The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of “powerful” and “powerless” language on small computer-mediated groups. Subjects (n = 27) were placed into 1 of 3 conditions with 2 confederates and asked to communicate via computer in a decision-making context. In the first condition, both confederates used powerful language, in the second both used powerless language, and in the third condition one confederate used powerful language and the other used powerless language. Our results lead us to two general conclusions. First, language style has a significant impact on impression formation in computer-mediated groups. Generally, the user of a powerful language style in a computer-mediated group is perceived as more credible, attractive, and persuasive than the user of a powerless language style. Second, contrasting language styles caused perceptions to be more extreme than if users shared a common language style.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adkins, M. (1991, May). Effects of computer-mediated communication on interpersonal perceptions. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Pittsburgh, PA.
2.
Alderton, S. M. , & Frey, L. R. (1986). Argumentation in small group decision making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Small group decision-making (pp. 157-174). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3.
Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes and control (Vol. 3). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
4.
Bernstein, B. (1981). Codes, modalities, and the process of cultural reproduction: A model. Language in Society, 10, 327-363.
5.
Bradac, J.J. (1982). A rose by another name: Attitudinal consequences of lexical variations. In E. B. Ryan & H. Giles (Eds.), Attitudes toward language variation: Social and applied contexts (pp. 99-115). London: Edward Arnold.
6.
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.
7.
Bradac, J. J. , Hemphill, M. R., & Tardy, C. H. (1981). Language style on trial: Effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech upon judgements of victims and villains. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 327-341.
8.
Bradac, J. J. , & Mulac, A. (1984a). A molecular view of powerful and powerless speech styles: Attributional consequences of specific language features and communicator intentions. Communication Monographs, 51, 307-319.
9.
Bradac, J. J. , & Mulac, A. (1984b). Attributional consequences of powerful and powerless speech styles in a crisis-intervention context. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3, 1-19.
10.
Bradac, J. J. , & Street, R. L. (1990). Powerful and powerless styles of talk: A theoretical analysis of language and impression formation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 23, 195-242.
11.
Brashers, D. E. , Adkins, M., & Meyers, R.A. (1994). Argumentation and computer-mediated group decision making. In L. Frey (Ed.), Communication in context: Studies of naturalistic groups (pp. 263-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Brashers, D. E. , Adkins, M., Meyers, R. A., & Mittleman, D. (1994, June). The facilitation of argumentation in computer-mediated group decision making. Paper presented at the conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
13.
Brashers, D. E. , & Meyers, R. A. (1989). Tag team argument in group decision making: A preliminary investigation. In B. G. Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp. 542-550). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
14.
Burgoon, J. K. , Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G. (1989). Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dialogue. New York: Harper & Row.
15.
Burgoon, M. , & Miller, G. R. (1971). Prior attitude and language intensity as predictors of message style and attitude change following counterattitudinal advocacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 246-253.
16.
Burgoon, M. , & Miller, G. R. (1987). An expectancy interpretation of language and persuasion. In H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair (Eds.), Recent advances in language, communication, and social psychology (pp. 199-229). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
Capron, H. L. (1990). Computers: Tools for an information age (2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Benjamin & Cummings.
18.
Chidambaram, L. , Bostrom, R. P., & Wynne, B. E. (1991). A longitudinal study of the impact of group decision support systems on group development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(3), 7-25.
19.
Connolly, T. , Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. (1990). Idea generation in a GDSS: Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone. Management and Science, 36, 97-120.
20.
Culnan, M. J. , & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technology. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 420-444). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
Danowski, J. (1982). Computer mediated communication: A network based content analysis using a CBBS conference. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 6 (pp. 905-924). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
Danowski, J. , & Edison-Swift, P. (1985). Crisis effects on intraorganizational computer based communication. Communication Research, 12, 251-270.
23.
Dennis, A. , Heminger, A., Nunamaker, J., & Vogel, D. (1990). Bringing automated support to large groups: The Burr-Brown experience. Information and Management, 18, 111-121.
24.
Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227-242.
25.
Ellis, D. G. (1982). Language and speech communication. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 6 (pp. 34-62). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26.
Ellis, D. G. (1992). Syntactic and pragmatic codes in communication. Communication Theory, 2, 1-23.
27.
Ellis, D. G. , & Hamilton, M. (1985). Syntactic and pragmatic code usage in interpersonal communication. Communication Monographs, 52, 264-279.
28.
Erickson, B. , Lind, A. E., 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.
29.
Fowler, G. , & Wackerbarth, M. (1980). Audio teleconferencing versus face to face conferencing: A synthesis of literature. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44, 236-252.
30.
Gleicher, F. , & Petty, R. E. (1992). Expectations of reassurance influence the nature of fear-stimulated attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 86-100.
31.
Lea, M. , & Spears, R. (1992). Social influence and the influence of social in computer-mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 30-65). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
32.
Lee, M. T. , & Ofshe, R. (1981). The influence of behavioral style and status characteristics on social influence: A test of two competing theories. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 73-82.
33.
March, J. G. , & Shapira, Z. (1992). Behavioral decision theory and organizational decision theory. In M. Zey (Ed.), Decision making: Alternatives to rational choice models (pp. 273-303). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
34.
McCroskey, J. C. , Holdridge, W., & Toomb, J. K. (1974). An instrument for measuring the source credibility of basic speech communication instructors. The Speech Teacher, 23, 26-33.
35.
McCroskey, J. C. , Jensen, T., & Valencia, C. (1973, June). Measurement of credibility of peers and spouses. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal.
36.
McCroskey, J. C. , & McCain, T. A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 4, 261-266.
37.
Meyers, R. A. , Seibold, D. R., & Brashers, D. E. (1991). Argument in initial group decision-making discussion: A refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 47-68.
38.
Morrill, C. , & Facciola, P. C. (1992). The power of language in adjudication and mediation: Institutional contexts as predictors of social evaluation. Law and Social Inquiry, 17(2), 191-212.
39.
Newcombe, N. , & Arnkoff, D. B. (1979). Effects of speech style and sex of speaker on person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1293-1303.
40.
Newton, D. A. (1988). Influence strategies used by relational partners during disagreements. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.
41.
Newton, D. A. , & Burgoon, J. K. (1990). The uses and consequences of verbal influence strategies during interpersonal disagreements. Human Communication Research, 16, 477-518.
42.
Nunamaker, J. , Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D. R., George, J. F. (1991). Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 40-61.
43.
Nunamaker, J. , Vogel, D., & Konsynski, B. (1989). Interaction of task and technology to support large groups. Decision Support Systems, 5, 139-152.
44.
O'Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence. New York: Academic Press.
45.
O'Keefe, B. J. (1988). The logic of message design. Communication Monographs, 55, 80-103.
46.
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy. London: Methuen.
47.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. Fort Worth, TX: Holt.
48.
Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 19). New York: Academic Press.
49.
Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgement and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.
50.
Poole, M. S. , & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfeld (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 173-193). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
51.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
52.
Gouran, D. (1982). Making decisions in groups. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
53.
Granberg, D. (1982). Social judgment theory. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 6 (pp. 304-329). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
54.
Granberg, D. , & Aboud, J. (1969). A contextual effect in judgments of visual numerousness. American Journal of Psychology, 82, 221-227.
55.
Grohowski, R. B. , McGoff, C., Vogel, D. R., Martz, W. B., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (1990). Implementation of electronic meeting systems at IBM. MIS Quarterly, 14, 369-383.
56.
Hardwig, J. (1985). Epistemic dependence. Journal of Philosophy, 82, 335-349.
57.
Hellerstein, L. (1986, November). Electronic messaging and conferencing with an emphasis on social use: An exploratory study. Presented at the Speech Communication Association Conference, Chicago, IL.
58.
Hiemstra, G. (1982). Teleconferencing, concern for face, and organizational culture. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 6 (pp. 874-904). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
59.
Hiltz, S. R. , & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
60.
Hirokawa, R. Y. , & Scheerhorn, D. R. (1986). Communication in faulty group decision making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 63-80). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
61.
Hosman, L. A. (1989). The evaluative consequences of hedges, hesitations, and intensifiers: Powerful and powerless speech styles. Human Communication Research, 15, 383-406.
62.
Hosman, L. A. , & Wright, J. W., II (1987). The effects of hedges and hesitations on impression formation in a simulated courtroom context. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 51, 173-188.
63.
Hovland, C. , & Sherif, M. (1957). Assimilation and contrast effects in reactions to communication and attitude change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 244-252.
64.
Infante, D. A. , Rancer, A. S., & Womack, D. F. (1990). Building communication theory. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
65.
Jablin, F. M. , & Seibold, D. R. (1978). Implications for problem solving groups of empirical research on “brainstorming:” A critical review of the literature. Southern States Speech Communication Journal, 43, 327-356.
66.
Jacobs, S. (1985). Language. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 313-343). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
67.
Jessup, L. M. , Connolly, T., & Tansik, D. A. (1990). Toward a theory of automated group work: The deindividuating effects of anonymity. Small Group Research, 21, 333-348.
68.
Jessup, L. M. , & Valacich, J. S. (1993). Group support systems: New perspectives. New York: Macmillan.
69.
Johansen, R. (1988). Groupware. New York: Free Press.
70.
Johansen, R. (1989, November). Groupware: Future directions and wild cards. Paper presented at the meeting of Organizational Computing, Coordination, and Collaboration, IC Institute, University of Texas, Austin.
71.
Kiesler, S. , Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychology aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.
72.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1992, March 23). Here comes the payoff from PCs. Fortune, pp. 93-102.
73.
Knapp, M. L. (1984). Interpersonal communication and human relationships. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
74.
Knapp, M. L. , Ellis, D. G., & Williams, B. A. (1980). Perceptions of communication behavior associated with relationship terms. Communication Monographs, 47, 262-278.
75.
Poole, M. S. , Holmes, M., Watson, R., & DeSanctis. G. (1993). Group decision support systems and group communication: A comparison of decision making in computer-supported and nonsupported groups. Communication Research, 20, 176-213.
76.
Poole, M. S. , Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. (1985). Group decision making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74-102.
77.
Rice, R. E. (1984). Mediated group communication. In R. E. Rice & Associates (Eds.), The new media: Communication, research, and technology (pp. 129-156). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
78.
Rice, R. E. (1987). Computer-mediated communication and organizational innovation. Journal of Communication, 37, 65-94.
79.
Rice, R. E. , & Blair, J. (1984). New organizational media and productivity. In R. E. Rice & Associates (Eds.), The new media: Communication, research, and technology (pp. 185-216). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
80.
Rice, R. E. , & Case, D. (1983). Computer based messaging in the university: A description of use and utility. Journal of Communication, 33, 131-152.
81.
Rice, R. E. , Chang, S. J., & Torobin, J. (1992). Communicator style, media use, organizational level, and use and evaluation of electronic messaging. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 3-33.
82.
Rice, R. E. , & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion. Communication Research, 14, 85-108.
83.
Ridgeway, C. L. , & Berger, J. (1986). Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. American Sociological Review, 51, 603-617.
84.
Scott, C. R. (1992, May). An examination of perceived influence and process, role, and outcome satisfaction in a group decision support system meeting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Miami.
85.
Sherif, M. , & Hovland, C. (1953). Judgmental phenomena and scales of attitude measurement: Placement of items with individual choice of number of categories. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 48, 135-141.
86.
Sherif, M. , & Hovland, C. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
87.
Sherif, M. , Taub, D., & Hovland, C. (1958). Assimilation and contrast effects of anchoring stimuli on judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 150-155.
88.
Short, J. (1974). The effect of medium of communication on experimental negotiation. Human Relations, 27, 225-234.
89.
Short, J. , Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunication. London: Wiley.
90.
Siegel, J. , Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. (1986). Group processes in computer mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157-187.
91.
Sproull, L. , & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.
92.
Steinfield, C. (1986). The social dimensions of computer mediated communications. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 9 (pp. 777-804). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
93.
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.
94.
Valacich, J. S. , Dennis, A. R., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). Group size and anonymity effects on computer-mediated idea generation. Small Group Research, 23, 49-73.
95.
Vogel, D. , Martz, B., Nunamaker, J., Grohowski, R., & McGoff, C. (1990). Electronic meeting system experience at IBM. Journal of Management Information Systems, 6, 25-43.
96.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
97.
Walther, J. B. , & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.
98.
Watzlawick, P. , Beavin, J. B., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton.
99.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: Random House.
100.
Williams, E. (1978). Teleconferencing: Social and psychological factors. Journal of Communication, 28, 125-131.
101.
Wright, J. W., II , & Hosman, L. A. (1983). Language style and sex bias in the courtroom: The effects of the male and female use of hedges and intensifiers on impression formation. Southern Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 137-152.
