Epistemic Trespassing & Disagreement

Published: 9 October 2019| Version 1 | DOI: 10.17632/2zj5t774vd.1


This dataset presents the results of four studies conduced on Amazon Mechanical Turk where participants made judgments about the social acceptability of conversational disagreement in a number of different scenarios. Disagreement was examined in a number of differed knowledge domains (which are more or less central to the speakers) and between people with different relationships and levels of expertise. In Study 1&2, participants were presented with 32 two-line conversations that encompassed ‘core’, ‘mid’ and ‘peripheral’ knowledge domains. (See the ‘text’ column of Data_Stimuli_1_2). In Study 2, participants were provided with brief backstories that contextualized these scenarios. They were either meant to elevate the knowledge of speaker A (the “Epistemic A>B Backstory” column) or of Speaker B (the “Epistemic B>A Backstory” column). Study 1A collected participants’ acceptability judgments on a 7-point scale from “very polite” (1) to “very rude” (7) for each of these 32 scenarios (see Data_1A). In Study 1B, participants were asked to invent different contexts which would change the acceptability of these conversations (making them either more rude or more polite) by typing into open text fields. They were instructed not to change the wording of the conversation and data of participants that consistently did so were removed from the data. Data_1B_PoliteRaw and Data_1B_RudeRaw show the responses entered by subjects. Data_1B_CodingScheme shows the procedure for coding these responses. Data_1B_RudeCodes and Data_1B_PoliteCodes show the codes for these responses. Note that each response has both a superordinate and subordinate code. Studies 1A & 1B were collected in two parts (see the ‘batch’ columns). In Study 2, participants were asked to judge the acceptability of the same stimuli paired with one of four backstories. Two were ‘epistemic’ (see the Data_Simuli_1_2 file for these; P.EPI refers to Epistemic A>B and R.EPI refers to Epistemic B>A) and two were ‘social’ (participants were told either that the two speakers were best friends (P.SOC) or strangers (R.SOC)). Data_2 contains participants’ judgments for these backstories on the same 1-7 scale. There were four different counterbalanced lists presented to subjects (the “vers” column refers to these) In Study 3, participants were given similar stimuli (3 conversations about art, hockey and piano) and told the relative number of years of experience the two speakers had (see Data_Stimuli_3) Each subject only judged one conversation The Data_3 file shows subjects acceptability judgments on the same 1-7 scale.



University of California San Diego


Cognitive Science, Conversation Analysis, Pragmatics