Difference between Standing and Seated Conversation over Meal toward Better Communication Support

  • Yasuhito Noguchi
  • Tomoo Inoue
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 460)

Abstract

It is known that conversation over a meal is better than the one without it. We often have a banquet when we socialize. We have two styles for such co-dining social activity; standing and seated. However we do not know if these styles matter for conversation. Therefore we have conducted an experimental study to investigate their differences. Findings which can be useful for designing conversation support are that the standing style 1) increases the number of utterances, nods and laughs, 2) makes a single utterance shorter, which helps crisp and vibrant conversation as a result, 3) increases turning to the speaker by the trunk, and 4) increases synchrony of eating behavior and makes eating slower.

Keywords

co-dining conversation posture standing conversation seated conversation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Toyama, N.: Acquirement of the concept of the “Dining”: Examining changes from elementary school children to college students through a questionnaire. Journal of Home Economics of Japan 41(8), 707–714 (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bull, P., Brown, R.: The role of postural change in dyadic conversation. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 16(1), 29–33 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thomas, A., Bull, P.: The role of pre-speech posture change in dyadic interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology 20(2), 105–111 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Argyle, M.: Bodily communication, 2nd edn. Methuen & Co. Ltd., London (1988)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Williams, J.: Personal space and its relation to extraversion introversion. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement 3(2), 156–160 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Furukawa, D., Inoue, T.: Showing meal in video-mediated table talk makes conversation close to face-to-face. IPSJ Journal 54(1), 266–274 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Inoue, T., Otake, M.: Effect of meal in triadic table talk: Equalization of speech and gesture between participants. The Transaction of Human Interface Society 13(3), 19–29 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mukawa, N., Tokunaga, H., Yuasa, M., Tsuda, Y., Tateyama, K., Kasamatsu, C.: Analysis on utterance behaviors embedded in eating actions: How are conversations and hand-mouth-motions controlled in three-party table talk? The Transactions of the Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers J94-A(7), 500–508 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Japan Interior Architescts/Designers’ Association. Table design. RIKUYOSHA Co., Ltd., Tokyo (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hall, E.: The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday, New York (1966)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, ELAN, The Language Archive, http://www.lat-mpi.eu/tools/elan (Refer March 28, 2014)
  12. 12.
    Maruyama, T., Takanashi, K., Uchimoto, K.: Corpus of Spontaneous Japanese. National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics, Report 124, 255–322 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Enomoto, M., Ishizaki, M., Koiso, H., Den, Y., Mizukami, E., Yano, H.: A statistical investigation of basic units for spoken interaction analysis 104(445), 45–50 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kanda, T., Kamashima, M., Imai, M., Ono, T., Sakamoto, D., Ishiguro, H., Anzai, Y.: Embodied Cooperative behavior for a Humanoid Robot that Communicates with Humans. Journal of the Robotics Society of Japan 23(7), 898–909 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yoshioka, K.: The Satisfaction in Peer Relationship in terms of Self-Acceptance and the Discrepancies between Ideal and Real Peer Relationship. The Japanese Journal of Adolescent Psychology 13, 13–30 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fujimoto, M.: COMPASS indicates participants’ communication participation styles. Japanese Journal of Social Psychology 23(3), 290–297 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matarazzo, J., Saslow, G., Wien, A., Weitman, M., Allen, B.: Interviewer head nodding and interviewee speech duration. Psychotherapy Theory Research & Practice 1(2), 54–63 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ono, T., Imai, M., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H.: Embodied Communication Emergent from Mutual Physical Expression between Humans and Robots. IPSJ Journal 42(6), 1348–1358 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Conger, J., Conger, A., Costanzo, P., Wright, K., Matter, J.: The effect of social cues on the eating behavior of obese and normal subjects. J. Pers. 48(2), 258–271 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shiohara, T., Inoue, T.: Influence of a co-dining agent on a user’s dining. IPSJ SIG Technical Report, 2013-DCC-4(12), 1–8 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kubota, O., et al.: Relationship between Lifestyle and Body Mass Index: Analyses of 6,826 Adults who Underwent Health Check-ups. Official Journal of Japan Society of Ningen Dock 25(4), 626–632 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yasuhito Noguchi
    • 1
  • Tomoo Inoue
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate School of Library, Information and Media StudiesUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of Library, Information and Media ScienceUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations