IDEAS.TED.

COM Explore ideas worth spreading

SHARE FRESH IDEAS IN YOUR INBOX

TECH BUSINESS ARTS + DESIGN SCIENCE WE HUMANS
THIS IDEA
Sign up with your email address

! Sign Up
WE HUMANS

How a single word can change your

"
TED TALK OF THE DAY
#
AL GORE

conversation
$ How to make radical
climate action the new
normal
%

&
Jul 15, 2015 / Elizabeth Stokoe Advertisement

Advertisement

British psychologist Elizabeth Stokoe studies the

patterns in talk that most of us don’t even notice.
She explains how her research can be used to train
people to interact more effectively.
People spend a good deal of time talking to one another, and in general we do it
pretty well. We might feel excited, angry, embarrassed, or — if we’re lucky
— loved, in the course of our daily conversations. So is there any benefit to
thinking about a science of talk? Can we really gain anything from scientific
analysis of something we “just do”?

I believe we can, and I’ve spent the last 20 years studying real talk from real
people talking to each other in real time. And while the linguist Noam Chomsky
once described conversation as a “disorderly phenomenon,” I can tell you that
it’s no such thing. Conversation is highly systematic and organized … and it tells
us an incredible amount about the power of language to shape our daily lives.

Take this ordinary telephone call between two friends, Nancy and Hyla,
transcribed according to the standard conversation analysis transcription
system, which includes intonation and the actual sounds being made rather than
just the correct spelling of a word (lines under a word represent emphasis and
different movements in pitch, the equals sign means that the turns are very
rapid):

On the face of it, this is utterly mundane. There’s no science here! Well, actually
there is. Conversation analysts have shown that, across settings including phone
calls, face-to-face encounters, Skype calls and even instant messaging,
conversations routinely contain three component pairs of actions: summons and
answer (the opening — lines 1-2); greetings and identification (for Hyla and
Nancy, just the sound of the voice is enough for identification — lines 3-4), and
initial enquiries (the ‘how-are-yous’ at lines 5-6).

Perhaps this seems obvious. But now let’s take a look at the start of a call
between boyfriend and girlfriend, Dana and Gordon.

Like Nancy, Gordon produces an answering “hello.” But rather than being met
with a greeting, there is instead a gap of seven-tenths of a second. For
conversation analysts, that’s enough of a delay to indicate trouble. Hyla and
Nancy spoke rapidly, with a tenth of a second or less between their turns. In this
instance, even though only one word has been uttered, we already know enough
to expect that Dana and Gordon are unlikely to proceed smoothly through the
next two pairs of conversational components. Here’s what Dana says next:

Dana returns the greeting, but rather than move into the “how-are-yous” portion
of the conversation, she asks Gordon a question. It’s not an innocent question; it
is antagonistic. As Gordon’s girlfriend, she implies that she’s entitled to know
where he’s been “all morning”; she’s been trying to get him “all morning.”

That we can pinpoint moments of trouble so precisely has big pay-offs when it
comes to understanding professional or workplace encounters. For example, we
can search for silences and work out had happened previously to produce it. In
my work with organizations from the police force to commercial sales teams, I’ve
been able to show practitioners which words and phrases are most effective —
and what does not work. Here’s a look at some of my more recent findings, as
well as a great study by a pair of American conversation analysts.

1. Are you willing?

I’ve worked with mediation services that help people in a dispute with their
neighbor, partner or colleague. By analyzing hundreds of calls between
mediators and their potential clients, it became clear that some callers don’t
really want mediation; they want a lawyer, police officer or housing company to
arrest, evict or otherwise constrain the other party’s behavior. They have been
referred to mediation as a last resort, and many callers reject it on the basis that
the other party is the “kind of person who won’t mediate.” Without knowing how
to overcome that hurdle, the call is over and the client is lost. However, I found
that when mediators asked people if they would be “willing” to mediate, even
resistant callers agreed to try the service. “Willing” was significantly more
effective than other phrasing such as “might you be interested in mediation?” —
and it was the only word that achieved a total turnaround from “no” to “yes.” My
theory: it works because if the other party is the kind of person who won’t
mediate, then the caller must be the kind of person who will…!

2. How did you hear about us?

When people telephone companies to buy things — in the case of my research,
new windows and doors — the call is mostly about what the caller wants. But the
company often wants something too — to know how the caller heard about them.
After all, they’re invariably spending money on advertising, so what advertising
space is worth buying? Some salespeople ask, “how did you hear about us?” at
the start of the call. Others wait until the end of the call to ask, “just before you
go, would you mind telling me where you heard about us?” Both questions
deliver a request for information, but the first one is often followed by a long
silence, which we know indicates trouble. The second one is followed by an
immediate answer that indicates there was no trouble in asking it. Being careful
about the placement and wording of requests can have an impact on the rapport
between caller and salesperson; knowing what works can enable companies to
optimize their calls.

3. Why were you arrested?

Police officers are trained to ask a certain type of question when they talk to
arrested suspects. Training manuals recommend open-ended questions that
don’t push for any particular information: “Tell me about your day from when
you woke up this morning to the point that we met.” However, it turns out that a
more specific format is far more effective in eliciting the sorts of accounts that
police actually want from suspects. The question “can you tell me the
circumstances in which you were arrested?” had better results than the training
manual question, which could prompt people to describe what they had for
breakfast! This is because, unlike the open-ended question, it focuses the
narrative. Why is the more effective question not in the manual? Because this
guidance is based on theory, not evidence. Much communication guidance is the
same, which means people are often trained to do the wrong thing.

4. Any or some?
American conversation analysts John Heritage and Jeffrey Robinson examined
the impact when doctors changed just one word in a question: “any” to “some.”
The issue: Patients were frequently leaving appointments without voicing all of
their concerns, resulting in dissatisfaction and inefficiencies. One reason might
be that doctors’ opening questions, such as “What can I do for you today?”,
typically elicit only one concern. Recognizing this problem, medical school
training recommends that, after discussing the initial problem, doctors then ask,
“is there anything else we need to take care of today?” However, analysts have
shown that questions containing the word “any” typically receive negative
responses. In Heritage and Robinson’s experiment, one group of doctors asked
the “any” question; another used the word “some”: “Is there something else we
need to take care of today?” That small change showed a statistically significant
uplift in reported concerns. The finding tells us some other interesting things.
First, while not every “some” works, outcomes cannot simply be attributed to
style, personality or gender. Second, as with the examples above, it suggests
what language should appear in communication training.

I developed a technique called CARM (the Conversation Analytic Role-play

Method) to help people assess conversations and understand what a difference a
word can make. What I love about conversation analysis is that often insights are
just under our nose, waiting for close inspection to suggest a smarter way to
communicate. As we saw in the “willing” case, the effective practice was right
there all along.

The science of analyzing conversations, second…

Watch later Share

Watch on

Featured image courtesy iStock.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Elizabeth Stokoe is professor of social interaction at Loughborough University in the United
Kingdom. She teaches social psychology, and also runs workshops in the UK and US with
mediators, doctors, police and other professionals using her research-based communication
training method called the "Conversation Analytic Role-play Method." She has spoken at the
Royal Institution and at TEDxBermuda.

communication conversation conversation analysis Elizabeth Stokoe psychology

speaking talk TEDx TEDxBermuda wording words

WE HUMANS WE HUMANS WE HUMANS WE HUMANS

How a great conversation is like 5 simple tips to help you have a 4 steps to starting the life-and- Tough compassion -- here's
a game of catch real conversation with a teen death talk we all need to have what it is and why you need to
practice it

TED Talks Usage Policy Privacy Policy Advertising / Partnership TED.com Terms of Use Contact Jobs Press Help

© TED Conferences, LLC | Powered by WordPress VIP