Early words that work: When and how virtual linguistic mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes

Abstract

We hypothesized that in online, virtual formats, negotiators receive better outcomes when mimicking their counterpart's language; furthermore, we predicted that this strategy would be more effective when occurring early in the negotiation rather than at the end, and should also be effective across both independent and interdependent cultures. Results from two experiments supported these hypotheses. Experiment 1 was conducted in Thailand and demonstrated that negotiators who actively mimicked their counterpart's language in the first 10 min of the negotiation obtained higher individual gain compared to those mimicking during the last 10 min, as well as compared to control participants. Experiment 2 replicated this effect in the United States (with Dutch and American negotiators) and also showed that trust mediated the effect of virtual linguistic mimicry on individual negotiation outcomes. Implications for virtual communication, strategic mimicry, and negotiations are discussed.

She Said, She Said: Differential Interpersonal Similarities Predict Unique Linguistic Mimicry in Online Word of Mouth

“…For example, higher levels of linguistic mimicry increase romantic interest between individuals who are speed-dating (Ireland et al 2011), increase preferences for products (Tanner et al 2008), and increase team performance, trust, and cohesion (Gonzales et. al 2010;Huffaker et al 2011;Swaab, Maddux and Sinaceur 2011). However, linguistic mimicry can also decrease the likelihood of reaching an agreement in competitive interactions (Ireland and Henderson 2014), and mimicry of negative emotion words decreases trust in dyadic interactions (Scissors, Gill, Geraghty, and Gergle 2010).…”

The Conversational Chameleon

“…From this perspective, the mimicker accommodates and converges with the partner of the interaction (Giles, 2008), which leads the mimickee to the feeling of affiliation. Such behavior performed by the mimicker signals full comprehension (Gallois, Ogay, & Giles, 2005;Gasiorek & Giles, 2012), mutual empathy, and common social identities (Harwood, Soliz, & Lin, 2006), thus causing the mimickee to be more vulnerable to requests made by the mimicker, as a result of mimicry evoking the feeling that there is a better mutual understanding/trust (Maddux, Mullen, & Galinsky, 2008;Swaab et al, 2011) between them than actually exists. Understanding the difference between communication accommodation theory and the mimicry phenomenon is key to understanding each theory's relevance in social interactions.…”

The double-edged impact of future expectations in groups: Minority influence depends on minorities’ and majorities’ expectations to interact again

“…The manipulation of expectation of future interaction with the same or different group members was embedded in the role materials in the form of an ''important message'' given to group members just before their discussion (see Swaab, Maddux, & Sinaceur, 2011, for a similar procedure). When participants were instructed to expect future interaction with the same people, the important message read:…”