Communication accommodation theory was used to predict relationships between the degree of similarity of a source's and receiver's use of language intensity and attributions made about the source of a message. A sample of 286 respondents, whose use of language intensity had been assessed, read a persuasive message written with either high or low language intensity. Actual similarity between respondents'and stimulus language intensity was positively correlated withperceptions of source credibility (sociability /character, extraversion) and immediacy, and negatively correlated with arousal. Perceived similarity in language intensity was also positively correlated with credibility perceptions (competence, sociabilityy/character, composure), as well as immediacy and intimacy, and negatively correlated with arousal. Both actual and perceived similarity were associated with increased message agreement. Actual and perceived language intensity similarity were weakly correlated. In all analyses perceived similarity in language intensity was the stronger predictor of source attributions. Possible message processing differences arising from perceived and actual language intensity similarity are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andersen, P. A. (1991). When one cannot communicate: A challenge to Motley's traditional communication postulates. Communication Studies, 42, 309-325.
2.
Bowers, J. W. (1963). Language intensity, social introversion, and attitude change. Speech Monographs, 30, 345-352.
3.
Bradac, J. J., Bowers, J. W., & Courtright, J. A. (1979). Three language variables in communication research: Intensity, immediacy, and diversity. Human communication Research, 5, 257-269.
4.
Bradac, J. J., Hosman, L. A., & Tardy, C. H. (1978). Reciprocal disclosures and language intensity: Attributional consequences. Communication Monographs, 45, 1-17.
5.
Buller, D. B., and Aune, R. K. (1988). The effects of vocalics and nonverbal sensitivity on compliance: A speech accommodation theory explanation. Human Communication Research, 14, 301-332.
6.
Buller, D. B., and Aune, R. K. (1992). The effects of vocalics and nonverbal sensitivity on compliance: Further tests of the speech accommodation explanation. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 56, 37-53.
7.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1983). Dimensions of communication reticence and their impact on verbal encoding. Communication Quarterly, 31, 302-313.
8.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 193-214.
9.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19-41.
10.
Burgoon, M. (1989). Messages and persuasive effects. In J. J. Bradac (Ed.), Message effects in communication science (pp. 129-164) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11.
Burgoon, M., & Burgoon, J. K (1985). An empirical investigation of attitude measurement techniques. Unpublished manuscript, University of Arizona, Department of Communication.
12.
Burgoon, M., & Stewert, D. (1975). Empirical investigation of language intensity: 1. The effects of sex of source, receiver, and language intensity on attitude change. Human Communication Research, 1, 224-248.
13.
Bryne, D. (1969). Attitudes and attraction. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 35-89.
14.
Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, G. H. (1987). Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of conflict strategies. Human Communication Research, 14, 93-118.
15.
Coker, D. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1987). The nature of conversational involvement and nonverbal encoding patterns. Human Communication Research, 13, 463-494.
16.
Coupland, N. (1980). Style shifting in a Cardiff work-setting. Language in Society, 9, 1-12.
17.
Coupland, N. (1984). Accommodation at work: Some phonological data and their implications. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 46, 49-70.
18.
Coupland, N. (1985). "Hark, hark the lark": Social motivations for phonological style shifting. Language and Communication, 5, 153-171.
19.
Coupland, N., & Giles, H. (1988). Introduction: The communicative contexts of accommodation. Language and Communication, 8, 175-182.
20.
Dabbs, J. M. (1969). Similarity of gestures and interpersonal influence. Proceedings of the 77th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 4, 337-338.
21.
Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975). Apprehension of writing as a predictor of message intensity. Journal of Psychology, 89, 175-177.
22.
Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1991). Language: Contexts and consequences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
23.
Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Johnson, P (1987). Speech accommodation theory: The first decade and beyond. In M. McLaughlin (ed.), Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 13-48). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
Giles, H., & Smith, P. M. (1979). Accommodation theory: Optimal levels of convergence. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 45-65). Oxford: Blackwell.
25.
Jones, L. V., & Thurstone, L. L. (1955). The psychophysics of semantics: An experimental investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 31-36.
26.
Kamakahi, R., Kai, S., Kang, L., & Tom, C. (1992). [Replication of the Jones and Thurstone semantic intensity study]. Unpublished raw data.
27.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., Swaffin-Smith, C., & Wilkinson, I. (1984). Patterns of managerial influence: Shotgun managers, tacticians, and bystanders. Organizational Dynamics, 12, 58-67.
28.
LaFrance, M. (1979). Nonverbal synchrony and rapport: Analysis by the cross-lag panel technique. Social Psychology Quaqrterly, 42, 66-70.
29.
Mehrabian, A. (1967). Attitudes inferred from the nonimmediacy of verbal communications. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 294-295.
30.
Mehrabian, A. (1969). Methods and design: Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavior Research Methods and Instruments, 1, 203-207.
31.
Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
32.
McCroskey, J. C., Hamilton, P. R., & Weiner, A. N. (1974). The effect of interaction behavior on source credibility, homophily, and interpersonal attraction. Human Communication Research, 1, 42-52.
33.
McCroskey, J. C., Jensen, T., & Valencia, C. (1973, May). The measurement of the credibility of peers and spouses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal.
34.
McCroskey, J. C., & Young, T. J. (1981). Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Central States Speech Journal, 32, 24-34.
35.
Miller, M. D. (1982, November). Sex and social desirability: Meeting receiver expectations through language choice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Louisville, KY.
36.
Miller, M. D., Reynolds, R. A., & Cambra, R. E. (1987). The influence of gender and culture on language intensity. Communication Monographs, 54, 101-105.
37.
Osgood, C. E., & Walker, E. G. (1959). Motivation and language behavior: A content analysis of suicide notes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 58-67.
38.
Putman, W. B., & Street, R. L., Jr. (1984). The conception and perception of noncontent speech performance: Implications for speech accommodation theory. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 46, 97-114.
39.
Street, R. L., Jr., & Brady, R. M. (1982). Speech rate acceptance ranges as a function of evaluative domain, listener speech rate and communication context. Communication Monographs, 49, 290-308.
40.
Street, R. L., Jr., Brady, R. M., & Putman, W. B. (1983). The influence of speech rate stereotypes and rate similarity on listeners' evaluations of speakers. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2, 37-56.
41.
Street, R. L., Jr., & Giles, H. (1982). Speech accommodation theory: A social cognitive approach to language and speech behavior. In M. Roloff& C. R. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 193-226). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
42.
Triandis, H. C. (1960). Cognitive similarity and communication in a dyad. Human Relations, 13, 175-183.
43.
Welkowitz, J., & Feldstein, S. (1969). Dyadic interaction and induced differences in perceived similarity. Proceedings of the 77th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 4, 343-344.
44.
Welkowitz, J., & Feldstein, S. (1970). Relation of experimentally manipulated interpersonal perception and psychological differentiation to the temporal patterning of conversation. Proceedings of the 77th Annual Convention of theAmerican Psychological Association, 5, 387-388.
45.
Welkowitz, J., Feldstein, S., Finkelstein, M., & Aylesworth, L. (1972). Changes in vocal intensity as a function of interspeaker influence. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 35, 715-718.
46.
Welkowitz, J., & Kuc, M. (1973). Inter-relationships amongwarmth, genuiness, empathy and temporal speech patterns in interpersonal attraction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 472-473.
