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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974) · Language · doi:10.2307/412243 · Cited by 11,350
Research works printed but not linked: 48
- 10.1007/978-1-349-04057-5 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S0882-6145(02)19009-6 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.001 · DOI
- 10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004 · DOI
- 10.1080/08351810802028613 · DOI · Paper page
- 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.
- 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_02 · DOI
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.08.002 · DOI · Paper page
- 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.
- HeritageJ. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
- 10.1017/S0047404500019990 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1515/9783110849172 · DOI
- 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90066-M · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cognition.2002.06.001 · DOI · Paper page
- 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.
- 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.
- 10.1177/0957926599010003002 · DOI · Paper page
- 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.
- 10.2307/2787073 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/CBO9780511813313 · DOI · Paper page
- 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.
- 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.
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50010-0 · DOI · Paper page
- 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.
- PomerantzA. & HeritageJ. (2013). Preference. In J.Sidnell & T.Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- 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.
- 10.2307/1519752 · doi:10.2307/1519752 · Paper page
- 10.1121/1.4802900 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.specom.2006.02.001 · DOI
- 10.1080/0163853X.2011.558002 · DOI
- 10.1177/1461445610371051 · DOI
- 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
- 10.1353/lan.1974.0010 · DOI · Paper page
- 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.
- 10.2307/800596 · DOI · Paper page
- 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.
- 10.1017/S0047404500001019 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/CBO9780511791208 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/0190272511432939 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1073/pnas.0903616106 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S0047404506060179 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language
Levinson, S. C., & Torreira, F. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731 · Cited by 686
Self-citationAnticipation in turn-taking: mechanisms and information sources
Riest, C., Jorschick, A. B., & de Ruiter, J. P. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00089 · Cited by 145
Seuren, L. M., Wherton, J., Greenhalgh, T., Cameron, D., A'Court, C., & Shaw, S. E. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/16694 · Cited by 120
Kendrick, K. H. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00250 · Cited by 92
Self-citationProgressivity for voice interface design
Fischer, J. E., Reeves, S., Porcheron, M., & Sikveland, R. O. (2019) · Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3342775.3342788 · Cited by 88
Metadata
- Authors
- Kendrick, K. H., & Torreira, F.
- Venue
- Discourse Processes
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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.