Navigating the dual nature: do explainers adapt to explainee interests when explaining technical artifacts

Technical artifacts possess a dual nature comprising Architecture (how they are built) and Relevance (what they are for), both theoretically necessary for comprehensive understanding. This experimental study (N=72) investigated whether explainers (EXs) adapt their explanations to different explainees’ (EEs) interests in these dimensions. Using confederates as EEs showing interest in either Architecture or Relevance, we analyzed EXs’ mental representations of EE interests and knowledge, explanation content distribution, and gesture use when explaining the board game Quarto!. Results revealed that EXs successfully recognized EEs’ interest in Relevance but represented Architecture interest equally across conditions, suggesting Architecture interest is assumed as baseline. While EXs adapted content to EE interests—increasing Relevance-focused utterances from 28% to 40% when EEs showed Relevance interest—they maintained Architecture-dominant explanations (60-72%) regardless of condition. This persistence suggests Architecture serves as an explanatory foundation that EXs deem necessary despite recognizing different EE preferences. Contrary to predictions, EXs used significantly fewer iconic gestures in the Architecture condition (8.7%) compared to the Relevance condition (13.7%), while pragmatic gestures remained stable across conditions. These findings provide empirical support for the dual nature theory by revealing how EXs balance addressing both dimensions with responsive adaptation to EE interests. The stability of Architecture-dominant explanations across conditions raises questions about whether this reflects pedagogical intuitions, or the inherent structure of technical artifact understanding.