IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v11y2021i1p21582440211001852.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Language Use in Group Discourse and Its Relationship to Group Processes

Author

Listed:
  • Lyn M. Van Swol
  • Paul Hangsan Ahn
  • Andrew Prahl
  • Zhenxing Gong

Abstract

The study examined the relationship between language use and perception of group processes. In an experiment, participants discussed their views about climate change in a group chat. Afterward, participants ( n = 239) filled out their perception of themselves and group processes. Participants who perceived more similarity among group members used less complex language (cognitive processes language) and more assenting language. As participants felt more knowledgeable and credible about the topic, their use of “we†pronouns and word count increased and use of “I†pronouns decreased. Replicating past research, participants with more extreme opinions used more “you†pronouns, and participants who reported engaging in more perspective-taking used more complex language and “we†pronouns. Results are integrated within an input–process–output model of group processes and suggest that language is reflective of individual inputs and perception of group processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Lyn M. Van Swol & Paul Hangsan Ahn & Andrew Prahl & Zhenxing Gong, 2021. "Language Use in Group Discourse and Its Relationship to Group Processes," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440211, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:1:p:21582440211001852
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440211001852
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440211001852
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440211001852?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sniezek, Janet A. & Buckley, Timothy, 1995. "Cueing and Cognitive Conflict in Judge-Advisor Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 159-174, May.
    2. François Sainfort & Bridget C. Booske, 2000. "Measuring Post-decision Satisfaction," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 51-61, January.
    3. Rob Eisinga & Manfred Grotenhuis & Ben Pelzer, 2013. "The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown?," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 58(4), pages 637-642, August.
    4. Kennedy, Jessica A. & Anderson, Cameron & Moore, Don A., 2013. "When overconfidence is revealed to others: Testing the status-enhancement theory of overconfidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 266-279.
    5. repec:cdl:indrel:qt6s5812wf is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Heath, Chip & Gonzalez, Rich, 1995. "Interaction with Others Increases Decision Confidence but Not Decision Quality: Evidence against Information Collection Views of Interactive Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 305-326, March.
    7. Sniezek, Janet A., 1992. "Groups under uncertainty: An examination of confidence in group decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 124-155, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hoffmann, Christin & Thommes, Kirsten, 2024. "Can leaders motivate employees’ energy-efficient behavior with thoughtful communication?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    2. Barbara Colombo & Alison Rigby & Martina Gnerre & Federica Biassoni, 2022. "The Effects of a Dance and Music-Based Intervention on Parkinson’s Patients’ Well-Being: An Interview Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-13, June.
    3. Josie Zvelebilova & Saiph Savage & Christoph Riedl, 2024. "Collective Attention in Human-AI Teams," Papers 2407.17489, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chernyshenko, Oleksandr S. & Miner, Andrew G. & Baumann, Michael R. & Sniezek, Janet A., 2003. "The impact of information distribution, ownership, and discussion on group member judgment: The differential cue weighting model," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 12-25, May.
    2. Alexandra Gheondea-Eladi, 2016. "The Evolution of Certainty in a Small Decision-Making Group by Consensus," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 127-155, January.
    3. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.
    4. Keding, Christoph & Meissner, Philip, 2021. "Managerial overreliance on AI-augmented decision-making processes: How the use of AI-based advisory systems shapes choice behavior in R&D investment decisions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    5. Marleen H. F. McCardle‐Keurentjes & Etiënne A. J. A. Rouwette & Jac A. M. Vennix & Eric Jacobs, 2018. "Potential benefits of model use in group model building: insights from an experimental investigation," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 354-384, January.
    6. Buehler, Roger & Messervey, Deanna & Griffin, Dale, 2005. "Collaborative planning and prediction: Does group discussion affect optimistic biases in time estimation?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 47-63, May.
    7. Budescu, David V. & Rantilla, Adrian K. & Yu, Hsiu-Ting & Karelitz, Tzur M., 2003. "The effects of asymmetry among advisors on the aggregation of their opinions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 178-194, January.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:2:p:144-171 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Thomas Schultze & Anne-Fernandine Rakotoarisoa & Stefan Schulz-Hardt, 2015. "Effects of distance between initial estimates and advice on advice utilization," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(2), pages 144-171, March.
    10. Steffen Keck & Wenjie Tang, 2018. "Gender Composition and Group Confidence Judgment: The Perils of All-Male Groups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(12), pages 5877-5898, December.
    11. Sah, Sunita & Moore, Don A. & MacCoun, Robert J., 2013. "Cheap talk and credibility: The consequences of confidence and accuracy on advisor credibility and persuasiveness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 246-255.
    12. Jack B. Soll & Asa B. Palley & Christina A. Rader, 2022. "The Bad Thing About Good Advice: Understanding When and How Advice Exacerbates Overconfidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2949-2969, April.
    13. Hedlund, Jennifer & Ilgen, Daniel R. & Hollenbeck, John R., 1998. "Decision Accuracy in Computer-Mediated versus Face-to-Face Decision-Making Teams," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 30-47, October.
    14. Gold-Nöteberg, A.H. & Knechel, W.R. & Wallage, P., 2008. "The Effect of Audit Standards on Fraud Consultation and Auditor Judgment," ERIM Report Series Research in Management 11687, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    15. Phillips, Jean M., 1999. "Antecedents of Leader Utilization of Staff Input in Decision-Making Teams," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 215-242, March.
    16. Brian Whitworth & Brent Gallupe & Robert McQueen, 2000. "A Cognitive Three-Process Model of Computer-Mediated Group Interaction," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 431-456, September.
    17. Jonas, Eva & Frey, Dieter, 2003. "Information search and presentation in advisor-client interactions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 154-168, July.
    18. Mehdi Mostaghimi, 2001. "Information Collection Strategic Design in Experts-assisted Decision Making Paradigm," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(5), pages 375-388, September.
    19. See, Kelly E. & Morrison, Elizabeth W. & Rothman, Naomi B. & Soll, Jack B., 2011. "The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 272-285.
    20. Kessel, Dany & Mollerstrom, Johanna & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2021. "Can simple advice eliminate the gender gap in willingness to compete?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 138, pages 1-1.
    21. Lingbo Fu & Chengyu Xiong & Min Xu, 2023. "Influential Factors Affecting Tea Tourists’ Behavior Intention in Cultural Ecosystem Services: An Affordance Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-18, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:1:p:21582440211001852. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.