Journal of Language and Social Psychology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to browse PSPB online!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by de Montes, L. G.
Right arrow Articles by Valencia, J. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 3, 259-281 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X03255381

Communication Patterns in Interdependent Relationships

Lorena Gil de Montes

University of the Basque Country, pspgietl{at}ss.ehu.es

Gün R. Semin

Free University Amsterdam

Jose F. Valencia

University of the Basque Country

Two studies were designed to investigate how the type of interdependence (cooperative vs. competitive) between a speaker and a recipient influences communicators' descriptions of positive and negative target behaviors. The target-addressee relationship was a positive one in the first study. It was expected that speakers in the cooperative condition would describe positive target behaviors in a more abstract way, whereas in the competitive condition, negative target behaviors would be described in a more abstract way. In the second study, the addressee-target relationship was negative. Here we expected that the positive target behaviors would be described more concretely in the cooperation condition, whereas the reverse pattern was predicted in the competition condition. The results broadly supported these predictions. The implications of these findings for the linguistic intergroup bias are described.

Key Words: Linguistic Category Model • LIB • Interdependence


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Language and Social PsychologyHome page
M. Rubini and M. Menegatti
Linguistic Bias in Personnel Selection
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, June 1, 2008; 27(2): 168 - 181.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Language and Social PsychologyHome page
K. M. Douglas, R. M. Sutton, and K. Wilkin
Could You Mind Your Language?: An Investigation of Communicators' Ability to Inhibit Linguistic Bias
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, June 1, 2008; 27(2): 123 - 139.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
D. H. J. Wigboldus, R. Spears, and G. R. Semin
When Do We Communicate Stereotypes? Influence of the Social Context on the Linguistic Expectancy Bias
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2005; 8(3): 215 - 230.
[Abstract] [PDF]