Perception and interpretation of troublesome interactions: A study protocol of vignette-based experimental survey

Perception and interpretation of troublesome interactions: A study protocol of vignette-based experimental survey | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Perception and interpretation of troublesome interactions: A study protocol of vignette-based experimental survey Henri Nevalainen, Tuuli Turja, Melisa Stevanovic This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7517664/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Social interaction can involve troubles that range from subtle everyday difficulties to profoundly serious problems. Such problematic interactions may be difficult to document, and even their recognition can require subtle and highly context-sensitive readings of interaction. This article draws on experimental survey design and focuses on validating the research protocol that enables systematic investigation of how people perceive and interpret troublesome interactions in controlled and hyptohetical settings. Methods A total of 1680 working-age adults living in Finland participated in an experimental survey study, in which test subjects were shown video vignettes depicting interactional situations. The vignettes consisted of four potentially problematic interaction scenarios, and two control scenarios that portrayed similar but intuitively unproblematic interactions. To validate our study protocol, we examined whether the manipulated scenarios differed from the control scenarios in terms of participants’ assesments of (1) troublesomeness and (2) comprehensibility. Results The manipulated scenarios were perceived as significantly more problematic than the control scenarios (r =. 80). Regarding comprehensibility, the control scenarios were evaluated as significantly more comprehensible than the manipulated scenarios (r = .75). Conclusions The findings demonstrate that, within the sample, manipulated scenarios were consistently perceived as more troublesome than control scenarios. Since the manipulated scenarios were designed to depict more troublesome interactions, this supports the validity of the experimental manipulation. The substantial difference in comprehensibility highlights that the manipulated scenarios, depicting subtle and complex interactional troubles, were not equally easy for all participants to interpret. The lower comprehensibility associated with the problematic scenarios further underscores the need for a more context-sensitive examination of how troublesome interactions are perceived and interpreted. social interaction troublesome interaction experimental survey video vignettes protocol validation Figures Figure 1 Introduction Social interaction is inherently susceptible to problems and disruptions, which may occur across workplaces, educational settings, various communities, and interpersonal relationships. While the basic problems of interaction related to speaking, listening, and understanding can normally be addressed routinely during the interaction itself (e.g., Kitzinger, 2013), there are also other types of troublesome interactions, such sexual harassment and racist remarks, which can have far-reaching negative psychological consequences (e.g., Buchanan & Fitzgerald, 2008 ; Mason & Lodrick, 2013 ; Duffy, 2018) and may preoccupy the individual long after the problematic event has occurred (Cui, 2014 ). These instances of interactional trouble are underpinned by broader societal power relations and structural inequalities (e.g., Leinonen et al., 2024 ; Stevanovic et al., 2024 ), which may undermine the effectiveness of conventional means of trouble resolution or mitigation. Troublesome interactions, no matter how serious, often come about in and through seemingly mundane interactional practices. This has been shown to be the case for various practices by which a person’s status and expertise can be undermined. For example, the “competence-questioning communication” taking place through what has become known as “mansplaining” (see Briggs et al., 2023 ) can come across as quite polite and well-intended. The questioning of authority can also be realized through aspects of resistance that are embedded in apparently compliant responsive behaviors (e.g., Kent, 2012; Stevanovic & Peräkylä, 2012; Keevallik, 2017). Problems of documentation also characterize the subtle practices of social exclusion that shape some people’s everyday experiences. Workplace ostracism, which can happen through subtle acts such as failing to offer greetings to someone, excluding them from informal chats, or ignoring their contributions in meetings, affects a person’s sense of belonging and value (e.g., Kristensen & Kristensen, 2020 ; Olakivi et al., 2024 ). In addition to socially exclusionary behaviors, certain forms of social approach may also be perceived as unsettling. Indeed, even a seemingly innocuous question from a stranger—such as “Do you live here?”—can feel troubling if it resonates with broader stereotypical patterns of threat in society (see e.g., Fairchild, 2010 ). In many cases, the problematic nature of troublesome interactions is difficult to document (Acker, 2006 ; Ahmed, 2021 ). In addition to the subtlety of the concrete interactional behaviors that underlie the problematic experience, the difficulties of documentation also arise from the interpretive work that these situations call for. Identifying the problematic nature of a situation requires highly context-sensitive reading of the interaction, along with nuanced inferences about the participants’ intentions and orientations. For example, the issue in mansplaining lies not in what is said, but why it is said, which is very difficult to challenge, because it requires making claims about the speaker’s internal motives—something that is hard to prove and easy to deny. Furthermore, the practices of social exclusion often go unnoticed, as they involve omissions or absences—such as not greeting someone or not including them in conversation—which are inherently more difficult to observe and interpret than overt malevolent actions (e.g., Olakivi et al., 2024 ). Furthermore, the problematic nature of certain actions is fundamentally rooted in nothing other than who the persons are in relation to each other. This is particularly evident in phenomena such as stranger harassment (Fairchild, 2010 ), but it is also likely to shape how we distinguish legitimate authority from overstepping, and resistance from rightful discretion, for example, when assessing the feasibility of a directive (e.g., Stevanovic & Peräkylä, 2012). There are thus multiple factors that contribute to the perception and interpretation of interactional trouble, which in turn complicate its exact documentation. In this study, we draw on a vignette-based experimental survey to tease apart these factors and to unravel their precise import on the extent to which a social-interactional situation is judged as problematic. On the one hand, we consider the subtle and ambiguous nature of interactional trouble, seeking to account for how various aspects of the social context (i.e., social status, gender, age, activity setting) bear on social perception and interpretation. On the other hand, we consider the possibility that different groups of people may systematically differ in how they perceive and interpret potential interactional trouble. As prior studies imply, social perception and interpretation are shaped by social divisions, such as gender and social status (e.g., Salin, 2011 ; Salin & Hoel, 2013; Piff et al., 2018 ). We seek to specify the extent to which such patterns apply to the perception and interpretation of various types of interactional trouble. Study design Existing knowledge on troublesome interactions primarily derives from qualitative observations and self-reported survey data. In this study, we employed an experimental vignette study design as the research question concerns a sensitive topic not amenable to direct investigation in real-life settings. The vignette-based experimental survey allows us to study perceptions and interpretations of troublesome interactions in a controlled, hypothetical context. To evaluate the vignettes, we developed a novel survey instrument specifically for this study. The survey items developed for evaluating the vignettes are presented in Supplementary File 1. The added value in the experimental study design is concealing the objectives and manipulations of the study from the research subjects in order to minimize bias and demand characteristics. In this study protocol paper, we follow the guidelines of Cameli et al. ( 2018 ). In an experimental survey study design, we used vignettes of interaction to examine perception and interpretation of troublesome scenarios. The vignettes included both video material and written descriptions of the key contextual features of the interactional events. The material was in Finnish, and accordingly, the research subjects were recruited in Finland. The study design is illustrated in Fig. 1 . To examine how different types of interaction scenarios with specific contextual variables influence perceptions and interpretations of troublesomeness of the interactional events, we categorized the scenarios into problematic (based on hypotheses) and non-problematic (control scenarios) ones. Thereafter, each scenario was manipulated with reference to variables such as gender, status, and activity setting. These are field-standard independent variables in vignette designs, helping explore how such factors shape research subject responses. As the final layer in the study design, the independent variables of perceived troublesomeness were considered in relation to various respondents. The concept of troublesomeness was broken down into subdimensions (irritative, threatening, etc.), allowing for a nuanced analysis of what makes an interaction seem problematic. In addition to the dimensions of troublesomeness, the research subjects evaluated the comprehensibility of the scenarios they were asked to identify with. This information was used primarily in validating the experimental method. The research task of this study protocol article is the validation of the experimental study focusing on the perception and interpretation of troublesome interactions. We seek to answer to the following research questions: RQ1: Do the scenarios designed to depict troublesome exchanges demonstrate construct validity by being perceived as more problematic than control scenarios representing non-troublesome exchanges? RQ2: To what extent do the scenarios exhibit instrument reliability and face validity in terms of the perceived comprehensibility? After the validation, the vignette data will be used to test pre-registered hypotheses (Open Science Framework) focusing on the variation in perceived troublesomeness depending on the sociodemographic profile of the characters in the scenarios, and furthermore, in quasi experimental studies focusing on the interaction between the sociodemographic variables of the scenarios and the sociodemographic background of the research subjects. Materials and methods Research subjects and population The present study utilized a sample of 1,680 employed individuals of working age, all residing in Finland. Participants were selected based on inclusion criteria that required current employment status and residence within Finland, as well as being in working age. Individuals not meeting these criteria were not able to complete the survey, and therefore are not included in the sample. This sampling approach ensures that the study findings are representative of the working-age population in Finland. Descriptive statistics of participant characteristics are summarized in Table 1 . Table 1 Participant characteristics. Variable Frequency Percentage (%) Gender Female 877 52.2 Male 803 47.8 Age 18–34 242 14.4 35–44 283 16.8 45–54 464 27.6 55–64 621 37.0 65 + 70 4.2 Education Basic education 55 3.3 Other education 767 45.7 Academic education 837 49.8 Workplace position Supervisor 195 17.6 Employee 1385 82.4 All research subjects self-reported identifying as either female (52.2%) or male (47.8%). No responses were given for the options "Other" or "Prefer not to answer”. Research subjects were relatively highly educated: only 3.3% reported having completed only basic education, while 49.8% reported having an academic degree, and 45.7% reported other educational backgrounds, such as completion of upper secondary school or vocational training. With respect to employment status, 82.4% of the research subjects were employees, and 17.6% were supervisors. Researh subjects were drawn from a population-representative panel maintained by Verian Oy.The data were collected between November 1 and January 11, 2024. The data have been archived on a secure server at Tampere University. Vignettes To examine perception and interpretation of troublesome, each research subject was exposed to six video vignettes: four potentially troublesome or ambiguous experimental scenarios and two neutral control scenarios. For each of the four experimental scenarios, research subjects were randomly shown one version from a set of eight variations. The control scenarios were shown identically to all research subjects. Three of the experimental scenarios and one of the control scenarios were filmed from a first-person perspective, positioning the viewer as the recipient of direct interaction within the scene. One experimental scenario and one control scenario, in contrast, were filmed from a third-person perspective, with the viewer observing an interaction between two other individuals without being directly addressed. Each experimental scenario was produced in eight distinct versions. These versions varied with reference to the gender (male/female), age (young/middle-aged), and workplace status or role (peer/supervisor or blue-collar/white-collar employee) of the individuals involved, as well as with reference to the context or setting (breakroom/meeting room, indoor stairwell/outdoor underpass, office/coffee table, or office/kitchen). In Scenario 1, the viewer appears to enter a shared space—either a break room or meeting room—where two individuals (men or women, either blue-collar employees or white-collar staff) are seated at a table, engaged in either drinking coffee (break room) or reviewing documents (meeting room). The viewer greets them with a simple “hi,” but receives no verbal response—only a brief glance. The scenario aims to simulate a subtle instance of social exclusion. In the variations representing different occupational roles, the same actors were used to portray both blue-collar employees or white-collar staff, but their clothing was adjusted accordingly to reflect professional context, with high-visibility vests and work jackets used for the former and business-casual attire for the latter. Scenario 2 takes place either a pedestrian underpass or a stairwell within a building. As the viewer walks through the space, they encounter a stranger (man or woman, either young or middle-aged) who directly addresses the viewer with the question: “Where are you headed?” The variation in this scenario focuses on the demographic attributes of the stranger (gender, age), simulating experiences of unsolicited interaction in public or semi-public spaces. In Scenario 3, the viewer seems to be seated either at a coffee table or a work desk when another individual (man or woman, either young or middle-aged) offers unsolicited advice in an overly explanatory manner. At the coffee table, the speaker comments: “Did you know that if you chew that bite 15 times, it helps digestion and is much healthier?” At the work desk, the speaker remarks: “This is a height-adjustable desk—if you press here, it rises so you can work standing up, which is healthier.” Scenario 4 positions the viewer as a third-party observer to an interaction between two individuals in a shared space (office or kitchen), with no speech directed at the viewer. In the office version, a speaker (supervisor or coworker, either male or female) points to another person’s computer screen and suggests a font change: “I was thinking we could use Arial instead of Calibri,” to which the other replies, “Well, let’s see about that.” In the kitchen version, the same structure is used, with the suggestion involving seasoning a dish: “I was thinking oregano instead of basil,” followed by the same hesitant response. This vignette models subtle negotiation of power and authority between two individuals at work. Information about the workplace status or role of the first speaker was provided in written form as an introduction to the vignette, and subtle differences in their clothing were used to visually reinforce this contextual information. Two control scenarios were included and shown to all research subjects. In the first, the viewer is approached by a stranger in a hallway who asks: “Hey, do you know where the copy room is?” In the second, two individuals are seen in a meeting room, one struggling to operate a large monitor. The other notices an instruction sheet and hands it over, offering assistance. These vignettes served as baseline comparisons for research subjects’ responses to the experimental scenarios. Results Perceived troublesomeness in the scenarios First, we examined the first research question of construct validity by comparing the responses between test and control scenarios. Research subjects rated the perceived troublesomeness of the interaction presented in the scenarios on a scale from 0 to 7 using six different measures, which were: (1) unproblematic–problematic; (2) not threatening at all–threatening; (3) pleasant–annoying; (4) not serious at all–serious; (5) not amusing at all – amusing; (6) acceptable–inappropriate; and not embarrassing at all–embarrassing. In the present study, a 0–7 scale was employed to assess research subjects evaluations of the problematic nature of a subtle interactional situation. The scale design did not include a neutral midpoint, thereby requiring respondents to position their assessment toward either the problematic or the non-problematic end of the continuum. To examine whether the items measured a common underlying construct, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring with varimax rotation was conducted on the six evaluation items. The analysis revealed that the item measuring amusement did not load on the same factor as the other items (loading = .006). As a result, a five-score measuring perceived troublesomeness was created by averaging the remaining five items. The descriptives of the troublesomeness assessments of the manipulated and control scenarios are presented in Table 2 . Table 2 Descriptives of the troublesomeness assessments of the scenarios N M Std. Error Skewness Kurtosis Troublesomeness of the manipulated scenarios 1680 4.52 1.03 − .17 .01 Troublesomeness of the control scenarios. 1680 2.49 1.27 1.25 1.82 According to the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, the manipulated scenarios were rated as significantly more troublesome (M = 4.52) than the control scenarios (M = 2.49), Z = -32.853, p < .001, r = .80. This finding demonstrates that research subjects reliably distinguished between the two scenario types. Comperehensibility of the scenarios Next, the examination proceeded into the second research question of instrument reliability and face validity to ensure the internal validity of the scenarios. The research subjects evaluated how comprehensible they found the scenarios by assessing two items on a 0–7 scale: (1) the situation is recognizable – the situation feels unfamiliar; and (2) the situation is understandable – the situation does not feel understandable. The variables measuring the scenarios’ comprehensibility were found to load on the same factor, consequently, a composite score was created. The descriptives of the comprehensibility assessments of the manipulated and control scenarios are presented in Table 3 . Table 3 Descriptives of the comprehensibility assessments of the scenarios N M Std. Error Skewness Kurtosis Comprehensibility of the manipulated scenarios 1680 4.72 1.22 .04 − .06 Comprehensibility of the control scenarios 1680 6.72 1.59 -1.53 .12 While all scenarios emerged as relatively high in comprehensibility, according to the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, the control scenarios (M = 6.72) were rated as significantly more comprehensible than the manipulated scenarios (M = 4.72), Z = -30.766, p < .001, r = .75. Discussion This study evaluated the validity of an experimental study design that was built to study assessments of problematic interaction situations. This was done by investigating how research subjects rated manipulated scenarios depicting problematic interactions created for the study, compared to, intuitively unproblematic, control scenarios. Findings from our study demonstrate that, within the sample, the manipulated scenarios were perceived significantly more troublesome than the control scenarios. Since the manipulated scenarios were specifically designed to depict more problematic situations than the control scenarios, the findings support the validity of the experimental manipulation. Furthermore, as previous research has shown that identifying and perceiving interactionally subtle problematic situations can require a highly context-sensitive reading of the interaction (e.g., Olakivi et al., 2024 ), we were interested in differences in comprehensibility between the manipulated and control scenarios. The substantial difference in perceived comprehensibility suggests that the manipulated scenarios, which depict subtle and complex interactional troubles, are inherently more difficult for research subjects to interpret than the control scenarios, which represent everyday, intuitively unproblematic situations. Together, these results suggest that although the manipulated scenarios were generally perceived as more troublesome than the control scenarios, their lower comprehensibility indicates that subtle interactional problems may not be equally recognizable to all social groups. This implies that factors such as gender and social status can influence how individuals identify and interpret the degree of problematic behavior in interaction situations. Consequently, certain problematic behaviors may go unnoticed or be underestimated from the perspective of some groups, highlighting the need for a more context-sensitive approach to analyzing social interactions. Limitations The primary limitations of this study concern the generalizability of the protocol and the included scenarios. Firstly, the vignettes used in this study were researcher-created and based on prior research as well as qualitative data, primarily interviews rather than authentic recordings of interactions. As such, they might not fully capture the complexity and ambiguity of problematic interaction situations in real life. Additionally, the measures themselves may entail limitations. It is possible that the perceived problematic nature of some scenarios was tied to factors that were not directly addressed by the scales employed in the study, which could have constrained the range of participants’ responses. Secondly, the experimental design itself, including the fact that participants were aware the study focused on problematic interaction situations, may have directed their attention to problematic aspects of the scenarios in ways that differ from how people would interpret such situations in natural settings. Thirdly, the “troublesome” and “non-troublesome” scenarios were constructed to differ only in specific ways selected by the researchers. This means that the protocol does not capture the full range of possible problematic interactions, nor does it allow conclusions about how common or typical the studied scenarios are in participants’ everyday or workplace contexts. Finally, cultural specificity should be acknowledged: the study was conducted in Finland, a context characterized by relatively low power distance and egalitarian social norms (Hofstede et al., 2010 ). Future research is needed to examine how well the protocol transfers to other cultural contexts with different interactional and hierarchical conventions. Conclusions The study protocol of vignette-based experimental survey reports the successful validation of a survey measuring the perception and interpretation of problematic social interactions. The validation used a sample of Finnish individuals of working age and employed at the time of the study. The findings provide empirical support for the great potential in experimental survey designs when addressing social interaction questions that are difficult or ethically challenging to investigate using more direct study designs. The present findings demonstrate that it is possible to study subtle and nuanced problematic interaction situations — which are challenging to analyze in real-world settings — within an experimental survey design. By enabling systematic manipulation and controlled comparison, this approach provides researchers with a tool to explore the complexity of interactional trouble and its social-contextual underpinnings. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles issued by the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK), and all research subjects provided written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The research protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee for Human Sciences in the Tampere region on November 30, 2021. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare they have no competing interests. Availability of data and materials. The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Funding Research of this study was supported by the Research Council of Finland [grant no. 339263]. Author contributions All authors contributed with the study conception and design, data collection and, writing the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. H.N. conducted data analysis. T.T. provided statistical support Acknowledgements Not applicable References Acker J. Inequality regimes: gender, class, and race in organizations. Gend Soc. 2006;20:441–64. Ahmed S, Complaint!. Duke University Press; 2021. Briggs CQ, Gardner DM, Ryan AM. Competence-questioning communication and gender: exploring mansplaining, ignoring, and interruption behaviors. J Bus Psychol. 2023;38:1325–53. Buchanan NT, Fitzgerald LF. Effects of racial and sexual harassment on work and the psychological well-being of African American women. JBP. 2008;13:137–51. Cameli M, Novo G, Tusa M, Mandoli GE, Corrado G, Benedetto F, Antonini-Canterin F. Citro, R. How to write a research protocol: tips and tricks. J Cardiovasc Echogr. 2018;28:151–3. Cui X. Getting to the source: an instrument for examining the dynamics of problematic interactions. RELC. 2014;45:197–210. Fairchild K. Context effects on women’s perceptions of stranger harassment. SEX CULT. 2010;14:191–216. Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2010. Kitzinger C. Repair. In: Sidnell J, Stivers T, editors. The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. pp. 229–56. Kristensen AK, Kristensen ML. (2020). Non-greeting rituals in clinical placements. Nurse Educ. Today. 2020;94:104570. Leinonen M, Stevanovic M, Nevalainen H, Valtonen A, Weiste E. Social divisions in accounts of discrimination: experiences among performing artists. Cult. Social. 2024. 10.1177/17499755241292426 . Mason F, Lodrick Z. Psychological consequences of sexual assault. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27:27–37. Olakivi A, Stevanovic M, Nevalainen H, Henttonen P, Ravaja N. Voicing experiences of ageist nonrecognition in performance appraisal interaction: complexities in constructing stories that counteract organisational ignorance. Cult Organ. 2024:1–21. Piff PK, Kraus MW, Keltner D. Unpacking the inequality paradox: The psychological roots of inequality and social class. In: JM, Olson, editors. Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic; 2018. pp. 53–124. Salin D. (2011). The significance of gender for third parties’ perceptions of negative interpersonal behaviour: Labelling and explaining negative acts. Gend. Work. Organ. 2011;18:571–91. Salin D, Hoel H. Workplace bullying as a gendered phenomenon. J Manag Psychol. 2011;28:235–51. Stevanovic M, Olakivi A, Nevalainen H, Henttonen P, Ravaja N. Telling a supervisor about experiences of gendered dismissal: problems of documentation, tellability, and failed authority. Gend Work Organ. 2024;31:554–75. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SITEsSurveySupplementaryBMC.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers invited by journal 06 Oct, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 01 Oct, 2025 Editor invited by journal 11 Sep, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 09 Sep, 2025 First submitted to journal 09 Sep, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7517664","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":530844663,"identity":"96379308-e3b8-4b06-a126-d493024cd5f3","order_by":0,"name":"Henri Nevalainen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tampere University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Henri","middleName":"","lastName":"Nevalainen","suffix":""},{"id":530844664,"identity":"a9bc81ae-065b-4080-84f3-2eb1ac559ce6","order_by":1,"name":"Tuuli Turja","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tampere University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tuuli","middleName":"","lastName":"Turja","suffix":""},{"id":530844665,"identity":"f045be2e-27a7-430c-a7ed-979b0b8d6de2","order_by":2,"name":"Melisa Stevanovic","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tampere University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Melisa","middleName":"","lastName":"Stevanovic","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-02 12:23:27","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7517664/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7517664/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":93797797,"identity":"2b2e66e9-ba49-451f-8b31-fbe3de738636","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-17 16:04:18","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":149738,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"BMCPsychologyProtocolRevision992025TRACKCHANGES.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7517664/v1/d67cad55112c459da39fbddc.docx"},{"id":93797270,"identity":"09979ea3-cf70-4998-911d-08510857a386","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-17 15:56:18","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5634,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"c27d1bb54d7a43e3af9fab4703c3cd26.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7517664/v1/bbfbca3f4684421014049fa6.json"},{"id":93797272,"identity":"237f7eb5-b089-4718-939c-a39e26257322","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-17 15:56:18","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":35861,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SITEsSurveySupplementaryBMC.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7517664/v1/b2351b349a52beee3548a5d3.docx"},{"id":93797277,"identity":"9b608f25-9a1c-4ed7-854c-fc740e62b671","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-17 15:56:18","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":62262,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"c27d1bb54d7a43e3af9fab4703c3cd261enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7517664/v1/b78921613371d6a56d0b4e42.xml"},{"id":93797274,"identity":"3882e448-cec5-4e44-97e3-c0526d619fbd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-17 15:56:18","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":75099,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7517664/v1/18e23b77e1b6c9dda1c0cc49.png"},{"id":93797798,"identity":"c3e44920-f465-4ff0-9711-1a6c9bf9605a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-17 16:04:18","extension":"xml","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":60735,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"c27d1bb54d7a43e3af9fab4703c3cd261structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7517664/v1/be1c81f6c8e8b17219298578.xml"},{"id":93797276,"identity":"120de4ce-4289-45c5-a318-2df7afc41ecb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-17 15:56:18","extension":"html","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":66191,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7517664/v1/e2054a2a39dbc2a6c38b6443.html"},{"id":93797269,"identity":"f84d9db2-b534-4370-a559-3aae2c112f95","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-17 15:56:18","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":100065,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStudy design including the validation phase research questions (RQs)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7517664/v1/36cd8fa46f2527e97a6b52da.jpeg"},{"id":93797799,"identity":"b6e5e627-716c-4ec4-bdbc-6de6a292fc9c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-17 16:04:22","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":603672,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7517664/v1/5245cc88-2674-4f1c-981a-baa0e2d9a514.pdf"},{"id":93797796,"identity":"651cb62b-b37f-4312-a591-84f71851b797","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-17 16:04:18","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":35861,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SITEsSurveySupplementaryBMC.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7517664/v1/eb1bd37fb01ce754c1a18295.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Perception and interpretation of troublesome interactions: A study protocol of vignette-based experimental survey","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSocial interaction is inherently susceptible to problems and disruptions, which may occur across workplaces, educational settings, various communities, and interpersonal relationships. While the basic problems of interaction related to speaking, listening, and understanding can normally be addressed routinely during the interaction itself (e.g., Kitzinger, 2013), there are also other types of troublesome interactions, such sexual harassment and racist remarks, which can have far-reaching negative psychological consequences (e.g., Buchanan \u0026amp; Fitzgerald, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Mason \u0026amp; Lodrick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Duffy, 2018) and may preoccupy the individual long after the problematic event has occurred (Cui, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). These instances of interactional trouble are underpinned by broader societal power relations and structural inequalities (e.g., Leinonen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Stevanovic et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), which may undermine the effectiveness of conventional means of trouble resolution or mitigation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTroublesome interactions, no matter how serious, often come about in and through seemingly mundane interactional practices. This has been shown to be the case for various practices by which a person\u0026rsquo;s status and expertise can be undermined. For example, the \u0026ldquo;competence-questioning communication\u0026rdquo; taking place through what has become known as \u0026ldquo;mansplaining\u0026rdquo; (see Briggs et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) can come across as quite polite and well-intended. The questioning of authority can also be realized through aspects of resistance that are embedded in apparently compliant responsive behaviors (e.g., Kent, 2012; Stevanovic \u0026amp; Per\u0026auml;kyl\u0026auml;, 2012; Keevallik, 2017). Problems of documentation also characterize the subtle practices of social exclusion that shape some people\u0026rsquo;s everyday experiences. Workplace ostracism, which can happen through subtle acts such as failing to offer greetings to someone, excluding them from informal chats, or ignoring their contributions in meetings, affects a person\u0026rsquo;s sense of belonging and value (e.g., Kristensen \u0026amp; Kristensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Olakivi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In addition to socially exclusionary behaviors, certain forms of social approach may also be perceived as unsettling. Indeed, even a seemingly innocuous question from a stranger\u0026mdash;such as \u0026ldquo;Do you live here?\u0026rdquo;\u0026mdash;can feel troubling if it resonates with broader stereotypical patterns of threat in society (see e.g., Fairchild, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn many cases, the problematic nature of troublesome interactions is difficult to document (Acker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Ahmed, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In addition to the subtlety of the concrete interactional behaviors that underlie the problematic experience, the difficulties of documentation also arise from the interpretive work that these situations call for. Identifying the problematic nature of a situation requires highly context-sensitive reading of the interaction, along with nuanced inferences about the participants\u0026rsquo; intentions and orientations. For example, the issue in mansplaining lies not in \u003cem\u003ewhat\u003c/em\u003e is said, but \u003cem\u003ewhy\u003c/em\u003e it is said, which is very difficult to challenge, because it requires making claims about the speaker\u0026rsquo;s internal motives\u0026mdash;something that is hard to prove and easy to deny. Furthermore, the practices of social exclusion often go unnoticed, as they involve omissions or absences\u0026mdash;such as \u003cem\u003enot\u003c/em\u003e greeting someone or \u003cem\u003enot\u003c/em\u003e including them in conversation\u0026mdash;which are inherently more difficult to observe and interpret than overt malevolent actions (e.g., Olakivi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, the problematic nature of certain actions is fundamentally rooted in nothing other than \u003cem\u003ewho\u003c/em\u003e the persons are in relation to each other. This is particularly evident in phenomena such as stranger harassment (Fairchild, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), but it is also likely to shape how we distinguish legitimate authority from overstepping, and resistance from rightful discretion, for example, when assessing the feasibility of a directive (e.g., Stevanovic \u0026amp; Per\u0026auml;kyl\u0026auml;, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere are thus multiple factors that contribute to the perception and interpretation of interactional trouble, which in turn complicate its exact documentation. In this study, we draw on a vignette-based experimental survey to tease apart these factors and to unravel their precise import on the extent to which a social-interactional situation is judged as problematic. On the one hand, we consider the subtle and ambiguous nature of interactional trouble, seeking to account for how various aspects of the social context (i.e., social status, gender, age, activity setting) bear on social perception and interpretation. On the other hand, we consider the possibility that different groups of people may systematically differ in how they perceive and interpret potential interactional trouble. As prior studies imply, social perception and interpretation are shaped by social divisions, such as gender and social status (e.g., Salin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Salin \u0026amp; Hoel, 2013; Piff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). We seek to specify the extent to which such patterns apply to the perception and interpretation of various types of interactional trouble.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStudy design\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExisting knowledge on troublesome interactions primarily derives from qualitative observations and self-reported survey data. In this study, we employed an experimental vignette study design as the research question concerns a sensitive topic not amenable to direct investigation in real-life settings. The vignette-based experimental survey allows us to study perceptions and interpretations of troublesome interactions in a controlled, hypothetical context. To evaluate the vignettes, we developed a novel survey instrument specifically for this study. The survey items developed for evaluating the vignettes are presented in Supplementary File 1. The added value in the experimental study design is concealing the objectives and manipulations of the study from the research subjects in order to minimize bias and demand characteristics. In this study protocol paper, we follow the guidelines of Cameli et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn an experimental survey study design, we used vignettes of interaction to examine perception and interpretation of troublesome scenarios. The vignettes included both video material and written descriptions of the key contextual features of the interactional events. The material was in Finnish, and accordingly, the research subjects were recruited in Finland.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study design is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. To examine how different types of interaction scenarios with specific contextual variables influence perceptions and interpretations of troublesomeness of the interactional events, we categorized the scenarios into problematic (based on hypotheses) and non-problematic (control scenarios) ones. Thereafter, each scenario was manipulated with reference to variables such as gender, status, and activity setting. These are field-standard independent variables in vignette designs, helping explore how such factors shape research subject responses. As the final layer in the study design, the independent variables of perceived troublesomeness were considered in relation to various respondents. The concept of troublesomeness was broken down into subdimensions (irritative, threatening, etc.), allowing for a nuanced analysis of what makes an interaction seem problematic. In addition to the dimensions of troublesomeness, the research subjects evaluated the comprehensibility of the scenarios they were asked to identify with. This information was used primarily in validating the experimental method.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research task of this study protocol article is the validation of the experimental study focusing on the perception and interpretation of troublesome interactions. We seek to answer to the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRQ1: Do the scenarios designed to depict troublesome exchanges demonstrate \u003cem\u003econstruct validity\u003c/em\u003e by being perceived as more problematic than control scenarios representing non-troublesome exchanges?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRQ2: To what extent do the scenarios exhibit \u003cem\u003einstrument reliability and face validity\u003c/em\u003e in terms of the perceived comprehensibility?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter the validation, the vignette data will be used to test pre-registered hypotheses (Open Science Framework) focusing on the variation in perceived troublesomeness depending on the sociodemographic profile of the characters in the scenarios, and furthermore, in quasi experimental studies focusing on the interaction between the sociodemographic variables of the scenarios and the sociodemographic background of the research subjects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResearch subjects and population\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe present study utilized a sample of 1,680 employed individuals of working age, all residing in Finland. Participants were selected based on inclusion criteria that required current employment status and residence within Finland, as well as being in working age. Individuals not meeting these criteria were not able to complete the survey, and therefore are not included in the sample. This sampling approach ensures that the study findings are representative of the working-age population in Finland. Descriptive statistics of participant characteristics are summarized in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipant characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGender\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e877\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e52.2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e803\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e47.8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAge\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18\u0026ndash;34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e242\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35\u0026ndash;44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e283\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16.8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e45\u0026ndash;54\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e464\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27.6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e55\u0026ndash;64\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e621\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e37.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e65 +\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEducation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBasic education\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther education\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e767\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e45.7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcademic education\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e837\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e49.8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorkplace position\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSupervisor\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e195\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17.6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmployee\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1385\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e82.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll research subjects self-reported identifying as either female (52.2%) or male (47.8%). No responses were given for the options \"Other\" or \"Prefer not to answer\u0026rdquo;. Research subjects were relatively highly educated: only 3.3% reported having completed only basic education, while 49.8% reported having an academic degree, and 45.7% reported other educational backgrounds, such as completion of upper secondary school or vocational training. With respect to employment status, 82.4% of the research subjects were employees, and 17.6% were supervisors. Researh subjects were drawn from a population-representative panel maintained by Verian Oy.The data were collected between November 1 and January 11, 2024. The data have been archived on a secure server at Tampere University.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eVignettes\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo examine perception and interpretation of troublesome, each research subject was exposed to six video vignettes: four potentially troublesome or ambiguous experimental scenarios and two neutral control scenarios. For each of the four experimental scenarios, research subjects were randomly shown one version from a set of eight variations. The control scenarios were shown identically to all research subjects. Three of the experimental scenarios and one of the control scenarios were filmed from a first-person perspective, positioning the viewer as the recipient of direct interaction within the scene. One experimental scenario and one control scenario, in contrast, were filmed from a third-person perspective, with the viewer observing an interaction between two other individuals without being directly addressed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEach experimental scenario was produced in eight distinct versions. These versions varied with reference to the gender (male/female), age (young/middle-aged), and workplace status or role (peer/supervisor or blue-collar/white-collar employee) of the individuals involved, as well as with reference to the context or setting (breakroom/meeting room, indoor stairwell/outdoor underpass, office/coffee table, or office/kitchen).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Scenario 1, the viewer appears to enter a shared space\u0026mdash;either a break room or meeting room\u0026mdash;where two individuals (men or women, either blue-collar employees or white-collar staff) are seated at a table, engaged in either drinking coffee (break room) or reviewing documents (meeting room). The viewer greets them with a simple \u0026ldquo;hi,\u0026rdquo; but receives no verbal response\u0026mdash;only a brief glance. The scenario aims to simulate a subtle instance of social exclusion. In the variations representing different occupational roles, the same actors were used to portray both blue-collar employees or white-collar staff, but their clothing was adjusted accordingly to reflect professional context, with high-visibility vests and work jackets used for the former and business-casual attire for the latter.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eScenario 2 takes place either a pedestrian underpass or a stairwell within a building. As the viewer walks through the space, they encounter a stranger (man or woman, either young or middle-aged) who directly addresses the viewer with the question: \u0026ldquo;Where are you headed?\u0026rdquo; The variation in this scenario focuses on the demographic attributes of the stranger (gender, age), simulating experiences of unsolicited interaction in public or semi-public spaces.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Scenario 3, the viewer seems to be seated either at a coffee table or a work desk when another individual (man or woman, either young or middle-aged) offers unsolicited advice in an overly explanatory manner. At the coffee table, the speaker comments: \u0026ldquo;Did you know that if you chew that bite 15 times, it helps digestion and is much healthier?\u0026rdquo; At the work desk, the speaker remarks: \u0026ldquo;This is a height-adjustable desk\u0026mdash;if you press here, it rises so you can work standing up, which is healthier.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eScenario 4 positions the viewer as a third-party observer to an interaction between two individuals in a shared space (office or kitchen), with no speech directed at the viewer. In the office version, a speaker (supervisor or coworker, either male or female) points to another person\u0026rsquo;s computer screen and suggests a font change: \u0026ldquo;I was thinking we could use Arial instead of Calibri,\u0026rdquo; to which the other replies, \u0026ldquo;Well, let\u0026rsquo;s see about that.\u0026rdquo; In the kitchen version, the same structure is used, with the suggestion involving seasoning a dish: \u0026ldquo;I was thinking oregano instead of basil,\u0026rdquo; followed by the same hesitant response. This vignette models subtle negotiation of power and authority between two individuals at work. Information about the workplace status or role of the first speaker was provided in written form as an introduction to the vignette, and subtle differences in their clothing were used to visually reinforce this contextual information.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo control scenarios were included and shown to all research subjects. In the first, the viewer is approached by a stranger in a hallway who asks: \u0026ldquo;Hey, do you know where the copy room is?\u0026rdquo; In the second, two individuals are seen in a meeting room, one struggling to operate a large monitor. The other notices an instruction sheet and hands it over, offering assistance. These vignettes served as baseline comparisons for research subjects\u0026rsquo; responses to the experimental scenarios.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePerceived troublesomeness in the scenarios\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, we examined the first research question of construct validity by comparing the responses between test and control scenarios.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch subjects rated the perceived troublesomeness of the interaction presented in the scenarios on a scale from 0 to 7 using six different measures, which were: (1) unproblematic\u0026ndash;problematic; (2) not threatening at all\u0026ndash;threatening; (3) pleasant\u0026ndash;annoying; (4) not serious at all\u0026ndash;serious; (5) not amusing at all \u0026ndash; amusing; (6) acceptable\u0026ndash;inappropriate; and not embarrassing at all\u0026ndash;embarrassing. In the present study, a 0\u0026ndash;7 scale was employed to assess research subjects evaluations of the problematic nature of a subtle interactional situation. The scale design did not include a neutral midpoint, thereby requiring respondents to position their assessment toward either the problematic or the non-problematic end of the continuum.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo examine whether the items measured a common underlying construct, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring with varimax rotation was conducted on the six evaluation items. The analysis revealed that the item measuring amusement did not load on the same factor as the other items (loading\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.006). As a result, a five-score measuring perceived troublesomeness was created by averaging the remaining five items. The descriptives of the troublesomeness assessments of the manipulated and control scenarios are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescriptives of the troublesomeness assessments of the scenarios\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStd. Error\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSkewness\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKurtosis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTroublesomeness of the manipulated scenarios\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1680\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.52\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTroublesomeness of the control scenarios.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1680\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.49\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.27\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.82\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, the manipulated scenarios were rated as significantly more troublesome (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.52) than the control scenarios (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.49), Z = -32.853, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.80. This finding demonstrates that research subjects reliably distinguished between the two scenario types.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eComperehensibility of the scenarios\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNext, the examination proceeded into the second research question of instrument reliability and face validity to ensure the internal validity of the scenarios.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research subjects evaluated how comprehensible they found the scenarios by assessing two items on a 0\u0026ndash;7 scale: (1) the situation is recognizable \u0026ndash; the situation feels unfamiliar; and (2) the situation is understandable \u0026ndash; the situation does not feel understandable. The variables measuring the scenarios\u0026rsquo; comprehensibility were found to load on the same factor, consequently, a composite score was created. The descriptives of the comprehensibility assessments of the manipulated and control scenarios are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescriptives of the comprehensibility assessments of the scenarios\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStd. Error\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSkewness\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKurtosis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComprehensibility of the manipulated scenarios\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1680\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.72\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.06\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComprehensibility of the control scenarios\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1680\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.72\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.59\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.53\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile all scenarios emerged as relatively high in comprehensibility, according to the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, the control scenarios (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.72) were rated as significantly more comprehensible than the manipulated scenarios (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.72), Z = -30.766, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.75.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study evaluated the validity of an experimental study design that was built to study assessments of problematic interaction situations. This was done by investigating how research subjects rated manipulated scenarios depicting problematic interactions created for the study, compared to, intuitively unproblematic, control scenarios. Findings from our study demonstrate that, within the sample, the manipulated scenarios were perceived significantly more troublesome than the control scenarios. Since the manipulated scenarios were specifically designed to depict more problematic situations than the control scenarios, the findings support the validity of the experimental manipulation. Furthermore, as previous research has shown that identifying and perceiving interactionally subtle problematic situations can require a highly context-sensitive reading of the interaction (e.g., Olakivi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), we were interested in differences in comprehensibility between the manipulated and control scenarios. The substantial difference in perceived comprehensibility suggests that the manipulated scenarios, which depict subtle and complex interactional troubles, are inherently more difficult for research subjects to interpret than the control scenarios, which represent everyday, intuitively unproblematic situations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTogether, these results suggest that although the manipulated scenarios were generally perceived as more troublesome than the control scenarios, their lower comprehensibility indicates that subtle interactional problems may not be equally recognizable to all social groups. This implies that factors such as gender and social status can influence how individuals identify and interpret the degree of problematic behavior in interaction situations. Consequently, certain problematic behaviors may go unnoticed or be underestimated from the perspective of some groups, highlighting the need for a more context-sensitive approach to analyzing social interactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLimitations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe primary limitations of this study concern the generalizability of the protocol and the included scenarios. Firstly, the vignettes used in this study were researcher-created and based on prior research as well as qualitative data, primarily interviews rather than authentic recordings of interactions. As such, they might not fully capture the complexity and ambiguity of problematic interaction situations in real life. Additionally, the measures themselves may entail limitations. It is possible that the perceived problematic nature of some scenarios was tied to factors that were not directly addressed by the scales employed in the study, which could have constrained the range of participants\u0026rsquo; responses. Secondly, the experimental design itself, including the fact that participants were aware the study focused on problematic interaction situations, may have directed their attention to problematic aspects of the scenarios in ways that differ from how people would interpret such situations in natural settings. Thirdly, the \u0026ldquo;troublesome\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;non-troublesome\u0026rdquo; scenarios were constructed to differ only in specific ways selected by the researchers. This means that the protocol does not capture the full range of possible problematic interactions, nor does it allow conclusions about how common or typical the studied scenarios are in participants\u0026rsquo; everyday or workplace contexts. Finally, cultural specificity should be acknowledged: the study was conducted in Finland, a context characterized by relatively low power distance and egalitarian social norms (Hofstede et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Future research is needed to examine how well the protocol transfers to other cultural contexts with different interactional and hierarchical conventions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study protocol of vignette-based experimental survey reports the successful validation of a survey measuring the perception and interpretation of problematic social interactions. The validation used a sample of Finnish individuals of working age and employed at the time of the study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings provide empirical support for the great potential in experimental survey designs when addressing social interaction questions that are difficult or ethically challenging to investigate using more direct study designs. The present findings demonstrate that it is possible to study subtle and nuanced problematic interaction situations \u0026mdash; which are challenging to analyze in real-world settings \u0026mdash; within an experimental survey design. By enabling systematic manipulation and controlled comparison, this approach provides researchers with a tool to explore the complexity of interactional trouble and its social-contextual underpinnings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles issued by the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK), and all research subjects provided written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The research protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee for Human Sciences in the Tampere region on November 30, 2021.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAvailability of data and materials.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch of this study was supported by the Research Council of Finland [grant no. 339263].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed with the study conception and design, data collection and, writing the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. H.N. conducted data analysis. T.T. provided statistical support\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAcker J. Inequality regimes: gender, class, and race in organizations. Gend Soc. 2006;20:441\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhmed S, Complaint!. Duke University Press; 2021.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBriggs CQ, Gardner DM, Ryan AM. Competence-questioning communication and gender: exploring mansplaining, ignoring, and interruption behaviors. J Bus Psychol. 2023;38:1325\u0026ndash;53.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBuchanan NT, Fitzgerald LF. Effects of racial and sexual harassment on work and the psychological well-being of African American women. JBP. 2008;13:137\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCameli M, Novo G, Tusa M, Mandoli GE, Corrado G, Benedetto F, Antonini-Canterin F. Citro, R. How to write a research protocol: tips and tricks. J Cardiovasc Echogr. 2018;28:151\u0026ndash;3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCui X. Getting to the source: an instrument for examining the dynamics of problematic interactions. RELC. 2014;45:197\u0026ndash;210.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFairchild K. Context effects on women\u0026rsquo;s perceptions of stranger harassment. SEX CULT. 2010;14:191\u0026ndash;216.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHofstede G, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2010.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKitzinger C. Repair. In: Sidnell J, Stivers T, editors. The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. pp. 229\u0026ndash;56.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKristensen AK, Kristensen ML. (2020). Non-greeting rituals in clinical placements. Nurse Educ. Today. 2020;94:104570.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeinonen M, Stevanovic M, Nevalainen H, Valtonen A, Weiste E. Social divisions in accounts of discrimination: experiences among performing artists. Cult. Social. 2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/17499755241292426\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/17499755241292426\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMason F, Lodrick Z. Psychological consequences of sexual assault. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27:27\u0026ndash;37.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOlakivi A, Stevanovic M, Nevalainen H, Henttonen P, Ravaja N. Voicing experiences of ageist nonrecognition in performance appraisal interaction: complexities in constructing stories that counteract organisational ignorance. Cult Organ. 2024:1\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePiff PK, Kraus MW, Keltner D. Unpacking the inequality paradox: The psychological roots of inequality and social class. In: JM, Olson, editors. Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic; 2018. pp. 53\u0026ndash;124.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalin D. (2011). The significance of gender for third parties\u0026rsquo; perceptions of negative interpersonal behaviour: Labelling and explaining negative acts. Gend. Work. Organ. 2011;18:571\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalin D, Hoel H. Workplace bullying as a gendered phenomenon. J Manag Psychol. 2011;28:235\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStevanovic M, Olakivi A, Nevalainen H, Henttonen P, Ravaja N. Telling a supervisor about experiences of gendered dismissal: problems of documentation, tellability, and failed authority. Gend Work Organ. 2024;31:554\u0026ndash;75.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"social interaction, troublesome interaction, experimental survey, video vignettes, protocol validation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7517664/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7517664/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial interaction can involve troubles that range from subtle everyday difficulties to profoundly serious problems. Such problematic interactions may be difficult to document, and even their recognition can require subtle and highly context-sensitive readings of interaction. This article draws on experimental survey design and focuses on validating the research protocol that enables systematic investigation of how people perceive and interpret troublesome interactions in controlled and hyptohetical settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 1680 working-age adults living in Finland participated in an experimental survey study, in which test subjects were shown video vignettes depicting interactional situations. The vignettes consisted of four potentially problematic interaction scenarios, and two control scenarios that portrayed similar but intuitively unproblematic interactions. To validate our study protocol, we examined whether the manipulated scenarios differed from the control scenarios in terms of participants\u0026rsquo; assesments of (1) troublesomeness and (2) comprehensibility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe manipulated scenarios were perceived as significantly more problematic than the control scenarios (r =. 80). Regarding comprehensibility, the control scenarios were evaluated as significantly more comprehensible than the manipulated scenarios (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.75).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings demonstrate that, within the sample, manipulated scenarios were consistently perceived as more troublesome than control scenarios. Since the manipulated scenarios were designed to depict more troublesome interactions, this supports the validity of the experimental manipulation. The substantial difference in comprehensibility highlights that the manipulated scenarios, depicting subtle and complex interactional troubles, were not equally easy for all participants to interpret. The lower comprehensibility associated with the problematic scenarios further underscores the need for a more context-sensitive examination of how troublesome interactions are perceived and interpreted.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Perception and interpretation of troublesome interactions: A study protocol of vignette-based experimental survey","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-17 15:56:13","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7517664/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-10-06T20:23:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-10-01T10:07:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-11T19:31:52+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-09-09T08:05:28+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2025-09-09T08:02:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"743b931e-36ea-4b87-b531-906e4f6da7e3","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 17th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-10-17T15:56:14+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-17 15:56:13","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7517664","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7517664","identity":"rs-7517664","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}