This study examines verbal exchange in a bargaining situation. It focuses on the verbal behavior of subjects holding different hypotheses about the personalities of their partners. Pairs of participants were given the task of fixing a date, time, and place for a meeting. Participants had different timetables to work with and were given different partner information (dominant vs. submissive). The power-related talk approach focuses on the relationship between the claim to be powerful and the response of the target person, who can accept or reject the power claim. The main emphasis is on the dimension of interactional control. Speech patterns were classified as control-claiming moves, controlyielding moves, and control-neutral moves. Results of those control speech patterns and other speech measures (e.g., speech rate, pauses, feedback) showed that the partner hypothesis in particular influenced negotiation strategies. A more context-oriented approach toward power and interaction is suggested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Apple, W.
, Streeter, L. A., & Krauss, R. M. (1979). Effects of pitch and speech rate on personal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 715-727.
2.
Aries, E.
, Gold, C., & Weigel, R. (1983). Dispositional and situational influences on dominance behavior in small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 779-786.
3.
Asendorf, J.
, & Wallbott, H. G. (1979). Masse der Beobachteruebereinstimmung: Ein systematischer Vergleich. Zeitschrift fuer Sozialpsychologie, 10, 243-252.
4.
Bilous, F. R.
, & Krauss, R. M. (1988). Dominance and accommodation in the conversational behaviors of same-and mixed-gender dyads. Language and Communication, 8, 183-194.
5.
Bradac, J. J.
, & Mulac, A. (1984). Attributional consequences of powerful and powerless speech styles in a crisis-intervention context. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3, 1-19.
6.
Bradac, J. J.
, & Wisegarver, B. (1984). Ascribed status, lexical diversity, and accent: Determinants of perceived status, solidarity, and control of speech style. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3, 239-255.
7.
Brooke, M. E.
, & Ng, S. H. (1986). Language and social influence in small conversational groups. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5, 201-210.
8.
Brown, B. L.
(1980). Effects of speech rate on personality attributions and competence evaluations. In H. Giles, W P. Robinson, & P. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 294-300). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
9.
Carli, L. L.
(1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941-951.
10.
Ellis, D.
(1978). Trait predictors of relational control. Communication Yearbook, 51(2), 185-191.
11.
Erickson, B.
, Lind, E. A., Johnson, B. C., & O'Barr, W. M. (1978). Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of "powerful" and "powerless" speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 266-279.
12.
Ferguson, N.
(1977). Simultaneous speech, interruption and dominance. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 16, 295-302.
13.
Fiske, S. T.
, & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum model of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Aduances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1-74). New York: Random House.
14.
Gibbons, P.
, Busch, J., & Bradac, J. (1991). Powerful versus powerless language: Consequences for persuasion, impression formation, and cognitive response. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10(2), 115-133.
Hosman, L. A.
(1989). The evaluative consequences of hedges, hesitations, and intensifiers: Powerful and powerless speech styles. Human Communication Research, 15, 383-406.
17.
Kruse, L.
, & Thimm, C. (1994). Communication at the work place: Requesting in asymmetrical interaction situations. In B. L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, & B. Nordberg (Eds.), Text and talk in professional contexts: Selected papers from the International Conference "Discourse and the Professions," Uppsala, 1992 (pp. 219-236). Uppsala, Sweden: Association suedoise de linguistique applique.
18.
Linell, P.
, Gustavsson, L., & Juvonen, P. (1988). Interactional dominance in dyadic communication: A presentation of initiative-response analysis. Linguistics, 26, 415-442.
19.
Merton, R. K.
(1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, 193-210.
20.
Miller, N.
, Maruyama, G., Beaber, R. J., & Valone, K. (1976). Speed of speech and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 615-624.
21.
Neubauer, M.
, Hub, I., & Thimm, C. (1994). Transkribieren mit LATEX: Transkriptionsregeln, Eingabeverfahren und Auswertungsmoeglichkeiten. Publications from the Special Collaborative Group 245, "Speech and Situation" (No. 76). Heidelberg, Germany: University of Heidelberg, Psychological Institute.
22.
Ng, S. H.
, & Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
Roger, D.
(1989). Experimental studies of dyadic turn-taking behavior. In R. Derek & P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 75-95). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
24.
Rogers, E.
, & Farace, R. B. (1975). Relational communication analysis: New measurement procedures. Human Communication Research, 1, 222-239.
25.
Rogers, W T.
, & Jones, S. E. (1975). Effects of dominance tendencies on floor holding and interruption behavior in dyadic interaction. Communication Research, 1, 113-122.
26.
Rogers-Millar, L. E.
, & Millar, F. E. (1979). Domineeringness and dominance: Atransactional view. Human Communication Research, 5, 238-246.
27.
Scotton, C. M.
(1985). What the heck, sir: Style shifting and lexical colouring as features of powerful language. In R. L. Street & J. N. Cappella (Eds.), Sequence and pattern in communicative behavior (pp. 103-119). London: Arnold.
28.
Searle, J. R.
(1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Sluzki, C.
, & Beavin, J. (1980). Symmetrie und Komplementaritaet: Eine operationelle Definition und eine Typologie von Zweierbeziehungen. In P. Watzlawick & J. Weakland (Eds.), Interaktion (pp. 117-154). Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer.
30.
Thimm, C.
(1990). Dominanz und Sprache: Zur Beschreibung strategischen Handelns im Alltag. Wiesbaden, Germany: Deutscher Universitaetsverlag.
31.
Thimm, C.
(in press). "Power-related talk": Macht und Kontrolle in der parlamentarischen Debatte. In J. Klein (Ed.), Politische Kommunikation: Linguistische Zugaenge. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
32.
Thimm, C.
, & Augenstein, S. (1994). Sprachliche Effekte in hypothesengeleiteter Interaktion: Durchsetzungsstrategien in Aushandlungsgespraechen. Publications from the Special Collaborative Group 245, "Speech and Situation" (No. 77). Heidelberg, Germany: University of Heidelberg, Psychological Institute.
33.
Thimm, C.
, & Augenstein, S. (in press). Lachen und Scherzen in einer Aushandlungssituation, oder: Zwei Maenner vereinbaren einen Termin. In H. Kotthoff (Ed.), Scherzkommunikation. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
34.
Thimm, C.
, & Kruse, L. (1991). Dominanz, Macht und Status als Elemente sprachlicher Interaktion: Ein Literaturbericht. Publications from the Special Collaborative Group 245, "Speech and Situation" (No. 39). Heidelberg, Germany: University of Heidelberg, Psychological Institute.
35.
Thimm, C.
, & Kruse, L. (1993). The power-emotion relationship in discourse: Spontaneous expressions of emotion in asymmetric dialogue. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 81-102.
36.
Thimm, C.
, Rademacher, U., & Augenstein, S. (1994). Power-related talk (PRT): Ein Auswertungsmodell. Publications from the Special Collaborative Group 245, "Speech and Situation" (No. 69). Heidelberg, Germany: University of Heidelberg, Psychological Institute.
37.
Uhmann, S.
(1993). Contextualizing relevance: Some forms and functions of speech rate changes in everyday conversation. In P. Auer & A. Di Luzo (Eds.), The contextualisation of language (pp. 297-336). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
38.
Vinson, L.
, & Johnson, C. (1989). The use of written transcripts in powerful and powerless language research. Communication Reports, 2, 16-21.
39.
Weinert, A.
(1991). Moeglichkeiten der Frueherkennung von Fuehrungstalent im ausserfachlichen Bereich: Arbeiten zum "Deutschen CPI."Zeitschrift fuer Personal-forschung, 5, 53-62.
