Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Timing and Construction of Preference: A Quantitative Study

Open access
Kendrick, Kobin H., Torreira, Francisco·2015·Discourse Processes

Abstract

Conversation-analytic research has argued that the timing and construction of preferred responding actions (e.g., acceptances) differ from that of dispreferred responding actions (e.g., rejections), potentially enabling early response prediction by recipients. We examined 195 preferred and dispreferred responding actions in telephone corpora and found that the timing of the most frequent cases of each type did not differ systematically. Only for turn transitions of 700 ms or more was the proportion of dispreferred responding actions clearly greater than that of preferreds. In contrast, an analysis of the timing that included turn formats (i.e., those with or without qualification) revealed clearer differences. Small departures from a normal gap duration decrease the likelihood of a preferred action in a preferred turn format (e.g., a simple “yes”). We propose that the timing of a response is best understood as a turn-constructional feature, the first virtual component of a preferred or dispreferred turn format.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0163853x.2014.955997

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. 10.1007/978-1-349-04057-5 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/S0882-6145(02)19009-6 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.001 · DOI
  4. 10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004 · DOI
  6. 10.1080/08351810802028613 · DOI · Paper page
  7. DavidsonJ. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests and proposals, dealing with actual or potential rejection. In J. M.Atkinson & J.Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: studies in conversation analysis (pp. 102–128). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  8. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_02 · DOI
  9. DrewP. (1984). Speakers' reportings in invitation sequences. In J. M.Atkinson (Ed.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 129–151). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  10. FordC. E. & ThompsonS. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E.Ochs, E. A.Schegloff, & S. A.Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 134–184). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  11. HayanoK. (2013). Question design in conversation. In J.Sidnell & T.Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 395–414). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  12. 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.08.002 · DOI · Paper page
  13. HepburnA. & BoldenG. B. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In J.Sidnell & T.Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  14. HeritageJ. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  15. 10.1017/S0047404500019990 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1515/9783110849172 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90066-M · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.cognition.2002.06.001 · DOI · Paper page
  19. JeffersonG. (1984). Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset. In V.D'Urso & P.Leonardi (Eds.), Discourse analysis and natural rhetoric (pp. 11–38). Padua, Italy: Cleup Editore.
  20. KendrickK. H. & TorreiraF. (2012, March). The timing and construction of preference: A quantitative study. Presented at the Discourse, Communication, and Conversation Conference, Loughborough University, Loughborough, England, UK.
  21. 10.1177/0957926599010003002 · DOI · Paper page
  22. LeeS. (2013). Response design in conversation. In J.Sidnell & T.Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 415–432). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  23. 10.2307/2787073 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313 · DOI · Paper page
  25. LevinsonS. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In J.Sidnell & T.Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 101–130). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  26. LindströmA. & SorjonenM.L. (2013). Affiliation in conversation. In J.Sidnell & T.Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 350–369). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  27. 10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50010-0 · DOI · Paper page
  28. PomerantzA. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M.Atkinson & J.Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  29. PomerantzA. & HeritageJ. (2013). Preference. In J.Sidnell & T.Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  30. RaymondG. (2000). The structure of responding: Type-conforming and nonconforming responses to yes/no type interrogatives. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.
  31. 10.2307/1519752 · doi:10.2307/1519752 · Paper page
  32. 10.1121/1.4802900 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.specom.2006.02.001 · DOI
  34. 10.1080/0163853X.2011.558002 · DOI
  35. 10.1177/1461445610371051 · DOI
  36. SacksH. (1973/1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G.Button & J. R. E.Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 54–69). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010 · DOI · Paper page
  38. SchegloffE. A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. M.Atkinson & J.Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 266–298). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  39. 10.2307/800596 · DOI · Paper page
  40. SchegloffE. A. (1996). Turn organization: One direction for inquiry into grammar and interaction. In E.Ochs, E. A.Schegloff, & S. A.Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  41. 10.1017/S0047404500001019 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208 · DOI · Paper page
  43. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 · DOI · Paper page
  44. 10.1177/0190272511432939 · DOI
  45. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1073/pnas.0903616106 · DOI · Paper page
  48. 10.1017/S0047404506060179 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
Kendrick, K. H., & Torreira, F.
Venue
Discourse Processes
Published
2015-03-03
Volume
52
Issue
4
Pages
255-289
ISSN
  • 0163-853X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-6950
OpenAlex
W2020483430
Cited by
287
References
1
FWCI
120.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Timing and Construction of Preference: A Quantitative Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/0163853x.2014.955997
The paper
Kendrick, K. H., & Torreira, F. (2015). The Timing and Construction of Preference: A Quantitative Study. Discourse Processes. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2014.955997

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.