The Power of Language in Computer-Mediated Groups

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.

[1]  M. Knapp,et al.  Perceptions of communication behavior associated with relationship terms , 1980 .

[2]  R. Ofshe,et al.  The Impact of Behavioral Style and Status Characteristics on Social Influence: A Test of Two Competing Theories , 1981 .

[3]  O. J. Harvey,et al.  Assimilation and contrast effects in reactions to communication and attitude change. , 1957, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[4]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Electronic Message Systems in the University: A Description of Use and Utility , 1983 .

[5]  David R. Seibold,et al.  Argument in initial group decision‐making discussions: Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis , 1991 .

[6]  A. Mulac,et al.  Attributional Consequences of Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles in a Crisis-Intervention Context , 1984 .

[7]  J. Short.  Effects of Medium of Communication on Experimental Negotiation , 1974 .

[8]  Richard T. Watson,et al.  Group Decision Support Systems and Group Communication , 1993 .

[9]  William M. O'Barr,et al.  Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech , 1978 .

[10]  Robert D. McPhee,et al.  Group decision‐making as a structurational process , 1985 .

[11]  C I HOVLAND,et al.  Assimilation and contrast effects of anchoring stimuli on judgments. , 1958, Journal of experimental psychology.

[12]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  An instrument for measuring the source credibility of basic speech communication instructors , 1974 .

[13]  David R. Seibold,et al.  Implications for problem‐solving groups of empirical research on ‘brainstorming’: A critical review of the literature , 1978 .

[14]  G. Miller,et al.  Prior Attitude and Language Intensity as Predictors of Message Style and Attitude Change Following Counterattitudinal Advocacy. , 1971 .

[15]  J. Valacich,et al.  Group Size and Anonymity Effects on Computer-Mediated Idea Generation , 1992 .

[16]  Ederyn Williams,et al.  Social and Psychological Factors , 1978 .

[17]  M. Hamilton,et al.  Syntactic and pragmatic code usage in interpersonal communication , 1985 .

[18]  T. Connolly,et al.  Toward Atheory of Automated Group Work , 1990 .

[19]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group processes in computer-mediated communication☆ , 1986 .

[20]  James J. Bradac,et al.  A Molecular View of Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles. , 1984 .

[21]  J. W. Wright,et al.  The effects of hedges and hesitations on impression formation in a simulated courtroom context , 1987 .

[22]  J. Walther.  Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1992 .

[23]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Implementing Electronic Meeting Systems at IBM: Lessons Learned and Success Factors , 1990, MIS Q..

[24]  Lawrence A. Hosman.  The Evaluative Consequences of Hedges, Hesitations, and Intensifiers: Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles. , 1989 .

[25]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Group Decision Support Systems on Group Development , 1990, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[26]  Gene D. Fowler,et al.  Audio teleconferencing versus face‐to‐face conferencing: A synthesis of the literature , 1980 .

[27]  B. Bernstein.  Codes, modalities, and the process of cultural reproduction: A model , 1981, Language in Society.

[28]  Barbara J. O'Keefe,et al.  The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication , 1988 .

[29]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  The measurement of interpersonal attraction , 1974 .

[30]  N. Newcombe,et al.  Effects of speech style and sex of speaker on person perception. , 1979 .

[31]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Communicator Style, Media Use, Organizational Level, and Use and Evaluation of Electronic Messaging , 1992 .

[32]  J. Walther,et al.  Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction , 1990 .

[33]  Joseph Berger,et al.  Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. , 1986 .

[34]  J. Bowers,et al.  THREE LANGUAGE VARIABLES IN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH: INTENSITY, IMMEDIACY, AND DIVERSITY , 1979 .

[35]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication , 1986 .

[36]  R. Rice,et al.  Electronic Emotion , 1987 .

[37]  J. Burgoon,et al.  The Use and Consequences of Verbal Influence Strategies During Interpersonal Disagreements , 1990 .

[38]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Electronic meeting systems , 1991, CACM.

[39]  R. Rice.  Computer-Mediated Communication and Organizational Innovation , 1987 .

[40]  R. Petty,et al.  Expectations of reassurance influence the nature of fear-stimulated attitude change , 1992 .

[41]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Bringing automated support to large groups: The Burr-Brown experience , 1990, Inf. Manag..

[42]  James A. Danowski,et al.  CRISIS EFFECTS ON INTRAORGANIZATIONAL COMPUTER-BASED COMMUNICATION , 1985 .

[43]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Interaction of task and technology to support large groups , 1989, Decis. Support Syst..

[44]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication , 1984 .

[45]  C. Morrill,et al.  The Power of Language in Adjudication and Mediation: Institutional Contexts as Predictors of Social Evaluation , 1992, Law & Social Inquiry.

[46]  J. W. Wright,et al.  Language style and sex bias in the courtroom: The effects of male and female use of hedges and intensifiers on impression information , 1983 .

[47]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Electronic Meeting System Experience at IBM , 1989, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[48]  Richard L. Street,et al.  Powerful and powerless styles of talk: A theoretical analysis of language and impression formation , 1989 .

[49]  James J. Bradac,et al.  Language style on trial: Effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech upon judgments of victims and villains , 1981 .

[50]  E. Eisenberg.  Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication , 1984 .

[51]  Donald G. Ellis,et al.  Syntactic and Pragmatic Codes in Communication , 1992 .

[52]  C. I. Hovland,et al.  Judgmental phenomena and scales of attitude measurement; placement of items with individual choice of number of categories. , 1953, Journal of abnormal psychology.