2 Language and interpersonal communication: Their intergroup dynamics
Abstract: Intergroup communication occurs when either person in a social interaction defines self or other in terms of their social identity (i.e., as a group member) rather than their personal identity (i.e., as a unique individual). In this chapter, we argue that most interactions traditionally considered interpersonal are actually intergroup in nature. Positioning our argument in light of intergroup theories, we first discuss the dynamic nature of communication, noting how conversation can quickly shift between various degrees of interpersonal and intergroup salience. Second, we describe the social categorization process, with particular emphasis on the ways in which social identities are marked, established, and negotiated communicatively through various verbal (e.g., language, topic) and nonverbal (e.g., clothing, makeup) cues. Next, some of the features that characterize intergroup interactions are developed, focusing on changes in perception, language use, as well as various communicative adjustments and misadjustments. Then, we note some ways in which intergroup encounters may be redefined in more interpersonal terms. Finally, several principles of intergroup communication are proposed and avenues for future research are discussed.
Key Words: interpersonal, intergroup, social categorization, language, accommodation
1 Introduction
Consider the following exchange between a husband and wife: While eating breakfast, Frank turns to Joanne and says, “There is never a moment when I don’t appreciate you for who you are: so talented, so caring, so different from any other woman I have ever met.” Only seconds later, he asks, “Can you iron my shirt? After all, it is a woman’s thing to do.”
Intergroup communication occurs when either person in a social interaction defines self or other in terms of their social identity (i.e., as a group member), rather than their personal identity (i.e., as a unique individual).1 As the above example illustrates, people often communicate with one another in terms of their social group memberships and not purely as individuals. Although Frank is addressing Joanne initially in terms of her unique characteristics, his communication with her in closing is also based on her social group membership (i.e., gender); Joanne’s response to Frank is likely to be so influenced as well. Indeed, intergroup factors are often salient in many contexts typically considered interpersonal, such as interethnic/interracial friendships and romantic relationships (Gaines et al. 1999), cross-faith friendships (Paolini et al. 2004), and heterosexual-homosexual relationships (Vonofakou, Hewstone, and Voci 2007). Relatedly, family communication can be an intergroup domain (Soliz and Rittenour 2012) as it can be infused with group identities, such as gender roles (Tannen 2003), age (Harwood 2000), and racial/ethnic differences (Killian 2001).
Although the focus on intergroup processes in the field of communication has grown tremendously in recent years and a number of edited volumes on the subject have appeared (Giles 2012a; Giles, Reid and Harwood 2010; Harwood and Giles 2005), interpersonal scholars have largely overlooked the utility of an intergroup perspective in their own research. In fact, the term intergroup is altogether absent from the indexes of major volumes on interpersonal communication (e.g., Knapp and Daly 2002; Spitzberg and Cupach 1998) and intergroup theories – with the notable exception of communication accommodation theory (CAT: e.g., Gallois, Ogay, and Giles 2005) – have largely been unexploited in empirical studies labeled as “interpersonal” (cf. Braithwaite and Baxter 2008). This is perhaps surprising given that, by some estimates, most interpersonal interactions may actually be intergroup in nature (see Giles 2012b; Petronio et al. 1998).
The current chapter intends to bridge this gap and show ways in which intergroup theory and research across a wide variety of intergroup settings can supplement traditional interpersonal research. First, we discuss the dynamic nature of communication, noting how conversation can quickly shift between various degrees of interpersonal and intergroup salience. Second, we describe the social categorization process, noting some of the myriad ways in which group identities are marked communicatively. Next, some of the features that characterize intergroup interactions are developed, focusing on changes in perception, as well as various communicative adjustments and misadjustments. Then, we note some ways in which intergroup encounters may be redefined in more interpersonal terms. Finally, several principles of intergroup communication are proposed and avenues for future research are discussed.
2 The dynamics of intergroup communication
Scholars have often theorized that the distinction between interpersonal and intergroup encounters can be conceptualized along a single continuum (e.g., Tajfel and Turner 1986). Although the degree to which encounters are interpersonal, on the one hand, and intergroup, on the other, are in practice negatively correlated (see Oakes, Haslam, and Turner 1994), we are more inclined to adopt the perspective that communication can simultaneously be high or low on both the interpersonal and intergroup dimensions (Giles and Hewstone 1982; Harwood, Giles, and Palomares 2005). Consequently, we conceive of communication as falling within one of four quadrants defined by the degree of interpersonal and intergroup salience.
In Quadrant I, communication may be purely embedded in interactants’ personal identities, where social group memberships are largely irrelevant. A conversation between two adult siblings about a memorable childhood event may be an example of such an interaction. In Quadrant II, people engage one another in terms of both their personal and social identities. An example of this may be an engaging discussion about cultural differences in a multiethnic marriage, or the hypothetical exchange between the married couple described earlier. In Quadrant III, a communicative episode may be entirely defined in terms of peoples’ social identities, as for example an encounter between two men whose nations are at war with one another. Finally, Quadrant IV represents situations low in both interpersonal and intergroup salience. Mindless interactions with service personnel may sometimes constitute such a situation.
Although these quadrants may provide a useful heuristic, communication is highly dynamic and rigid classification within one quadrant is often not possible. Indeed, communication may quickly shift from one quadrant to another in only a few short minutes based on numerous factors, such as changing accommodative stance, level of threat, topic of conversation, and so forth (Giles et al. 2007). Moreover, not all interactants may perceive the encounter in the same way and an intergroup interaction may be defined as such only by one interlocutor’s characterization of the other’s identity (Harwood et al. 2005).
3 Social identity salience
As noted above, people can define self and others in terms of their personal or social identity. Self-categorization theory (SCT: Turner et al. 1987) explains when and why these different levels of the self-concept become salient (i.e., activated) and how salient social identities influence social perception and behavior. SCT assumes that people have multiple social identities (e.g., gender, ethnicity) and claims that the extent to which a particular social identity becomes salient depends on its accessibility and fit.
3.1 Accessibility
Social categories can become accessible because they are valued or frequently employed (i.e., chronically accessible) and/or because they are perceptually present in the immediate social context (i.e., situationally accessible) (Hogg and Reid 2006). Certain social categories such as gender (Higgins and King 1981), age (Williams and Harwood 2004), and ethnicity (e.g., Mackie et al. 1996) are often both chronically and situationally accessible. Ethnicity, for example, tends to remain accessible even when attempts are made to lower its relevance to the task at hand (Hewstone, Hantzi, and Johnson 1991). The chronic accessibility of some categories is especially pronounced among certain portions of the population as for example, ethnicity being chronically accessible among highly prejudiced people (Stangor et al. 1992) and gender among fraternity and sorority members (De-Santis 2007).
Group identities are often marked, established and negotiated communicatively through various verbal (e.g., language) and nonverbal (e.g., dress, makeup) cues (Harwood et al. 2005). Consequently, communication plays a key role in category accessibility.
3.1.1 Verbal cues
Language is closely tied to social identity and can be an especially important symbol of identity for minority groups (Giles and Johnson 1981). Because linguistic variability is often systematic (Lippi-Green 1997), one’s language tends to be seen as an indicator of one’s social group membership(s). For example, whereas Irish is associated with Catholic and Nationalist identities in Northern Ireland, English is associated with Protestant and Unionist identities (O’Riagain 2007). As a result, an Irish speaker’s choice of language can make religious and political identities accessible as a basis for social categorization. In Israel, patterns of language use are similarly imbued with political and religious meanings. For example, John et al. (1985) found that the use of Hebrew evoked feelings of nationalism and ingroup solidarity among Jewish high school students, yet ones of oppression for Arab students, as well as increased the salience of interreligious divisions (see Haji and Lalonde 2012) among both groups of students, compared to English, an emotionally neutral language.
Variability within the same language can also demarcate different social groups. For example, regional accents and dialects are often seen as indicative of different social identities, such as speakers’ geographic background and social class (for a discussion, see Dragojevic, Giles, and Watson 2013), and can be a more potent cue for social categorization than visual cues of difference, such as ethnicity (Rakić, Steffens, and Mummendey 2011). Interlocutors’ lexical choices (e.g., vocabulary) can also mark social affiliations. For instance, the use of ingroup language, such as technical or domain-specific jargon, has been found to increase group salience in medical (Hewett et al. 2009) as well as academic (Aagaard-Hansen 2007) settings. Speakers may also use more micro-level adjustments, such as pronoun shifts (e.g., I vs. we), to manage footing, or the identity from which they are speaking (Lerner and Kitzinger (2007).
Labels represent relatively explicit markers of social identity (Giles 2012-b). The use of particular labels (e.g., “goth,” “brain”) in educational settings often assists in the social categorization of adolescents (Patterson and Bigler 2006). Similarly, Hajek (2012) points to the diverse labels often used to demarcate group boundaries among gay men, such as POZ (i.e., HIV positive men) and circuit boy (i.e., men who regularly travel to dance parties). Labels can also be an important social cue during computer-mediated-communication (CMC). For instance, self-labeling, such as the adoption of particular screen names (e.g., StarTrekFan), can make particular social identities (e.g., Trekkie) more accessible online (Walther and Carr 2010).
The nature of conversational topics can also increase the accessibility of particular social categories. For example, Palomares (2009) found that both men and women were more likely to categorize in terms of gender when they read a short passage on a gender-stereotypical topic (e.g., automotive repair), than a gender-neutral topic. In a similar vein, the expression of prejudicial views (Soliz and Harwood 2006) and older adults’ painful self-disclosures (e.g., complaints about health, bereavement: Coupland, Coupland, and Giles 1991) are both associated with increased age salience during intergenerational encounters (Harwood, Raman, and Hewstone 2006). During CMC, category accessibility can likewise be influenced by the nature of conversation topics (e.g., political discussion) as well as one’s mere (virtual) presence in a particular online setting (e.g., a discussion forum on a specific topic) (cf. Walther and Carr, 2010). Moreover, identity-threatening topics (e.g., Bourhis et al. 1979), as well as negative encounters more generally (Paolini, Harwood, and Rubin 2010), also tend to increase group salience.
3.1.2 Nonverbal cues
Group identities can also be marked through various non-linguistic means, such as clothing and accessories. In a study of religious identity in Canada (Ruby 2006), immigrant Muslim women often reported that wearing the hijab was a positive experience in their lives that not only distinguished them as Muslim, but also served as an important symbol of their religious identity. Relatedly, in a study of Jewish young adults in Canada (Haji et al. 2011), participants frequently reported wearing religious jewelry, such as a Star of David pendant, as an expression of their Jewish identity.
In addition to physical artifacts (e.g., jewelry, dress), music and body image can also be cues to social group membership. For example, Mendoza-Denton (2008) describes how members of Latina youth gangs in California often use makeup and music to mark their gang affiliations. Specifically, whereas Norteñas wear deep red lipstick and listen to Motown Oldies, Sureñas wear dark brown lipstick and listen to Mexican Banda Music. Physical appearance can also demarcate group boundaries among gay men. For instance, whereas young men with thin bodies and little or no body hair tend to be referred to as “twinks,” heavier, more masculine men with hairy bodies tend to be called “bears” (Hajek 2012). Similarly, physical appearance (e.g., militaristic hairstyles) and professional paraphernalia (e.g., uniforms, badges, and weaponry) often characterize the inherently intergroup nature of police-civilian encounters (Klockars 1985; Molloy and Giles 2002). Although such nonverbal cues may be relatively restricted during CMC, compared to traditional face-to-face (FtF) encounters, other available visual information (e.g., users’ photos, online avatars) can likewise serve as an important cue to interactants’ social group memberships in mediated contexts (Walther 2012).
3.2 Fit
Once a particular social category becomes accessible, people evaluate how well it fits the particular social context within which the interaction is imbedded (Turner et al. 1987). Category salience depends on both comparative and normative fit. Comparative fit refers to the extent to which a category accounts for (and maximizes) within-group similarities and between-group differences (Hogg and Reid 2006). Normative fit refers to the extent to which people’s behaviors conform to normative expectations associated with a category (Oakes, Turner, and Haslam 1991). For example, if gender accounts for similarities and differences among a set of people (high comparative fit) and those people behave in gender-stereotypical ways (high normative fit), gender is likely to become salient in that particular context. If, however, a category does not adequately fit the social context (e.g., people behave counter-stereotypically), other accessible categories are evaluated until an optimal level of fit is reached (Turner et al. 1987). In this respect, the salience of a given social category is highly context-dependent (Stangor and Schaller 1996).
4 The nature of intergroup encounters
Although at times innocuous and even rewarding (e.g., an engaging discussion about cultural differences in an interethnic friendship), intergroup communication can also be rife with misunderstanding and conflict (Ellis and Maoz, 2012; Hewstone and Giles 1986). The salience of group categories can accentuate the contrast between ingroups (i.e., groups people identify with) and outgroups (i.e., groups people do not identify with) (Tajfel and Turner 1986) and lead to broad misinterpretations of verbal and nonverbal behavior (e.g., LaFrance and Mayo 1976). Communication across group boundaries is often suffused with anxiety and other negative emotions (Stephan and Stephan 2000) which, in turn, can reinforce negative group stereotypes (Islam and Hewstone 1993). When a particular social category becomes salient, it not only changes self- and other-perceptions but also influences how people adjust their communicative behaviors to their interlocutors.
4.1 Social categorization and depersonalization
Social categorization fundamentally changes how people perceive and conceptualize self and others. People mentally represent salient social categories in terms of prototypes, or fuzzy sets of attributes (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, dress, language) that define and distinguish one group from another by accentuating intragroup similarities and intergroup differences (Turner et al. 1987). Because group prototypes are influenced by comparisons between groups, they are prone to dynamically change across different contexts depending on which groups are being compared. Once people categorize someone as a group member, they depersonalize their mental representation of that person by viewing them as an embodiment of the salient group prototype rather than as an individual (Hogg and Reid 2006).
Just as people categorize others, they also categorize themselves. Self-categorization has the same depersonalizing effect on self-perception, so that people internalize the ingroup prototype and begin to think, feel, and behave in group normative ways (Turner et al. 1987). Consistent with this claim, a number of studies show that men and women use more gender-stereotypical language when they self-categorize in terms of gender (i.e., when gender salience is high). For instance, Palomares (2008, 2009) found that women made more references to emotion and used more tentative language – both stereotypically feminine language features – when gender salience was high. However, when gender salience was low, men and women referenced emotion and used tentative language at similar levels.
The depersonalization of self and others, as well as the internalization of salient group norms, tend to be accentuated when individuating information is relatively scarce, a condition that is often characteristic of CMC (Postmes, Spears, and Lea 1998). Specifically, compared to FtF encounters, CMC tends to afford interactants greater anonymity due to increased control over their self-presentation and the ability to conceal aspects of themselves that would normally betray their social group membership(s) (see Amichai-Hamburger 2012). However, although the increased anonymity of CMC may conceal social cues, it also renders individual differences less salient. The social identity model of deindividuation effects (e.g., Reicher, Spears, and Postmes 1995) posits that this lack of individuating information accentuates the depersonalization of self and others, the salience of accessible social identities, and the expression of group-normative behavior in computer-mediated contexts. In particular, anonymity may grant people more freedom to behave in group-normative ways, even when such behavior blatantly violates outgroup norms (e.g., Reicher and Levine 1994).
4.2 Intergroup bias
According to social identity theory (SIT: Tajfel and Turner 1986), people have an intrinsic motivation to maintain a positive self-concept. Because part of the self-concept derives from one’s social group memberships (i.e., social identity), people strive to establish and maintain positive social identities in an effort to enhance their self-esteem (e.g., Tajfel 1974). One way in which people can achieve this is through favorable comparisons of their ingroup against relevant outgroups. This results in intergroup bias, or a systematic tendency to evaluate the ingroup more favorably than outgroups (Hewstone, Rubin, and Willis 2002: 576). Intergroup bias is especially pronounced among those most strongly identified with the ingroup (Branscombe et al. 1999), particularly when they feel that their ingroup identity is threatened by too much similarity to relevant outgroups (Tajfel and Turner 1986).
One way in which intergroup bias manifests itself is through ingroup favoritism, or a preference and affinity for the ingroup over outgroups (see Hewstone et al. 2002). For instance, people tend to perceive ingroup members as more likeable and trustworthy than outgroup members (for a discussion, see Hewstone et al., 2002). Moreover, they expect members of their own group to display more socially desirable behaviors than members of other groups (Howard and Rothbart 1980) and tend to make differential attributions about the behavior of ingroup versus outgroup members. In particular, they are more likely to attribute socially desirable behaviors to positive dispositions of ingroup than outgroup members, and socially undesirable behaviors to negative dispositions of outgroup than ingroup members (e.g., Hewstone and Jaspars 1984).
Such biased attributions are often reinforced through language. For instance, research using the linguistic category model (Semin and Fiedler 1988) shows that people display a linguistic intergroup bias (Maas et al. 1989) when interpreting the behaviors of ingroup versus outgroup members (for a review, see Sutton and Douglas 2008). Specifically, people tend to describe socially desirable ingroup behaviors and undesirable outgroup behaviors using abstract language (e.g., aggressive), implying dispositional (i.e., stable) attributions. In contrast, people tend to describe socially undesirable ingroup behaviors and desirable outgroup behaviors using more concrete language (e.g., kicked), implying situational (i.e., unstable) attributions. In this way, language use helps to transmit and maintain positive ingroup and negative outgroup stereotypes (Maas, Ceccarelli, and Rudin 1996).
At the discursive level, intergroup bias can shape the content and nature of verbal discussions about outgroup members. In particular, people tend to emphasize outgroup members’ stereotypicality and homogeneity by allocating more discussion time to stereotype-congruent versus incongruent information (Ruscher and Hammer, 1994), as well as frequently referencing stereotypic “exemplars” that purport to rationalize and justify existing stereotypes (Ruscher 1998). Interactants’ tendency to stereotype outgroup members in conversation may serve a relational function and be used to establish common ground, as well as solidify relational closeness and solidarity. For instance, Ruscher, Cralley, and O’Farrell (2005) found that newly-acquainted dyads who felt closer to one another discussed and agreed about stereotypic outgroup attributes more, referenced more stereotypic exemplars, and formed more shared stereotypic impressions, than less close dyads.
Sometimes intergroup bias extends beyond mere ingroup favoritism and takes the form of outgroup derogation and overt aggression (see Hewstone et al. 2002). Such outcomes are likely to occur when people’s social identities are conflicted, as for example the identities of Israeli-Jews and Palestinians being “structured contradictions” of one another (Ellis & Maoz 2012: 154), and when outgroups are associated with strong emotions (Mummendey and Otten 2001). For instance, outgroups that violate ingroup norms may evoke disgust and lead to avoidance, whereas outgroups that are perceived to pose a threat to the ingroup’s social identity or goals may evoke fear and hostility (Smith 1993). In turn, hostility towards the outgroup may lead to hate speech, such as the use of ethnopaulisms, or ethnic slurs (see Roback 1944). Such verbal aggression attempts to marginalize, degrade, and dehumanize outgroup members and can contribute to the perpetuation of stereotypes and prejudice (see Waltman and Haas 2011). Although ingroup members can use hate speech to promote a positive self-identity (Ruscher 2001), prevailing social norms usually deter such explicit expressions of prejudice (Collins and Clément 2012; but see Ellis, 2006).
4.3 Accommodation during intergroup encounters
Whereas SIT and SCT explain the socio-psychological processes that underlie the cognitive aspects of intergroup phenomena, CAT provides a comprehensive theoretical framework from which to examine more directly communicative behavior during interpersonal and intergroup encounters. CAT examines the different motives and goals, influenced by personal and social identity, that underlie communicative adjustment and the evaluations and attributions that people make as a result. Interactants can adjust their communicative behavior relative to one another in three basic ways. Convergence refers to a strategy whereby individuals adapt their communicative behaviors to become more similar to one another in terms of a wide range of linguistic (e.g., language), prosodic (e.g., pitch) and nonverbal (e.g., smiling) features (Giles, Coupland, and Coupland 1991). In contrast, divergence refers to a strategy whereby individuals accentuate speech and nonverbal differences between themselves and others to become more dissimilar (e.g., Bourhis et al. 1979). Finally, maintenance is the absence of adjustment and reflects a strategy whereby people sustain their “default” way of communicating (e.g., Bourhis 1979). These strategies are not mutually exclusive and people may, for instance, converge on one level whilst simultaneously diverging on another (Gallois et al. 2005). Moreover, people tend to be more consciously aware of their divergence and maintenance behaviors than convergence (e.g., Street 1982).
4.3.1 Convergence
An important motive for convergence is a desire to gain another’s social approval (Giles et al. 1991). In line with the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne 1971), CAT argues that individuals can increase the level of interpersonal and/or social attraction by becoming more similar to one another in terms of their communicative behaviors. For instance, speakers may converge to their interlocutors’ accent, dialect, or language to signal that they belong to the same social group (e.g., Marlow & Giles 2008). Similarly, they may converge to their interlocutors’ idiosyncratic communicative characteristics so as to appear more similar to them. Convergence can also be enacted at the discursive level, through topic selection, topic sharing, and turn-taking (see Coupland et al. 1988). For example, Nelson, Dickson, and Hargie (2003) reported that Catholic and Protestant children in Northern Ireland often avoided sensitive topics (e.g., religion, politics) during interreligious conversations, citing this as a way to maintain group harmony and avoid conflict. In general, convergence tends to be evaluated favorably and has been found to increase a speaker’s perceived attractiveness (e.g., Street, Brady, and Putnam 1983), intelligibility (Triandis 1960), and interpersonal involvement (LaFrance 1979). However, such favorable evaluations may be attenuated if convergence is attributed to external pressures rather than the speaker’s intent (Simard, Taylor, and Giles 1976) or if it violates recognized norms (Ball et al. 1984).
People converge not only to their interlocutors’ actual characteristics, but also to their perceived and expected characteristics (see Thackerar, Giles, and Cheshire 1982). For example, Bell (1982) reported that New Zealand radio announcers adjusted their speech patterns at different points in the day so as to accommodate their reading pronunciation to what they anticipated were different audiences, without any knowledge of the actual speech patterns of those audiences. Although sometimes speakers’ expectations of others’ behaviors and their actual behaviors may be one and the same, other times they may be incongruent. If erroneous, these expectations may lead speakers to overadjust (i.e., overaccommodate) or not adjust sufficiently (i.e., underaccommodate) their communicative behaviors to their interlocutors. Such erroneous expectations are especially likely to occur when intergroup salience is high – that is, when people engage one another partly (Quadrant II) or fully (Quadrant III) in terms of their social identities. Specifically, because social categorization depersonalizes people’s perceptions of others and leads to stereotyped expectations, speakers tend to converge to a stereotyped rather than an individualized view of their interlocutors during intergroup encounters (see Thackerar et al. 1982). Overaccommodation and underaccommodation both represent nonaccommodative behavior, which tends to be perceived negatively by its recipients (Giles and Gasiorek 2013).
4.3.1.1 Overaccommodation
Overaccommodation has been examined in a wide range of intergroup settings. For example, communicative behaviors directed at the disabled are often characterized by an over-protective and over-controlling caregiving style that overaccommodates to negative stereotypes of the disabled as frail and incompetent (Thompson et al. 2002); such behavior is not only perceived negatively, but can lead to resentment on the part of the person with a disability. Erroneous expectations can also lead to overaccommodative behaviors during mixed-gender conversations. For example, Bayard (1995) found that women and men swore at similar rates during intragender conversations, but that women swore more than men during intergender conversations, arguably because they expected men to swear more than women.
Considerable research has examined overaccommodation in the context of intergenerational communication. When younger people interact with the elderly, they frequently adjust their communicative behaviors to compensate for what they believe are physical or psychological deficiencies in older adults (Giles and Gasiorek 2011). However, these perceptions are often exaggerated and reflect negative age stereotypes, rather than older adults’ actual competencies. Drawing on these stereotypes, younger adults tend to (over)adjust their speech to the elderly by using a simplified grammar and vocabulary, unnecessary repetition, slowed speech rate, and exaggerated intonation (Hummert and Ryan 1996). Variously labeled as patronizing talk, elderspeak, and infantilizing talk (see Giles and Gasiorek 2011), this type of overaccommodation conveys a low assessment of older persons’ competence (Hummert et al. 2004) and tends to be associated with negative attitudes (Harwood and Williams 1998).
The communication predicament of aging model (e.g., Ryan et al. 1986) describes how overaccommodation can lead to a negative feedback cycle by constraining older adults’ options in conversation and thus reinforcing negative age stereotypes. Indeed, patronizing talk can leave older adults feeling “infantilized” (Duggan et al. 2011) and lead to functional declines, as well as dependent and disruptive behavior (Baltes and Wahl 1996; Williams et al. 2009). However, age stereotypes need not always be negative. Acknowledging this, the activation of age stereotypes in interaction model (Hummert 1994; Hummert et al. 2004) argues that patronizing talk is more likely to occur in response to negative age stereotypes and considers how the salience of positive and negative age stereotypes may lead to differential outcomes during intergenerational encounters.
Younger adults may be the recipients of overaccommodation from older adults as well. Older adults may overaccommodate to younger adults by converging to negative stereotypes of the young as naïve, unmotivated, and careless (Matheson, Collins, and Kuehne 2000). This can result in over-parenting, non-listening, and disapproving or disrespectful talk (Giles and Gasiorek 2011). Perhaps not surprisingly then, younger adults frequently characterize their interactions with older adults as problematic (Garrett and Williams 2005) and tend to find peer communication more satisfying (Giles et al. 2010).
4.3.1.2 Underaccommodation
Although underaccommodation has been relatively understudied, some research suggests that it not only occurs more frequently but also tends to be perceived more negatively than overaccommodation (Gasiorek and Giles 2012). Excessive talk about one’s ailments (Coupland et al. 1991), as well as a lack of attention or listening to others (Giles and Williams 1994), tend to be characteristic of underaccommo-dative speech (see Williams and Nussbaum 2001). For example, older adults frequently underaccommodate to younger adults’ communicative preferences through painful self-disclosures and rambling speech (Hummert 2012). Similarly, underaccommodation is prevalent during police-civilian encounters and may be characterized by non-listening, disrespectful behavior, dismissiveness, indifference, and impoliteness (Dixon et al. 2008).
4.3.2 Divergence and maintenance
Motivations for a positive social identity and distinctiveness and/or a desire to show disapproval towards one’s interlocutor(s) underlie communicative divergence and maintenance (Giles et al. 1991). In attempts to establish and maintain a positive social identity, people search for and create dimensions on which they can positively distinguish themselves from relevant outgroups (Tajfel 1974). Because communicative behaviors, such as language and speech style, represent important dimensions of social identity (e.g., Fishman 1977), divergence (and maintenance) on these dimensions may be used as a strategy to establish positive intergroup distinctiveness and differentiate oneself from relevant outgroups. One way individuals may differentiate themselves from relevant outgroups is by adopting the communicative behaviors believed to be prototypical of their ingroup (see Gallois and Callan 1988). For example, when gender was made salient, men were perceived to sound more “masculine” in their conversations with women, presumably as a result of converging (i.e., identifying) to their male ingroup prototype (Hogg 1985).
Divergence and maintenance are especially likely to occur during intergroup encounters, where social identities are salient (Giles and Hewstone 1982), particularly when people identify strongly with their ingroup or feel that their identity is threatened. For example, when an English person threatened their ethnolinguistic identity, Welsh speakers broadened their Welsh accent and some even introduced Welsh vocabulary as a way to dissociate themselves from the outgroup speaker and emphasize their ingroup identity (Bourhis and Giles 1977). Similarly, Bourhis et al. (1979) found that when trilingual (Flemish-English-French) Flemish students were asked a content-neutral question by a French confederate in English, they converged to English. However, when the French confederate diverged into French to voice an ethnically threatening question, the Flemish students overwhelmingly diverged into Flemish and vehemently disagreed with the French confederate’s statements. In addition to language, speakers may also diverge on the discursive level by avoiding meaningful self-disclosures to outgroup members (Dovidio et al. 1997), which may preclude the establishment of intimate friendships.
Divergence and maintenance tend to be associated with negative relational outcomes and are often characterized as insulting, impolite, or hostile (Deprez and Persoons 1984; Sandilands and Fleury 1979). However, negative evaluations may be attenuated if divergence is attributed to external pressures rather than the speaker’s intent (Simard et al. 1976) or if it is perceived to adhere to valued norms (Ball et al. 1984; Bradac 1990). Moreover, whereas outgroup recipients of divergence may view it as insulting or impolite, ingroup members may evaluate divergence directed at outgroup members positively (e.g., Bourhis 1979). For example, a year prior to Hong Kong’s handover to the People’s Republic of China, ingroup (i.e., Cantonese-speaking) members who diverged from Mandarin-speaking Chinese by emphasizing their Cantonese linguistic identity were evaluated more positively than those who converged to Mandarin (Tong et al. 1999).
5 Redefining intergroup encounters: From intergroup to interpersonal
As the foregoing sections attest, intergroup encounters are frequently a site for conflict and misunderstanding. By leading to self- and other-depersonalization, social categorization contributes to intergroup bias and a wide range of nonaccommodative behaviors (e.g., over and underaccommodation, divergence, maintenance) which, in turn, can lead to negative relational outcomes or even hostility towards outgroup members. However, intergroup communication need not always be negative. For instance, research on intergroup contact theory (Allport 1954) shows that increased contact between groups can have a number of positive effects on intergroup encounters, such as more favorable attitudes and increased empathy towards outgroup members, as well as reduced anxiety during intergroup encounters (for an overview, see Harwood and Joyce 2012).
Relatedly, the common ingroup identity model (Gaertner and Dovidio 2000) argues that an emphasis on a common ingroup identity may help to reduce conflict in intergroup encounters. Specifically, recategorization in terms of a superordinate category (e.g., family, nation, humanity) may reduce the salience of intergroup distinctions by placing self and others into the same category (see Ellis 2006). In turn, because we are more likely to trust people who we believe share our own characteristics (Tam et al. 2009), an emphasis on a common identity may increase empathy, encourage self-disclosure, and lead to more differentiated and personalized impressions of (formerly) outgroup members (Dovidio et al. 1997; Gaertner and Dovidio 2000) – for our purposes, redefining a primarily intergroup encounter (Quadrant III) in more interpersonal terms (Quadrants I, II).
Accommodative behaviors can help foster a shared identity by accentuating interlocutors’ similarities and, thus, promoting ingroup solidarity (Giles, Bonilla, and Speer 2012). For instance, accommodative behaviors in families, such as self-disclosure and social support, can increase perceptions of a shared family identity (Soliz and Harwood 2006). Similarly, in intergroup encounters defined by sexual orientation, respectful accommodation and self-disclosure are negatively associated with intergroup anxiety and positively associated with perceptions of relational solidarity (Soliz et al. 2010).
Hornsey and Hogg (2000) caution that the creation of a common ingroup identity may not be ideal in situations where transcendence of group differences creates a loss of one’s own distinctiveness. Rather, a more amiable goal may be to develop a common identity while simultaneously recognizing subgroup differences (Hornsey and Hogg 1999). For example, Killian (2001) reports that black-white interracial romantic couples use a variety of strategies, ranging from direct discussion to more reserved approaches, to incorporate unique cultural aspects of their identities and thus develop a family and unique identity simultaneously. Similarly, Soliz, Thorson, and Rittenour (2007) note that communicatively recognizing and affirming individuals’ backgrounds can minimize group salience in families. In this respect, it may be possible to build unity by recognizing and appropriately addressing differences that make family members unique (Rittenour and Soliz 2009).
6 Conclusion and future directions
Social identity salience fundamentally changes the nature of interpersonal communication and in ways mainstream scholars of this tradition might find emancipating in light of the foregoing. In this chapter, we overviewed how group identities can be marked communicatively through various verbal and nonverbal cues and how social categorization can lead to intergroup bias, group-normative behavior, and “misfired” communicative adjustments (i.e., nonaccommodation). We positioned our analysis in light of intergroup theories, demonstrating their applicability at different points in an interpersonal encounter. Out of this analysis emerge several principles of intergroup communication:
- – Social identities are established, negotiated, and made salient through communication (FtF and CMC), via various verbal (e.g., language, topic) and nonverbal cues (e.g., jewelry, music, body image).
- – Social identity salience contributes to self- and other-depersonalization and intergroup bias, influencing attributions, language use, and communicative adjustments.
- – Social interaction is dynamic and can quickly shift in its degree of interpersonal and intergroup salience, based on numerous communicative behaviors (e.g., changing accommodative stance, topic of conversation) that interlocutors can manipulate strategically.
- – Accommodative behavior and the recognition of a common identity may help attenuate intergroup bias, lead to more differentiated and personalized impressions of one’s interlocutor(s), and help redefine the encounter in more interpersonal terms, resulting in increased solidarity and communication satisfaction.
At the outset of this chapter, we emphasized the dynamic nature of social interaction and noted that, over the course of only a few short minutes, conversation can quickly shift between various degrees of interpersonal and intergroup salience (e.g., from one quadrant to another). Such shifts are not only “a mechanical product of accessibility and fit” but, rather, can be strategically manipulated by interactants wishing to achieve various social and personal goals (Hogg and Terry 2001: 7). A focus on this dynamic nature of social interaction may provide a fruitful avenue of research for communication scholars, who might examine the multitude of ways in which identities are communicatively negotiated and enacted during conversation, the relative success of such attempts to shift conversational frames of reference, and the ways in which attempts to influence categorization may be constrained and enabled by existing norms (see Hogg and Giles 2012). Relatedly, the extent to which interactants are consciously aware of activated social identities during interaction and whether preconscious category activation is sufficient to produce changes in communicative output both remain intriguing challenges for future research.
As we have shown throughout, intergroup processes are an inherently communicative phenomenon. Our communication is not only shaped by our conversational partners’ social identities, but also influences which social identities we and others pay attention to, based on what we say and how we say it. Indeed, the ubiquity of social identity salience in interaction suggests that understanding intergroup processes is fundamental to understanding interpersonal communication, ranging from mundane everyday talk, such as the interaction between the married couple in our opening example, to the “darker sides” (cf. Spitzberg and Cupach 1998) of interpersonal relationships. Indeed, relational breakdown may often be nothing to do with personal chemistries being at odds but be significant and wearing contentions due to differing social identities. The mesh of interpersonal and intergroup theories is an exciting prospect for the next decade (see Gallois 2003).
Acknowledgement: The authors would like to thank Kimberly A. Williams for her insights and helpful comments on an earlier draft of this chapter.
References
Aagaard-Hansen, Jens. 2007. The challenges of cross-disciplinary research. Social Epistemology 21, 425–438.
Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Amichai-Hamburger, Yair. 2012. Reducing intergroup conflict in the digital age. In: Howard Giles (ed.), Handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 181–193). New York: Routledge.
Ball, Peter, Giles, Howard, Byrne, Jane L., and Berechree, Philip. 1984. Situational constraints on the evaluative significance of speech: Some Australian data. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 46, 115–129.
Baltes, Margaret M. and Wahl, Hans-Werner. 1996. Patterns of communication in old age: The dependence-support and independence-ignore script. Health Communication 8, 217–231.
Bayard, Donn T. 1995. Kiwitalk: Sociolinguistics in New Zealand society. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore.
Bell, Allan. 1982. Radio: The style of news language. Journal of Communication 32, 150–164.
Braithwaite, Dawn O. and Baxter, Leslie A. 2008. Introduction: Meta-theory and theory of interpersonal communication research. In: Leslie A. Baxter and Dawn O. Braithwaite (eds.), Engaging theories of interpersonal communication: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 1–18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bourhis, Richard Y. 1979. Language in ethnic interaction: A social psychological approach. In: Howard Giles and Bernard Saint-Jacques (eds.), Language and ethnic relations (pp. 117–141). Oxford: Pergamon.
Bourhis, Richard. Y. and Giles, Howard. 1977. The language of intergroup distinctiveness. In: Howard Giles (ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations (pp. 119–135). London, UK: Academic Press.
Bourhis, Richard Y., Giles, Howard, Leyens, Jacques-Philippe, and Tajfel, Henri. 1979. Psycholinguistic distinctiveness: Language divergence in Belgium. In: Howard Giles and Robert N. St. Clair (eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 158–85). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Bradac, James J. 1990. Language attitudes and impression formation. In: Howard Giles and W. Peter Robinson (eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 387–412). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Branscombe, Nyla R., Ellemers, Naomi, Spears, Russell, and Doosje, Bertjan. 1999. The context and content of social identity threat. In: Naomi Ellemers, Russell Spears, and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Social identity (pp. 35–58). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Byrne, Donn. 1971. The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Collins, Katherine A. and Clément, Richard. 2012. Language and prejudice: Direct and moderated effects. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31, 376–396.
Coupland, Justine, Coupland, Nikolas, Giles, Howard, Henwood, Karen, and Wiemann, John M. 1988. Elderly self-disclosure: Interactional and intergroup issues. Language and Communication 8, 109–133.
Coupland, Nikolas, Coupland, Justine, and Giles, Howard. 1991. Language, society and the elderly: Discourse, identity and aging. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Deprez, Kas and Persoons, Yves. 1984. On the ethnolinguistic identity of Flemish high school students in Brussels. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 3, 273–296.
DeSantis, Alan D. 2007. Inside Greek U: Fraternities, sororities, and the pursuit of pleasure, power, and prestige. Lexington, KY: The University of Kentucky Press.
Dixon, Travis L., Schell, Terry L., Giles, Howard, and Drogos, Kristin L. 2008. The influence of race in police-civilian interactions: A content analysis of videotaped interactions taken during Cincinnati police traffic stops. Journal of Communication 58, 530–549.
Dovidio, John F., Gaertner, Samuel L., Validzic, Ana, Matoka, Kimberly, Johnson, Brenda, and Frazier, Stacy. 1997. Extending the benefits of recategorization: Evaluations, self-disclosure, and helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 33, 401–420.
Dragojevic, Marko, Giles, Howard, and Watson, Bernadette. 2013. Language ideologies and attitudes: A dynamic foundational framework. In: Howard Giles and Bernadette Watson (eds.), The social meanings of accents and dialect: An international perspective on speech style (pp. 1–25). New York: Peter Lang.
Duggan, Ashley P., Bradshaw, Ylisabyth, Swergold, Natalie, and Altman, Wayne. 2011. When rapport building extends beyond affiliation: Communication overaccommodation towards patients with disabilities. The Permanente Journal 15, 23–30.
Ellis, Donald G. 2006. Transforming conflict: Communication and ethnopolitical conflict. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Ellis, Donald G. and Maoz, Ifat. 2012. Communication and reconciling intergroup conflict. In: Howard Giles (ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 153–166). New York, NY: Routledge.
Fishman, Joshua A. 1977. Language and ethnicity. In: Howard Giles (ed.), Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations (pp. 15–58). London, UK: Academic Press.
Gaertner, Samuel L. and Dovidio, John F. 2000. Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Gaines, Stanley O., Jr., Granrose, Cherlyn S., Rios, Diana I., Garcia, Ben F., Page Youn, Mary S., Farris, Karlyn R., and Bledsoe, Katrina L. 1999. Patterns of attachment and response to accommodative dilemmas among interethnic/interracial couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 16, 275–285.
Gallois, Cindy. 2003. Reconciliation through communication in intercultural encounters: Potential or peril? Journal of Communication 53, 5–15.
Gallois, Cindy and Callan, Victor J. 1988. Communication accommodation and the prototypical speaker: Predicting evaluations of status and solidarity. Language and Communication 8, 271–284.
Gallois, Cindy, Ogay, Tania, and Giles, Howard. 2005. Communication accommodation theory: A look back and a look ahead. In: William B. Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 121–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Garrett, Peter and Williams, Angie. 2005. Adult perceptions of communication with young people. In: Angie Williams and Crispin Thurlow (eds.), Talking adolescence (pp. 34–52). New York: Peter Lang.
Gasiorek, Jessica and Giles, Howard. 2012. Effects of inferred motive on evaluations of nonaccommodative communication. Human Communication Research 38, 309–331.
Giles, Howard (ed.). 2012a. The handbook of intergroup communication. New York: Routledge.
Giles, Howard. 2012b. Principles of intergroup communication. In: Howard Giles (ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 3–16). New York: Routledge.
Giles, Howard, Bonilla, Douglas, and Speer, Rebecca B. 2012. Parameters of acculturation: Group vitality, communication accommodation, and intergroup contact. In: Jane Jackson (ed.), Routledge handbook of intercultural communication (pp. 244–259). London, UK: Routledge.
Giles, Howard, Coupland, Nikolas, and Coupland, Justine. 1991. Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In: Howard Giles, Justine Coupland, and Nikolas Coupland (eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied linguistics (pp. 1–68). New York: Cambridge, University Press.
Giles, Howard and Gasiorek, Jessica. 2011. Intergenerational communication practices. In: K. Warner Schaie and Sherry L. Willis (eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (7th ed., pp. 233–248). London: Academic Press.
Giles, Howard and Gasiorek, Jessica. 2013. Parameters of non-accommodation: Refining and elaborating communication accommodation theory. In: Joseph Forgas, Janos László, and Orsolya Vincze (eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 155–172). New York: Psychology Press.
Giles, Howard, Hajek, Christopher, Stotisova, Tolya, and Choi, Charles. 2010. Intergenerational communication satisfaction and age boundaries in Bulgaria and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 25, 133–47.
Giles, Howard and Hewstone, Miles. 1982. Cognitive structures, speech, and social situations. Language Sciences 4, 187–219.
Giles, Howard and Johnson, Patricia. 1981. The role of language in ethnic group relations. In: John C. Turner and Howard Giles (eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 199–243). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Giles, Howard, Reid, Scott A., and Harwood, Jake (eds.). 2010. The dynamics of intergroup communication. New York: Peter Lang.
Giles, Howard, Willemyns, Michael, Gallois, Cindy, and Anderson, Michelle C. 2007. Accommodating a new frontier: The context of law enforcement. In: Klaus Fielder (ed.), Social communication (pp.129–162). New York: Psychology Press.
Giles, Howard, and Williams, A. 1994. Patronizing the young: Forms and evaluations. International Journal of Aging and Human Development 39, 33–53.
Gudykunst, William B. 2005. An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory of effective communication: Making the mesh of the net finer. In: William B. Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 281–322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hajek, Christopher. 2012. Communication and identities characterized by male sexual orientation. In: H. Giles (ed.), Handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 211–222). New York: Routledge.
Haji, Reeshma and Lalonde, Richard N. 2012. Interreligious communication. In: Howard Giles (ed.), Handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 278–290). New York: Routledge.
Haji, Reeshma, Lalonde, Richard N., Durbin, Anna, and Naveh-Benjamin, Ilil. 2011. A multidimensional approach to identity: Religious and cultural identity in young Jewish Canadians. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 14, 3–18.
Harwood, Jake. 2000. Communicative predictors of solidarity in the grandparent-grandchild relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17, 743–766.
Harwood, Jake and Giles, Howard (eds.). 2005. Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives. New York: Peter Lang.
Harwood, Jake, Giles, Howard, and Palomares, Nicholas A. 2005. Intergroup theory and communication processes. In: Jake Harwood and Howard Giles (eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 1–20). New York: Peter Lang.
Harwood, Jake, and Joyce, N. 2012. Communication and intergroup contact. In: Howard Giles (ed.), Handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 167–168). New York: Routledge.
Harwood, Jake, Raman, Priya, and Hewstone, Miles. 2006. Communicative predictors of group salience in the intergenerational setting. Journal of Family Communication 6, 181–200.
Harwood, Jake and Williams, Angie. 1998. Expectations for communication with positive and negative subtypes of older adults. International Journal of Aging and Human Development 47, 11–33.
Hewett, David G., Watson, Bernadette M., Gallois, Cindy, Ward, Michael, and Leggett, Barbara A. 2009. Communication in medical records: Intergroup language and patient care. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 28, 119–138.
Hewstone, Miles and Giles, Howard. 1986. Social groups and social stereotypes in intergroup communication: A review and model of intergroup communication breakdown. In: William B. Gudykunst (ed.), Intergroup communication (pp. 51–61). London: Edward Arnold.
Hewstone, Miles, Hantzi, Alexander, and Johnston, Lucy. 1991. Social categorization and person memory: The pervasiveness of race as an organizing principle. European Journal of Social Psychology 20, 517–528.
Hewstone, Miles and Jaspars, Joseph M. F. 1984. Social dimensions of attribution. In: Henri Tajfel (ed.), The social dimension: European developments in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 379– 404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hewstone, Miles, Rubin, Mark, and Willis, Hazel. 2002. Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology 53, 575–604.
Higgins, E. Tory, and King, Gillian. 1981. Accessibility of social constructs: Information-processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. In: Nancy Cantor and John F. Kihlstrom (eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 69–121). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hogg, Michael 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.
Hogg, Michael and Giles, Howard. 2012. Norm talk and identity in intergroup communication. In: Howard Giles (ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 373–387). New York: Peter Lang.
Hogg, Michael A. and Reid, Scott A. 2006. Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory 16, 7–30.
Hogg, Michael A. and Terry, Deborah J. 2001. Social identity theory and organizational processes. In: Michael A. Hogg and Deborah J. Terry (eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 1–12). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Hornsey, Matthew J. and Hogg, Michael A. 1999. Subgroup differentiation as a response to an overly-inclusive group: A test of optimal distinctiveness theory. European Journal of Social Psychology 29, 543–550.
Hornsey, Matthew J. and Hogg, Michael A. 2000. Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review 4, 143–156.
Howard, John and Rothbart, Myron. 1980. Social categorization and memory for in-group and out-group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38, 301–310.
Hummert, Mary L. 1994. Stereotypes of the elderly and patronizing speech style. In: Mary L. Hummert, John M. Wiemann, and Jon F. Nussbaum (eds.), Interpersonal communication in older adulthood: Interdisciplinary theory and research (pp. 162–185). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hummert, Mary L. 2012. Challenges and opportunities for communication between age groups. In: Howard Giles (ed.), Handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 223–236). New York: Routledge.
Hummert, Mary L., Garstka, Teri A., Ryan, Ellen B., and Bonnesen, Jaye L. 2004. The role of age stereotypes in interpersonal communication. In: Jon F. Nussbaum and Justine Coupland (eds.), Handbook of communication and aging research (pp. 91–114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hummert, Mary L. and Ryan, Ellen B. 1996. Toward understanding variations in patronizing talk addressed to older adults: Psycholinguistic features of care and control. International Journal of Psycholinguistics 12, 149–169.
Islam, Mir R. and Hewstone, Miles. 1993. Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived outgroup variability, and outgroup attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, 280–290.
John, Carolyn, Young, Louis, Giles, Howard, and Hoffman, John E. 1985. Language, values and intercultural differentiation in Israel. The Journal of Social Psychology 125: 527–529.
Killian, Kyle D. 2001. Reconstituting racial histories and identities: The narratives of interracial couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 27, 27–42.
Knapp, Mark L. and Daly, John A. (eds.). 2002. Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Klockars, Carl B. 1985. The idea of police. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
LaFrance, Marianne. 1979. Nonverbal synchrony and rapport: Analysis by the cross-lag panel technique. Social Psychology Quarterly 42, 66–70.
LaFrance, Marianne and Mayo, Clara. 1976. Racial differences in gaze behavior during conversations: Two systematic observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33, 547–552.
Lerner, Gene H. and Kitzinger, Celia. 2007. Extraction and aggregation in the repair of individual and collective self-reference. Discourse Studies 9, 526–557.
Lippi-Green, Rosina. 1997. English with an accent. London: Routledge.
Maas, Anne, Ceccarelli, Roberta, and Rudin, Samantha. 1996. Linguistic intergroup bias: Evidence for in-group protective motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71, 512–526.
Maas, Anne, Salvi, Daniela, Arcuri, Luciano, and Semin, Gün R. 1989. Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57, 981–993.
Mackie, Diane M., Hamilton, David L., Susskind, Joshua, and Rosselli, Francine. 1996. Social psychological foundations of stereotype formation. In: C. Neil Macrae, Charles Stangor, and Miles Hewstone (eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 41–78). New York: Guilford. Marlow,
Mikaela L. and Giles, Howard. 2008. Who you tink you, talking propah? Hawaiian Pidgin demarginalized. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 3, 53–68.
Matheson, Deborah H., Collins, Caroline L., and Kuehne, Valerie S. 2000. Older adults’ multiple stereotypes of young adults. International Journal of Aging and Human Development 51, 245–257.
Mendoza-Denton, Norma. 2008. Homegirls: Language and cultural practice among Latina youth gangs. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Miller, Gerald R. and Steinberg, Mark. 1975. Between people: A new analysis of interpersonal communication. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.
Molloy, Jennifer and Giles, Howard. 2002. Communication, language, and law enforcement: An intergroup communication approach. In: Phillip Glenn, Curtis D. LeBaron, and Jenny Mandelbaum (eds.), Studies in language and social interaction (pp. 327–340). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mummendey, Amelié and Otten, Sabine. 2001. Aversive discrimination. In: Rupert Brown and Sam Gaertner (eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 112–132). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Nelson, Seanenne, Dickson, David, and Hargie, Owen. 2003. Learning together, living apart: The experiences of university students in Northern Ireland. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 16, 777–795.
Oakes, Penelope J., Haslam, S. Alexander, and Turner, John C. 1994. Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Oakes, Penelope J., Turner, John C., and Haslam, S. Alexander. 1991. Perceiving people as group members: The role of fit in the salience of social categorizations. British Journal of Social Psychology 30, 125–144.
O’Riagain, Padraig. 2007. Relationships between attitudes to Irish, social class, religion and national identity in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, 369–393.
Palomares, Nicholas A. 2008. Explaining gender-based language use: Effects of gender identity on salience on references to emotion and tentative language in intra- and intergroup contexts. Human Communication Research 34, 263–286.
Palomares, Nicholas A. 2009. Women are sort of more tentative than men, aren’t they? How men and women use tentative language differently, similarly, and counter-stereotypically as a function of gender salience. Communication Research 36, 538–560.
Paolini, Stefania, Harwood, Jake, and Rubin, Mark. 2010. Negative intergroup contact makes group membership salient: Explaining why intergroup conflict endures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36, 1723–1738.
Paolini, Stefania, Hewstone, Miles, Cairns, Ed, and Voci, Alberto. 2004. Effects of direct and indirect cross-group friendships on judgments of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediating role of an anxiety reducing mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30, 770–786.
Patterson, Meagan M. and Bigler, Rebecca S. 2006 Preschool children’s attention to environmental messages about groups: Social categorization and the origins of intergroup bias. Child Development 77, 847–860.
Petronio, Sandra, Ellemers, Naomi, Giles, Howard, and Gallois, Cindy. 1998. (Mis)communicating across boundaries: Interpersonal and intergroup considerations. Communication Research 25, 571–595.
Postmes, Tom, Spears, Russell, and Lea, Martin. 1998. Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research 25, 689–714.
Rakić, Tamara, Steffens, Melanie, and Mummendey, Amelié. 2011. Blinded by the accent! The minor role of looks in ethnic categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100: 16–29.
Reicher, Stephen, and Levine, Mark. 1994. Deindividuation, power relations between groups and the expression of social identity: The effects of visibility to the out-group. British Journal of Social Psychology 33, 145–164.
Reicher, Stephen, Spears, Russell, and Postmes, Tom. 1995. A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. In: Wolfgang Stroebe and Miles Hewstone (eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 161–198). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Rittenour, Christine E. and Soliz, Jordan. 2009. Communicative and relational dimensions of shared family identity and relational intentions in mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationships: Developing a conceptual model for mother-in-law/daughter-in-law research. Western Journal of Communication 73, 67–90.
Roback, Abraham A. 1944. A dictionary of international slurs. Cambridge, MA: Sci-Art Publishers. Ruby, Tabassum. 2006. Listening to the voices of the hijab. Women’s Studies International Forum 29, 54–66.
Ruscher, Janet B. 1998. Prejudice and stereotyping in everyday communication. In: Mark P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 241–307). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ruscher, Janet B. 2001. Prejudiced communication: A social psychological perspective. New York: Guilford Press.
Ruscher, Janet B., Cralley, Elizabeth L., and O’Farrell, Kimberly J. 2005. How newly acquainted dyads develop shared stereotypic impressions through conversation. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 8, 259–270.
Ruscher, Janet B., and Hammer, Elliott D. 1994. Revising disrupted impressions through conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64, 530–541.
Ryan, Ellen B., Giles, Howard, Bartolucci, Giampiero, and Henwood, Karen. 1986. Psycholinguistic and social psychological components of communication by and with the elderly. Language and Communication 6, 1–24.
Sandilands, Mark L. and Fleury, Nancy C. 1979. Unilinguals in des milieux bilingues: One analyse of attributions. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 11, 168–168.
Semin, Gün R. and Fiedler, Klaus. 1988. The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 558–568.
Simard, Lise, Taylor, Donald M., and Giles, Howard. 1976. Attribution processes and interpersonal accommodation in a bilingual setting. Language and Speech 19, 374–387.
Smith, Eliot R. 1993. Social identity and social emotions: Towards new conceptualizations of prejudice. In: Diane Mackie and David L. Hamilton (eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 297–315). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Soliz, Jordan and Harwood, Jake. 2006. Shared family identity, age salience, and intergroup contact: Investigation of the grandparent-grandchild relationship. Communication Monographs 73, 87–107.
Soliz, Jordan, Ribarsky, Elizabeth, Harrigan, Meredith M., and Tye-Williams, Stacy. 2010. Family communication with gay and lesbian family members: Implications for relational satisfaction and outgroup attitudes. Communication Quarterly 58, 77–95.
Soliz, Jordan and Rittenour, Christine E. 2012. Family as an intergroup arena. In: Howard Giles (Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 331–343). New York: Routledge.
Soliz, Jordan, Thorson, Allison R., and Rittenour, Christine E. 2009. Communicative correlates of satisfaction, family identity, and group salience in multiracial/ethnic families. Journal of Marriage and Family 71, 819–832.
Spitzberg, Brian H. and Cupach, William R. 1998. The dark side of close relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stangor, Charles, Lynch, Laure, Duan, Changming, and Glass, Beth. 1992. Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62, 207–218.
Stangor, Charles and Schaller, Mark. 1996. Stereotypes as individual and collective representations. In: C. Neil Macrae, Charles Stangor, and Miles Hewstone (eds.), Foundations of stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 3–40). New York. Guilford Press.
Stephan, Walter G. and Stephan, Cookie W. 2000. An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In: Stuart Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Street, Richard L. Jr. 1982. Evaluation of noncontent speech accommodation. Language and Communication 2, 13–31.
Street, Richard L., Jr., Brady, Robert M., and Putnam, William B. 1983. The influence of speech rate stereotypes and rate similarity on listeners’ evaluations of speakers. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 2, 37–56.
Sutton, Robbie M. and Douglas, Karen M. (eds.). 2008. Celebrating two decades of linguistic bias research [Special anniversary issue]. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 27(2).
Tajfel, Henri. 1974. Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information 13, 65–93.
Tajfel, Henri and Turner, John C. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Stephen Worchel and William G. Austin (eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tam, Tania, Hewstone, Miles, Kenworthy, Jared, and Cairns, Ed. 2009. Intergroup trust in Northern Ireland. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 35, 45–59.
Tannen, Deborah. 2003. Gender and family interaction. In: Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff (eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 179–201). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Thackerar, Jitendra N., Giles, Howard, and Cheshire, Jenny. 1982. Psychological and linguistic parameters of speech accommodation theory. In: Colin Fraser and Klaus R. Scherer (eds.), Advances in the social psychology of language (pp. 205–255). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, Suzanne C., Galbraith, Michael, Thomas, Craig, Swan, Joyce, and Vrungos, Shelley. 2002. Caregivers of stroke patient family members: Behavioral and attitudinal indicators of overprotective care. Psychology and Health 17, 297–312.
Tong, Yuk-Yue, Hong, Ying-Yi, Lee, Sau-Lai, and Chiu, Chi-Chiu. 1999. Language use as a carrier of social identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 23, 281–296.
Triandis, Harry C. 1960. Cognitive similarity and communication in dyad. Human Relations 13, 175–183.
Turner, John C., Hogg, Michael A., Oakes, Penelope J., Reicher, Stephen D., and Wetherell, Margaret S. 1987. Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Vonofakou, Christina, Hewstone, Miles, and Voci, Alberto. 2007. Contact with out-group friends as a predictor of meta-attitudinal strength and accessibility of attitudes towards gay men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92, 804–820.
Walther, Joseph B. 2012. Interaction through technological lenses: Computer-mediated communication and language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31, 397–414.
Walther, Joseph B. and Carr, Caleb T. 2010. Internet interaction and intergroup dynamics. In: Howard Giles, Scott Reid., and Jake Harwood (eds.), The dynamics of intergroup communication (pp. 209–220). New York: Peter Lang.
Waltman, Michael and Haas, John. 2011. The communication of hate. New York: Peter Lang.
Williams, Angie and Harwood, Jake. 2004. Intergenerational communication: Intergroup, accommodation, and family perspective. In: Jon F. Nussbaum and Justine Coupland (eds.), Handbook of communication and aging research (2nd ed., pp. 115–138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Williams, Angie, and Nussbaum, Jon F. 2001. Intergenerational communication across the lifespan. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Williams, Kristine N., Herman, Ruth, Gajewski, Byron, and Wilson, Kristel. 2009. Elderspeak communication: Impact on dementia care. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias 24, 11–20.