↓ Skip to main content

Using Sarcasm to Compliment: Context, Intonation, and the Perception of Statements with a Negative Literal Meaning

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 354)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Using Sarcasm to Compliment: Context, Intonation, and the Perception of Statements with a Negative Literal Meaning
Published in
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10936-015-9363-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Voyer, Janie P. Vu

Abstract

The present study extended findings of contrast effects in an auditory sarcasm perception task manipulating context and tone of voice. In contrast to previous research that had used sarcastic and sincere statements with a positive literal meaning, the present experiment examined how statements with a negative literal meaning would affect the results. Eighty-four undergraduate students completed a task in which an ambiguous, positive, or negative computer-generated context spoken in a flat emotional tone was followed by a statement with a negative literal meaning spoken in a sincere or sarcastic tone of voice. Results for both the proportion of sarcastic responses and response time showed a significant context by tone interaction, reflecting relatively fast sarcastic responses for the situation in which sarcasm would turn the statement into a compliment (positive context, sarcastic intonation) and fast sincere responses when the literal insult was emphasized (negative context, sincere intonation). However, the ambiguous context produced a pattern of results modulated by the tone of voice that was similar to that observed when the context/intonation pairing could not be interpreted as a compliment or an insult (negative context/sarcastic intonation or positive context/sincere intonation). These findings add to the body of literature suggesting that situational contrast, context, and intonation influence how sarcasm is perceived while demonstrating the importance of the literal meaning in sarcasm perception. They can be interpreted in the context of models of sarcasm comprehension that postulate two stages of processing.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 26%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 28%
Linguistics 6 12%
Computer Science 5 10%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Arts and Humanities 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 14 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 August 2015.
All research outputs
#2,941,791
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
#18
of 354 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,909
of 265,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 354 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,451 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.