Language Matters: The Double-Edged Role of Linguistic Style Matching in Work Groups

Abstract

Linguistic style matching (LSM) refers to a similar linguistic style among conversation partners. We examine the effects of LSM on perceived team performance and perceived social support in real work groups. We propose that team tenure moderates the relationship between LSM and perceived performance such that LSM and performance are positively related for teams with low tenure and negatively related for teams with high levels of tenure. We also propose that LSM and perceived social support are positively related. To test the hypotheses, we videotaped and transcribed meetings of 160 researchers, nested in 26 teams, to assess the individual levels of LSM. We measured team performance and social support with questionnaire scales. In partial support of the hypotheses, multilevel models show a negative relationship between LSM and team performance and a positive relationship between LSM and social support. We discuss potential implications for team research and practitioners.

Keywords

linguistic style matching LIWC team performance social support

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AbuAlRub

R. F.

(2004). Job stress, job performance, and social support among hospital nurses. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 36, 73-78. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2004.04016.x

Bliese

P. D.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 249-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bonito

J. A.

Sanders

R. E.

(2011). The existential center of small groups: Member’s conduct and interaction. Small Group Research, 42, 343-358. doi:10.1177/1046496410385472

Boyd

R. L.

(2017). Psychological text analysis in the digital humanities. In Hai-Jew

(Ed.), Data analytics in the digital humanities (pp. 161-189). New York, NY: Springer.

Boyd

R. L.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2015). Did Shakespeare write double falsehood? Identifying individuals by creating psychological signatures with text analysis. Psychological Science, 26, 570-582. doi:10.1177/0956797614566658

Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

Salas

Converse

S. A.

(1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In Castellan

N. J.

(Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 221-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carmody

Mateo

J. C.

Bowers

McCloskey

M. J.

(2017). Linguistic coordination as an unobtrusive, dynamic indicator of rapport, prosocial team processes, and performance in team communication. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 61, 140-144. doi:10.1177/1541931213601518

Chartrand

T. L.

Bargh

J. A.

(1999). The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893-910. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.76.6.893

Chen

Siu

Cooper

Phillips

(2009). Work stress and depression: The direct and moderating effects of informal social support and coping. Stress and Health, 25, 431-443. doi:10.1002/smi.1263

10.

Chung

C. K.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2007). The psychological function of function words. In Fiedler

(Ed.), Social communication: Frontiers of social psychology (pp. 343-359). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

11.

Coupland

Giles

Henwood

(1988). Accommodating the elderly: Invoking and extending a theory. Language in Society, 17, 1-41. doi:10.1017/S0047404500012574

12.

Drach-Zahavy

(2004). Exploring team support: The role of team’s design, values, and leader’s support. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 235-252. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.8.4.235

13.

Drach-Zahavy

Somech

(2002). Team heterogeneity and its relationship with team support and team effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 40, 44-66. doi:10.1108/09578230210415643

14.

Dragojevic

Gasiorek

Giles

(2016). Communication accommodation theory. In Berger

C. R.

Roloff

M. E.

Wilson

S. R.

Dillard

J. P.

Caughlin

Solomon

(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (pp. 1-20). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

15.

Frey

L. R.

(1994). Introduction: Revitalizing the study of small group communication. Communication Studies, 45, 1-6. doi:10.1080/10510979409368404

16.

Gallois

Ogay

Giles

(2005). Communication accommodation theory: A look back and a look ahead. In Gudykunst

W. B.

(Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 121-148). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

17.

Giles

Coupland

(1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In Giles

Coupland

(Eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 1-68). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Giles

Gasiorek

(2013). Parameters of non-accommodation: Refining and elaborating communication accommodation theory. In Forgas

László

Orsolya Vincze

(Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 155-172). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

19.

Gonzales

A. L.

Hancock

J. T.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2010). Language style matching a predictor of social dynamics in small groups. Communication Research, 31, 3-19. doi:10.1177/0093650209351468

20.

Gottlieb

B. H.

Bergen

A. E.

(2010). Social support concepts and measures. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 69, 511-520. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.10.001

21.

Groom

C. J.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2002). Words. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 615-621. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00512-3

22.

Heaney

C. A.

Israel

B. A.

(2002). Social networks and social support. In Glanz

Rimer

B. K.

Lewis

B. M.

(Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed., pp. 185-209). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

23.

Hewes

D. E.

Poole

M. S.

(2012). The analysis of group interaction processes. In Hollingshead

Poole

M. S.

(Eds.), Research methods for studying groups and teams: A guide to approaches, tools, and technologies (pp. 358-385). New York, NY: Routledge.

24.

House

J. S.

(1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

25.

Ireland

M. E.

(2011). Three explanations for the link between language style matching and liking (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/23353

26.

Ireland

M. E.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2010). Language style matching in writing: Synchrony in essays, correspondence, and poetry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 549-571. doi:10.1037/a0020386

27.

Ireland

M. E.

Slatcher

R. B.

Eastwick

P. W.

Scissors

L. E.

Finkel

E. J.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2011). Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability. Psychological Science, 22, 39-44. doi:10.1177/0956797610392928

28.

Kauffeld

Lehmann-Willenbrock

(2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 130-158. doi:10.1177/1046496411429599

29.

Kirkman

B. L.

Rosen

(1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58-74. doi:10.2307/256874

30.

Klein

(2013). Von Reichtum und Armut des deutschen Wortschatzes [About wealth and poverty of the German vocabulary]. In Deutsche Akademie für Sprache und Dichtung, Union der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften (Eds.), Reichtum und Armut der deutschen Sprache: Erster Bericht zur Lage der deutschen Sprache (pp. 15-56). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

31.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Ilgen

D. R.

(2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77-124. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x

32.

Lakin

J. L.

Chartrand

T. L.

(2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14, 334-339. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.14481

33.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Grohmann

Kauffeld

(2011). Task and relationship conflict at work: Development and construct validation of a German version of Jehn’s intragroup conflict scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27, 171-178. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000064

34.

Lord

S. P.

Sheng

Imel

Z. E.

Baer

Atkins

D. C.

(2015). More than reflections: Empathy in motivational interviewing includes language style synchrony between therapist and client. Behavior Therapy, 46, 296-303. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2014.11.002

35.

Malecki

C. K.

Demaray

M. K.

(2003). What type of support do they need? Investigating student adjustment as related to emotional, informational, appraisal, and instrumental support. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 231-232. doi:10.1521/scpq.18.3.231.22576

36.

Mathieu

J. E.

Heffner

T. S.

Goodwin

G. F.

Salas

Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

(2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273-283. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273

37.

Müller-Frommeyer

L. C.

Frommeyer

Kauffeld

(2018). Introducing rLSM: An integrated metric assessing language style matching in dyadic interaction. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 1343-1359. doi:10.3758/s13428-018-1078-8

38.

Munson

S. A.

Kervin

Robert

L. P.

(2014). Monitoring email to indicate project team performance and mutual attraction. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 17, 542-549. doi:10.1145/2531602.2531628

39.

Muthén

(2012). MPlus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

40.

Niederhoffer

K. G.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2002). Linguistic style matching in social interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 337-360. doi:10.1177/026192702237953

41.

Parris

M. A.

(2003). Work teams: Perceptions of a ready-made support system? Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 15, 71-83. doi:10.1023/A:1023572629983

42.

Paulsen

H. F. K.

Klonek

F. E.

Schneider

Kauffeld

(2016). Group affective tone and team performance: A week level study in project teams. Frontiers in Communication, 1, 7. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2016.00007

43.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.

44.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Boyd

R. L.

Jordan

Blackburn

(2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: Department of Psychology, The University of Texas. doi:10.1068/d010163

45.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Francis

M. E.

(1996). Cognitive, emotional, and language processes in disclosure. Cognition & Emotion, 10, 601-626. doi:10.1080/026999396380079

46.

Pennebaker

J. W.

King

L. A.

(1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1296-1312. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1296

47.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Mehl

M. R.

Niederhoffer

K. G.

(2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547-577. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145041

48.

Pickering

M. J.

Garrod

(2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169-190. doi:10.1017/S0140525X04000056

49.

Pomaki

DeLongis

Frey

Short

Woehrle

(2010). When the going gets tough: Direct, buffering and indirect effects of social support on turnover intention. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1340-1346. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.03.007

50.

Rains

S. A.

(2016). Language style matching as a predictor of perceived social support in computer-mediated interaction among individuals coping with illness. Communication Research, 42, 694-712. doi:10.1177/0093650214565920

51.

Sauer

N. C.

Kauffeld

(2013). Meetings as networks: Applying social network analysis to team interaction. Communication Methods & Measures, 7, 26-47. doi:10.1080/19312458.2012.760729

52.

Segalowitz

S. J.

Lane

(2004). Perceptual fluency and lexical access for function versus content words. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 307-308. doi:10.1017/S0140525X04310071

53.

Smith

C. E.

Fernengel

Holcroft

Gerald

Marien

(1994). Meta-analysis of the associations between social support and health outcomes. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 352-362. doi:10.1093/abm/16.4.352

54.

Soliz

Giles

(2014). Relational and identity processes in communication: A contextual and meta-analytical review of communication accommodation theory. In Cohen

(Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 38 (pp. 106-143). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

55.

Stout

R. J.

Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

Salas

Milanovich

D. M.

(1999). Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: An empirical link is established. Human Factors, 41, 61-71. doi:10.1518/001872099779577273

56.

Tausczik

Y. R.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2013). Improving teamwork using real-time language feedback. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 16, 459-468. doi:10.1145/2470654.2470720

57.

Taylor

S. E.

(2011). Social support: A review. In Friedman

M. S.

(Ed.), The handbook of health psychology (pp. 189-214). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

58.

Uchino

B. N.

(2004). Social support and physical health: Understanding the health consequences of relationships. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

59.

Van Gelderen

. (2014). A history of the English language (Rev. ed.). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

60.

Van Swol

L. M.

Kane

A. A

. (2019). Language and group processes: An integrative, interdisciplinary review. Small Group Research, 50, 3-38. doi:10.1177/1046496418785019

61.

West

M. A.

(1994). Effective teamwork. Leicester, UK: BPS Books.

62.

Wiesenfeld

B. M.

Raghuram

Garud

(2001). Organizational identification among virtual workers: The role of need for affiliation and perceived work-based social support. Journal of Management, 27, 213-229. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00096-9

63.

Wolf

Horn

A. B.

Mehl

M. R.

Haug

Pennebaker

J. W.

Kordy

(2008). Computergestützte quantitative Textanalyse: Äquivalenz und Robustheit der deutschen Version des Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count [Computer-aided quantitative text analysis: Equivalence and reliability of the German adaptation of the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count]. Diagnostica, 54, 85-98. doi:10.1026/0012-1924.54.2.85

64.

Yilmaz

(2016). What you do and how you speak matter: Behavioral and linguistic determinants of performance in virtual teams. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35, 76-97. doi:10.1177/0261927X15575772

65.

Yilmaz

Pena

(2015). How do interpersonal behaviors and social categories affect language use? The case of virtual teams. Communication Quarterly, 63, 427-443. doi:10.1080/01463373.2015.1058285