Communication accommodation theory predicts that social power plays an important role in influencing communicative behaviors. Previous research suggests these effects extend to linguistic style, thought to be a nonconscious aspect of communication. Here, we explore if these effects hold when individuals converse using a medium limited in personal cues, computer-mediated communication. We manipulated social power in instant messaging conversations and measured subsequent interpersonal impressions. Low power induced greater likelihood of linguistic style accommodation, across between- (Study 1) and within-subjects (Study 2) experiments. Accommodation by those in a low-power role had no impact on impressions formed by their partner. In contrast, linguistic style accommodation by individuals in a high-power role was associated with negative interpersonal impressions formed by their lower power partner. The results show robust effects of power in shaping language use across computer-mediated communication. Furthermore, the interpersonal effects of linguistic accommodation depend on the conversational norms of the social context.
AfifiW. A.BurgoonJ. K. (2000). The impact of violations on uncertainty and the consequences for attractiveness. Human Communication Research, 26, 203-233.
2.
BelkinL. Y.KurtzbergT. R.NaquinC. E. (2013). Signaling dominance in online negotiations: The role of affective tone. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6, 285-304.
3.
BergerC. R.CalabreseR. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112.
4.
BoninF.De LoozeC.GhoshS.GilmartinE.VogelC.PolychroniouA.. . . CampbellN. (2013, August). Investigating fine temporal dynamics of prosodic and lexical accommodation. In Proceedings of INTERSPEECH 2013: 14th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Lyon, France (pp. 539-543). Retrieved from http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/interspeech_2013
5.
BurgoonJ. K.HaleJ. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55, 58-79.
6.
BurgoonJ. K.WaltherJ. B. (1990). Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences of violations. Human Communication Research, 17, 232-265.
7.
ChungC. K.PennebakerJ. W. (2007). The psychological function of function words. In FiedlerK. (Ed.), Social communication: Frontiers of social psychology (pp. 343-359). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
8.
CrockettW. H. (1988). Schemas, affect, and communication. In DonohewL.SypherH. E.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Communication, social cognition, and affect (pp. 33-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
CrookC. W.BoothR. (1997). Building rapport in electronic mail using accommodation theory. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 62, 4-13.
10.
CurhanJ. R.PentlandA. (2007). Thin slices of negotiation: Predicting outcomes from conversational dynamics within the first 5 minutes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 802-811.
11.
Danescu-Niculescu-MizilC.LeeBoPangL.KleinbergJ. (2012). Echoes of power: Language effects and power differences in social interaction. In Proceedings of WWW 2012: 21st International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 699-708). New York, NY: ACM.
12.
de SiqueiraA.HerringS. C. (2009). Temporal patterns in student-advisor instant messaging exchanges: Individual variation and accommodation. In Proceedings of 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-10). doi:10.1109/HICSS.2009.420
13.
DinoA.ReysenS.BranscombeN. R. (2009). Online interactions between group members who differ in status. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 28, 85-93.
14.
DragojevicM.GasiorekJ.GilesH. (2016). Communication accommodation theory. In BergerC. R.RoloffM. L. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (Vol. 1, pp. 176-196). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell/Wiley.
15.
FiskeS. T.TablanteC. B. (2015). Stereotyping: Processes and content. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R.BorgidaE.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 1: Attitudes and social cognition (pp. 457-507). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
16.
GasiorekJ. (2016). The “dark side” of CAT: Nonaccommodation. In GilesH. (Ed.), Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts (pp. 85-104). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
17.
GasiorekJ.GilesH.SolizJ. (2015). Accommodating new vistas. Language & Communication, 41, 1-5.
18.
GilbertE. (2012). Phrases that signal workplace hierarchy. In Proceedings of CSCW ‘12: ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 1037-1046). New York, NY: ACM.
19.
GilesH. (Ed.). (2016). Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
20.
GilesH.GasiorekJ. (2014). Parameters of nonaccommodation: Refining and elaborating communication accommodation theory. In ForgasJ. P.VinczeO.LászlóJ. (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 155-172). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
21.
GilesH.SmithP. M. (1979). Accommodation theory: Optimal levels of convergence. In GilesH.St. ClairR. N. (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 45-65). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
22.
GnisciA. (2005). Sequential strategies of accommodation: A new method in courtroom. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 621-643.
23.
GnisciA.GilesH.SolizJ. (2016). CAT on trial. In GilesH. (Ed.), Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts (pp. 169-171). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
24.
GonzalesA. L.HancockJ. T.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). Language style matching as a predictor of social dynamics in small groups. Communication Research, 37, 3-19.
25.
GremlerD. D.GwinnerK. P. (2000). Customer-employee rapport in service relationships. Journal of Service Research, 3, 82-102.
26.
HancockJ. T.DunhamP. J. (2001). Impression formation in computer-mediated communication revisited: An analysis of the breadth and intensity of impressions. Communication Research, 28, 325-347.
27.
HandelM.HerbslebJ. D. (2002). What is chat doing in the workplace? In Proceedings of CSCW ‘02: ACM 2002 Conference on computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 1-10). New York, NY: ACM.
28.
HeckR. H.ThomasS. L.TabataL. N. (2014). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling with IBM SPSS (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
29.
HuffakerD. A.JorgensenJ.IacobelliF.TepperP.CassellJ. (2006). Computational measures for language similarity across time in online communities. In Proceedings of the Analyzing Conversations in Text and Speech (ACTS) Workshop at HLT-NAACL 2006 (pp. 15-22). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
30.
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.
31.
JacobC.GueguenN.MartinA.BoulbryG. (2011). Retail salespeople’s mimicry of customers: Effects on consumer behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18, 381-388.
32.
JarvenpaaS. L.LeidnerD. E. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00080.x
33.
JonesS.CotterillR.DewdneyN.MuirK.JoinsonA. (2014). Finding Zelig in text: A measure for normalising linguistic accommodation. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers (pp. 455-465). Dublin, Ireland: Association for Computational Linguistics.
34.
KirkmanB. L.RosenB.GibsonC. B.TeslukP. E.McPhersonS. O. (2002). Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 67-79.
35.
LinellP. (1991). Accommodation on trial: Processes of communicative accommodation in courtroom interaction. In GilesH.CouplandJ.CouplandN. (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 103-130). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
36.
LittlejohnS. W. (1992). Theories of human communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
37.
MacDonaldP.KellyS.ChristenS. (2014). A path model of workplace solidarity, satisfaction, burnout and motivation. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 1-19.
38.
McCroskeyJ. C.McCainT. A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41, 261-266.
39.
MoskowitzD. S.Ringo HoM.Turcotte-TremblayA. M. (2007). Contextual influences on interpersonal complementarity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1051-1063.
40.
MuirK.JoinsonA.CotterillR.DewdneyN. (2016). Characterizing the linguistic chameleon: Personal and social correlates of linguistic style accommodation. Human Communication Research, 42, 462-484.
41.
NiederhofferK. G.PennebakerJ. W. (2002). Linguistic style matching in social interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 337-360.
42.
PennebakerJ. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.
43.
PennebakerJ. W.BoothR. J.BoydR. L.FrancisM. E. (2015). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC2015 [Software]. Austin, TX: Pennebaker Conglomerates.
44.
Quan-HaaseA.CothrelJ.WellmanB. (2005). Instant messaging for collaboration: A case study of a high-tech firm. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00276.x
45.
RiordanM. A.MarkmanK. M.StewartC. O. (2013). Communication accommodation in instant messaging: An examination of temporal convergence. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32, 84-95.
46.
ScissorsL. E.GillA. J.GergleD. (2008). Linguistic mimicry and trust in text-based CMC. In Proceedings of ACM 2008 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 277-280). New York, NY: ACM.
47.
SolizJ.GilesH. (2014). Relational and identity processes in communication: A contextual and meta-analytical review of communication accommodation theory. In CohenE. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 38 (pp. 106-143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
SwaabR. I.MadduxW. W.SinaceurM. (2011). Early words that work: When and how virtual linguistic mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 616-621.
49.
TausczikY. R.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24-54.
50.
TaylorP. J.ThomasS. (2008). Linguistic style matching and negotiation outcome. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1, 263-281.
51.
TidwellL. C.WaltherJ. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317-348.
52.
TiedensL.FragaleA. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 558-568.
53.
WaltherJ. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
54.
WaltherJ. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 443-479). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55.
WaltherJ. B.BunzU. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55, 828-846.
56.
WatsonB.GalloisC. (1998). Nurturing communication by health professionals towards patients: A communication accommodation theory approach. Health Communication, 10, 343-355.
57.
WillemynsM.GalloisC.CallanV. J.PittamJ. (1997). Accent accommodation in the employment interview. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3-22.
