We examine how the status and speech style of experts impacts how they are perceived and their level of influence. In our experiment we manipulate whether high-status and low-status experts share their expert knowledge using a more or less powerful style of speech, and find that experts are more liked, more influential, and engender more confidence when they express themselves in a manner congruent with their status (i.e., high status with powerful speech and low status with powerless speech). We further show that liking acts as a mediator between congruence and influence. This study suggests that experts with low-status characteristics who want to be influential should ensure that their expertise, a marker of high status, is known to the listener before engaging in powerful styles of speech.
Areni, C.S., & Sparks, J.R. ( 2005). Language power and persuasion. Psychology and Marketing, 22, 507-525.
2.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. ( 1986). The moderator- mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3.
Berger, J., Conner, T., & Fisek, M. H. (Eds.). ( 1974). Expectations states theory: A theoretical research program . Cambridge: Winthrop.
4.
Berger, J., Fisek, M.H., Norman, R.Z., & Zelditch, M. ( 1977). Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation states approach. New York: Elsevier .
5.
Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S.J., & Zelditch, M. ( 1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479-508.
6.
Berger, J., Webster, M., Ridgeway, C.L., & Rosenholtz, S. (1986). Status cues, expectations, and behavior. In E. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
7.
Blankenship, K.L., & Craig, T.Y. ( 2007). Powerless language markers and the correspondence bias: Attitude confidence mediates the effects of tag questions on attitude attributions . Journal of Language and Social Psychology,26(1), 28-47.
8.
Bonner, B.L., Baumann, M.R., & Dalal, R.S. ( 2002). The effects of member expertise on group decision-making and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,88(2), 719-736.
9.
Bradac, J., & Mulac, A. ( 1984). A molecular view of powerful and powerless speech styles: Attributional consequences of specific language features and communicator intentions. Communication Monographs, 51,307-319.
10.
Brittain, J., & Sitkin, S. ( 1986). Carter racing. Teaching materials, Northwestern University, Dispute Resolution Research Center Exercises.
11.
Bunderson, J.S. ( 2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 557-591.
12.
Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. ( 1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology Public Policy and Law,5(3), 665-692.
13.
Burgoon, J.K., & Hale, J.L. ( 1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs , 55(1), 58-79.
14.
Carli, L.L. ( 1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 941-951.
15.
Carli, L.L. ( 2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 725-741.
16.
Cialdini, R. ( 1993). Influence: Science and practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
17.
Crano, W.D., & Seyranian, V. ( 2007). Majority and minority influence. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 572-589.
18.
Crosby, F., & Nyquist, L. ( 1977). Female register: An empirical study of Lakoff’s hypotheses. Language in Society,6(3), 313-322.
19.
Eagly, A.H. ( 1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
20.
Eagly, A.H. ( 1990). On the advantages of reporting sex comparisons. American Psychologist, 45(4), 560-562.
21.
Eagly, A.H., & Karau, S.J. ( 2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders . Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598.
22.
Efron, B. ( 1987). Better bootstrap confidence intervals. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 171-185.
23.
Einhorn, H.J., Hogarth, R.M., & Klempner, E. ( 1977). Quality of group judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 84(1), 158-172.
24.
Erickson, B., Lind, E.A., Johnson, B.C., & O’Barr, W.M. (1978). Speech style and impression-formation in a court setting: Effects of powerful and powerless speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,14(3), 266-279.
25.
Ford, C., & Sullivan, D.M. (2004). A time for everything: How the timing of novel contributions influences project team outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior,25(2), 279-292.
26.
Fragale, A.R. ( 2006). The power of powerless speech: The effects of speech style and task interdependence on status conferral. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,101(2), 243-261.
27.
French, J.R.P., & Raven, B.H. ( 1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
28.
Gao, T., Sirgy, M.J., & Bird, M.M. ( 2005). Reducing buyer decision-making uncertainty in organizational purchasing: Can supplier trust, commitment, and dependence help?Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 397-405.
29.
Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V.H. ( 1998). The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of others’ ability to read one’s emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75(2), 332-346.
30.
Gowen, C.W., & Britt, T.W. ( 2006). The interactive effects of homosexual speech and sexual orientation on the stigmatization of men: Evidence for expectancy violation theory. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,25, 437-456.
31.
Hartman, M. ( 1976). A descriptive study of the language of men and women born in Maine around 1900 as it reflects the Lakoff hypothesis in "Language and women’s place." In B. L. Dubois & I. Crouch (Eds.), The sociology of the languages of American women (pp. 81-90). San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press.
32.
Heilman, M.E. ( 2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657-674.
33.
Heilman, M.E., & Haynes, M.C. ( 2005). Attributional rationalization of women’s success in mixed-sex teams: No credit where credit is due. Journal of Applied Psychology,90, 905-916.
34.
Hosman, L.A., & Wright, J.W. ( 1987). The effects of hedges and hesitations on impression formation in a simulated courtroom context. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 51, 177-188.
35.
Johnson, C., & Vinson, L. ( 1987). "Damned if you do, damned if you don’t?": Status, powerful speech and evaluations of female witnesses. Women’s Studies in Communication,10,37-44.
36.
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. ( 1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134.
37.
Larson, J.R., Christensen, C., Abbott, A.S., & Franz, T.M. ( 1996). Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information in medical decision-making teams. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,71(2), 315-330.
38.
Lau, D.C., & Murnighan, J.K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 645-659.
39.
McKimmie, B.M., Newton, C.J., & Schuller, R.A. (2004). Jurors’responses to expert witness testimony: The effects of gender stereotypes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,7(2), 131-143.
40.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., & Williams, J. ( 2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128.
41.
McMillan, J.R., Clifton, A.K., McGrath, D., & Gale, W.S. ( 1977). Women’s language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality. Sex Roles, 3(6), 545-559.
42.
Meeker, B.F., & Weitzel-O’Neill, P.A. (1977). Sex-roles and interpersonal behavior in task-oriented groups. American Sociological Review , 42(1), 91-105.
43.
Morgan, R.M., & Hunt, S.D. ( 1994). The commitment- trust theory of relationship marketing . Journal of Marketing,58,20-38.
44.
Moscovici, S. ( 1985). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: Random House.
45.
Mulac, A., & Lundell, T.L. ( 1986). Linguistic contributors to the gender-linked language effect. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5, 81-101.
46.
Mulac, A., Lundell, T.L., & Bradac, J.J. ( 1986). Male/ female language differences and attributional consequences in a public speaking situation: Toward an explanation of the gender-linked language effect. Communication Monographs,53,115-129.
47.
Mulac, A., Wiemann, J.M., Widenmann, S.J., & Gibson, T.W. ( 1988). Male/female language differences in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads: The gender-linked language effect. Communication Monographs , 55,315-335.
48.
Ng, S.H., & Bradac, J.J. ( 1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
49.
O’Barr, W.M. ( 1982). Linguistic evidence. New York: Academic Press.
50.
Ohtsubo, Y., & Masuchi, A. ( 2004). Effects of status difference and group size in group decision making. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations ,7(2), 161-172.
51.
Olivera, F., & Argote, L. (1999) Organizational learning and CORE processes in new product development. In L. Thompson, J. Levine, & D. Messick, (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 297-328). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52.
Parton, S.R., Siltanen, S.A., Hosman, L.A., & Langenderfer, J. (2002). Employment interview outcomes and speech style effects. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,21, 144-161.
53.
Phillips, K.W. ( 2003). The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: The importance of congruence. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,29(1), 3-13.
54.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. ( 2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717-731.
55.
Ridgeway, C.L. ( 2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues,57(4), 637-655.
56.
Ridgeway, C.L., & Berger, J. ( 1986). Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. American Sociological Review, 51, 603-617.
57.
Ridgeway, C.L., & Diekema, D. ( 1989). Dominance and collective hierarchy formation in male and female task groups. American Sociological Review, 54, 79-93.
58.
Ridgeway, C.L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The gender system and interaction . Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191-216.
59.
Ridgeway, C.L., & Walker, H.A. ( 1995). Status structures. In K. Cook, G. Fine, & J. House (Eds.), Sociological Perspectives in Social Psychology(pp. 281-310). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
60.
Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. ( 2006). What can you expect?: The influence of gender diversity in dyads on work goal expectancies and subsequent work commitment. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(4), 577-588.
61.
Rudman, L.A. ( 1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74(3), 629-645.
62.
Shrout, P.E., & Bolger, N. ( 2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods , 7(4), 422-445.
63.
Sniezek, J.A. ( 1992). Groups under uncertainty: An examination of confidence in group decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52(1), 124-155.
64.
Sniezek, J.A., & Henry, R.A. ( 1989). Accuracy and confidence in group judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,43(1), 1-28.
65.
Stasser, G., Stewart, D.D., & Wittenbaum, G.M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,31, 244-265.
66.
Swaab, R.I., Phillips, K.W., Diermeier, D., & Medvec, V.H. ( 2008). The pros and cons of dyadic side conversations in small groups: The impact of group norms and task type. Small Group Research,39(3), 372-390.
67.
Thomas-Hunt, M.C., Ogden, T.Y., & Neale, M.A. ( 2003). Who’s really sharing? Effects of social and expert status on knowledge exchange within groups. Management Science ,49(4), 464-477.
68.
Thomas-Hunt, M.C., & Phillips, K.W. (2004). When what you know is not enough: Expertise and gender dynamics in task groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,30(12), 1585-1598.
69.
Tiedens, L.Z. ( 2001). Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation: The effect of negative emotion expressions on social status conferral. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 86-94.
70.
Troyer, L., & Younts, C.W. ( 1997). Whose expectations matter? The relative power of first- and second-order expectations in determining social influence. American Journal of Sociology,103(3), 692-732.
71.
Wegner, D.M. ( 1995). A computer network model of human transactive memory . Social Cognition, 13(3), 319-339.
72.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1983). Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations between unacquainted persons. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender and society (pp. 102-117). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
73.
Wittenbaum, G.M., & Bowman, J.M. ( 2005). Member status and information exchange in decision-making groups. In M. Neale, E. Mannix, & M. Thomas-Hunt (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams: Status and groups (pp. 143-168). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
74.
Wood, W., & Karten, S.J. ( 1986). Sex-differences in interaction style as a product of perceived sex-differences in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 341-347.
