1. Speakers‘ overestimation of their effectiveness The study of Keysar & Henly (2002):Keysar & Henly (2002): It has been shown that people who tap a popular melody with their fingers overestimate the probability with which the audience can identify it (Griffin & Ross, 1991). Such a lack in taking the perspective of others is common and includes overestimation of one’s effectiveness as a speaker.taking the perspective © POSbase 2004Contributor

2. Speakers‘ overestimation of their effectiveness © POSbase 2004 An anecdote might illustrate this: An American linguist went to a dinner and wanted to order the right wine to the entree. She approached the waiter and asked: “What is the entree?” The waiter looked somewhat baffled and answered: ”Well, it’s the course that comes after the salad but before the dessert.” Apparently, the linguist thought that her utterance is clear, but the did not understand what she meant.

3. Speakers‘ overestimation of their effectiveness Keysar and Henly had dyads of participants, one of them was the speaker, the other the listener. The speaker got a sentence, such “Angela killed the man with the gun”, and a disambiguating scenario which clarified whether Angela or the man had a gun. © POSbase 2004

4. Speakers‘ overestimation of their effectiveness © POSbase 2004 Then speakers had to utter the sentence so that it had the meaning of the disambiguating scenario, and just after that, they had to indicate which of the two meanings the listener had understood. The listener read the two possible meanings of the sentence, e.g., “The man with the gun was killed by Angela” versus “The man was killed by Angela with the gun”, but not the scenario that disambiguates the sentence. The listener had to indicate which meaning was conveyed by the speaker.

5. Speakers‘ overestimation of their effectiveness The result was clear-cut: When the addresses did not understand the intention, the speakers thought that they did in 46% of the cases. When the addresses did understand the intention, speakers thought that they did not in 12% of the cases. This means an overestimation in 46% of the utterances and an underestimation in 12% of the utterances. © POSbase 2004

6. Speakers‘ overestimation of their effectiveness The speakers’ utterances were tape-recorded and given to other students. New participants played the role of overhearers who got the same information as the speakers, including the disambiguating scenario. When they heard the statement, they had to indicate which of the possible meanings the listener has understood. © POSbase 2004

7. Speakers‘ overestimation of their effectiveness If speakers overestimate their effectiveness because they know the intended meaning of the sentence, then overhearers are predicted to show the same pattern of overestimation. Alternatively, if speakers overestimate their effectiveness because resources are bound to the process of speaking, overhearers should not show overestimation, as they do not use those resources. © POSbase 2004

8. Speakers‘ overestimation of their effectiveness When the addresses did not understand the intention, the overhearers thought that they did in 30% of the cases. When the addresses did understand the intention, the overhearers thought that they did not in 28% of the cases. This means an overestimation in 30% of the utterances and an underestimation in 28% of the utterances; this difference was not significant. © POSbase 2004

9. Speakers‘ overestimation of their effectiveness In sum, speakers overestimated their effectiveness in convey the meaning of a sentence even if they were fully aware of the ambiguity of the sentence. Such a bias may prevent speakers from communicating according to the principle of optimal design.principle of optimal design © POSbase 2004

10. Speakers‘ overestimation of their effectiveness Overhearers gave more accurate estimates of the listeners’ understanding of the intended meaning. Keysar and Henly concluded that speakers show an egocentric bias – or an illusion of transparency (Gilovich et al., 1998; Keysar, 1994, for other examples) – because they use resources during speaking. That is why overhearers, who do not have the same cognitive load, are not biased in their judgments.Gilovich et al., 1998Keysar, 1994 © POSbase 2004