Which criteria do naïve people use for identifying and evaluating different kinds of interruptions?

In two experiments, we played an audio recording of a conversational exchange for N = 224 and N = 144 participants, manipulating the point of interruption (early, late or no interruption = control) and types of interruption (change of subject, disagreement, clarification and agreement) in order to understand their effects on naïve observers' perception (Study 1) and evaluation of interruptions (Study 2). Results show that: early rather than late interruptions, changing the subject rather than disagreement, disagreement rather than clarification, and clarification rather than agreement were regarded more as interruptions and were evaluated more negatively; although both criteria—type and point of interruption—showed significant effects, naïve observers used the point of interruption more than the type of interruption for identifying and evaluating the interruptions. Valence and perception of a conversational transition were correlated: in the interruption condition and even in non-interruption conditions, the more a turn taking was evaluated as negative, the more it was perceived to be an interruption. Finally, the results did not support the gender hypothesis. Results were interpreted in terms of politeness theory and considering cultural and contextual factors.