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

Abstract

How does a person decide whether she or he is willing to communicate? Dual-process theories have been influential in the literature on the psychology of making judgments and decisions. Dual-process theories make 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 on rational and experiential processes, and differences between native to second language WTC. Data were collected from a sample of 84 students in Iran and 82 students in Canada. Both groups assessed their WTC using English as a second language in Iran and as a native language in the Canadian sample. Data analysis showed 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 second language. 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 to capitalize on rational thinking and to avoid hesitation in communication.

Keywords

• Willingness to communicate
• pyramid model
• dual process theory
• cognitive-experiential self theory (CEST)
• Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI)

Kaynakça

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
2. 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.
3. Burgoon, J. K. (1976). The unwillingness-to-communicate scale: Development and validation. Communication Monographs, 43, 60–69. doi:10.1080/03637757609375916
4. Cao, Y. (2014). A sociocognitive perspective on second language classroom willingness to communicate. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 789–814. doi:10.1002/tesq.155
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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.

9. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.49.8.709
10. 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). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
11. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 390. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390
12. 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
13. Granena, G. (2016). Cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning and information-processing styles: An individual differences study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(3), 577-600. doi:10.1017/S0142716415000120
14. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. CA: Anchor Canada.
15. Kang, S. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33, 277–292. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.10.004
16. Kaufman, S. B. (2016). An ode to Seymour Epstein, originator of modern dual-process theory (1925–2016). Retrieved from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful- minds/an-ode-to-seymour-epstein-originator-of-modern-dual-process-theory-1925-2016/
17. Khajavy, G. H., Ghonsooly, B., Hosseini Fatemi, A., & Choi, C. W. (2016). Willingness to communicate in English: A microsystem model in the Iranian EFL classroom context. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 154-180. doi:10.1002/tesq.204
18. Khajavy, G. H., MacIntyre, P. D., & Barabadi, E. (2018). Role of the emotions and classroom environment in willingness to communicate: Applying doubly latent multilevel analysis in second language acquisition research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 605-624. doi:10.1017/S0272263117000304
19. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
20. MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. Modern Language Journal, 91, 564-576. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00623.x
21. MacIntyre, P. D. (2020). Expanding the Theoretical Base for the Dynamics of Willingness to Communicate. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10, 111- 131. doi:10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.1.6
22. MacIntyre, P. D. & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3–26. doi:10.1177/0261927X960151001
23. MacIntyre, P. D. & Legatto, J. J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied Linguistics, 32, 149–171. doi:10.1093/applin/amq037
24. MacIntyre, P. D., Burns, C., & Jessome, A. (2011). Ambivalence about communicating in a second language: A qualitative study of French immersion students’ willingness to communicate. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 81–96. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01141.x
25. MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369–388. doi:10.1017/S0272263101003035
26. MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S.C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L.A. (2002). Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 52(3), 537-564. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00194
27. MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x
28. Marks, A.D.G., Hine, D.W., Blore, R.L., Phillips, W.J. (2008). Assessing individual differences in adolescents’ preference for rational and experiential cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 44 (1), 42–52. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.006.
29. McCroskey, J. C. & Baer, J. E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, CO.
30. McCroskey, J. C. & Richmond, V. P. (1991). Willingness to communicate: A cognitive view. In M. Booth-Butterfield (Ed.), Communication, cognition, and anxiety (pp. 19-37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31. Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. & Pawlak, M. (2016). Designing a tool for measuring the interrelationships between L2 WTC and confidence, beliefs, motivation, and context. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), Classroom-oriented research (pp. 19-37). Heidelberg: Springer.
32. Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. & Pawlak, M. (2017). Willingness to communicate in instructed second language acquisition: Combining a macro- and micro-perspective. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
33. Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 972–987. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.972
34. Peng, J.-E., & Woodrow, L. (2010). Willingness to communicate in English: A model in Chinese EFL classroom context. Language Learning, 60, 834–876. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00576.x
35. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
36. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied linguistics, 16(3), 371- 391. doi:10.1093/applin/16.3.371
37. Wen, W. P., & Clément, R. (2003). A Chinese conceptualization of willingness to communicate in ESL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 16, 18–38. doi:10.1080/07908310308666654
38. Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54–66. doi:10.1111/1540-4781.00136
39. Yashima, T., Zenuk‐Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning, 54, 119-152. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00250.x