“I Said What?” Partner Familiarity, Resistance, and the Accuracy of Conversational Recall

Abstract

We examined the influence of two structural parameters on the content and valence of conversational recall. 144 females had two conversations defined by relationship type (close friend or stranger) and partner resistance (resistance or none). Conversational recall statements were coded for accuracy of content (self, partner, or neutral) and valence (positive, negative, or neutral). Overall, respondents were less accurate in recalling the content of stranger conversations than friend exchanges, and when partners were agreeable compared to resistant. However, those who experienced little partner resistance more accurately recalled positively valenced information than respondents who encountered resistance. When partners resisted, friend interactions were recalled less accurately in terms of positivity, but more accurately for negative information, compared to the recall of stranger conversations.

Keywords:

• Conversational Memory
• Recall
• Relationships
• Interaction

The data reported here were collected as part of the second author's master's thesis under the direction of the first author. Portions of the data were presented at the 2004 meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans and the 2007 meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago.

The data reported here were collected as part of the second author's master's thesis under the direction of the first author. Portions of the data were presented at the 2004 meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans and the 2007 meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Christian Edwards, Evita Kaigler, Mark Needle, and Juanita Perry for their assistance with this project.

Notes

The data reported here were collected as part of the second author's master's thesis under the direction of the first author. Portions of the data were presented at the 2004 meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans and the 2007 meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago.

1. Pretests with a separate sample of undergraduates (N=98) deemed these topics to be realistic, typical, and likely to stimulate conversation.

2. The intention of the clip was to simply distract the participant from the conversation and to not arouse or affect her emotional state. Therefore, two rather mundane clips were selected: kitchen countertops (for Conversation 1) and model car garages (for Conversation 2).

3. We initially included a category for relationship reproductions in the form of “we” statements (e.g., “we agreed that this was an issue that we did not disagree about”). However, an initial review of the data revealed that joint “we” statements did not occur with a notable frequency by which to merit a separate category.

4. Respondents also completed measures to assess their level of familiarity with the strangers in the interaction: 100% of the respondents reported that they had never interacted with the strangers before this study.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jennifer A. Samp

Jennifer A. Samp (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Speech Communication at the University of Georgia

Laura R. Humphreys

Laura R. Humphreys received her MA in Speech Communication from the University of Georgia