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

References

• Adams, A. (2014, May). Student perceptions of teacher emoticon usage: The effect on teacher credibility and liking. Paper presented at the 64th International Communication Association. Seattle, WA.
   Google Scholar
• Adams, A., Miles, J., Dunbar, N. E. (2017, May). Explicating textisms in mediated communication: A codebook for analyzing nonverbal cues in text messages. Paper presented at the 67th International Communication Association. San Diego, California.
   Google Scholar
• Aiello, J. R. (1972). A test of equilibrium theory: Visual interaction in relation to orientation, distance and sex of interactants. Psychonomic Science, 27, 335–336.
   Google Scholar
• Aiello, J. R. (1977). A further look at equilibrium theory: Visual interactions as a function of interpersonal distance. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 1, 122–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakeman, R. & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baron, N. S., & Ling, R. (2011). Necessary smileys & useless periods. Visible Language, 1, 45–67.
   Google Scholar
• Bunz, U., & Campbell, S. W. (2004). Politeness accommodation in electronic mail. Communication Research Reports, 21, 11–25.
   Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J., Dunbar, N. E., & Giles, H. (2017). Social signal processing. In J. K. Burgoon, N. Magnenat-Thalmann, M. Pantic, & A. Vinciarelli (Eds.), Interaction coordination and adaptation (pp. 78–96). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J., Stern, L., & Dillman, L. (1995). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interaction patterns. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., Floyd, K., & Guerrero, L. K. (2010). Nonverbal communication theories of interaction adaptation. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, & D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (pp. 93–108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2016). Nonverbal communication. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Buzzanell, P. M., Burrell, N. A., Stafford, R. S., & Berkowitz, S. (1996). When I call you up and you’re not there: Application of communication accommodation theory to telephone answering machine messages. Western Journal of Communication, 60, 310–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christopherson, L. (2011). Can u help me plz?? Cyberlanguage accommodation in virtual reference conversations. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48, 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Cingel, D. P., & Sundar, S. S. (2012). Texting, techspeak, and tweens: The relationships between text messing and English grammar skills. New Media and Society, 14, 1304–1320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. W. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danescu-Niculescu-Mizel, C., Gamon, M., & Dumais, S., 2011. Mark my word! Linguistic style accommodation in social media. WWW 2011: Proceedings of the 20th. International Conference on World Web, 745–754.
   Google Scholar
• Derks, D., Bos, A. R., & Von Grumbkow, J. (2007). Emoticons and social interaction on the Internet: The importance of social context. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 842–849.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dragojevic, M., Gasiorek, J., & Giles, H. (2016). Accommodative strategies as core of the theory. In H. Giles (Ed.), Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Drouin, M., & Driver, B. (2014). Texting, textese and literacy abilities: A naturalistic study. Journal of Research in Reading, 37, 250–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez, I., Carrera, P., Sanchez, F., Paez, D., & Candia, L. (2000). Differences between cultures in emotional verbal and nonverbal reactions. Psicothema, 12, 83–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forgays, D. K., Hyman, I., & Schreiber, J. (2014). Texting everywhere for everything: Gender and age differences in cell phone etiquette and use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 314–321. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fullwood, C., Orchard, L. J., & Floyd, S. A. (2013). Emoticon convergence in Internet chat rooms. Social Semiotics, 23, 648–662.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics, 15, 87–105.
   Google Scholar
• Giles, H. (2008). Communication accommodation theory: “When in Rome…” or not! In L. A. Baxter, & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 161–174). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Giles, H. (Ed.). (2016). Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland (Eds.), The contexts of accommodation (pp. 1–68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hogg, M. A. (1985). Masculine and feminine speech in dyads and groups: A study of speech style and gender salience. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 99–112.
   Google Scholar
• Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self‐categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204–222.
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp, N. (2010). Texting versus textng: Reading and writing text messages, and links with other linguistic skills. Writing Systems Research, 2, 53–71.
   Google Scholar
• Kemp, N., & Bushnell, C. (2011). Children’s text messaging: Abbreviations, input methods and links with literacy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 18–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehrabian, A. (1971). Verbal and nonverbal interaction of strangers in a waiting room. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 5, 127–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merrill, L., & Hernandez, R. (2013). Communication accommodation theory. In R. L. West, & L. H. Turner (Eds.), Introducing to communication theory: Analysis and application (pp. 492–509). Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill Education.
   Google Scholar
• Muir, K., Joinson, A., Cotterill, R., & Dewdney, N. (2016). Characterizing the linguistic chameleon: Personal and social correlates of linguistic style accommodation. Human Communication Research, 42, 462–484.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muir, K., Joinson, A., Cotterill, R., & Dewdney, N. (2017). Linguistic style accommodation shapes impression formation and rapport in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(5), 525–548.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulac, A. (2006). The gender-linked language effect: Do language differences really make a difference? In K. Dindia, & D. J. Canary (Eds), Sex differences and similarities in communication (pp. 219–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Gibbons, P. (2001). Empirical support for the gender-as-culture hypothesis: An intercultural analysis of male/female language differences. Human Communication Research, 27, 121–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulac, A., Giles, H., Bradac, J. J., & Palomares, N. (2013). Explaining the gender-linked language effect: An empirical test of a general process model. Language Sciences, 38, 22–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, K. K. (2014). Mixed methods: When more really is more. In L. L. Putnam, & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication (pp. 297–320). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Palomares, N., Giles, H., Soliz, J., & Gallois, C. (2016). Intergroup accommodation, social categories, and identities. In H. Giles (Ed.), Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts (pp. 123–151). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Palomares, N. A., & Lee, E. J. (2010). Virtual gender identity: The linguistic assimilation to gendered avatars in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 5–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell, D., & Dixon, M. (2011). Does SMS text messaging help or harm adults’ knowledge of standard spelling? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 58–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reid, S. A., Keerie, N., & Palomares, N. A. (2003). Language, gender salience, and social influence. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22(2), 210–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reid, S. A., Palomares, N. A., Anderson, G. L., & Bondad‐Brown, B. (2009). Gender, language, and social influence: A test of expectation states, role congruity, and self‐categorization theories. Human Communication Research, 35(4), 465–490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7(4), 331–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riordan, M. A., Markman, K. M., & Stewart, C. O. (2013). Communication accommodation in instant messaging an examination of temporal convergence. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32(1), 84–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London, UK: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, A., & Page, D. (2015). U.S. smartphone use in 2015. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/03/PI_Smartphones_0401151.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamburrini, N., Cinnirella, M., Jansen, V. A. A., & Bryden, J. (2015). Twitter users change word usage according to conversation-partner social identity. Social Networks, 40, 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2014.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tickle-Degnen, L. (2006). Nonverbal behavior and its functions in the ecosystem of rapport. In V. Manusov, & M. Patterson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 381–399). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Vandergriff, I. (2013). Emotive communication online: A contextual analysis of computer-mediated communication (CMC) cues. Journal of Pragmatics, 51, 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated communication: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B. (2006). Nonverbal dynamics in computer-mediated communication, or:(And the net:(‘s with you,:) and you:) alone. In V. Manusov, & M. Patterson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 461–479). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B., & D’Addario, K. B. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19(3), 324–347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B., & Ramirez, A. (2010). New technologies and new directions in online relating. In S. W. Smith, & S. R. Wilson (Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication research (pp. 264–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Weitz, S. (1976). Sex differences in nonverbal communication. Sex Roles, 2, 175–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, J. (2011). Communication mosaics. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar