IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/ijpsjl/v2y2010i1p25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Backchannel Responses and Enjoyment of the Conversation: The More Does Not Necessarily Mean the Better

Author

Listed:
  • Han Z. Li
  • Yanping Cui
  • Zhizhang Wang

Abstract

This study examined the types of backchannel response as well as its relationship with speaker presentation, listener recall, and participants’ perceived enjoyment of the conversation in an intercultural setting. Participants were 40 Anglo-Canadians and 40 Mainland Chinese, forming 40 same-gender dyads and performing two dialogues. All interactions were video-taped and micro-analyzed. Noteworthy findings include the following- 1) The Chinese participants in the role of listeners made significantly more backchannel responses than their Canadian counterparts in performing Task 2. 2) “Nod†and “okay†had the highest frequencies in both cultural groups. However, the Canadians used “repeat†more frequently than Chinese and the Chinese used “uhm†and “yeah†more than the Canadians. Participants in both groups “switched codes†when making backchannel responses, providing support for communication accommodation theory. 3) A significant negative correlation was found between the frequency of backchannel responses and participants’ self-reported level of enjoyment of the conversation, raising the critical issue of how to balance the appropriate amount of backchannel response in intercultural communication.Â

Suggested Citation

  • Han Z. Li & Yanping Cui & Zhizhang Wang, 2010. "Backchannel Responses and Enjoyment of the Conversation: The More Does Not Necessarily Mean the Better," International Journal of Psychological Studies, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 2(1), pages 1-25, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:ijpsjl:v:2:y:2010:i:1:p:25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijps/article/download/6320/5050
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijps/article/view/6320
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:ijpsjl:v:2:y:2010:i:1:p:25. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.