Communication accommodation in text messages: Exploring liking, power, and sex as predictors of textisms

ABSTRACT This mixed-methods study applies Communication Accommodation Theory to explore how liking, power, and sex predict one’s likelihood for using textisms in digital interpersonal interactions. Textisms are digital cues that convey nonverbal meaning and emotion in text communication. The main experiment used a hypothetical texting scenario to manipulate textism amounts (none/many) and participant’s perceived power levels (low/equal/high) during texting interactions to examine the number of textisms participants used in subsequent responses in comparison to the number of textisms they viewed. Primary results show that (1) participants moderately converged to use similar amounts of textisms, and (2) those with low power who viewed many textisms were more likely to use textisms themselves during subsequent responses. Through the examination of adaption behaviors in text messaging, scholars can better understand the contexts in which users will include textisms to intentionally convey nonverbal meaning and emotion in digital communication.

[1]  Nenagh Kemp,et al.  Texting versus txtng: reading and writing text messages, and links with other linguistic skills , 2010 .

[2]  Howard GCiles.  ACCENT MOBILITY: A MODEL AND SOME DATA , 2016 .

[3]  M. Hogg,et al.  Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. , 1989 .

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

[5]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Adaptation: Dyadic Interaction Patterns , 1995 .

[6]  Nicholas A. Palomares,et al.  Gender, Language, and Social Influence: A Test of Expectation States, Role Congruity, and Self‐Categorization Theories , 2009 .

[7]  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh,et al.  Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis , 2005, Qualitative health research.

[8]  Michelle Drouin,et al.  Texting, textese and literacy abilities: a naturalistic study , 2014 .

[9]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[10]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Nonverbal communication theories of interaction adaptation , 2010 .

[11]  Deborah Kirby Forgays,et al.  Texting everywhere for everything: Gender and age differences in cell phone etiquette and use , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[12]  M. Hornsey.  Social Identity Theory and Self‐categorization Theory: A Historical Review , 2008 .

[13]  Daisy Powell,et al.  Does SMS text messaging help or harm adults' knowledge of standard spelling? , 2011, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[14]  Laura Christopherson,et al.  Can u help me plz?? Cyberlanguage accommodation in virtual reference conversations , 2011, ASIST.

[15]  Maja Pantic,et al.  Social Signal Processing , 2017 .

[16]  F. Sánchez,et al.  Differences between cultures in emotional verbal and non-verbal reactions , 2000 .

[17]  J. R. Aiello.  A test of equilibrium theory: Visual interaction in relation to orientation, distance and sex of interactants , 1972 .

[18]  Joseph B. Walther,et al.  New Technologies and New Directions in Online Relating , 2009 .

[19]  A. Joinson,et al.  Linguistic Style Accommodation Shapes Impression Formation and Rapport in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2017 .

[20]  Daantje Derks,et al.  Emoticons and social interaction on the Internet: the importance of social context , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

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

[22]  M. Hogg.  Masculine and Feminine Speech in Dyads and Groups: A Study of Speech Style and Gender Salience , 1985 .

[23]  N. Allen,et al.  Assessing dissimilarity relations under missing data conditions: evidence from computer simulations. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[24]  Aaron Smith,et al.  U.S. Smartphone Use in 2015 , 2015 .

[25]  Nicholas A. Palomares,et al.  The gender-linked language effect: an empirical test of a general process model , 2013 .

[26]  John R. Aiello,et al.  A further look at equilibrium theory: Visual interaction as a function of interpersonal distance , 1977 .

[27]  M. Patterson,et al.  The SAGE Handbook of Nonverbal Communication , 2006 .

[28]  Nicholas A. Palomares,et al.  Virtual Gender Identity: The Linguistic Assimilation to Gendered Avatars in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2010 .

[29]  A. Mulac.  The Gender-Linked Language Effect: Do Language Differences Really Make a Difference? , 2006 .

[30]  Richard West,et al.  Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application , 2000 .

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

[32]  Philip Smith.  Roger Bakeman John M. Gottman , 1987, Animal Behaviour.

[33]  Ilona Vandergriff.  Emotive communication online: A contextual analysis of computer-mediated communication (CMC) cues , 2013 .

[34]  Maja Pantic,et al.  Social signal processing: Survey of an emerging domain , 2009, Image Vis. Comput..

[35]  Linda Tickle-Degnen,et al.  Nonverbal Behavior and Its Functions in the Ecosystem of Rapport. , 2006 .

[36]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[37]  H. Giles,et al.  Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. , 1991 .

[38]  Joseph B. Walther,et al.  Nonverbal Dynamics in Computer-Mediated Communication or: (And the Net: ('S with You, :) and You :) Alone , 2006 .

[39]  Nicholas A. Palomares,et al.  Intergroup Accommodation, Social Categories, and Identities , 2016 .

[40]  Lisa J. Orchard,et al.  Emoticon convergence in Internet chat rooms , 2013 .

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

[42]  James J. Bradac,et al.  Empirical Support for the Gender-as-Culture Hypothesis: An Intercultural Analysis of Male/Female Language Differences. , 2001 .

[43]  A. Adams.  Student perceptions of teacher emoticon usage: the effect on teacher credibility and liking , 2014 .

[44]  John Bryden,et al.  Twitter users change word usage according to conversation-partner social identity , 2015, Soc. Networks.

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

[46]  Naomi S. Baron,et al.  Necessary Smileys and Useless Periods: Redefining Punctuation in Electronically-Mediated Communication. , 2011 .

[47]  Jessica Gasiorek,et al.  Accommodative Strategies as Core of the Theory , 2016 .

[48]  Howard Giles,et al.  Communication accommodation theory: negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts , 2016 .

[49]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , 2006 .

[50]  C. F. Bond,et al.  One Hundred Years of Social Psychology Quantitatively Described , 2003 .

[51]  Nicholas A. Palomares,et al.  Language, Gender Salience, and Social Influence , 2003 .

[52]  Patrice M. Buzzanell,et al.  When I call you up and you're not there: Application of communication accommodation theory to telephone answering machine messages , 1996 .

[53]  Joseph B. Walther,et al.  The Impacts of Emoticons on Message Interpretation in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2001 .

[54]  S. Shyam Sundar,et al.  Texting, techspeak, and tweens: The relationship between text messaging and English grammar skills , 2012, New Media Soc..

[55]  Shirley Weitz,et al.  Sex differences in nonverbal communication , 1976 .

[56]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[57]  Kris M. Markman,et al.  Communication Accommodation in Instant Messaging , 2013 .

[58]  Ulla K. Bunz,et al.  Politeness Accommodation in Electronic Mail , 2004 .

[59]  Nenagh Kemp,et al.  Children's text messaging: abbreviations, input methods and links with literacy , 2011, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

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