对沟通意愿的快慢思考:双系统观点

Pub Date : 2020-11-30 DOI:10.32601/ejal.834681
P. MacIntyre, Lanxi Wang, Gholam Hassan Khajavy
{"title":"对沟通意愿的快慢思考:双系统观点","authors":"P. MacIntyre, Lanxi Wang, Gholam Hassan Khajavy","doi":"10.32601/ejal.834681","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How does a person decide whether she or he is willing to communicate? Dual-process theories have been influential in the literature on the psychology of making judgments and decisions. Dual-process theories make a distinction between cognitive processes that are fast, automatic, and unconscious (also called ‘experiential’ thinking) and those that are slow, deliberative, and conscious (also called ‘rational’ thinking). The study assesses differences in willingness to communicate (WTC) ratings made based on rational and experiential processes, and differences between native to second language WTC. Data were collected from a sample of 84 students in Iran and 82 students in Canada. Both groups assessed their WTC using English as a second language in Iran and as a native language in the Canadian sample. Data analysis showed that a preference for using rational thinking, as measured by the Rational-Experiential Inventory (Pacini & Epstein, 1999), was correlated with WTC ratings made fast and slow, but only in the second language. We also found WTC ratings were significantly higher when made fast compared to slow, regardless of language group. Pedagogical implications are discussed with advice to teachers how to capitalize on rational thinking and to avoid hesitation in communication.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Thinking fast and slow about willingness to communicate: A two-systems view\",\"authors\":\"P. MacIntyre, Lanxi Wang, Gholam Hassan Khajavy\",\"doi\":\"10.32601/ejal.834681\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"How does a person decide whether she or he is willing to communicate? Dual-process theories have been influential in the literature on the psychology of making judgments and decisions. Dual-process theories make a distinction between cognitive processes that are fast, automatic, and unconscious (also called ‘experiential’ thinking) and those that are slow, deliberative, and conscious (also called ‘rational’ thinking). The study assesses differences in willingness to communicate (WTC) ratings made based on rational and experiential processes, and differences between native to second language WTC. Data were collected from a sample of 84 students in Iran and 82 students in Canada. Both groups assessed their WTC using English as a second language in Iran and as a native language in the Canadian sample. Data analysis showed that a preference for using rational thinking, as measured by the Rational-Experiential Inventory (Pacini & Epstein, 1999), was correlated with WTC ratings made fast and slow, but only in the second language. We also found WTC ratings were significantly higher when made fast compared to slow, regardless of language group. Pedagogical implications are discussed with advice to teachers how to capitalize on rational thinking and to avoid hesitation in communication.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.834681\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.834681","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

一个人如何决定他或她是否愿意交流?双过程理论在做出判断和决策的心理学文献中具有重要影响。双过程理论区分了快速、自动和无意识的认知过程(也称为“经验”思维)和缓慢、慎重和有意识的认知过程(也称为“理性”思维)。本研究评估了基于理性和经验过程的沟通意愿(WTC)评级的差异,以及母语与第二语言WTC之间的差异。数据收集自84名伊朗学生和82名加拿大学生的样本。在伊朗,两组人都以英语作为第二语言来评估他们的WTC,在加拿大样本中,英语作为母语。数据分析表明,理性思维的偏好,如理性经验量表(Pacini & Epstein, 1999)所测量的,与WTC评分的快慢相关,但仅在第二语言中。我们还发现,无论语言群体如何,当速度快时,WTC评分明显高于速度慢时。讨论了教学意义,并建议教师如何利用理性思维,避免沟通中的犹豫。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
Thinking fast and slow about willingness to communicate: A two-systems view
How does a person decide whether she or he is willing to communicate? Dual-process theories have been influential in the literature on the psychology of making judgments and decisions. Dual-process theories make a distinction between cognitive processes that are fast, automatic, and unconscious (also called ‘experiential’ thinking) and those that are slow, deliberative, and conscious (also called ‘rational’ thinking). The study assesses differences in willingness to communicate (WTC) ratings made based on rational and experiential processes, and differences between native to second language WTC. Data were collected from a sample of 84 students in Iran and 82 students in Canada. Both groups assessed their WTC using English as a second language in Iran and as a native language in the Canadian sample. Data analysis showed that a preference for using rational thinking, as measured by the Rational-Experiential Inventory (Pacini & Epstein, 1999), was correlated with WTC ratings made fast and slow, but only in the second language. We also found WTC ratings were significantly higher when made fast compared to slow, regardless of language group. Pedagogical implications are discussed with advice to teachers how to capitalize on rational thinking and to avoid hesitation in communication.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信