Writing and speaking letters and messages

Int. J. Man-Machine Studies (1982) 16, 147-171

Writing and speaking letters and messages JOttN D. GOULD

IBM Research, Box 218, Yorktown Heights, New York 10598, U.S.A. (Received 8 October 1980) Twelve participants composed written and spoken letters under various conditions. In the first five experiments they were told which letters to write and which letters to speak. In the last three experiments they could choose their method of composition. Results showed that speaking required only 35-75% of the time that writing did. Written and spoken letters were rated as about equally effective, being characterized more by their similarities than by their differences. When participants could choose a method, they did not always select the method that they said they would under those circumstances. A key theoretical result was that time spent planning was not a constant amount in both methods, but rather a constant ratio. Planning time was about two-thirds of total composition time, regardless of letter complexity.

Introduction Most of one's waking hours are spent communicating. Historically, most communication was interactive, or closed-loop, typically face-to-face through speaking and body language. Lately, the telephone has increased interactive communication by eliminating the requirement for people to get together in the same place (although they must get together at the same time). People also communicate non-interactively. Historically this became possible when people made artifacts and drew pictures and symbols; later the invention of the alphabet greatly multiplied non-interactive communication (see Olson, 1977). Now people leave messages, await their mail (at least first-class mail), read and write memos, reports, magazines and books, watch movies and television, take pictures, listen to radio, use computerized data bases. With non-interactive communication, people need not get together in the same place or at the same time. This is important due to people's increasingly hectic schedules and the brief useful lifetime of much critical information (Gould, 1978c). Technology now exists to speed up non-interactive communication to the point that it can many times be more efficient and effective than interactive communication. Although the reasons for non-interactive communication are increasing, there is little basic understanding of it. Writing is the most popular form. But other forms are also possible, including dictating, speaking, video recording. Two of these methods, writing (W) and speaking (S), were studied here. Traditionally, speaking has been used interactively and writing has been used non-interactively. Each has traditionally reflected different purposes, types of knowledge and contexts (Hirsch, 1977), desired actions, and relationships among people (see Freedle, 1977; Olson, 1977), and each often differs from the other at lexical and grammatical levels [see Blass & Siegman (1975) for references]. The present experiments build upon recent work which studied different methods of composing letters (Gould, 1978a,b; Gould & Boies, 1978a). Participants were 147 0020-7373/82/020147 + 25502.00/0

9 1982 AcademicPress Inc. (London)Limited

148

J.D. GOULD

given a description of a letter to be composed and videotaped while composing, and composition times were analyzed into Generation (actual writing, dictating, or speaking), Planning, and Review times. The population of interest in these experiments is the millions of professional white-collar office workers. Several issues were investigated. First, how do W and S compare as efficient, effective non-interactive comunication methods? Does the much practised W have fundamental behavioral advantages over S? Does the ability to speak faster than one can write lead to more efficient a n d / o r effective S letters than W letters? Second, are W and S characterized more by their differences or by their similarities? Analyses cited above of traditional differences might lead one to expect the former. Is the communicative intention or purpose of participants more powerful than modality differences? My hypothesis, based upon earlier work (Gould, 1978a,b ; Gould & Boies, 1978a), is that most principals can emulate their W letters with S letters. This emulation may occur through W and S letters having common effects upon recipients, or it may occur in a much narrower, surface-syntactic sense. (Although people do emulate their W letters with dictated letters, which are typed by a secretary and read by recipients, this does not imply that they will emulate their W letters with S letters, to which recipients listen directly.) Third, are some people better at communicating orally and some people better at communicating in writing, as is often suggested, or is there a high positive correlation between these two, as was recently reported (Gould, 1978b)? Fourth, how are the composition rates of W and S affected by letter complexity? For example, as letter complexity increases, are they both reduced by the same proportion, by the same amount, differentially, or not at all? Fifth, how is the planning process affected by W and S? Planning has already been shown to be the main process in composition (Gould, 1978b), a fact observed by Flower & Hayes (1978) also. In our experiments, planning is inferred from pause time. As Rochester, Thurston & Rupp (1977, pp. 65-66) point out: Hesitations are often taken as indicators of cognitive processing because they tend to increase with an increase in the difficulty of cognitive tasks . . . . The location of hesitations seems to reveal which production decisions are being made: within major constituents, pauses precede uncommon words and point to lexical decisionm a k i n g ; . . , between constituents, hesitations seem to reflect decisions on a larger scale, relating to the overall direction of the d i s c o u r s e . . , or to syntactic structure. But the studies summarized by Rochester et al. (1977) are not without criticism (O'Connell, 1977; Rochester, 1973; Rosenberg, 1977). Our approach of simply summing total pause time avoids difficulties of inferring the cause-effect relationships between a particular pause and a particular subsequently-generated constituent, i.e. in our approach no claim is made about exactly what is being planned during a particular hesitation. One model of planning is that it is independent of composition method (or output modality). That is, the same amount of planning time is required regardless of whether a letter is written or spoken. It is the nature of the letter to be composed, and not the method, that determines planning requirements. In this view, any differences in W and S composition times would be mainly due to differences in Generation times

WRITING AND SPEAKING LETTERS AND MESSAGES

149

(actual writing time vs actual speaking time). An alternative model assumes that planning interacts with method of composition. This interaction could have several forms. Planning could be directly proportional to Generation time, as has been suggested (Gould, 1978a, b ; Gould & Boies, 1978b). Or, planning might be inversely proportional to Generation time. That is, careful, time-consuming planning could lead to faster Generation rates and less editing, thus reducing Generation time. Or, thirdly, planning might differ by a constant amount from one m e t h o d to another. Sixth, under what conditions would people choose to use W and choose to use S? How do people's attitudes affect their actual choices? These experiments differ in five ways from the previous ones (Gould, 1978a,b; Gould & Boies, 1978a). First, several new tasks are used, including one which provides a new method of assessing communications effectiveness (Experiment 3). Second, unlike in the earlier experiments, W involves no transcription; the participant assumes that his or her actual handwriting, rather than a typed copy of it, will be directly transmitted to a recipient. In everyday life, eliminating transcription by a secretary results in cost and time savings. Electronic tablet technology to transmit actual handwriting now exists. Third, dictation was stressed in previous experiments, and S letters may have been affected by that, e.g. authors sometimes gave typing and spelling instructions in S letters. Fourth, in Experiments 6-8 participants were allowed to choose their method of composition (S or W). This relates directly to several issues about attitudes and performance. Fifth, apparatus was developed to analyze pauses to a much greater accuracy than in the earlier experiments.

General method PARTICIPANTS There were 12 paid participants, four male and eight female. T h r e e were 20-21 years old and beginning their senior year in college. Three others were 22 years old and had just graduated from college. All six were liberal arts majors with B+ to C+ grade averages. Other participants were a 23-year-old female who had completed 1 year in graduate school; a 30-year-old female college graduate now a social worker/counselor; a 65-year-old partially retired male executive; a 46-year-old female h o m e m a k e r and author with a M.A.; a 57-year-old housewife and ex-secretary with 2 years of college; and a 36-year-old male with 3 years of college and a history of employment in many different jobs. With two minor exceptions, none had ever used dictating equipment. A few had used audio tape recorders. None had ever used an advanced handwriting system. These participants served in all eight experiments. GENERAL PROCEDURE A participant was given a description of a letter to be composed. He or she started a time clock, read the description, composed the letter, and then stopped the clock. This is called Composition time. A description characterized the letter to be composed and also contained the names and addresses needed for the return address and for the inside address of the letter. Except where noted, each participant was required to compose formal letters, i.e. with return address, inside address, salutation, body, complementary closing, and signature. While composing, a participant was allowed to make written notes if he or she chose.

150

J . D . GOULD

To create S letters, participants used a subset of an experimental IBM Research digital audio communication system (an early prototype of the now commercially available IBM Audio Distribution System). Individual keys on a Bell System Touch-aMatic telephone controlled separate functions. A participant could record, review, erase partially or completely, and save his or her work. The system was voice-activated, recording only when a participant was speaking; there was no need to start or stop it. Participants spent about 20-30 min familiarizing themselves with the equipment and composing a few short messages before the experiments started. T o create W letters, participants used a pressure sensitive pen that automatically recorded when they were writing. Participants spent about 6 h in the experiments. The first five experiments were designed to assess participants' performance using each method. These experiments were conducted in the same order for all participants, i.e. the order reported in this paper. Then a questionnaire was given to each participant to assess his/her beliefs and attitudes about W and S. A one-hour lunch break usually occurred after this. The last three experiments assessed participants' actual choices of W and S under different circumstances. The order of these three experiments was systematically varied and balanced across participants. The general instructions to participants were the same in all experiments (except where noted differently in specific Methods sections). They were told that they could make unlimited changes while composing, including starting over. Once done, there would be no "proof-editing stage", so each letter was to be in final form before giving it to the experimenter. It was suggested that participants be neat and clear, and that they might want to review their letters, particularly longer ones, before giving them to the experimenter. Their performance would be evaluated on the bases of time taken to compose letters and overall quality or effectiveness of the letters, these being graded after the experiment by judges similar to themselves (see below). W letters were read and judged exactly in the script form given to the experimenter; S letters were listened to and judged exactly in the audio form given to the experimenter. APPARATUS

Each participant was videotaped while composing. It was previously suggested (Gould, 1978a) that composition involves four processes: Planning, Generating, Reviewing, and Acquiring information. Generating was measured automatically with a new instrument designed with Alfonso Quinones of IBM Research and built by him. This instrument measures generation times (and pause times) in writing or speaking to an accuracy of 30 ms (Gould & Quinones, 1978). The experimenter can set the minimum duration a "signal" must be before it is classified as signal, and, independently, the minimum duration a "pause" must be before it is classified as a pause. The algorithm minimizes switching between pauses and signals. If the participant is generating, then the machine continues to classify his or her performance as generation until a pause occurs which exceeds a minimum value. If a participant is pausing, the machine continues to classify his or her performance as pausing until a generation exceeds a minimum value. Values of 100 ms were used for both generating and pausing. Pilot experiments showed that generation rates of about 40 words/min resulted using these values. Forty words per minute is the rate at which people can copy printed material or write memorized material (Van Bruggen, 1946). The same values were used for S for comparability reasons. Reviewing was the time spent replaying S and re-reading

WRITING A N D S P E A K I N G L E T T E R S A N D M E S S A G E S

151

W. This was measured by analyzing the videotapes. Planning is the time spent pausing. It also includes in these experiments the time to read (and re-read) the brief descriptions of each letter to be composed, since it was difficult to separate actual reading f r o m pauses that occurred while the participant was looking at a description. Acquiring information is time spent searching for required information, e.g. in files, dictionaries, from people, etc. These experiments involved little of this. If a participant was reading and generating "simultaneously", e.g. writing an inside address as he was reading it in the description, this was classified as generating. JUDGING E F F E C T I V E N E S S

In several experiments the effectiveness of letters was evaluated afterwards by the experimenter and four college-student judges using a 7-point rating scale (where 1 = completely ineffective, 2 = clearly less than average effectiveness, 3 = a little less than average effectiveness, 4 = a v e r a g e effectiveness, 5 = a little above average effectiveness, 6 = clearly above average effectiveness, and 7 = outstanding effectiveness). Each judge worked independently of the other judges. Judges listened to S letters and read W letters.

Experiment 1--Composing routine letters This experiment studies the speed and quality with which routine letters are written and spoken. Earlier studies (Gould, 1978a,b) using these same letters showed that S was 7 5 - 1 0 0 % faster than W. In those studies, participants knew their handwriting would be typed by a secretary and returned to them for proof-editing. This evidence led to the prediction that similar results would be found here where participants assume their handwriting itself will be directly read by recipients. C o m p a r e d with the dictating equipment used previously (essentially, a tape-recorder with a microphone), participants here used a more powerful but m o r e complicated oral communication system. METHOD

Each participant wrote one formal letter and spoke one formal letter in response to business inquiries. Both letters were relatively simple, one requiring participants to supply model numbers, locations, and costs of some slide projectors, and the other requiring the schedules and experience of two teachers. Along with each letter of request, a participant was also supplied with the a p p r o p r i a t e file m e m o containing, among other information, the relevant information. T h e order of W and S, the order of the two letters, and the combinations of m e t h o d with letters were balanced across participants using G r e c o - L a t i n squares. RESULTS

S letters were c o m p o s e d in less time than W letters (Table 1 ; F(1, 11) = 4.77; p < 0.06) by nine of 12 participants. (All analyses of variance in these experiments are "within subject", with subjects being the random variable.) The difference (5.9 vs 4.4 min) was not as large as in the earlier studies (6.7 vs 3.6 min). As shown in Table 1, not only were Generation times less for S than for W (F(1, 1 1 ) = 14.20; p < 0 . 0 1 ) , but Planning times were also less for S than for W (F(1, 11) = 5.83; p < 0.05).

152

J.D. GOULD TABLE 1 Results on routine letters (Experiment 1)

Writing Composition time (min) Generation time (min) Review time (min) Planning time (min) Mean words/letter Composition rate (words/rain) Generation rate (words/min)

Speaking

5"9 (1"2) 2"1 (0.8) 0.1 - 3.8 (9.9)

4.4 (2.1) 1.1 (0'5)

82.3 (21.6) 14.1 (3.8) 42.5 (9-8)

95.9 (29-9) 27.4 (16-2) 97.5 (42-6)

0.6

--

2.7 (1.5)

Note. Standard deviations are given in parentheses.

Planning times in all experiments include reading times. In addition, they include, in S, small additional times for playing out audio system messages confirming participants' commands or indicating errors in using the system, and delays in system response during reviewing. Participants spent about 0.5 min reading or re-reading the letter-descriptions for required information. They spent about 0.4 min scanning the file memos for relevant information. Sometimes they "simultaneously" read and generated information from the descriptions or file memos, e.g. read aloud or copied, and this is included in Generation time. T h e last two lines of Table 1 show that Composition rate (words per letter/Composition time) was twice as fast for S as for W (F(1, 11)= 10.18; p < 0.01). Generation rate (words per letter/Generation time) was more than twice as fast for S (97.5 words/min) as for W (42.5 words/min), F(1, 11) = 26.66; p < 0.001. All letters, except one S letter, contained the correct information--which was the most appropriate measure of quality or effectiveness for these simple letters. In W, seven participants included a table that contained the relevant data. Nearly every letter contained irrelevant information not asked for. Two participants made brief notes for their S letters, and none made notes for W letters. The difference in length of S and W letters shown in Table 1 was not significant (F(1, 11); p > 0 . 1 0 ) . Several qualitative results, found in previous studies (Gould, 1978a,b, 1979), occurred in this and each succeeding experiment. They will be mentioned here, and then not mentioned under each experiment. Participants made few changes while composing. Some made none, and others made several. When they did, it was a "local" change, i.e. they changed a word or phrase just after writing or speaking it. They did little reviewing. W letters were legible and S letters were intelligible. S letters were similar to W letters, although S letters were usually longer (Table 1). Some additional qualitative differences between S and W letters are mentioned in the Discussion section.

Experiment 2nComposing more complex letters Compared with Experiment 1, this experiment studies the speed and quality of W and S on relatively complex one-page letters. Earlier studies (Gould, 1978a,b) using the same letters found about 20% speed advantage for S and some quality advantage for W. This evidence led to a similar prediction for this experiment.

WRITING AND SPEAKING LET'FERS AND MESSAGES

153

METHOD Each participant wrote one formal letter and spoke one formal letter. One letter involved describing one's daily activities. In the other, a participant, who assumed he or she was a young executive, was required to decline an invitation to be assistant chairperson of the local United Fund even though his or her manager, who will get a copy of the letter, strongly wants rising executives to participate heavily in community affairs. The order of W and S, the order of the two letters, and which one was written and which one was spoken were balanced across participants. Those who spoke a letter first in E x p e r i m e n t 1 wrote a letter first here. RESULTS Eleven of 12 participants required less time to compose S than W letters. This time difference was significant (F(1, 1 1 ) = 18.49; p < 0.01). As shown in Table 2, not only were Generation times less for S than for W (F(1, 11) = 48.24; p < 0.001), but Planning times were less for S than for W also (F(1, 1 1 ) = 11.41; p < 0 . 0 1 ) . Participants spent 0.9 rain reading or re-reading descriptions of the letters to be composed. Composition rate was again twice as fast for S as for W (F(1, 11) = 16.55; p < 0.001), and Generation rate was three times as fast for S as for W (F(1, 11) = 36.41; p < 0 . 0 0 1 ) . TABLE 2 Results on more complex letters (Experiment 2)

Composition time (min) Generation time (rain) Review time (rain) Planning time (min) Mean words/letter Composition rate (words/rain) Generation rate (words/rain)

Writing

Speaking

10.0 3.4 0.3 6.4

6.6 1.3 0.8 4"5

(2.9) (1.1) (0.3) (2.6)

134-9 (40-0) 14.1 (4-1) 42.8 (13.0)

(3.4) (0.6) (1"0) (2"9)

162.4 (59"8) 28.6 (13.6) 136"1 (59"3)

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses. The quality of W and S letters was rated about the s a m e (means of five judges, W = 4.4 and S = 4.7). Often there was low inter-rater reliability in this and subsequent experiments, in part due to the similarity of letters. S letters were not significantly longer than W letters (Table 2; p > 0.10). The prosody and intonation seemed to m a k e S letters about one's daily activities m o r e personal than W letters [see Flower (1977) for observations about intonation and clarity in written prose]. In the other letter voice intonation sometimes conveyed additional sincerity about the dilemma in which participants found themselves. Participants m a d e brief notes before composing 3 S letters and 2 W letters.

Experiment 3--Composing competitive letters In the first two experiments, participants' p e r f o r m a n c e was judged on the basis of speed and quality, but, in real life, communications are judged primarily on how well

154

J.D. GOULD

they communicate, i.e. how effective they are at modifying a recipient's knowledge, judgement, understanding, or point of view. This is the goal of communications, and, as T h o m a s (1978) points out, it is also the effect when communication actually occurs, even in very simple situations where an outsider might think that a message is merely filling in an information node in the recipient's mind. This experiment attempts to measure this type of communicative effectiveness. Participants composed letters for competitive situations. In one letter, they played the role of a representative of a p a p e r c o m p a n y trying to win a customer's bid for an order of 1000 reams of 8 8 9 white bond paper. A constraint was that all companies charge the same price for this paper. In the other letter, each participant nominated their favorite teacher for a regional teaching award. Only one teacher could win. In both cases, participants were told their p e r f o r m a n c e would be evaluated on how well their letters fared in a contest with other participants' letters. Judges, similar to participants, would compare all letters and determine who deserved the p a p e r contract and who deserved the teaching award. Each of the five judges listened to S letters and read W letters. Each selected the three best letters, and r a n k - o r d e r e d them. T h e r e was no strong basis for predicting the results, although it s e e m e d likely that the traditional familiarity with W under these circumstances might lead judges to select W letters as the best. METHOD

Participants wrote one and spoke one formal letter. The order of W and S, the order of the two letters, and which one was W and which was S were balanced across participants with Greco-Latin squares. RESULTS

T h e five judges showed great variability in selecting the best letters in both tasks. T h e y c o m m e n t e d that several letters seemed about equal in effectiveness. No sales letter or teacher recommendation letter was ranked in the top three by m o r e than three judges. To obtain composite rankings, a weight of 3 was given to a first-place vote, 2 for a second-place rank, and 1 for a third-place rank. T h e sales letter winner was a S letter. Second place was W, and third-place was S. The teacher r e c o m m e n d a t i o n letter winner was a S letter. Three letters, two W and one S, tied for second place. Of most significance, the three participants who c o m p o s e d the best sales letters were a m o n g the four winners on the teacher r e c o m m e n d a t i o n (even though they used a different method on each letter). Thus, quality of authors was m o r e powerful in determining effectiveness than was composition method. Consistent with this, two participants received no votes on either task, and three m o r e received one vote on one task only. T h e effective sales letters included claims of fine quality, easy erasability, early delivery, responsive service. The effective teacher nominations included evidence a b o u t excellence in teaching, sensitivity to students' non-scholastic needs, providing students with a feeling of individuality and worth, and long-term interest in individual students, b ,rod W letters were not significantly different in length (F(1, 11); p > 0' 10). Table 3 shows that S letters were again composed in less time than W letters, (F(1, t l ) = 3 . 7 1 ; p < 0 . 1 0 ) . Again, Generation times were less on S than on W,

WRITING AND SPEAKING LETTERS AND MESSAGES

155

TABLE 3 Results on competitive letters (Experiment 3) Writing Total time (min) Generation time (rain) Review time (rain) Planning time (rain) Mean words/letter Composition rate (words/rain) Generation rate (words/min)

Speaking

11.1 (3"5) 3"3 (3"5) 0'3 - 7.5 (3.4)

8"1 (5'3) 1"5 (0"7) 1"0 - 5'6 (4.1)

142.1 (39.4) 13.9(5.0) 48.2 (20.5)

165.9 (54"0) 25'6(12"5) 116.3 (27"7)

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses.

(F(1, 1 1 ) = 48.17; p < 0 . 0 0 1 ) . In this experiment, however, Planning times were not significantly different for W and S, (F(1, 1 1 ) = 2.43; p > 0 . 1 0 ) . Participants spent 1.2 rain reading or re-reading descriptions of the letters to be composed. Composition rate was again twice as fast for S as for W (F(1, 11) = 13.4; p < 0.001); and Generation rate was again 2 - 3 times faster for S as for W (F(1, 11) = 62-12; p < 0 . 0 0 1 ) .

Experiment 4~Composing messages In Experiments 1-3 composition rates were about 14 words/rain for W and 28 words/min for S. They were not affected by variations in complexity of the letters to be composed. This experiment compares W and S on a much simpler task. H e r e each participant wrote two simple messages and spoke two simple messages. Of particular interest was whether composition rates would be higher for these simple messages. METHOD A table of Student Information was placed in front of each participant. Each message composed was in answer to a simple inquiry about the names of a few students, e.g. those who are majoring in G e r m a n , those who are 19 or less years of age and from New York. Half the participants first wrote two messages and then spoke two messages, whereas the other half spoke their first two messages and wrote their last two messages. Combinations of messages and method were balanced a m o n g participants. RESULTS These messages were again composed at the same rates as were the letters in Experiments 1-3. As shown in Table 4, the Composition rates were S = 29.5 w o r d s / m i n and W - - 1 4 . 6 words/min. The composition rate for S was twice as fast as for W (F(1, 1 1 ) - - 3 8 . 6 6 ; p < 0 . 0 0 1 ) . S was completed in 60% of the time required for W (Table 4; F(1, 1 1 ) - - 2 0 . 2 8 ; p < 0.01). Ten of 12 participants required less time on S than W. S Generation time was less than W G e n e r a t i o n time (F(1, 1 1 ) = 3 1 . 3 6 ; p < 0.001); and S Planning time was also less than W Planning time (F(1, 11) = 9.71; p < 0.01). S Generation rate was again almost three times that of W (F(1, 11) = 37.71; p < 0 . 0 0 1 ) . Participants spent 0.1 rain reading or re-reading descriptions of the

156

J.D. GOULD TABLE 4 Results for 24 W and 24 S messages (Experiment 4) Writing Total time (min) Generation time (rain) Review time (rain) Planning time (rain) Mean words/message Composition rate (words/min) Generation rate (words/min)

2.5 0.9 0.0 1.7 36-1 (13.5) 14.6 (5.0) 47.0 (22.2)

Speaking 1.5 0.3 0.1 1.1 37.0 (17.3) 29.5 (11.6) 130.7 (62.2)

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses. messages to be composed, and 0.3 min scanning the table (when they did not overlap this with generating). Effectiveness was judged on the basis of message accuracy. Two S and two W messages contained incorrect information. Participants m a d e notes prior to composing two S messages. While this task did not involve formal letters, participants were to include the address of the recipient. They omitted this address on four W and three S messages.

Experiment 5--Adding comments to letters Frequently one makes annotations or c o m m e n t s on documents, usually written comments on printed documents. In principle, one could also m a k e spoken c o m m e n t s on printed documents (if a suitable transcription and filing/retrieval system existed). Similarly, a person could m a k e W or S c o m m e n t s on documents he or she heard. This experiment explores the relationships between two modalities of receiving d o c u m e n t s (listening, reading) and two modes of commenting on those documents (W, S). W h e r e a s the previous experiments simply c o m p a r e d W and S, this experiment studies combinations of audio and visual. Each participant assumed that he or she was an editor of a local neighborhood news service, and had to m a k e c o m m e n t s on letters to the editor. Each participant m a d e W c o m m e n t s on a printed letter, S c o m m e n t s on another printed letter, W c o m m e n t s on a letter that he or she listened to, and S c o m m e n t s on a fourth letter to which he or she had listened. T h e r e were no specific predictions, although several factors seemed relevant in thinking a b o u t likely performance times. T h e s e included (a) relative familiarity of (i) reading vs listening to documents, and (ii) making W vs S comments; (b) relative speed of (i) S vs W comments, and (ii) reading vs listening; (c) relative difficulty and slowness in reviewing (i) what one has said vs what one has written, and (ii) what one is listening to vs what one is reading; and (d) the tendency to use more words in S than in W (Gould, 1978a). METHOD Each participant went through all four conditions. Letters to be c o m m e n t e d upon were about 150-200 words long. All four letters were p r e p a r e d in both printed and

WRITING A N D S P E A K I N G L E T T E R S A N D M E S S A G E S

157

audio form. Each line of the printed letters was n u m b e r e d for easy reference when commenting. Two of them were about capital punishment and two of them were about potential government solutions to problems in big cities. Assignment of the four letters to the four conditions, and the order of the four conditions were balanced across participants. After each participant had commented on four letters, he or she was then asked to rank order his or her preference for these four conditions, and to supply any other opinion he or she might have. RESULTS

Participants' times in these four conditions were highly variable, as can be seen from the standard deviations in parentheses in Table 5. Nevertheless, nine of the 12 TABLE 5

Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) of 12 participants' times in the comment experiment (Experiment 5) Comment method Input modality

Writing

Speaking

Printed

(a) (b) (c) (d) (b/a) (d/a)

6.7 (5.5) 1.4 (1.2) 0.1 (0.3) 5.2 (4.3) 0.21 0.78

4.8 (2.4) 1.2 (1.0) 0"2 (0.4) 3.5 (1.6) 0.25 0-73

5.8 1.3 0.1 4.3

Audio

(a) (b) (c) (d) (b/a) (d/a)

8.5 (6.1) 1.6 (1.4) 0.1 (0.3) 6.7 (4.5) 0.19 0.79

6.1 (2.6) 0'8 (0.5) 0"2 (0.4) 5.1 (2.0) 0'13 0.84

7.3 1.2 0.2 5.9

(a) (b) (c) (d)

7.6 (4.3) 1.5 (1.3) 0.1 5.9 (4.4)

5.5 (4.7) 1.0 (0.8) 0.2 4.3 (2.0)

Note. (a) Composition time (rain); (b) Generation time (rain); (c) Review time (rain); (d) Pause time (rain).

participants spent less time commenting on material they read (row a, 5.8 min) than in commenting on material they listened to (7.3 rain; chi-square; p < 0.05). This time difference was significant, F(1, 11)= 8.92; p < 0.05. Although less time was spent in S comments (5.5 rain) than in W comments (7.6 min), this difference was not significant (p > 0.20). Of the four conditions, providing S comments on printed material (4.8 min) required significantly less time than providing W comments on audio material (8.5 min; Duncan range test, p < 0 . 0 5 ) . None of the other conditions differed significantly. Generation times [Table 5, row (b)] were about the same in all four conditions (p > 0-10), as were review times [which were infrequent and short; Table 5, row (c)].

158

J.D. GOUI.D

As a percentage of total time, time spent generating ranged from 13% for S comments on audio messages to 25% for S comments on printed messages. In this experiment, pause times are not mainly a measure of planning only, because they include a significant amount of reading and listening times. These times were longer when preparing W comments (5.9 min) than when preparing S comments (4.3 rain, F(1, 11)= 13.76; p < 0 . 0 1 ) . Analyses of these times in the four conditions showed that less time is required to listen to a message and plan S comments (3.5 rain) than to read a message and plan W comments (6.7 min; Duncan range test, p < 0.05). None of the other means were significantly different. Most participants had similar preferences for these four conditions. Nine of 12 preferred making W comments on printed material. Quite consistently, they next preferred making S comments on printed material, followed by making W comments on audio material, and making S comments on audio material. The results reflect, perhaps among other causes, familiarity. T h e r e were many contradictions among participants in their volunteered opinions of these four conditions. Nevertheless, the most frequent opinion was that it was easier (for a variety of reasons) to comment on printed material than on audio material. Although some participants preferred making S comments, more preferred making W comments, primarily because of difficulty in reviewing S components and in "attaching" them to appropriate places on the material being commented upon. All participants made W comments on printed letters in about the same fashion. T h e y first read (either partially or completely) the letter, wrote a comment, read some more, wrote a comment, and continued this alternation. Each made about five brief comments, although one participant made "long" comments of about 30 words each. T h e r e was little erasing of comments--in this or in the other three conditions. In making W comments on audio letters, almost as many participants listened to the whole letter before commenting on it as did those who commented along the way. B e y o n d this, participant's strategies were variable. Some stopped the playout, wrote a comment, started the playout again, etc. Others wrote comments while the audio message continued playing. Still others did both. Some participants reviewed parts of the audio message several times. One made notes. Again, they made about five comments but they were a little longer than when making W comments on printed letters. In making S comments on printed letters, several participants read the whole letter and then spoke their comments, whereas the others read part, spoke a comment, read on further, spoke another comment, etc. One participant made notes. Very few participants referred to line numbers when speaking their comments. Prior to speaking comments on audio letters, participants were told they could record their own comments only or their own comments together with (any parts of) the audio letter to which they were listening. Most chose to record their own comments only. In contrast to the other three conditions, more time seemed to be spent understanding the letter. There were frequent alternations among listening, recording and reviewing---either the audio letter or the S comments. Four participants made notes during this process. Not too much should be inferred from strategies used by participants because most of the conditions were new experiences for them. With the exception of one participant who thought this condition was the "most fun", others reported being uncomfortable with it, especially because of unfamiliarity with the

WRITING AND SPEAKING LETTERS AND MESSAGES

159

audio system they were using. Conversations with participants after the experiment suggested that lack of experience in making S comments affected their strategies.

Experiments 6-8~Choosing S or W So far, participants were told the method of composition they should use on each letter. In the real world, however, people have a choice of methods. Of interest is the conditions which affect this choice. The aim of the next three experiments was to understand which methods participants would s a y they would use under various conditions, and subsequently, to determine which method they would a c t u a l l y use under these conditions. One reason for using the same participants in the first five experiments was to have participants for these choice experiments who had at least some practice on S letters. Choice experiments are usually dangerous because one cannot be sure why a person picks a particular alternative. Three controls were used to guard against this. First, following the first five experiments participants filled out an extensive questionnaire indicating their views about W and S. Thus, their subsequent actual choices could be referenced against their views obtained before they learned that they would participate in these three choice experiments. Second, two major conditions that might influence their choices were used as independent variables: (a) difficulty of the letters to be composed, and (b) motivation, or speed vs quality emphasis. Difficulty was varied by requiring participants to compose relatively complex letters (Experiment 6), less complex letters (Experiment 7), and simple messages (Experiment 8). Motivation was manipulated through instructions. Third, just after composing a letter, a participant filled out a brief questionnaire indicating why he or she chose that method. METHOD Participants first filled out the pre-experimental questionnaire, which asked 10 questions about their attitudes toward W and S, how effective and efficient they thought they were with each, and under what conditions they would use each. Following this they actually were given descriptions of letters to be composed, as in Experiments 1-5, and instructions on how to compose these letters, choosing either W or S. In Experiment 6, each participant composed two relatively complex formal letters [taken from Experiment 4, Gould (1978a)]. One letter required a participant to apply for a new experimental education program which, if he or she were accepted, would be free of charge. In the other, participants responded to a request from the local school board for their opinion on whether Music and Art, or a Foreign Language, should be taught to the fourth- and fifth-graders. Because of insufficient funds only one alternative could be taught. Half the participants were given Speed instructions for both letters, and the other half were given Quality instructions. The order of the two letters was systematically balanced within each group of six participants. In Experiment 7 each participant composed three simpler letters. Participants assumed they were on the staff of the president of a major furniture company, and they had to compose answers to three letters he had received. These included answering a request for support from a political candidate, answering a letter of complaint about the company's products, and composing a letter of congratulations.

160

J.D. GOUI.D

Participants who received Speed instructions in Experiment 6 received Quality instructions in Experiment 7, and vice versa. Each participant in each of the two instruction groups received one of the six possible orders of three letters. In Experiment 8 participants composed four brief messages--the sort one might informally leave for another person. In one they gave their sex, age, height, weight, and year of high school graduation; in another, they gave their father's full name, their mother's full name, and where each is living (if alive); in another they stated what they had for breakfast, what time they arrived at the laboratory, and the color and make of car they came in; in the fourth one they described the weather outside and the prediction for the next few days. Participants were told their performance would be judged on the basis of how long they took and the quality of the messages. They began each message with "Dear John" and ended with "Willie". For each experiment my intuitive hypothesis, confirmed by participants' answers on the pre-experimental questionnaire, was that the participants with Speed instructions would select S, whereas those with the Quality instructions would select W. The order of Experiments 6, 7, and 8 were varied among participants using a Latin square design: four participants went through Experiment 6 first, four went through Experiment 7 first, and four went through Experiment 8 first, etc. Prior to each experiment participants were first familiarized with the general type of letter in that experiment. Then they were given the description of their first letter to compose, and told to read it before choosing W or S. In Experiment 6 they did not need to use the same method on both letters. The same was true for the three letters in Experiment 7. In Experiment 8 they had to use the same method on all four messages. After composing each letter, participants completed a brief questionnaire which asked why they chose the method they did (including whether "the experimenter wanted you to select this method"), whether the decision was easy or hard, and how much better they thought they did with that method compared with what they would have done with the one they did not choose.

RESULTS

Relatively complex letters (Experiment 6) Almost without exception all participants in the pre-experimental questionnaire indicated that they would actually prefer and actually use S when in a hurry, and W when striving for highest quality. Their behavior, on the other hand, did not reflect this. As shown in Table 6, under Quality instructions seven of 12 participants chose W for these relatively complex letters, but under Speed instructions nine of 12 chose W! Participants indicated that when they chose W, they did so mainly out of familiarity with and preference for W. Under Speed instructions, they chose W because of familiarity and comfort with W, and the expectation that "better letters" would ultimately be produced faster by W than by S. On the other hand, one participant who selected S in all three choice experiments explained that he selected S after a "hard" decision because it was less trouble, more to the point, and he was getting better at composing S letters. In choosing a method, participants almost universally referenced how they, as authors, felt about it, although one participant indicated that written letters would be more useful to recipients.

WRITING AND SPEAKING LETTERS AND MESSAGES

161

TABLE 6

Choice results--complex letters (Experiment 6) Instructions Method chosen

Speed

Quality

Writing

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

9 6.3 2.4 0.1 3.8 4.5 103

7 6.7 2.6 O.3 3.9 4.7 116

16 6.5 2.5 0.2 3.8 4.6 109

Speaking

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

3 4.3 1.5 0.9 2.8 5.3 247

5 8.7 2.3 1.2 5.2 4.9 162

8

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

12 5.8 2.2 0.1 3.5 4.8 139

12 7.5 2.4 0.6 4.4 4-8 135

7.0 2.0 0.8 4.3 5.0 193

Note. (a) Number choosing each method; (b) mean Composition time (min); (c) mean Generation time (min); (d) mean Review time (rain); (e) mean Planning time (rain); (f) mean effectiveness rating; and (g) mean number of words per letter. Individual differences affected choice of m e t h o d of composition m o r e so than did Speed or Quality instructions. Six participants wrote both letters whereas two participants spoke both letters. The other four participants wrote the teacher letter and spoke the curriculum letter. The pre-choice-experimental questionnaire was not a powerful predictor of participants' choices in any of the three choice experiments. A few of the 18 questions analyzed with multiple correlation techniques were partially successful in predicting choices in a statistical sense, but the results were not convincing for any of these choice experiments. These letters were composed rapidly [see G o u l d & Boies (1978a) for other data]. Table 6 shows the b r e a k d o w n of composition times. Although total composition times were somewhat longer under Quality instructions (Mn = 7.5 min) than under Speed instructions (Mn = 5 . 8 m i n ) , this difference was not significant (F(1, 1 0 ) = 2 . 4 8 ; p > 0 . 1 0 ) . Instructions did not affect the c o m p o n e n t times (17 > 0 . 1 0 in all cases). Participants spent 1.0 min reading and re-reading descriptions of the letters to be composed. Unlike what occurred in Experiments 1-5, Table 6 shows that about the same amount of time was spent in composing W (Mn = 6- 5 min) and S letters (Mn = 7.0 min).

162

J.D. GOULD

Analyses of the four conditions separately shows that S under Speed instructions (Mn = 4.3 rain) was about twice as fast as S under Quality instructions (Mn = 8.7 rain); the other two means lay in between. A v e r a g e effectiveness rating [row (f), Table 6] shows that S letters under Speed instructions were most effective (5.3) and W letters under Speed instructions were least effective (4.5). Overall, S letters (5.1) were somewhat m o r e effective than W letters (4.6). S letters contained almost twice as m a n y words as W letters [109 vs 193 words; Table 6, row (g)].

Relatively routine letters (Experiment 7) H e r e participants' choice of composition method showed some conformity with intuitive predictions, and they were partially in accord with participants' questionnaire answers. In the questionnaire, all participants indicated they would choose S when in a hurry and W when quality was most important. As shown in Table 7, under Speed instructions, 13 of 18 letters were S, whereas under Quality instructions 12 of 18 letters were W. After each choice, participants generally reported choosing W under Quality instructions because they believed they could produce higher quality letters,

TABLE 7

Choice results--routine letters (Experiment 7) Instructions Method chosen

Speed

Quality

Writing

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

5 4.4 1.3 0.1 3.1 4.4 74

12 6.0 1.7 0.2 4.2 4.7 74

17 5.6 1.6 0.1 3.9 4.6 74

Speaking

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

13 2.8 0.7 0.3 1.8 4.5 73

6 3.1 0.9 0.9 2.3 4.2 106

19 2.9 0.8 0.2 1.9 4.4 84

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

18 3.2 0.8 0.2 2.1 4.5 74

18 5"1 1.4 0.1 3.5 4.5 84

Note. (a) Number choosing each method; (b) Composition time (min); (c) Generation time (rain); (d) Review time (rain); (e) Planning time (rain); (f) effectiveness rating; and (g) words per letter.

WRITING AND

SPEAKING

LETTERS

AND

MESSAGES

163

and choosing S under Speed instructions because they believed they would be faster. This split might have been even larger. Three of the five W choices under Speed instructions were made by one participant who writes (composes) professionally; she chose W because she thought she produced much better letters and because they provided the recipient with an easier record to review and provided the furniture company with file copies for future reference. Of the six S letters under Quality instructions, three were chosen by one participant who, based upon his post-choice questionnaire responses, believed contrary to instructions that Speed was primary and Quality was secondary. Again individuals' choices were not always consistent with group averages. Under Speed instructions, three participants spoke all three letters, two spoke two letters, but one wrote all three letters. U n d e r Quality instructions, three participants wrote all three letters, one wrote two, but one spoke two and one spoke all three. Table 7 shows composition times under Quality instructions were significantly longer (Mn = 5 . 1 min) than under Speed instructions (Mn = 3 . 2 min; F(1, 1 0 ) = 4 . 9 6 ; p < 0.05). This was true for Generation times (F(1, 1 0 ) = 8.55; p < 0 . 0 5 ) , and also for Planning times F(1, 10) = 3-45; p < 0.10), which indicates that participants spent more time planning under Quality instructions. Composition times on W letters (Mn = 5.6 min) were significantly longer than composition times on S letters (Mn = 2-9 min; F(1, 3 4 ) = 25.45; p < 0.001). Part of this was due, naturally enough, to W Generation times (Mn--1.6min) being significantly longer than S Generation times (Mn = 0.8 min, F ( 1 , 3 4 ) = 2 5 . 4 5 ; p < 0.001). However, W Planning times (Mn = 3-8 min) were twice as long as S Planning times (Mn = 1.9; F ( 1 , 3 4 ) = 16.46; p < 0.001). Participants spent 0-8 rain reading or re-reading the descriptions of the letters to be composed. Examining these four conditions separately, W letters were composed about 30% faster under Speed instructions than under Quality instructions, whereas S letters were composed in about the same length of time under both instructions. S letters under Quality instructions contained about 35% more words than did the other three types of letters [Table 7, row (g)]. Sixteen of the 17 W and 15 of the 19 S letters were about equivalent in effectiveness [mean effectiveness ratings for all letters, Table 7, row (f), S = 4.4 and W = 4-6). However, one W and four S letters were completely unacceptable, usually because they contained the wrong name of the recipient. Judged effectiveness was the same for both Quality and Speed instructions [Table 7, row (f), 4.5]. One participant made notes prior to his two S letters. Unlike W letters where spelling is important, in S letters authors must know proper pronunciation of names to be effective, and occasionally they mispronounced a person's name.

Simple messages (Experiment 8) There was no significant difference in preference, although eight participants spoke messages and four wrote them (chi-square = 0.75 ; p > 0.10). Reasons given for choosing S were that it was quicker, more appropriate to the task, more informal, the task required short specific messages. Reasons given for choosing W were unfamiliarity with S, the ability to think more clearly with W, a preference for W, and the fact that recipients would have notes to which to refer. Eight participants thought their messages were somewhat better than they would have done with the other method.

164

J.D. GOULD TABLE 8 Choice results--simple messages (Experiment 8)

Number choosing each method Total composition time Mean Generation time (min) Mean Review time (min) Mean Planning time (min)

Writing

Speaking

4 2.0 0.8 0.02 1.2

8 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.4

As Table 8 shows, S messages took less time than W messages, F(1, 10)= 6.56; p < 0.05. Generation times were less for S messages than for W messages, F(1, 10) = 51.0; p < 0.001, and Planning times were also somewhat less for S than W, F(1, 10) = 3.94; p < 0 . 1 0 . Participants spent 0 . 4 m i n (0.3 in S and 0.6 in W) reading the descriptions of the messages to be composed. Mean number of words in each message was W = 58.9 and S = 79. One participant took 16.8 rain to compose the four messages. Eliminating him, S messages were still composed about twice as fast as W messages (S --- 0.7 min each and W = 1.3 min each).

Discussion and conclusions The results will be discussed in terms of the six issues mentioned in the Introduction. EFFICIENCY OF W AND S Participants composed S letters faster than W letters--generally in 3 5 - 7 5 % of the time required for W letters, even though S letters were at least as long. The real difference might be even larger, as participants had no previous experience composing (non-interactive) S letters. They had to use an unfamiliar audio communication system, and they had to wait for the system to respond and complete its prompts and feedback messages. T h e finding of faster S Generation times than W Generation times is not surprising. One can read aloud about five times faster than one can copy material in writing. This does not necessarily guarantee that all oral composition is faster than written composition. Previous experiments showed there is not as great a time difference between writing and dictation as there is between writing and speaking, even for highly experienced dictators (Gould, 1978b ; Gould & Boies, 1978b). Participants spent little time reviewing and editing in either W or S while composing. Although this is presumably not typical of critical letters that everyone occasionally writes (e.g. a letter of introduction) most handwritten personal letters show this same lack of changes. Scardamalia (1978) and Stallard (1974) found that h i g h s c h o o l and college students do not usually revise what they write, and, when required to, find it unpleasant and often a new experience. These results on non-interactive communication are consistent with the finding of Chapanis, Ochsman & Parrish (1972) on interactive communication which showed voice communication to be superior to handwriting in relatively simple two-person laboratory problem-solving tasks.

WRITING AND SPEAKING LETTERS AND MESSAGES

165

QUALITATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF W AND S There was not much difference in S and W letters in content or in judged effectiveness. This similarity probably arose because the style of S letters resembled the style usually associated with written letters. (Other outcomes were possible. S letters could have reflected the style usually associated with interactive oral conversation; or W letters could have reflected an oral style.) In S letters voice intonation was used to convey emphasis as well as the role of punctuation. This similarity between S and W indicates that the intention of authors can overcome what previous theorists apparently believe to be fundamental differences between spoken and written language. Occasionally, however, S letters contained features rarely found in W letters. Sometimes S letters contained the history of corrections which would have been erased in W letters, e.g. " . . . brought to my attention or did bring to my a t t e n t i o n . . . " . Sometimes S letters had poor word selection, e.g. " . . . having the desire to be a teacher I wish that I had taken teacher preparation courses so I could teach". Sometimes an utterance contained repetition or redundancy, e.g. "Perhaps when things settle down a bit and when they do I'll be glad t o . . . " . Sometimes a participant relied much more on context in S than in W letters, e.g. " D e a r John female five feet three one hundred and twenty pounds nineteen seventy two". H e r e the participant gave the values but did not specify the attributes (i.e. sex, height, weight, and graduation date) as one ordinarily would in writing, relying on context instead. These types of examples ordinarily go undetected in hearing (although they are obvious in a printed transcript of exactly what was said). Sometimes printed versions of S letters suggested that they contained poor word flow, although in listening to them one does not get this impression. As shown by the quality ratings of judges, these features of S letters do not seem to disturb the perceived flow or quality of them. One might wonder how S letters would have fared if they had been transcribed and judged as written comunication, and vice versa. The characteristics of some S letters just mentioned would have reduced their stylistic rating were they to have been typed and their printed versions evaluated. Of course, the act of typing forces the typist to apply punctuation and grammar that has unknown effects upon the original communication. On the other hand, if raters heard the final versions of W letters their evaluation would have depended upon voice intonation, timing, and other oral characteristics. The key point is that, in a stylistic sense, different standards are used in evaluating W and S letters. Yet there is a communicative m e a n i n g - - p r o b a b l y more basic than style--that both W and S letters shared in common. A n d the relation between meaning and style is not certain. Previously we reported experiments in which the gross characteristics (sentence length, overall length, general style) of written, spoken, and dictated letters were similar. T h r e e lines of evidence supported this conclusion. First, experimental ratings yielded similar results. Second, judges were only slightly better than chance in correctly classifying printed versions of dictated and written letters. Third, nevertheless considerable curiosity has arisen as to whether finer grain analyses would yield differences among letters composed with different methods. So far, no positive results have been found. In one attempt, Goldberg (1979) applied the cohesion theory analyses of Halliday & Hasan (1976) to the lexical and grammatical properties of letters from Gould (1978a). She was unable to find any reliable differences, beyond what was originally reported, among written, dictated, and the printed versions of spoken letters.

166

J.D. GOULD

On the other hand, when people do not perceive the need for spoken letters to emulate their written letters (as these participants apparently did), then it is very likely that S letters will eventually depart from the style found here. The measure of communication effectiveness used in the competitive task (Experiment 3) has the advantage, over the usual measures of judged quality, that it evaluates the real goal of the author. Another important way to evaluate quality of composition is to measure how accurately and quickly recipients can actually carry out the instructions of an author, as has already been done in another context (Gould, Lewis, & Becker, 1976). PEOPI,E DIFFERENCES vs METHOD DIFFERENCES Good authors were good authors, and poor authors were poor authors, regardless of method, a result found previously also (Gould, 1978b; Gould & Boies, 1978b). Differences among people were more powerful than differences among methods, a result also found previously. While the participant population used in these experiments was relatively homogeneous, which makes this conclusion seem more convincing, the numbers of participants used in these experiments are small for strong conclusions about individual differences. The complexity of writing tasks, as Scardamalia (1978) points out, is largely determined by the writer rather than by the particular task itself. One cannot hope to taxonomize, from a useful psychological point of view, composition tasks without considering the skill level of the author. It is sometimes suggested that students learning to write can say their compositions better than they can write them. The compositions of poor writers, including college students and beyond, often reflect oral language characteristics (Shaughnessy, 1977). The present results suggest a different view for (apparently) relatively successful adult writers. As shown, good writers were good (non-interactive) speakers and poor writers remained relatively poor (non-interactive) speakers. A related hypothesis is that children could compose better if they were unfettered by problems associated with the act of writing (e.g. character formation, spelling). To test this, both speaking and dictating would be required experimental conditions for most variables of interest. For example, both would be necessary to isolate the effect of character formation, or even the effect of rigid syntax. COMPOSITION RATES Composition rates for both W and S showed little change with the variations of letter and message complexity used here. Composition rates for W varied from 13.9 to 14.6 words/min and composition rates for S varied from 25.6 to 29.5 words/min in Experiments 1-4. Other experiments, involving a total of about 30 different lettertasks, showed composition rates of 12.1-14.5 words/min for W, 29.2-30.5 words/rain for S, 17.4-25.2 words/min for Dictating by novice and highly experienced dictators, and 12.0-16.3 words/min for "Invisible Writing" (Gould & Boies, 1978a; Gould, 1978b). Matsuhashi & Cooper (1978) found, in their one participant so far analyzed, composition rates between 11.0 and 14.9 words/rain for W. PLANNINGTIME The finding in most experiments that Planning time was shorter for S than for W would not necessarily be predicted. One might presume that the same a m o u n t of

WRITING

AND

SPEAKING

LETTERS

AND

MESSAGES

167

Planning time is required regardless of output method (assuming approximately the same number of ideas or words in each method). Any difference in composition time would result from differences in Generation time only. At first blush this seemed intuitive, and it might be correct if, for example, an author at the outset completely planned a letter and, afterwards, completely generated it. An alternative model, and one that appears to be correct, is that planning (as inferred from pauses) is a constant proportion of total composition. Planning time was about two-thirds of composition time, regardless of method. This is also true for dictation, by both novice and highly experienced dictators, and for "invisible writing" (Gould, 1978b). Analyses of Experiments 1-4 shows that, for W, planning was 66 + 2% of total composition time (64%, 64%, 68%, 68%, respectively, in the four experiments) and, for S, planning was 68 + 5% of total composition time (61%, 68%, 69%, 73%, respectively). Participants varied among themselves on this ratio (based upon the six letters that each composed in Experiments 1-3, mean = 65% ; range = 48-87% ; s.D. = 12%). The three participants who won the contest in Experiment 3 had ratios of 48%, 52%, and 68%. The three who received the fewest votes had ratios of 61%, 73%, and 87%. Matsuhashi & Cooper (1978), found pause times for the four participants they studied to be 47-70% of composition time. Goldman-Eisler (1968), as cited by Bellugi & Fischer (1972), found pause times of 40-50% of total speaking time when participants described picture stories. By eliminating reading times from our planning times (or by using less precise measurements of Generation time), planning time here is reduced to about 50% of total composition time. Evidence that planning occurred during pauses comes from facial expressions, body movements, lip movements shown in the videotapes, and from verbal reports of participants. Participants were seriously involved in their task, as judged from videotapes and the letters themselves. Why should the absolute amount of Planning time be affected by output modality? To understand this, one must realize that planning was local and highly interactive with generating. Participants alternated between brief periods of planning and brief periods of generating. The planning required for each period of generation in W was more time-consuming and more frequent than in S (Gould, 1978b). Perhaps the necessity to be concerned about spelling, format, graphic appearance, and legibility require extra time in W (just as concern about pronunciation, intonation, and message system use might require extra time in S). People may spend more time selecting appropriate words, syntax, and phraseology in W than in S. Listeners seem more tolerant of false starts and less than optimal grammar and flow than do readers--which may lead to less planning in S. Prior to actual written output, some authors may first generate in auditory form the words to be written. If this auditory form is not suitable for formal writing, as Flower (1977) has observed in many educated young adults, then time is required to translate it into an appropriate written form. At a higher level, organizing principles and strategies might sometimes be more time-consuming in W than in S. An alternative explanation is that S might have contained many pauses less than 100 ms (which our apparatus was not programmed to measure). If useful planning occurred during such short pauses, which seems doubtful, this could have had the effect of underestimating pause times in S compared with W. Generation rates for W were about 40 words/min (Tables 1-3), which is the rate our informal demonstrations indicate people can copy printed material when devoting full attention, and about the

168

J.D. GOULD

same as found experimentally by Van Bruggen (1946). Presumably, then, very little high-level planning could occur during W generation. Generation rates for S, on the other hand, were 1 0 0 - 1 2 5 w o r d s / m i n (Tables 1-3), which is less than the 175 words/rain median oral reading rate of specialists like radio announcers and readers for the blind (Foulke, 1969; Foulke & Sticht, 1969), but about equal to one unsubstantiated but sometimes cited estimate of "conversational" rates (Nichols & Stevens, 1957). However, by subtracting a fraction of S Generation time (and adding it to S Planning time) to bring S Generation rate up to 175 words/min (or even up to 200 words/min) still leaves S Planning times shorter than W Planning times. At any rate, replaying the audio recording of videotapes through our speaking analyzer with the threshold detection set at 30 ms yields about the same results as with 100 ms thresholds. (Our recording apparatus could have detected pauses shorter than 100 ms when a participant was generating, or generation periods shorter than 100 ms when a participant was pausing, but 100 ms was a reasonable value for W, and for comparability reasons it was used for S also.) A third possibility is that there was more overlap of planning and generating in S than in W. Planning is usually assumed to be hierarchical (Bruner, G o o d n o w & Austin, 1956; Newell & Simon, 1972). In composition, planning is multi-level, and perhaps heterarchical (Turvey, Shaw & Mace, 1978), and it certainly can go on in parallel with generation: but at the level of analyses conducted here, this differential effect may not have occurred. A fourth possibility is that faster output rates in S eliminate some forgetting from short-term memory, which may occur in W. A fifth possibility is that Planning time and Generation time do not drive, i.e. simply determine, total composition time. Rather total composition time reflects a general strategy based upon a variety of constraints, e.g. time pressures and expectations. Planning, generating, reviewing, and revising are adjusted to this expected total time. In our earlier studies (Gould, 1978a,b; Gould & Boies, 1978b) we did not have the device to recognize automatically pauses and generation periods. Instead, we used a much grosser measure of generation time and pause time. If a participant generated during a 6 s interval, the entire interval was called generation time. Thus, generation time was overestimated and pause time was underestimated. We subsequently corrected these numbers to yield estimates of generation time and planning time which turn out to be similar to those found here (Gould & Boies, 1978b). A methodological point is that one's (a) precision of measurement a n d / o r (b) a priori estimate of maximum writing rate or maximum speaking rate will determine results such as generation rates or planning time. Indeed, if one has conviction about maximum generation rate, then one need not even measure generation time at all, but merely estimate generation time by subtracting (words/maximum generation rate) from total composition time. Then, one can also estimate planning time by subtraction. In effect, this is what is done when one chooses the precision of analysis parameters on an automatic analyzer.

CHOICE OF S AND W S and W were not used in situations where participants said they would use them (Experiments 6-8). Some participants always selected one method, regardless of letter

WRITING AND SPEAKING LETTERS AND MESSAGES

169

complexity or speed vs quality motivation. On simpler letters, however, the majority chose S when speed was emphasized and W when quality was emphasized. In several cases their personal feelings about S and W overcame the "logic" with which they answered the pre-questionnaire. It is important to note that authors and recipients probably have somewhat different views of "communication effectiveness". Content and style are the main factors for the recipient. Voice intonation can convey sincerity and meaning for which there is no obvious analogue in writing. (Incidently, since participants were highly ego-involved in these experiments, even more of this ego-involvement was observed in the videotapes, some of which does not seem to come through in the W and S productions themselves.) For the author, besides his or her prediction about the content and style that a recipient will like best, speed of composition is certainly an additional factor. Presumably an author makes some (perhaps unconscious) cost-benefit tradeoff here. The relation between time to compose and the effect upon recipients remains to be studied.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS S letters and W letters differed in several significant ways. Overall Composition times, Generation times, and Planning times were shorter for S than for W. Intonation and prosody added to the quality of S letters. Participants' predictions of when they would use S and when they would use W were not.accurate. Judges are probably more forgiving of errors in the flow of S letters than W letters, but there were key similarities between S and W letters. Planning time was two-thirds of composition time in both S and W. G o o d authors were good authors, regardless of method. Neither W nor S composition rates were affected by letter complexity. There was not much difference in the judged quality or effectiveness of S and W letters. What can be concluded from these experiments? Even though people have little or no experience composing S letters, they can compose them easily and faster than W letters. It remains to be seen how author's opinions on S change with extensive practice. It is possible that S letters might become more preferred, or less preferred, depending upon their ease of production and their effects upon recipients. In these experiments, while S and W messages were on the same subject, their contents differed from author to author. Experiments using S and W messages with identical content are needed to assess recipients' judgements of their effectiveness and recipients' impressions of authors sending S and W messages. Ultimately this is important, since the purpose of communication is to influence the recipient, and the author's goal may be affected by the method chosen. There are hundreds-of-thousands or millions of high school graduates who have not mastered the dialect of formal written language. For them, speaking may be more effective than writing because they have at their disposal rules, especially intonations and pauses, that may be effective for speaking but are counter-productive for writing [see Shaughnessy (1977) for a discussion of causes and cures for writing of this sort]. IBM's Audio Distribution System now makes it possible to compose and send S letters. The controlled laboratory nature of these experiments probably limits the generalizability of results more than does the use of the same participants, since the results are consistent with previous experiments in laboratory settings. In everyday

170

J.D. GOULD

life the crucial letters that one occasionally composes (e.g. job application) and one's journal articles may show 10-100 times slower composition rates. I thank Stephen Boies for his usual valuable interactions, Alfonso Quinones for his creative design and implementation of the automatic handwriting and speaking analyzer, Noel Herbst for the loan of an early version of his signature verification pen, and Patricia Horton and Larry Michaelis for help in videotape analyses.

References BELLUG1, U. & FISCHER, S. (1972). A comparison of sign language and spoken language: rate and grammatical mechanisms. Cognition, 1, 173-200. BLASS, T. & SIEGMAN, A. W. (1975). A psycholinguistic comparison of speech, dictation, and writing. Language and Speech, 18(1), 20-34. BRUNER, J. S., GOODNOW, J. J. & AUSTIN, G. m. (1956). A Study of Thinking. New York: Wiley. CHAPANIS, m., OCHSMAN, R. B. & PARRISH, R. N. (1972). Studies in interactive communication: I. The effects of four communication modes on the behavior of teams during cooperative problem-solving. Human Factors, 14, 487-509. FLOWER, L. (1977). Writer-based prose: a cognitive basis for problems in writing. Unpublished manuscript, GSIA, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15203. FLOWER, L. S. dr, HAYES, J. R. (1978). The dynamics of composing: making plans and juggling constraints. In GREGG, L. 8z STEINBERG, I., Eds, Cognitive Processes in Writing, pp. 31-50. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum. FOULKE, E. (1969). The comprehension of rapid speech by the blind: Part III. Final progress report. Project No. 2430. U.S. Dept. of HEW. Published by Non-Visual Perceptual Systems Laboratory. University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40208. FOULKE, E. & STICHT, T. G. (1969). Review of research on the intelligibility of comprehension of accelerated speech. Psychological Bulletin, 72, 50-62. FREEDLE, R. O. (1977). Introduction to Volume I. In FREEDLE, R. O., Ed., Discourse Production and Comprehension, pp. xv-xix. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Corp. GOLDBERG, B. (1979). Personal communication. GOLDMAN-EISLER, F. (1968). Spontaneous Speech. London: Academic Press. GOULD, J. D. (1978a). An experimental study of writing, dictating, and speaking. In REOUIN, J., Ed., Attention and Performance VII, 299-319. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum and Assoc. GOULD, J. D. (1978b). How experts dictate. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4(4), 648-661. GOULD J. D. (1978c). Experiments on document composition. In BAISE, E. J. & MILLER, J. M., Eds, Proceedings of 22nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Soc&ty, 1-4. GOULD J. D. (1979). Psychological studies of composing letters. In GREGG, L. & STEINBERG, I., Eds, Cognitive Processes in Writing, pp. 98-107. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum. GOULD J. D. & BOIES, S. (1978a). How authors think about their writing, dictating, and speaking. Human Factors, 20, 495-505. GOULD J. D. & BOLES, S. J. (1978b). Writing, dictating, and speaking letters. Science, 201, 1145-1147. GOULD J. D. & QUINONES, A. (1978). Handwriting and speech signal analyzer. I B M Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Disclosure Number Y0878-0345. GOULD J. D., LEWIS, C. & BECKER, C. A. (1976). Writing and following procedural, descriptive, and restrictive syntax language instructions. 1BM Research Report, RC-5943. HALLIDAY, M. A. K. & HAMAN, R. (1976). Cohesion In English. London: Longman Group Ltd. HIRSCH, E. D., JR (1977). The Philosophy of Composition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. MATSUHASHI, m. & COOPER, C. (1978). A video time-monitored observational study: The transcribing behavior and composing processes of a competent high school writer. (Dept.

WRITING AND SPEAKING LE'IVI'ERS AND MESSAGES

171

of Instruction and Learning, SUNY, Buffalo.) Paper presented at the American Education Research Association 1978 Annual Meeting, Toronto. NEWELL, A. & SIMON, H. m. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. NICHOLS, R. G. & STEVENS, L. A. (1957). Are You Listening? p. 78. New York: McGraw-Hill. O'CONNELL, D. C. (1977). One of many units: The sentence. In ROSENBERG, S., Ed., Sentence Production. New York: Wiley. OLSON, D. R. (1977). From utterance to text: the bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review, 47(3), 257-281. ROCHESTER, S. R. (1973). The significance of pauses in spontaneous speech. Journal of Phycholinguistic Research, 2, 51-81. ROCHESTER, S. R., THURSTON, S. & RUPP, J. (1977). Hesitations as clues to failures in coherence: A study of the thought-disordered speaker. In ROSENBERG, S., Ed., Sentence Production. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum Assoc. ROSENBERG, S. (1977). Semantic constraints on sentence production: An experimental approach. In ROSENBERG, S., Ed., Sentence Production. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum Assoc. SCARDAMALIA, M. (1978). How children cope with the cognitive demands of writing. In FREDERICKSEN, C. n., WHITEMAN, M. F. & DOMINIC, J. F., Eds, Writing: The Nature, Development, and Teaching of Written Communication. SHAUGHNESSY, M. P. (1977). Errors and Expectations. New York: Oxford University Press. STALLARD, C. K. (1974). An analysis of the writing behavior of good student writers. Research in Teaching of English, 8, 206-218. THOMAS, J. C. (1978). A design-interpretation of natural English with applications to mancomputer interaction. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 125, 651-668. TURVEY, M. T., SHAW, R. E. & MACE, W. (1978). Issues in the theory of action: Degrees of freedom, coordinative structures, and coalitions. In REQUIN, J., Ed., Attention & Performance VII, pp. 557-595. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum. VAN BRUGGEN, J. m. (1946). Factors affecting regularity of the flow of words during written composition. Journal of Experimental Education, 15, 133-155.