Linguistic Style Matching and Negotiation Outcome

Abstract

This research examined the relationship between Linguistic Style Matching-the degree to which negotiators coordinate their word use-and negotiation outcome. Nine hostage negotiations were divided into 6 time stages and the dialogue of police negotiators and hostage takers analyzed across 18 linguistic categories. Correlational analyses showed that successful negotiations were associated with higher aggregate levels of Linguistic Style Matching (LSM) than unsuccessful negotiations. This result was due to dramatic fluctuations of LSM during unsuccessful negotiations, with negotiators unable to maintain the constant levels of rapport and coordination that occurred in successful negotiations. A further analysis of LSM at the local turn-by-turn level revealed complex but organized variations in behavior across outcome. In comparison to unsuccessful negotiations, the dialogue of successful negotiations involved greater coordination of turn taking, reciprocation of positive affect, a focus on the present rather than the past, and a focus on alternatives rather than on competition. Linguistic Style Matching 3 Linguistic Style Matching and Negotiation OutcomeConflict researchers have long been interested in uncovering the communicative dynamics that determine whether or not a negotiation is successful. This interest has particular prominence in crisis negotiation research, where outcome has been shown to relate to differences in relational dynamics (Donohue & Roberto, 1993), behavioral competitiveness (Taylor, 2002a), the reciprocation of offers and arguments (Giebels & Taylor, in press), and many other facets of the interpersonal process. However, to date, research in crisis negotiation has given almost no consideration to the importance of language use. This oversight is significant, not least because the words and phrases that speakers use to negotiate a crisis represent the channel through which instrumental and relational dynamics are played out. Understanding how language use shapes the development of a negotiation is therefore likely to provide significant insights into the interpersonal dynamics of conflict. This paper focuses on one aspect of language use known as linguistic style matching, and considers its role in determining how crisis negotiations unfold and resolve. Linguistic Style Matching (LSM)When two people interact, their utterances are patterned and coordinated, with each individual's cues and responses fitting into a sequence of interconnected events (Auld & White, 1959;Putnam, 1985). In the nonverbal literature, this coordination of actions is considered essential to interaction success. Facial expressions, non-verbal behaviors, kinetics and proxemics have each been shown to coordinate in systematic and organized ways to enhance the communication process (Ellis & Beattie, 1986 Accommodation Theory (Giles & Coupland, 1991), individuals continually adapt their communication behavior to create, maintain or decrease the social distance between themselves and the other party. One strategy that...

Convergence of speech rate in conversation predicts cooperation

“…We told them only that we were studying "small talk among strangers," and that they would be answering some questions at the end of the conversation. In contrast, the experimental situation of a task group (Gonzales et al, 2010), and the real-life situations of a speed-date (Ireland et al, 2011) or a hostage negotiation (Taylor & Thomas, 2008), presumably foreground the detection of cooperative potential in one's interlocutor(s) before the face-to-face interaction. One possibility is that, with respect specifically to function word use, close style matching (i.e.…”

“…Among a large number of similar findings, people spontaneously mimic an experimental confederate's gestures and report greater liking for a confederate who mimics them (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999), and leave larger tips for a waitress who mimics them (van Baaren et al, 2003). Researchers using the automated Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count algorithm (Pennebaker et al, 2001(Pennebaker et al, , 2007 have found that similarity in relative usage frequency of common function word (Taylor & Thomas, 2008), task group cohesiveness (Gonzales et al, 2010), and the formation and persistence of romantic relationships (Ireland et al, 2011). Coordinated language use and behavior may facilitate mutual understanding (Pickering & Garrod, 2004).…”

To Match or Not to Match? Reactions to Turning Points in Negotiation

“…The importance of negotiators being "in sync" or "out of sync" with each other has been demonstrated in various domains including strategies and tactics, goals, linguistic styles, and nonverbal behavior (Maddux et al 2008;Olekalns and Smith 2000;Taylor and Thomas 2008;Weingart et al 1999). Although synchronized responding to the turning point offer can propel negotiators towards an agreement (Druckman 2004;Griessmair et al 2015), studies have also shown that negotiators may engage in mismatching.…”

Monitoring email to indicate project team performance and mutual attraction

“…Previously, linguistic mimicry has been used as an indicator for team performance [13,32], group cohesion [13], and trust [29]. Niederhoffer and Pennebaker propose one measure of similarity in text, Linguistic Style Matching (LSM), based on conversation participants' use of function ("contentfree") words, such as adverbs, articles, auxiliary verbs, conjunctions, negations, prepositions, pronouns, and quantifiers [21].…”

“…LSM, alongside other measurements, has been used to provide real-time feedback that has improved the performance of poorly functioning classroom teams [31]. In another context, higher LSM between hostage takers and hostage negotiators has been found to be correlated with successful outcomes [32].…”