Daniël Janssen

Error correction strategies of professional speech recognition users: Three profiles

One of the challenges in writing research in general is to explain the structural variation in writing processes within and between subjects. More or less recursivity has been attributed to writing experience, proficiency, task characteristics and the writing mode or medium. This study focuses on professional writers (n=10) who use a modern writing instrument - speech recognition - as their primary tool for text production and revision. More specifically we are interested in the way this new technology affects the cognitive processes that underlie text production. In our study we have focused on error correction. We provide a description of the errors that professional speech recognition users need to deal with, how they deal with them and why they opt for various error correction strategies. Different converging research methods were used: (1) product, (2) process, and (3) protocol analysis. The results are described on two levels: the overall level and the subgroup level (three writer groups). The results show that the contrast between immediate and delayed error correction is quite decisive for the way in which writers structure their writing process. Next to this, the distinction between technical problems and revisions also plays an important role. Most writers prefer solving technical problems immediately. The same does not necessarily hold for other revisions. However, the revision behavior is not random: overall results show three distinct patterns or profiles of error correction. First, there are writers who prefer writing a first time final draft and solve technical problems immediately as well as revising the text produced so far immediately (handle profile). Second, writers who solve more than half of the deficiencies in the text produced so far immediately, but who also delay or postpone various technical problems and revisions (postpone revisions profile). Finally, writers who prefer delaying error correction and who delay technical problems to a second draft (postpone technical problems profile).

Effects of Directness in Bad-News E-Mails and Voice Mails

In this study, we explore the effects of channel choice (e-mail vs. voice mail) and message structure (direct vs. indirect) on the receiver’s perception of bad-news messages. We conducted an experiment in which bad-news e-mails and voice mails were presented to participants who evaluated their response to the messages via a questionnaire. The results indicate that e-mail is more comprehensible, while voice mail is more persuasive and effective for maintaining a personal customer relationship. Furthermore, messages with an indirect structure (explanation → bad news) are valued more highly than direct messages (bad news → explanations). We also found interaction effects of channel and structure, the most important being that the preference for the indirect structure is limited to e-mails.

Explanations First: A Case for Presenting Explanations Before the Decision in Dutch Bad-News Messages.

In argumentative texts, authors must choose between two presentation orders: providing the decision or claim first and then the explanation (direct order) or providing the explanation first and then the decision (indirect order). This study addresses which presentation order is most effective when the decision entails bad news by discussing two experiments that evaluate Dutch letters and e-mails. The first experiment evaluates denial letters from insurance companies and rejection letters to job applicants in which the presentation order is manipulated. The second experiment replicates the first, using a different medium (e-mail) and other instances of bad news. The results of both experiments indicate that readers perceive texts with the indirect order as more comprehensible and agreeable and its writer as more competent and empathic. Readers are also more inclined to comply with the decision in such texts when the explanation is presented first.

Fatale spelfouten? : Een experimenteel onderzoek naar de manier waarop spelfouten in sollicitatie- en sponsorbrieven de besluitvorming beïnvloeden

In this article we study how professionals value spelling errors in job applications and sponsor letters and how these judgements affect their decisions to hire a candidate or donate money. In a 2x2x2 experiment 398 participants read an application letter or a sponsorship request letter with or without spelling errors and evaluated several aspects of the letter, the author and the chance of a successful outcome of the procedure. When we compare the direct effects of spelling errors on several aspects of evaluation we find no important differences between the two genres in the way spelling errors affect judgements. When we analyze the relations between the evaluation aspects with the help of mediation analysis, we find that the path from spelling error to attributed success of the application is mediated by the evaluation of the writer while the attributed success of the sponsor letter is mediated by the evaluation of the text quality. The results are discussed in view of the opinion chic that spelling errors are fatal in job applications.