti-Vaping Messages on Psychological Reactance, Available Cognitive Resources, and Memory. Journal of Communication70(4). 522–547. 10.1093/joc/jqaa010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa010 [Google Scholar]
  8. Conway, Lucian Gideon, Meredith A. Repke & Shannon C. Houck
    2017 Donald Trump as a cultural revolt against perceived communication restriction: Priming political correctness norms causes more Trump support. Journal of Social and Political Psychology5(1). 244–259. 10.5964/jspp.v5i1.732
     https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v5i1.732 [Google Scholar]
  9. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2009 A sequential approach to affect: The case of “dissapointment.” InMarkku Haakana, Nina Laakso & Jan Lindstrom (eds.), Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions, 94–123. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 2012 On affectivity and preference in responses to rejection. Text & Talk32(4). 10.1515/text‑2012‑0022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0022 [Google Scholar]
  11. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
    2011 A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion121. 1–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Dillard, James Price & Lijiang Shen
    2005 On the Nature of Reactance and its Role in Persuasive Health Communication. Communication Monographs72(2). 144–168. 10.1080/03637750500111815
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dix, Carolin & Alexandra Groß
    2024 Surprise About News or Just Receiving Information?: Moving and holding Both Eyebrows in Co-Present Interaction. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality6(3). 10.7146/si.v6i3.142906
     https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v6i3.142906 [Google Scholar]
  14. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 The stance triangle. InRobert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse, 139–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  15. Du Bois, John W. & Elise Kärkkäinen
    2012 Taking a stance on emotion: affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text & Talk32(4). 433–451. 10.1515/text‑2012‑0021
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0021 [Google Scholar]
  16. Edwards, Derek & Jonathan Potter
    2000 Discursive psychology (Inquiries in Social Construction). Repr. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Ehmer, Oliver
    2021 Aligned Corpus Toolkit. www.oliverehmer.de, https://github.com/oliverehmer/act
  18. Eiswirth, Mirjam Elisabeth
    2022 Developing and testing interaction-based coding schemes for the analysis of sociolinguistic variation. Language & Communication871. 11–28. 10.1016/j.langcom.2022.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2022.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. ELAN
    ELAN 2024 ELAN. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. https://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Floyd, Simeon, Giovanni Rossi & Nick J. Enfield
    2020 A coding scheme for recruitment sequences in interaction. InSimeon Floyd, Giovanni Rossi & N. J. Enfield (eds.), Getting others to do things: A pragmatic typology of recruitments, 25–50. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin Universitätsbibliothek.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967 Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Goodwin, Charles
    2018 Co-operative action (Learning in Doing). New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139016735
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016735 [Google Scholar]
  23. Grandpre, Joseph, Eusebio M. Alvaro, Michael Burgoon, Claude H. Miller & John R. Hall
    2003 Adolescent Reactance and Anti-Smoking Campaigns: A Theoretical Approach. Health Communication15(3). 349–366. 10.1207/S15327027HC1503_6
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327027HC1503_6 [Google Scholar]
  24. Graupmann, Verena, Eva Jonas, Ester Meier, Stefan Hawelka & Markus Aichhorn
    2012 Reactance, the self, and its group: When threats to freedom come from the ingroup versus the outgroup. European Journal of Social Psychology42(2). 164–173. 10.1002/ejsp.857
     https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.857 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hajek, Katharina V. & Lara Kobilke
    2025 Beyond Boomerang — Introducing a New Psychological Reactance Process Model for Communication Science. Open Science Framework. osf.io/pkf87.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hall, Marissa G., Paschal Sheeran, Seth M. Noar, Kurt M. Ribisl, Marcella H. Boynton & Noel T. Brewer
    2017 A brief measure of reactance to health warnings. Journal of Behavioral Medicine40(3). 520–529. 10.1007/s10865‑016‑9821‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-016-9821-z [Google Scholar]
  27. Heatherly, Matthew, D. A. Baker & Casey Canfield
    2023 Don’t touch that dial: Psychological reactance, transparency, and user acceptance of smart thermostat setting changes. (Ed.) Hans H. Tung. PLOS ONE18(7). e0289017. 10.1371/journal.pone.0289017
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289017 [Google Scholar]
  28. Heilman, Madeline E. & Barbara Ley Toffler
    1976 Reacting to reactance: An Interpersonal interpretation of the need for freedom. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology12(6). 519–529. 10.1016/0022‑1031(76)90031‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(76)90031-7 [Google Scholar]
  29. Heller, Vivien
    2016 „dass VOLL verARsche hier“: Aligment und Disalignment mit jugendsprachlichen Praktiken in der Unterrichtsinteraktion. InCarmen Spiegel & Daniel Gysin (eds.), Jugendsprache in Schule, Medien und Alltag, 91–108. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Heller, Vivien, Nora Schönfelder & Denise Robbins
    2024 Displaying a Critical Stance: Eyebrow Contractions in Children’s Multimodal Oppositional Actions. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality6(3). 10.7146/si.v6i3.143027
     https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v6i3.143027 [Google Scholar]
  31. Heritage, John & Chase Wesley Raymond
    2021 Preference and Polarity: Epistemic Stance in Question Design. Research on Language and Social Interaction54(1). 39–59. 10.1080/08351813.2020.1864155
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864155 [Google Scholar]
  32. Heritage, John & Jeffrey D. Robinson
    2011 ‘Some’ versus ‘Any’ Medical Issues: Encouraging Patients to Reveal Their Unmet Concerns. InCharles Antaki (ed.), Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and Change in Institutional Talk, 15–31. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230316874_2
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230316874_2 [Google Scholar]
  33. Holler, Judith & Kobin H. Kendrick
    2015 Unaddressed participants’ gaze in multi-person interaction: optimizing recipiency. Frontiers in Psychology61. 98. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00098
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00098 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hong, Sung-Mook & Salvatora Faedda
    1996 Refinement of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement56(1). 173–182. 10.1177/0013164496056001014
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056001014 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hu, Xiaohan & Kevin Wise
    2021 How playable ads influence consumer attitude: exploring the mediation effects of perceived control and freedom threat. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing15(2). 295–315. 10.1108/JRIM‑12‑2020‑0269
     https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-12-2020-0269 [Google Scholar]
  36. Humă, Bogdana, Jack B. Joyce & Geoffrey Raymond
    2023 What Does “Resistance” Actually Look Like? The Respecification of Resistance as an Interactional Accomplishment. Journal of Language and Social Psychology42(5–6). 497–522. 10.1177/0261927X231185525
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X231185525 [Google Scholar]
  37. Humă, Bogdana & Elizabeth Stokoe
    2023 Resistance in Business-to-Business “Cold” Sales Calls. Journal of Language and Social Psychology42(5–6). 630–652. 10.1177/0261927X231185520
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X231185520 [Google Scholar]
  38. Jehoul, Annelies & Kurt Feyaerts
    2017 Multimodale uitdrukkingen van vanzelfsprekendheid: Een empirische corpusstudie. Nederlandse Taalkunde22(2). 189–222. 10.5117/NEDTAA2017.2.JEHO
     https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2017.2.JEHO [Google Scholar]
  39. Kendrick, Kobin H. & Judith Holler
    2017 Gaze Direction Signals Response Preference in Conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction50(1). 12–32. 10.1080/08351813.2017.1262120
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1262120 [Google Scholar]
  40. Klatt, Marie & Maximilian Krug
    2023 Von der Disalignierung zum Disengagement: Aushandlung von Partizipation in konfliktären Eltern-Kind-Interaktionen. fokus:interaktion: eine Open-Access-Zeitschrift für Nachwuchswissenschaftler*innen der Gesprächsforschung. DuEPublico: Duisburg-Essen Publications online, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany 2022/2023 291. 10.17185/DUEPUBLICO/77441
     https://doi.org/10.17185/DUEPUBLICO/77441 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kobilke, Lara, Katharina V. Hajek & Maximilian Krug
    2025 A Multidimensional Measure for Psychological State Reactance. Open Science Framework. osf.io/4pwn6.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Krug, Maximilian
    2025 Gaze aversion as a marker of disalignment in interactions. InElisabeth Zima & Anja Stukenbrock (eds.), Mobile Eye Tracking: New avenues for the study of gaze in social interaction, 165–187. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.351.06kru
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.351.06kru [Google Scholar]
  43. Krug, Maximilian, Katharina V. Hajek & Lara Kobilke
    . in press. Collaborative Negotiation of Reactance in Climate Activism: Freedom Restoration Strategies in Face-to-Face Interactions Ed. Susan Reichelt & Steffen Krämer. Kulturwissenschaftliche ZeitschriftAffektive Praktiken im digitalen Klimaaktivismus: Figurations-und Positionierungsprozesse in umkämpften Protestnarrativen([Special Issue]). 1–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Küttner, Uwe-A., Laurenz Kornfeld & Jörg Zinken
    2023 A coding scheme for (dis)approval-relevant events involving the direct social sanctioning of problematic behavior in informal social interaction. Online-only Publikationen des Leibniz-Instituts für Deutsche Sprache51. 10.21248/idsopen.5.2023.8
     https://doi.org/10.21248/idsopen.5.2023.8 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lu, Shuning & Hai Liang
    2024 Reactance to Uncivil Disagreement?: The Integral Effects of Disagreement, Incivility, and Social Endorsement. Journal of Media Psychology36(1). 15–26. 10.1027/1864‑1105/a000378
     https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000378 [Google Scholar]
  46. Luginbühl, Martin, Vera Mundwiler, Judith Kreuz, Daniel Müller-Feldmeth & Stefan Hauser
    2021 Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in Conversation Analysis: Methodological Reflections on a Study of Argumentative. Gesprächsforschung Online221. 179–236.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Mair, Michael, Wes W. Sharrock & Christian Greiffenhagen
    2022 Research with Numbers. InDouglas W. Maynard & John Heritage (eds.), The Ethnomethodology Program, 348–370. 1st edn. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780190854409.003.0013
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190854409.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  48. Miron, Anca M. & Jack W. Brehm
    2006 Reactance Theory — 40 Years Later. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie37(1). 9–18. 10.1024/0044‑3514.37.1.9
     https://doi.org/10.1024/0044-3514.37.1.9 [Google Scholar]
  49. Mondada, Lorenza
    2018 Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction51(1). 85–106. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2019 Transcribing silent actions: a multimodal approach of sequence organization. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality2(2). 10.7146/si.v2i1.113150
     https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v2i1.113150 [Google Scholar]
  51. Mortensen, Kristian
    2016 The Body as a Resource for Other-Initiation of Repair: Cupping the Hand Behind the Ear. Research on Language and Social Interaction49(1). 34–57. 10.1080/08351813.2016.1126450
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126450 [Google Scholar]
  52. Nabi, Robin L.
    2003 Exploring the Framing Effects of Emotion: Do Discrete Emotions Differentially Influence Information Accessibility, Information Seeking, and Policy Preference?Communication Research30(2). 224–247. 10.1177/0093650202250881
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202250881 [Google Scholar]
  53. Ortner, Heike
    2021 Emotionen als Forschungsgegenstand — Emotionen im Forschungsprozess: Zum Umgang mit interaktionalen Daten. InSebastian Ernst (ed.), Emotionen in Wissensinstitutionen. Zur Bedeutung affektiver Dimensionen in Forschung, Lehre und Unterricht, 51–67. Bielefeld: Transcript. 10.1515/9783839457351‑005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839457351-005 [Google Scholar]
  54. Park, Innhwa
    2010 Marking an impasse: The use of anyway as a sequence-closing device. Journal of Pragmatics42(12). 3283–3299. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  55. Pesarin, Anna, Marco Cristani, Vittorio Murino & Alessandro Vinciarelli
    2012 Conversation analysis at work: detection of conflict in competitive discussions through semi-automatic turn-organization analysis. Cognitive Processing13(S2). 533–540. 10.1007/s10339‑011‑0417‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-011-0417-9 [Google Scholar]
  56. Plohl, Nejc & Bojan Musil
    2023 Trust in science moderates the effects of high/low threat communication on psychological reactance to COVID-19-related public health messages. Journal of Communication in Healthcare16(4). 401–411. 10.1080/17538068.2023.2279395
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2023.2279395 [Google Scholar]
  57. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. InJohn Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction. Second Series), 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Quick, Brian L. & Jennifer R. Considine
    2008 Examining the Use of Forceful Language When Designing Exercise Persuasive Messages for Adults: A Test of Conceptualizing Reactance Arousal as a Two-Step Process. Health Communication23(5). 483–491. 10.1080/10410230802342150
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230802342150 [Google Scholar]
  59. Quick, Brian L., Jennifer A. Kam, Susan E. Morgan, Claudia A. Montero Liberona & Rebecca A. Smith
    2015 Prospect Theory, Discrete Emotions, and Freedom Threats: An Extension of Psychological Reactance Theory. Journal of Communication65(1). 40–61. 10.1111/jcom.12134
     https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12134 [Google Scholar]
  60. Quick, Brian L., Lijiang Shen & James Price Dillard
    2012 Reactance Theory and Persuasion. InJames Dillard & Lijiang Shen (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice, 167–183. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. 10.4135/9781452218410.n11
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218410.n11 [Google Scholar]
  61. Quick, Brian L. & Michael T. Stephenson
    2007 The Reactance Restoration Scale (RRS): A Measure of Direct and Indirect Restoration. Communication Research Reports24(2). 131–138. 10.1080/08824090701304840
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090701304840 [Google Scholar]
  62. Rains, Stephen A.
    2013 The Nature of Psychological Reactance Revisited: A Meta-Analytic Review. Human Communication Research39(1). 47–73. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2012.01443.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01443.x [Google Scholar]
  63. Raymond, Geoffrey & Don H. Zimmerman
    2016 Closing matters: Alignment and misalignment in sequence and call closings in institutional interaction. Discourse Studies18(6). 716–736. 10.1177/1461445616667141
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445616667141 [Google Scholar]
  64. Reiss, Stefan, Eline Leen-Thomele, Johannes Klackl & Eva Jonas
    2021 Exploring the landscape of psychological threat: A cartography of threats and threat responses. Social and Personality Psychology Compass15(4). e12588. 10.1111/spc3.12588
     https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12588 [Google Scholar]
  65. Robinson, Jeffrey D.
    2007 The Role of Numbers and Statistics within Conversation Analysis. Communication Methods and Measures1(1). 65–75. 10.1080/19312450709336663
     https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336663 [Google Scholar]
  66. Rosen, L. D., K. Whaling, L. M. Carrier, N. A. Cheever & J. Rokkum
    2013 The Media and Technology Usage and Attitudes Scale: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior29(6). 2501–2511. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  67. Rosenberg, Benjamin D. & Jason T. Siegel
    2018 A 50-year review of psychological reactance theory: Do not read this article. Motivation Science4(4). 281–300. 10.1037/mot0000091
     https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000091 [Google Scholar]
  68. Rühlemann, Christoph
    2020 Visual linguistics with R: A practical introduction to quantitative Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/z.228
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.228 [Google Scholar]
  69. Rühlemann, Christoph & Matthew Brook O’Donnell
    2012 Introducing a corpus of conversational stories. Construction and annotation of the Narrative Corpus. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory8(2). 313–350. 10.1515/cllt‑2012‑0015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2012-0015 [Google Scholar]
  70. Ruusuvuori, Johanna
    2013 Emotion, Affect and Conversation. InJack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics), 330–349. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson
    1974 A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-talking in conversation. Language50(4). 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  72. Satti, Ignacio
    2023 Requests for Verification across Varieties of Spanish: A Comparative Approach to Gaze Behaviour. Contrastive Pragmatics1–33. 10.1163/26660393‑bja10092
     https://doi.org/10.1163/26660393-bja10092 [Google Scholar]
  73. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1993 Reflections on Quantification in the Study of Conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction26(1). 99–128. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_5
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_5 [Google Scholar]
  74. 1997 Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes23(3). 499–545. 10.1080/01638539709545001
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545001 [Google Scholar]
  75. 2007 Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  76. Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Jörg R. Bergmann, Pia Bergmann, Karin Birkner, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen,
    2009 Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion101. 353–402.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Sidnell, Jack
    2013 Basic Conversation Analytic Methods. InJack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 77–99. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Sikveland, Rein Ove & Elizabeth Stokoe
    2020 Should Police Negotiators Ask to “Talk” or “Speak” to Persons in Crisis? Word Selection and Overcoming Resistance to Dialogue Proposals. Research on Language and Social Interaction53(3). 324–340. 10.1080/08351813.2020.1785770
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1785770 [Google Scholar]
  79. Stadler, Stefanie Alexa
    2011 Coding speech acts for their degree of explicitness. Journal of Pragmatics43(1). 36–50. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.014 [Google Scholar]
  80. Stevanovic, Melisa, Pentti Henttonen, Emmi Koskinen, Anssi Peräkylä, Taina Nieminen von-Wendt, Elina Sihvola, Pekka Tani, Niklas Ravaja & Mikko Sams
    2019 Physiological responses to affiliation during conversation: Comparing neurotypical males and males with Asperger syndrome. (Ed.) Atsushi Senju. PLOS ONE14(9). e0222084. 10.1371/journal.pone.0222084
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222084 [Google Scholar]
  81. Stivers, Tanya
    2015 Coding Social Interaction: A Heretical Approach in Conversation Analysis?Research on Language and Social Interaction48(1). 1–19. 10.1080/08351813.2015.993837
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.993837 [Google Scholar]
  82. Stivers, Tanya, N. J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann,
    2009 Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America106(26). 10587–92. 10.1073/pnas.0903616106
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106 [Google Scholar]
  83. Stivers, Tanya & N. J. Enfield
    2010 A coding scheme for question–response sequences in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics42(10). 2620–2626. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  84. Stivers, Tanya & Jeffrey D. Robinson
    2006 A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society35(03). 10.1017/S0047404506060179
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179 [Google Scholar]
  85. Stokoe, Elizabeth, Geoffrey Raymond & Kevin A. Whitehead
    2024 Categories in Social Interaction: Unlocking the Resources of Conversation Analysis and Membership Categorization for Psychological Science. Annual Review of Psychology. 10.1146/annurev‑psych‑020124‑023147
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020124-023147 [Google Scholar]
  86. Tracy, Karen
    2007 The Role (Or Not) for Numbers and Statistics in Qualitative Research: An Introduction. Communication Methods and Measures1(1). 31–35. 10.1080/19312450709336659
     https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336659 [Google Scholar]
  87. Voutilainen, Liisa, Pentti Henttonen, Mikko Kahri, Maari Kivioja, Niklas Ravaja, Mikko Sams & Anssi Peräkylä
    2014 Affective stance, ambivalence, and psychophysiological responses during conversational storytelling. Journal of Pragmatics681. 1–24. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  88. Voutilainen, Liisa, Anssi Peräkylä & Johanna Ruusuvuori
    2010 Misalignment as a Therapeutic Resource. Qualitative Research in Psychology7(4). 299–315. 10.1080/14780880902846411
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880902846411 [Google Scholar]
  89. Watson, Rod
    2008 Comparative Sociology, Laic and Analytic: Some Critical Remarks on Comparison in Conversation Analysis. Cahiers de praxématique (50). 203–244. 10.4000/praxematique.967
     https://doi.org/10.4000/praxematique.967 [Google Scholar]
  90. Zemel, Alan, Fatos Xhafa & Murat Cakir
    2007 What’s in the mix? Combining coding and conversation analysis to investigate chat-based problem solving. Learning and Instruction17(4). 405–415. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.006 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00023.kru
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conversation analysis; disalignment; psychological reactance; Quantification; statistics

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error