Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 171–186 | Cite as

Does it hurt to say um?

  • Nicholas Christenfeld
Article

Abstract

This paper examines whether the profusion of ums that so many speakers produce is noticed, and whether these ums influence what audiences think of speakers. Even though ums do not seem to be a product of anxiety or lack of preparation, the first study, using a simple questionnaire, indicated that the average listener assumes that they are. The second study manipulated um rates by editing a tape to create a version where ums were replaced by silence or were eliminated. The original and edited versions were played to audiences who were told to focus on either the content or the style, or were not given any particular instructions. Estimates of ums showed no sensitivity whatsoever in the content focus, some sensitivity without focus instruction, and greatest sensitivity with the style focus, suggesting that ums can be, but are not always, processed automatically. On subjective ratings of the speaker, filled pauses created a better impression than silent pauses, but no pauses proved best of all. The ums had an effect even in conditions where the audience was unable to report their presence.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bates, E., Masling, M., & Kintsch, W. (1978). Recognition memory for aspects of dialogue.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 4, 187–197.Google Scholar
  2. Berger, C. R., Karol, S. H., & Jordan, J. M. (1989). When a lot of knowledge is a dangerous thing: The debilitating effects of plan complexity on verbal fluency.Human Communication Research, 16, 91–119.Google Scholar
  3. Christenfeld, N. J. S., & Franklin, J. (1992). [The effects of preparation on speech disfluencies]. Unpublished raw data.Google Scholar
  4. Christenfeld, N. J. S. (1994). Options and ums.Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 192–199.Google Scholar
  5. Deese, J. (1984).Thought into speech: The psychology of language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968).Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). The cognitive unconscious.Science, 237, 1445–1452.Google Scholar
  8. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989).Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Mahl, G. F. (1987).Explorations in nonverbal and vocal behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. McBurney, J. H., & Wrage, E. J. (1953).The art of good speech. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Miller, N., Maruyama, G., Beaber, R. J., & Valone, K. (1976). Speed of speech and persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 615–624.Google Scholar
  12. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.Google Scholar
  13. Reynolds, A., & Paivio, A. (1968). Cognitive and emotional determinants of speech.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 22, 164–175.Google Scholar
  14. Samovar, L. A., & Mills, J. (1983).Oral communication: Message and response, 5th ed. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.Google Scholar
  15. Schachter, S., Christenfeld, N. J. S., Ravina, B., & Bilous, F. (1991). Speech disfluency and the structure of knowledge.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 362–367.Google Scholar
  16. Siegman, A. W., & Pope, B. (1966). Ambiguity and verbal fluency in the TAT.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30, 239–245.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas Christenfeld
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of California-San DiegoLa Jolla

Personalised recommendations