Cover not available

Article published In: Coordination, Collaboration and Cooperation: Interdisciplinary perspectives
Edited by Federica Amici and Lucas M. Bietti
[Interaction Studies 16:3] 2015
► pp. 495–525

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Agreeing is not enough

The constructive role of miscommunication

 | Center for Semiotics, Department for Aesthetics and Communication, Aarhus University | The Interacting Minds Centre, Department of Culture and Society, Aarhus University, Denmark |
 | Center for Semiotics, Department for Aesthetics and Communication, Aarhus University | The Interacting Minds Centre, Department of Culture and Society, Aarhus University, Denmark |
 | Center for Semiotics, Department for Aesthetics and Communication, Aarhus University |
 | Center for Semiotics, Department for Aesthetics and Communication, Aarhus University | The Interacting Minds Centre, Department of Culture and Society, Aarhus University, Denmark |
Published online: 31 December 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.16.3.07fus
Collaborative interaction pervades many everyday practices: work meetings, innovation and product design, education and arts. Previous studies have pointed to the central role of acknowledgement and acceptance for the success of joint action, by creating affiliation and signaling understanding. We argue that various forms of explicit miscommunication are just as critical to challenge, negotiate and integrate individual contributions in collaborative creative activities. Through qualitative microanalysis of spontaneous coordination in collective creative LEGO constructions, we individuate three interactional styles: inclusive, characterized by acknowledgment and praise; instructional, characterized by self-repair; and integrative, characterized by widespread self- and other-repair. We then investigate how different interaction styles leave distinct material traces in the resulting LEGO models. The inclusive interaction style generally results in concatenations of individual contributions with little coherence and core narrative. The instructional style produces coherent, but largely individually driven models. Finally, the integrative style generates more innovative models, synthesizing individual contributions in shared narratives or schemas.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Mechanisms for coordination in collaboration
    • 2.1.Common ground, miscommunication and repair in social interactions
    • 2.2.Material traces of interaction dynamics
  • 3.Building ideas together – materials and methods
    • 3.1.The inclusive style of interaction
      • 3.1.1Acknowledgement and praise
      • 3.1.2Resistance to other-repair
      • 3.1.3Marking and maintaining multiple individual conceptual ownerships
      • 3.1.4Material traces of the inclusive interaction style
    • 3.2.The instructional style of interaction
      • 3.2.1Initiating and maintaining a joint project with elaborate self-repair
      • 3.2.2The power of gesture and resistance of other-repair
      • 3.2.3Maintaining an individual conceptual ownership of a proposal
      • 3.2.4Material traces of the instructional style
    • 3.3.The integrative style of interaction
      • 3.3.1Distributed proposals of joint projects
      • 3.3.2Distributed epistemic processes and other-repair
      • 3.3.3Constructive consequences of other-initiation and other-completion of repair
      • 3.3.4Material traces of the integrative style
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (58)
References
Alac, M., & Hutchins, E. (2004). I see what you are saying: Action as cognition in fMRI brain mapping practice. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(3-4), 3–4. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alibali, M.W., Spencer, R.C., Knox, L., & Kita, S. (2011). Spontaneous gestures influence strategy choices in problem solving. Psychological Science, 22(9), 1138–1144. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bangerter, A., & Clark, H.H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 27(2), 195–225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bjørndahl, J.S., Fusaroli, R., Østergaard, S., & Tylén, K. (2014). Thinking together with material representations: Joint epistemic actions in creative problem solving. Cognitive Semiotics, 7(1), 103–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bottger, P.C. (1984). Expertise and air time as bases of actual and perceived influence in problem-solving groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brennan, S.E. (2000). Processes that shape conversation and their implications for computational linguistics. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brennan, S.E., & Schober, M.F. (2001). How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(2), 274–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E.N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cahn, J.E., & Brennan, S.E. (1999). A psychological model of grounding and repair in dialog. Paper presented at the Proc. Fall 1999 AAAI Symposium on Psychological Models of Communication in Collaborative Systems .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H.H. (1996). Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H.H., & Brennan, S.E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, & S.D. Teasley (Ed.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H.H., & Schaefer, E.F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 131, 259–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H.H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curhan, J.R., & Pentland, A. (2007). Thin slices of negotiation: predicting outcomes from conversational dynamics within the first 5 minutes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 802–811. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dale, R., Fusaroli, R., Duran, N., & Richardson, D.C. (2013). The self-organization of human interaction. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 591, 43–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fusaroli, R., Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Rees, G., Frith, C.D., Roepstorff, A., & Tylén, K. (2012). Coming to terms: An experimental quantification of the coordinative benefits of linguistic interaction. Psychological Science, 231, 931–939. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fusaroli, R., Gangopadhyay, N., & Tylén, K. (2014). The dialogically extended mind: Making a case for language as skilful intersubjective engagement. Cognitive Systems Research, 29–301, 31–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fusaroli, R., Konvalinka, I., & Wallot, S. (2014). Analyzing social interactions: Promises and challenges of cross recurrence quantification analysis. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, 1031, 137–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fusaroli, R., Raczaszek-Leonardi, J., & Tylén, K. (2014). Dialog as interpersonal synergy. New Ideas in Psychology, 321, 147–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fusaroli, R., & Tylén, K. (in press). Investigating conversational dynamics: Interactive alignment, interpersonal synergy, and collective task performance. Cognitive Science.
Galantucci, B., & Roberts, G. (2014). Do we notice when communication goes awry? An investigation of people's sensitivity to coherence in spontaneous conversation. PLoS One, 9(7), e103182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garrod, S., & Doherty, G. (1994). Conversation, co-ordination and convention: An empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions. Cognition, 53(3), 181–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M.J. (2004). Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(1), 8–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gauntlett, D. (2007). Creative explorations: New approaches to identities and audiences. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction rituals. Garden City, NY: Aldine Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hargadon, A.B., & Bechky, B.A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484–500. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995a). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1995b). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265–288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010). Cognitive ecology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 705–715. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, T., Chang, A., Holland, L., & Pentland, A. (2008). Meeting mediator: Enhancing group collaborationusing sociometric feedback. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koedinger, K.R., Alibali, M.W., & Nathan, M.J. (2008). Trade‐Offs between grounded and abstract representations: Evidence from algebra problem Solving. Cognitive Science, 32(2), 366–397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurtzberg, T.R., & Amabile, T.M. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 285–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marsh, K.L., Richardson, M.J., & Schmidt, R.C. (2009). Social connection through joint action and interpersonal coordination. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11, 320–339. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michael, J., Bogart, K., Tylén, K., Krueger, J., Bech, M., Rosendahl Østergaard, J., & Fusaroli, R. (2015). Compensatory strategies enhance rapport in interactions involving people with Möbius syndrome.
Mills, G. (2011). The emergence of procedural conventions in dialogue. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston, USA: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2014). Dialogue in joint activity: Complementarity, convergence and conventionalization. New Ideas in Psychology, 321, 158–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mills, G., & Healey, P.G.T. (2008). Semantic negotiation in dialogue: The mechanisms of alignment. Proceedings of the 9th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue. Columbus, OH: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Nijstad, B.A., & De Dreu, C.K. (2002). Creativity and group innovation. Applied Psychology, 51(3), 400–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pauhus, P.B., Dzindolet, M.T., Poletes, G., & Camacho, L.M. (1993). Perception of performance in group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(1), 78–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pickering, M.J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 271, 169–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reich, C.M., Berman, J.S., Dale, R., & Levitt, H.M. (2014). Vocal synchrony in psychotherapy. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 331, 481–494. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rietzschel, E.F., Nijstad, B.A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 244–251. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S.D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. Paper presented at the Computer supported collaborative learning. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saget, S., & Guyomard, M. (2006). Goal-oriented dialog as a collaborative subordinated activity involving collective acceptance. Brandial’06, 131.
Schegloff, E.A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 101–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwartz, D.L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321–354. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sutton, R.I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 685–718. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szary, J., & Dale, R. (2013). Dyadic cooperation enhances retrieval and recall of crossword solutions. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 3492–3497.
Themistocleous, M., McCabe, R., Rees, N., Hassan, I., Healey, P., & Priebe, S. (2009). Establishing mutual understanding in interaction: An analysis of conversational repair in psychiatric consultations. Communication & Medicine, 6(2), 165–176.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traum, D.R. (1999). Computational models of grounding in collaborative systems. Paper presented at the Psychological Models of Communication in Collaborative Systems-Papers from the AAAI Fall Symposium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tylén, K., Fusaroli, R., Bjørndahl, J.S., Rączaszek-Leonardi, J., Østergaard, S., & Stjernfelt, F. (2015). Diagrammatic reasoning: Abstraction, interaction, and insight. Pragmatics and Cognition, 22(2), 263–281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tylén, K., & McGraw, J. (2014). Materializing mind: The role of objects in cognition and culture. In M. Gallotti & J. Michael (Eds.), Perspectives on social ontology and social cognition. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (13)

Cited by 13 other publications

Elder, Chi-Hé & Luna Filipović
2025. “I never said that”. Pragmatics and Society 16:2 ► pp. 174 ff. DOI logo
Lübbert, Annika, Malte Sengelmann, Katrin Heimann, Till R. Schneider, Andreas K. Engel & Florian Göschl
2024. Predicting social experience from dyadic interaction dynamics: the BallGame, a novel paradigm to study social engagement. Scientific Reports 14:1 DOI logo
Richardson, Beth H. & Linden J. Ball
2024. Progressing the Development of a Collaborative Metareasoning Framework: Prospects and Challenges. Journal of Intelligence 12:3 ► pp. 28 ff. DOI logo
Rossi, Emilio & Alessia Brischetto
2024. Contribution of the ‘Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion’ Concept to Design Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 16:19 ► pp. 8478 ff. DOI logo
Dideriksen, Christina, Morten H. Christiansen, Mark Dingemanse, Malte Højmark‐Bertelsen, Christer Johansson, Kristian Tylén & Riccardo Fusaroli
2023. Language‐Specific Constraints on Conversation: Evidence from Danish and Norwegian. Cognitive Science 47:11 DOI logo
Mills, Gregory & Gisela Redeker
2023. Self‐Repair Increases Referential Coordination. Cognitive Science 47:8 DOI logo
Olsen, Karsten & Kristian Tylén
2023. On the social nature of abstraction: cognitive implications of interaction and diversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 378:1870 DOI logo
Tylén, Kristian, Riccardo Fusaroli, Sara Møller Østergaard, Pernille Smith & Jakob Arnoldi
2023. The Social Route to Abstraction: Interaction and Diversity Enhance Performance and Transfer in a Rule‐Based Categorization Task. Cognitive Science 47:9 DOI logo
Elder, Chi-Hé & David Beaver
2022. “We’re running out of fuel!”: When does miscommunication go unrepaired?. Intercultural Pragmatics 19:5 ► pp. 541 ff. DOI logo
Gangopadhyay, Nivedita & Alois Pichler
2021. Texts: A Case Study of Joint Action. SATS 22:2 ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo
Roche, Jennifer M., Arkady Zgonnikov & Laura M. Morett
2021. Cognitive Processing of Miscommunication in Interactive Listening: An Evaluation of Listener Indecision and Cognitive Effort. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 64:1 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
Ross, Wendy, Frédéric Vallée-Tourangeau & Vlad Glăveanu
2020. Collaboration. In Encyclopedia of Creativity, ► pp. 161 ff. DOI logo
McCabe, Rose & Patrick G. T. Healey
2018. Miscommunication in Doctor–Patient Communication. Topics in Cognitive Science 10:2 ► pp. 409 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue