Journals / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2020 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 3

Thinking fast and slow about willingness to communicate: A two-systems view

Pages
443–458
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Pedagogical implications are discussed with advice to teachers how tocapitalize on rational thinking and to avoid hesitation in communication.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:How does a person decide whether she or he is willing to communicate?
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data werecollected from a sample of 84 students in Iran and 82 students in Canada.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Pedagogical implications are discussed with advice to teachers how tocapitalize on rational thinking and to avoid hesitation in communication.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

How does a person decide whether she or he is willing to communicate? Dual-process theories have beeninfluential in the literature on the psychology of making judgments and decisions. Dual-process theoriesmake a distinction between cognitive processes that are fast, automatic, and unconscious (also called‘experiential’ thinking) and those that are slow, deliberative, and conscious (also called ‘rational’thinking). The study assesses differences in willingness to communicate (WTC) ratings made based onrational and experiential processes, and differences between native to second language WTC. Data werecollected from a sample of 84 students in Iran and 82 students in Canada. Both groups assessed their WTCusing English as a second language in Iran and as a native language in the Canadian sample. Data analysisshowed that a preference for using rational thinking, as measured by the Rational-Experiential Inventory(Pacini & Epstein, 1999), was correlated with WTC ratings made fast and slow, but only in the secondlanguage. We also found WTC ratings were significantly higher when made fast compared to slow,regardless of language group. Pedagogical implications are discussed with advice to teachers how tocapitalize on rational thinking and to avoid hesitation in communication.

🔖

Cite This Article

Khajavy, G. H., MacIntyre, P. D., Wang, L. (2022). Thinking fast and slow about willingness to communicate: A two-systems view. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 3, 443–458. https://ajindex.com/articles/506981

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Basöz, T, & Erten, I. H. (2018). Investigating tertiary level EFL learners’ willingness to communicate in English. English Language Teaching, 11(3), 78-87. doi:10.5539/elt.v11n3p78 Basöz, T, & Erten, I. H. (2019). A qualitative inquiry into the factors influencing EFL learners’ in-class Willingness to Communicate in English. Novitas-ROYAL, 13(1), 1-18.
  2. Burgoon, J. K. (1976). The unwillingness-to-communicate scale: Development and validation. Communication Monographs, 43, 60–69. doi:10.1080/03637757609375916 Cao, Y. (2014). A sociocognitive perspective on second language classroom willingness to communicate. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 789–814. doi:10.1002/tesq.155 Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34(4), 480–493. doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.05.002 Clément, R., Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2003). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The effects of context, norms, and vitality. Journal of language and social psychology, 22, 190-209. doi:10.1177/0261927X03022002003
  3. Elahi Shirvan, M., Khajavy, G. H., MacIntyre, P. D., Taherian, T. (2019). A meta-analysis of L2 willingness to communicate and its three high-evidence correlates. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48, 1241-1267. doi:10.1007/s10936-019-09656-9
  4. Epstein, S. (1991). Cognitive-experiential self-theory: An integrative theory of personality. In R. C. Curtis (Ed.), The relational self: Theoretical convergences in psychoanalysis and social psychology (pp. 111-137). New York: Guilford Press.
  5. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.49.8.709 Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality, In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Vol. 5, Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 159-184).
  6. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitiveexperiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 390. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390 Frankish, K. (2010). Dual-process and dual-system theories of reasoning. Philosophy Compass, 5, 914-926. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00330.x Granena, G. (2016). Cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning and informationprocessing styles: An individual differences study.