Introducing rLSM: An integrated metric assessing temporal reciprocity in language style matching

The way that individuals use function words in a conversation—reflecting how they say things, rather than what they say—is called their individual language style. The dyadic coordination of language styles, called language style matching (LSM), is central to the development of social relationships in conversations. Despite a growing body of research on LSM, conceptual and methodological approaches are inconsistent between scholars. After giving a conceptual overview of LSM, we derive the properties desirable for analyses of LSM in interaction (e.g., reciprocity, consistency, and frequency sensitivity). Building on these properties, the existing three methodological approaches to LSM are reviewed. Since none of the existing metrics fulfills all the desired properties, we introduce a new metric to assess LSM in dyadic interaction, capturing reciprocal adaption throughout the dynamic process of a conversation. Hence, the new metric is called reciprocal LSM (rLSM). To empirically establish the conceptual underpinnings of rLSM, the metric is compared to the LSM metric most commonly used in psychological research. Both metrics are applied to a set of N = 77 transcribed real-life dyadic conversations, analyzed with the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software. The results indicate that rLSM is a better estimate of LSM than is the old metric and that there is high conceptual similarity between the two metrics. Implications for existing research and directions for future research are discussed. To facilitate the standardization and comparability of research, guidelines are provided for authors on the use of the new and existing metrics.

[1]  Cindy K. Chung,et al.  The Psychological Functions of Function Words , 2007 .

[2]  Riccardo Fusaroli,et al.  Dialog as interpersonal synergy , 2014, New Ideas in Psychology.

[3]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Psychological aspects of natural language. use: our words, our selves. , 2003, Annual review of psychology.

[4]  H. Giles,et al.  Language: Contexts and Consequences , 1991 .

[5]  Jeffrey Dean,et al.  Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality , 2013, NIPS.

[6]  Simone Kauffeld,et al.  Coding interactions in Motivational Interviewing with computer-software: What are the advantages for process researchers? , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[7]  David C. Atkins,et al.  More than reflections: empathy in motivational interviewing includes language style synchrony between therapist and client. , 2015, Behavior therapy.

[8]  Vivian P. Ta,et al.  Latent Semantic Similarity and Language Style Matching in Initial Dyadic Interactions , 2014 .

[9]  Ryan L. Boyd,et al.  The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015 , 2015 .

[10]  Sidney J Segalowitz,et al.  Perceptual fluency and lexical access for function versus content words , 2004, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[11]  T. Chartrand,et al.  The chameleon effect: the perception-behavior link and social interaction. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  P. Taylor,et al.  Linguistic Style Matching and Negotiation Outcome , 2005 .

[13]  A. Graesser,et al.  Pronoun Use Reflects Standings in Social Hierarchies , 2014 .

[14]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Language style matching in writing: synchrony in essays, correspondence, and poetry. , 2010, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[15]  Anthony F. Peressini,et al.  Development of a Synchronization Coefficient for Biosocial Interactions in Groups and Teams , 2017 .

[16]  Frank J. Bernieri,et al.  Interpersonal coordination: Behavior matching and interactional synchrony. , 1991 .

[17]  Lauren E. Scissors,et al.  Language Style Matching Predicts Relationship Initiation and Stability , 2011, Psychological science.

[18]  Michael J. Richardson,et al.  Who syncs? Social motives and interpersonal coordination , 2012 .

[19]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[20]  Michael J. Hove,et al.  It's all in the timing: Interpersonal synchrony increases affiliation , 2009 .

[21]  Alexandra Paxton,et al.  An exploratory analysis of emotion dynamics between mothers and adolescents during conflict discussions. , 2016, Emotion.

[22]  Alexandra Paxton,et al.  Frame-differencing methods for measuring bodily synchrony in conversation , 2012, Behavior Research Methods.

[23]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  Mark my words!: linguistic style accommodation in social media , 2011, WWW.

[24]  Peer F. Bundgaard,et al.  Making sense together: A dynamical account of linguistic meaning-making , 2013 .

[25]  James W. Pennebaker,et al.  Language Use and Personality during Crises: Analyses of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's Press Conferences , 2002 .

[26]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Language Style Matching as a Predictor of Social Dynamics in Small Groups , 2010, Commun. Res..

[27]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Latent Dirichlet Allocation , 2001, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[28]  T. Chartrand,et al.  The antecedents and consequences of human behavioral mimicry. , 2013, Annual review of psychology.

[29]  A. Meinecke,et al.  Appraisal Participation and Perceived Voice in Annual Appraisal Interviews , 2017 .

[30]  Stephen A. Rains Language Style Matching as a Predictor of Perceived Social Support in Computer-Mediated Interaction Among Individuals Coping With Illness , 2016, Commun. Res..

[31]  N. Collins,et al.  Language Style Matching in Romantic Partners’ Conflict and Support Interactions , 2017 .

[32]  G. Bodie,et al.  Language use and style matching in supportive conversations between strangers and friends , 2017 .

[33]  C. Frith,et al.  Coming to Terms , 2012, Psychological science.

[34]  Christopher T. Kello,et al.  Complexity matching in dyadic conversation. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[35]  A. Joinson,et al.  Characterizing the Linguistic Chameleon: Personal and Social Correlates of Linguistic Style Accommodation , 2016 .

[36]  Susan Brennan,et al.  Partner-Specific Adaptation in Dialog , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[37]  Howard Giles,et al.  Communication Accommodation Theory: “When in Rome …” or Not! , 2008 .

[38]  J. Pennebaker The Secret Life of Pronouns: What Our Words Say About Us , 2011 .

[39]  Gamze Yılmaz What You Do and How You Speak Matter , 2016 .

[40]  M. Pickering,et al.  Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue , 2004, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[41]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Language use of depressed and depression-vulnerable college students , 2004 .

[42]  F. Auld,et al.  Rules for Dividing Interviews Into Sentences , 1956 .

[43]  Marlone D. Henderson,et al.  Language Style Matching, Engagement, and Impasse in Negotiations , 2014 .

[44]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Linguistic Style Matching in Social Interaction , 2002 .

[45]  Marko Dragojevic,et al.  Communication Accommodation Theory , 2015 .

[46]  Antje S. Meyer,et al.  Representations and Processes in the Production of Pronouns: Some Perspectives from Dutch☆☆☆ , 1999 .

[47]  T. Chartrand,et al.  Using Nonconscious Behavioral Mimicry to Create Affiliation and Rapport , 2003, Psychological science.

[48]  C. Buss,et al.  Children's Brain Development Benefits from Longer Gestation , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[49]  Daniel C. Richardson,et al.  Social coordination of verbal and non-verbal behaviours , 2016 .

[50]  John D. Hatfield,et al.  The Comparative Utility of Three Types of Behavioral Units for Interaction Analysis. , 1978 .