In the present study, we examined two indices of semantic similarity (i.e., latent semantic similarity [LSS], language style matching [LSM]) to determine their respective roles in initial, unstructured dyadic interactions. Transcripts of the dyad members’ conversations were used to compute the LSS and LSM indices, which were then correlated with various dyad-level behaviors and perceptions. The results suggest that LSS develops out of a highly involving interaction between mutually attentive and acknowledging partners in which a lot of verbal information is exchanged. On the other hand, LSM appears to be a behavior that is not associated with interactional involvement per se but may occur when dyad members are in the grip of a strong emotion and tend to repeat each other’s words and phrases in a relatively thoughtless and automatic manner.
AbbedutoL.Short-MeyersonK.BensonG.DolishJ.WeissmanM. (1998). Understanding referential expressions in context: Use of common ground by children and adolescents with mental retardation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1348-1362.
2.
CarrollJ. M.BorgeM.GanoeC. H.RossonM. B. (2012). Articulating collaborative contributions to activity awareness. In SalasE.FioreS. M.LetskeyM. P. (Eds.), Theories of team cognition: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 209-242). New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
CasparF.BergerT.HautleI. (2004). The right view of your patient: A computer-assisted, individualized module for psychotherapy training. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41, 125-135.
4.
CupermanR.IckesW. (2009). Big five predictors of behaviors and perceptions and initial dyadic interactions: Personality similarity helps extraverts and introverts, but hurts “disagreeables”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 667-684.
5.
GarciaS.StinsonL.IckesW.BissonnetteV.BriggsS. R. (1991). Shyness and physical attractiveness in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 35-49.
6.
GesnP. R.IckesW. (1999). The development of meaning contexts for empathic accuracy: Channel and sequence effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 746-761.
7.
GilesH. (2008). Accommodating transitional research. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 121-127.
8.
GilesH.CouplandN. (1991). Language: Contexts and consequences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
9.
GonzalesA. L.HancockJ. T.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). Language style matching as a predictor of social dynamics in small groups. Communication Research, 37, 3-19.
10.
IrelandM. E.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). Language style matching in writing: Synchrony in essays, correspondence, and poetry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 549-571.
11.
IrelandM. E.SlatcherR. B.EastwickP. W.ScissorsL. E.FinkelE. J.PennebakerJ. W. (2011). Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability. Psychological Science, 22, 39-44.
12.
KecskesI.ZhangF. (2009). Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17, 331-355.
13.
KraussR. M.FussellS. R. (1991). Perspective-taking in communication: Representations of others’ knowledge in reference. Social Cognition, 9, 2-24.
14.
LahamD.SteinhartD.JonesM.StahlG.dePaulaR.LandauerT.RehderB. (1998). What is LSA?Latent Semantic Analysis @ CU Boulder. Retrieved from http://lsa.colorado.edu
15.
LandauerT. K.DumaisS. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
LandauerT. K.LahamR. D.FoltzP. W. (2003) Automated scoring and annotation of essays with the intelligent essay assessor. Assessment in Education, 10, 295-308.
18.
LautenschlagerN. T.DunnJ. C.BonneyK.FlickerL.AlmeidaO. P. (2006). Latent semantic analysis: An improved method to measure cognitive performance in subjects of non-English-speaking background. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 28, 1381-1387.
19.
MorgantiF. (2008). What intersubjectivity affords: Paving the way for a dialogue between cognitive science, social cognition and neuroscience. In MorgantiF.CarassaA.RivaG. (Eds.), Enacting intersubjectivity: A cognitive and social perspective on the study of interactions (pp. 3-14) Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
20.
NiederhofferK. G.PennebakerJ. W. (2002). Linguistic style matching in social interaction. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 21, 337-360.
21.
Pennebaker Conglomerates Inc. (n.d.). In synch: Language style matching. Online Research Consortium from Universities Around the World. Retrieved from http://www.utpsyc.org/synch/
22.
PennebakerJ. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.
23.
SchoberM. F.ClarkH. H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 211-232.
24.
Wilkes-GibbsD.ClarkH. H. (1992). Coordinating beliefs in conversation. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 183-194.
