Linguistic Coordination as an Unobtrusive, Dynamic Indicator of Rapport, Prosocial Team Processes, and Performance in Team Communication

Carmody, Patrick; Mateo, Julio C.; Bowers, Drew; McCloskey, Mike J.

doi:10.1177/1541931213601518

Cited by 7 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Language convergence, especially as measured with LSM, has been used as a key linguistic indicator of cohesiveness (Pennebaker & Chung, 2012;Salas et al, 2015). Whereas a few studies have found no association (Carmody, Mateo, Bowers, & McCloskey, 2017;Munson, Kervin, & Robert, 2014), most studies have found a positive association between language convergence and indicators of cohesion (Budak & Agrawal, 2013;Castro-Hernandez et al, 2014;Gonzales et al, 2010;Manson et al, 2013;Muir et al, 2017;Scissors, Gill, & Gergle, 2008;Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2013). For example, Gonzales et al (2010) found that LSM was associated with group members' self-reported cohesiveness.…”

Section: Interrelatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some research has found no relationship between language convergence and group performance (Munson et al, 2014). Carmody et al (2017) found that language convergence was related to lower accuracy in an online problem-solving task. They reasoned that language convergence could be an indicator that the group is stuck or "spinning their wheels" (p. 144).…”

Section: Group Outputs and Language Usementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Language and Group Processes: An Integrative, Interdisciplinary Review

Swol

Kane

2018

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews research that examines the use of language in small interacting groups and teams. We propose a model of group inputs (e.g., status), processes and emergent states (e.g., cohesion, influence, and innovation), and outputs (e.g., group effectiveness and member well-being) to help structure our review. The model is integrated with how language is used by groups to both reflect group inputs but also to examine how language interacts with inputs to affect group processes and create emergent states in groups, and then ultimately helps add value to the group with outputs (e.g., performance). Using cross-disciplinary research, our review finds that language is integral to how groups coordinate, interrelate, and adapt. For example, language convergence is related to increased group cohesion and group performance. Our model provides the theoretical scaffolding to consider language use in interacting small groups and suggests areas for future research.

show abstract

Section: Interrelatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Group Outputs and Language Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Language and Group Processes: An Integrative, Interdisciplinary Review

Swol

Kane

2018

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specific work on verbal synchrony (i.e., LSM) by Gonzales and colleagues (2010) has shown that a greater level of LSM in face-to-face interactions corresponds to better group performance (cognitive tasks) in student groups. By taking a closer look at additional group parameters, Carmody, Mateo, Bowers, and McCloskey (2017) showed that LSM affects team performance differently whether trust within the group is high or low. For newly formed groups that did not have the possibility to build trust, the authors found a positive effect of LSM on group performance.…”

Section: Role and Effects Of Verbal Synchrony In Social Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For newly formed groups that did not have the possibility to build trust, the authors found a positive effect of LSM on group performance. Here, apart from pursuing the group goals, verbal expenditures serve to form interpersonal bonds (i.e., building trust and rapport; Carmody et al, 2017; van Swol & Kane, 2019). However, for groups that had spent some time together (virtually) and built a high amount of trust, the effect of LSM on performance reversed and turned negative (Carmody et al, 2017).…”

Section: Role and Effects Of Verbal Synchrony In Social Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here, apart from pursuing the group goals, verbal expenditures serve to form interpersonal bonds (i.e., building trust and rapport; Carmody et al, 2017; van Swol & Kane, 2019). However, for groups that had spent some time together (virtually) and built a high amount of trust, the effect of LSM on performance reversed and turned negative (Carmody et al, 2017). At this stage, high LSM might as well refer to extraneous verbal activity (i.e., jokes, off-topic conversations).…”

Section: Role and Effects Of Verbal Synchrony In Social Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Language Matters: The Double-Edged Role of Linguistic Style Matching in Work Groups

Heuer

Müller‐Frommeyer

Kauffeld

2019

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linguistic style matching (LSM) refers to a similar linguistic style among conversation partners. We examine the effects of LSM on perceived team performance and perceived social support in real work groups. We propose that team tenure moderates the relationship between LSM and perceived performance such that LSM and performance are positively related for teams with low tenure and negatively related for teams with high levels of tenure. We also propose that LSM and perceived social support are positively related. To test the hypotheses, we videotaped and transcribed meetings of 160 researchers, nested in 26 teams, to assess the individual levels of LSM. We measured team performance and social support with questionnaire scales. In partial support of the hypotheses, multilevel models show a negative relationship between LSM and team performance and a positive relationship between LSM and social support. We discuss potential implications for team research and practitioners.

show abstract

‘Rapport myopia’ in investigative interviews: Evidence from linguistic and subjective indicators of rapport

Richardson

Nash

2021

Legal Criminol Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. Rapport-building has beneficial effects in investigative and security contexts. However, there remains limited understanding of the extent of agreement between different parties in their judgments of rapport. Methods. We observed 133 mock suspect interviews, and subsequently surveyed the lead interviewer and secondary interviewer (trainees undertaking an undergraduate Policing programme), the 'suspect' (an actor), and an expert observer (a retired, highly experienced police detective). Each of these parties provided subjective judgments of the degree of rapport that had been formed between suspect and lead interviewer. Furthermore, we assessed whether these subjective judgments were associated with the degree of 'Language Style Matching' (LSM) between lead interviewer and suspect: a key linguistic measure of interpersonal synchrony.Results. The suspect, secondary interviewer, and expert observer had generally good agreement about the degree of rapport achieved, as evidenced through significant, moderate to strong correlations between their rapport ratings. However, these parties' rapport ratings were weakly associated with those of the lead interviewer. Our linguistic analysis provided similar results: the extent of LSM was significantly associated with suspects' and the expert's subjective ratings of rapport, but not with the interviewers' ratings.Conclusions. The findings suggest that the demands of interviewing might impede interviewers' insight into the success of their rapport-building efforts, leading them to overlook cues that other parties rely upon. We discuss the need for future experimental manipulations to directly test this suggestion, and we consider the value of interpersonal synchrony in defining and measuring rapport.Rapport-building has been shown to foster cooperation with both cooperative and uncooperative interviewees in investigative contexts. As such, rapport is a fundamental part of well-established models of investigative interviewing (Powell, Fisher, & Wright, 2005;Walsh & Bull, 2012). Nevertheless, little remains known about how reliably interviewers judge the effectiveness of their efforts to build rapport with interviewees. In this exploratory study, we examine whether mock interviewers' judgments of rapportThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Linguistic Coordination as an Unobtrusive, Dynamic Indicator of Rapport, Prosocial Team Processes, and Performance in Team Communication

Cited by 7 publications

References 21 publications

Language and Group Processes: An Integrative, Interdisciplinary Review

Language and Group Processes: An Integrative, Interdisciplinary Review

Language Matters: The Double-Edged Role of Linguistic Style Matching in Work Groups

‘Rapport myopia’ in investigative interviews: Evidence from linguistic and subjective indicators of rapport

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About