How Do Interpersonal Behaviors and Social Categories Affect Language Use?: The Case of Virtual Teams

References

• Bazarova, N. N., & Walther, J. B. (2009). Attributions in virtual groups: Distances and behavioral variations in computer-mediated discussions. Small Group Research, 40, 138–162. doi:10.1177/1046496408328490
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bazarova, N. N., Walther, J. B., & McLeod, P. L. (2012). Minority influence in virtual groups: A comparison of four theories of minority influence. Communication Research, 39, 295–316. doi:10.1177/0093650211399752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chirumbolo, A., Livi, S., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). Effects of need for closure on creativity in small group interactions. European Journal of Personality, 18, 265–278. doi:10.1002/per.518
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chudoba, K. M., Wynn, E., Lu, M., & Watson-Manheim, M. B. (2005). How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization. Information Systems Journal, 15, 279–306. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00200.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410–436. doi:10.1006/jesp.1995.1018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J., & Johnson, P. (1987). Speech accommodation theory: The first decade and beyond. Communication Yearbook, 10, 13–48.
   Google Scholar
• Gonzales, A. L., Hancock, J. T., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). Language style matching as a predictor of social dynamics in small groups. Communication Research, 37, 3–19. doi:10.1177/0093650209351468
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock, J. T., Landrigan, C., & Silver, C. (2007). Expressing emotion in text-based communication. In Proceedings of CHI ’07, San Jose, CA: ACM Press, 929–932.
   Google Scholar
• Huffaker, D. (2010). Dimensions of leadership and social influence in online communities. Human Communication Research, 36, 593–617. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01390.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ireland, M. E., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). Language style matching in writing: Synchrony in essays, correspondence, and poetry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 549–571. doi:10.1037/a0020386
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ireland, M. E., Slatcher, R. B., Eastwick, P. W., Scissors, L. E., Finkel, E. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability. Psychological Science, 22, 39–44. doi:10.1177/0956797610392928
   Google Scholar
• Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
   Google Scholar
• Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. (1994). The global network organization of the future: Information management opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10, 25–57.
   Google Scholar
• Lea, M., Spears, R., & de Groot, D. (2001). Knowing me, knowing you: Anonymity effects on social identity processes within groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 526–537. doi:10.1177/0146167201275002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leshed, G., Hancock, J. T., Cosley, D., McLeod, P. L., & Gay, G. (2007). Feedback for guiding reflection on teamwork practices. In Proceedings of GROUP’07. Sanibel Island, FL: ACM Press, 217–220.
   Google Scholar
• Leshed, G., Perez, D., Hancock, J. T., Cosley, D., Birnholtz, J., Lee, S., … Gay, G. (2009). Visualizing real-time language-based feedback on teamwork behavior in computer-mediated groups. In Proceedings of CHI ’09, New York, NY: ACM Press, 537–546.
   Google Scholar
• McCroskey, J., & McCain, T. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41, 261–266.
   Google Scholar
• McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32, 365–380. doi:10.2307/2786541
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23–32. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.93.1.23
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemeth, C. J. (1995). Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes and judgments. Social Cognition, 13, 273–291. doi:10.1521/soco.1995.13.3.273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemeth, C., & Rogers, J. (1996). Dissent and the search for information. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 67–76. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1996.tb01083.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemeth, C., & Wachtler, J (1974). Creating the perceptions of consistency and confidence: A necessary condition for minority influence. Sociometry, 37, 529–540. doi:10.2307/2786425
   Google Scholar
• Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1296–1312. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1296
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the faultline model to geographically dispersed teams: How colocated subgroups can impair group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 679–692. doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22083024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 918–930. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.6.918
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26, 341–371. doi:10.1093/hcr/26.3.341
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K., & De Groot, D. (2001). Social influence in computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1243–1254. doi:10.1177/01461672012710001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161–198. doi:10.1080/14792779443000049
   Google Scholar
• Scissors, L. E., Gill, A. J., & Gergle, D. (2008). Linguistic mimicry and trust in text-based CMC. In Proceedings of CSCW ’08, San Diego, CA: ACM Press, 277–280.
   Google Scholar
• Straus, S. G. (1999). Testing a typology of tasks: An empirical validation of McGrath’s (1984) group task circumplex. Small Group Research, 30, 166–187. doi:10.1177/104649649903000202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straus, S. G., & McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 87–97. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.79.1.87
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swaab, R. I., Phillips, K. W., Diermeier, D., & Medvec, V. H. (2008). The pros and cons of dyadic side conversations in small groups: The impact of group norms and task type. Small Group Research, 39, 372–390. doi:10.1177/1046496408317044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tausczik, T. (2009). Linguistic analysis of workplace computer-mediated communication (Unpublished master’s thesis). The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Tausczik, T. (2013). Changing group dynamics through computerized language feedback (Unpublished doctoral thesis). The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Tausczik, T. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24–54. doi:10.1177/0261927x09351676
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317–348. doi:10.1093/hcr/28.3.317
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B. (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 473–501. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00332.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B. (2004). Language and communication technology: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 384–386. doi:10.1177/0261927x04269584
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B. (2012). Interaction through technological lenses computer-mediated communication and language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31, 397–414. doi:10.1177/0261927X12446610
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B., & Bazarova, N. N. (2007). Misattribution in virtual groups: The effects of member distribution on self-serving bias and partner blame. Human Communication Research, 33, 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00286.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B., Bunz, U., & Bazarova, N. (2005). The rules of virtual groups. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Honolulu, HI.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Z., Walther, J. B., & Hancock, J. (2009). Social identification and interpersonal communication in computer-mediated communication: What you do versus who you are in virtual groups. Human Communication Research, 35, 59–85. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.01338.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yilmaz, G., & Peña, J. (2014). The influence of social categories and interpersonal behaviors on future intentions and attitudes to form subgroups in virtual teams. Communication Research, 41, 333–352. doi:10.1177/0093650212443696
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar