1. The Use of Exaggeration in Discourse:
Cognitive and Social Facets
R. Kreuz, M. Kassler, & L. Coppernath
Chapter 5

2. PROBLEM #1:
Explain why nonliteral language is of interest to people who try to understand how language comprehension works.
(P. 91, S. Fussell & R.Kreuz (Eds.), Social and Cognitive Approaches to Interpersonal Communication)

3. RESPONSE #1:
Nonliteral language is of interest to people who try to understand how language comprehension works because nonliteral language makes it difficult to explain language comprehension simply as words pointing to the things we can observe and experience--nonliteral statements do not fit with our direct knowledge of the world.

4. PROBLEM 2:
Try to add examples to the list of nonliteral language forms shown on page 92.
Hyperbole Deliberate Exaggeration
Idiom Conventionalized
Indirect request Stated obliquely
Irony Opposite meaning intended
Metaphor Implicit comparision

5. PROBLEM 2, PART 2: Rhetorical question Assertion framed as a question
Simile Explicit comparison
Understatement Deliberate underemphasis

6. Functions of hyperbole
To make clear the speaker’s feelings or states of mind
???????Anything else?

7. #3 How does the hearer understand the hyperbole?
We know that the statement is hyperbolic because it does not meet with our understanding of how the world is--i.e., we use our WORLD KNOWLEDGE to determine figurative vs. literal meaning--right? (p. 96)
E.g., “class took a year today”or “after doing yard work, she felt stiff as a bar of steel.” We know that that is impossible--classes never last that long. And she wasn’t actually as stiff as a bar of steel..

8. HYPOTHESES: How much exaggeration helps to make the point?
I. The More the Better
II. Just Right
III. Critical Mass

9. I. The More the Better (p. 97)
high
Perceived effectiveness
high
Degree of Exaggeration

10. II. Just Right Theory high high low Perceived effectiveness
Degree of Exaggeration

11. III. Critical Mass Theory
high
Perceived effectiveness
low
high
Degree of Exaggeration

12. Are there psychological consequences for specifying varying degrees of impossible quantities? ( See 9-14, p. 96) E.g., I had to wait in line for weeks vs. for years

13. Experiment 1
Subjects (Ss) provided their completions to the scenarios.
(p. 99)

14. Experiment 2 Experiment 2 was done to validate experiment 1.
Experiment 2 used the completions from study 1 and asked: “How exaggerated was the final statement, the completion supplied by a S in experiment 1?”
Each S in study 2 received just one of the completions
from study 1.

15. Results of Experiment 2 Experiment 2 confirmed that study 1 produced
psychologically distinct values for the
exaggeration levels.

16. Experiment 3
Procedure: Ss read the scenarios and made judgments on how much sense the final comment in each story made.
Results: The high levels of exaggeration were rated as making less sense than the level with no hyperbole or the first level with slight hyperbole.
These results did not support any of the 3 hypotheses.

17. Experiment 4
This is a replication of experiment 3, except the scenarios were interspersed with 10 filler scenarios.
The filler scenarios ended with nonexaggerated statements. Ss provided sense ratings (how much sense the comment made).
Ss were asked to guess the purpose of the experiment.
Results: Similar to experiment 3, high levels of exaggeration were rated as making less sense than statements with no hyperbole. The majority of Ss were not aware of the hyperbole manipulation.

18. Experiment 5
Ss were asked to rate how appropriate the final comment was.
Also, they were asked to guess at the purpose of the study.
Results: Ss rated the most exaggerated statements as being less appropriate than were the slightly exaggerated statements.
As in expt 4, 27% of the Ss guessed that exaggeration was part of the study.

19. Experiment 6
The Ss read the scenarios and rated how likely it was that the character would have uttered the final comment.
Results: The highly exaggerated statements were less likely to be used than were statements with less or no exaggeration.
20% of the Ss reported some awareness of the exaggeration manipulation.

20. Experiment 7
Ss were asked to interpret the exaggerated sentences.
Responses were coded as to whether or not Ss mentioned exaggeration. Next, Ss gave confidence ratings for their interpretations.
Results: There were no significant differences between the groups. Interpretations of exaggerated statements seem to be neither easier nor harder to make than those for nonexaggerated statements.

21. Experiment 8: The Mnemonic Consequences of Using Hyperbole
Ss read the scenarios and rated how much they liked one of the characters in each story. 90 minutes after the putative end of the study, Ss received a surprise cued-recall task. They had to supply the missing words used for the exaggeration.
Results: The only significant difference was that statements with slight exaggeration were remembered better than highly exaggerated statements.

22. SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
These experiments provide little or no support for the 3 hypotheses. Hyperbolic statements were perceived as making less sense, as being less likely to be used, and as less appropriate than nonexaggerated statements.
The hyperbolic statements did not produce any mnemonic advantage.