A significant amount of communication between lecturers and students takes place via e-mail. This study provides evidence that two types of cultural cues contained in the e-mail impacts lecturers' linguistic adaptation to, and appraisal of, the student. A total of 186 psychology lecturers from universities in Germany answered a fictitious student's e-mail inquiry and reported their perceptions of the student. The inquiry was manipulated with regard to ethnicity (German, Chinese) and communication style (direct, indirect). Further, the participants answered to one of two versions that differed in the wording. This was done in order to study lexical alignment. In the German ethnicity and direct style conditions, lecturers aligned more of their words to those of the students; in the Chinese ethnicity and indirect style conditions, lecturers' responses were longer and more polite. When ethnicity and style were congruent, fewer negative appraisals were produced.
References
1.
BarrD. J., & KeysarB. (2002). Anchoring comprehension in linguistic precedents. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 391–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2815
2.
Biesenbach-LucasS. (2007). Students writing emails to faculty: An examination of e-politeness among native and non-native speakers of English. Language Learning & Technology, 11, 59–81.
3.
BolkanS., & HolmgrenJ. L. (2012). ‘You are such a great teacher and I hate to bother you but…’: Instructors' perceptions of students and their use of email messages with varying politeness strategies. Communication Education, 61, 253–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2012.667135
BrennanS. E., & ClarkH. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22, 1482–1493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1482
6.
BrewerM. B. (1996). When stereotypes lead to stereotyping: The use of stereotypes in person perception. In MacraeC. N.StangorC., & HewstoneM. (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 254–275). New York: Guilford Press.
7.
BrownP., & LevinsonS. C., (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BuskistW.ZuckermanC., & BuslerJ. (2012) Editorial: Introduction to the special issue. Globalization and the Teaching of Psychology: a call to action. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 11, 306–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/plat.2012.11.3.306
ChenC.-F. E. (2006). The development of e-mail literacy: From writing to peers to writing to authority figures. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 35–55.
11.
ChoyS., & DoddD. (1976). Standard-English speaking and non-standard Hawaiian-English speaking children: Comprehension of both dialects and teacher's evaluations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 184–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.68.2.184
ClarkH. H., & MarshallC. R. (1981). Definite references and mutual knowledge. In JoshiA. K.WebberB. L., & SagI. A. (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
ColleyA., & ToddZ. (2002). Gender-linked differences in the style and content of e-mails to friends. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 380–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026192702237955
15.
ColleyA.ToddZ.BlandM.HolmesM.KhanomN., & PikeH. (2004). Style and content in e-mails and letters to male and female friends. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 369–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261927X04266812
16.
EpleyN., & KrugerJ. (2005). What you type isn't what they read: The perseverance of stereotypes and expectancies over email. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 414–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.08.005
17.
GalloisC.OgayT., & GilesH. (2005). Communication accommodation theory: A look back and a look ahead. In GudykunstW. B. (Ed.), Theorizing about culture and communication (pp. 121–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
GilesH.CouplandN., & CouplandJ. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In GilesH.CouplandJ., & CouplandN. (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation (pp. 1–68). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663673
19.
GilesH., & PoweslandP. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation.London: Academic Press.
20.
GriceH. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In ColeP. & MorganJ. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
21.
GudykunstW. B.Ting-ToomeyS., & ChuaE. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
HeilmanM. E.CaleoS., & HalimM. L. (2010). Just the thought of it!: Effects of anticipating computer-mediated communication on gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 672–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.02.005
23.
HindsP. J., & WeisbandS. P. (2003). Knowledge sharing and shared understanding in virtual teams. In GibsonC. B. & CohenS. G. (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual teams' effectiveness (pp. 21–36). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
24.
HofstedeG.HofstedeG. J., & MinkovM. (2010). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
25.
HoltgravesT. M. (1997). Styles of language use: Individual and cultural variability in conversational indirectness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 624–637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.624
26.
HoltgravesT. M. (2010). Social psychology and language: Words, utterances, and conversations. In FiskeS.GilbertD. T., & LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1386–1422). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
27.
HoltgravesT., & YangJ. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 719–729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.719
28.
HorD.DolgovI., & FretwellA. (2012). Being aware that you're nice or nasty won't make you write friendlier e-mail. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting, 56, 1491–1495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1071181312561296
IrelandM. E., & PennebakerJ. W. (2010). Language style matching in writing: Synchrony in essays, correspondence, and poetry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 549–571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020386
31.
JessmerS. L., & AndersonD. (2001). The effect of politeness and grammar on user perceptions of electronic mail. North American Journal of Psychology, 3, 331–346.
32.
JucksR.BeckerB.-M., & BrommeR. (2008). Lexical entrainment in written discourse: Is expert's word use adapted to the audience?Discourse Processes, 45, 497–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638530802356547
33.
JucksR., & BrommeR. (2011). Perspective taking in computer-supported instructional communication. Journal of Media Psychology, 23, 192–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000056
34.
JucksR.PäulerL. & BrummernhenrichB. (2014). ‘I need to be explicit: You're wrong:’ Impact of face threats on social evaluations in online instructional communication. Interacting with Computers.http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwu032
35.
JucksR.PausE., & BrommeR. (2012). Patients' medical knowledge and health counseling: What kind of information helps to make communication patient-centered?Patient Education and Counseling, 88, 177–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.01.011
36.
KeysarB. (1994). The illusory transparency of intention: Linguistic perspective taking in text. Cognitive Psychology, 26, 165–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1994.1006
37.
KieslerS.SiegelJ., & McGuireT. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123
38.
KnupskyA. C., & Nagy-BellN. M. (2011). Dear professor: The influence of recipient sex and status on personalization and politeness in e-mail. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30, 103–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261927X10387104
39.
Lev-AriS., & KeysarB. (2010). Why don't we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1093–1096. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.025
40.
LewandowskiG. W., & HarringtonS. (2006). The influence of phonetic abbreviations on the evaluation of student performance. Current Research in Social Psychology, 11, 215–226.
41.
Lin-HuberM. (2001). Chinesen verstehen lernen [Learning to understand Chinese people]. Bern: Huber.
42.
MarkusH., & KitayamaS. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
43.
MetzingC., & BrennanS. E. (2003). When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 201–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00028-7
44.
OysermanD.CoonH., & KemmelmeierM. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3
45.
PekertiA., & ThomasD. (2003). Communication in intercultural interaction: An empirical investigation of idiocentric and sociocentric communication styles. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 34, 139–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022102250724
RossL. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–240). New York: Academic Press.
ScholzL. (2010). Dozenten-Studenten-Kommunikation online: Wie wirken sich Schreibstile und Hinweise auf die kulturelle Identität auf das Kommunikationsverhalten von Dozenten aus? [Faculty–student online-communication: What are the influences of writing styles and clues for cultural identity on lecturer's communication behaviour?] (Unpublished diploma thesis). Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
50.
SetlockL. D.FussellS. R., & NeuworthC. (2004). Taking it out of context: Collaborating within and across cultures in face-to-face settings and via instant-messaging. Human-Computer Interaction Institute. Paper 58. Retrieved from http://repository.cmu.edu/hcii/58
51.
SetlockL. D.QuinonesP.-A., & FussellS. R. (2007). Does culture interact with media richness? The effects of audio vs. video conferencing on Chinese and American dyads. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). Waikoloa, HI: IEEE.
52.
ShroutP. E., & FleissJ. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
53.
StephensK. K.HouserM. L., & CowanR. L. (2009). R u able to meat me: The impact of students' overly casual e-mail messages to instructors. Communication Education, 58, 303–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634520802582598
54.
StreetR. L., & GilesH. (1982). Speech accommodation theory: A social cognitive approach to language and speech behavior. In RoloffM. & BergerC. R. (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 193–226). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Ting-ToomeyS. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In GudykunstW. (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 71–92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57.
VignovicJ. A., & ThompsonL. F. (2010). Computer-mediated cross-cultural collaboration: Attributing communication errors to the person versus situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 265–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018628
58.
WaltherJ. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2538–2557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.05.002
59.
YongliangH. (2008). Politeness principle in cross-culture communication. English Language Teaching, 1, 96–101.
