Four studies examined the hypothesis that subtle language variations can have a causal impact on perceptions of relationships. In interpersonal interactions, language can function implicitly to reflect, perpetuate, and communicate relationship perceptions. Previous research has shown that interpersonal closeness and plural pronoun use are correlated; the current research demonstrates that manipulating pronoun use can lead people to perceive their own and other relationships as closer and higher in quality. In Study 1, participants who read about a relationship that was described using the pronoun we versus she and I perceived the relationship to be closer and of higher quality. Study 2 showed that pronoun variations similarly affected perceptions of participants’ own ongoing relationships; Study 3 showed similar effects for perceptions of an actual interpersonal interaction. Study 4 examined potential mechanisms of this effect.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agnew, C. R., VanLange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939-954.
2.
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999) AMOS user’s guide. Chicago: Smallwaters.
3.
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love as the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere.
4.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612.
5.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relatioships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241-253.
6.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
7.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New York: Academic Press.
8.
Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). The Relationship Closeness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 792-807.
9.
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43,1-22.
10.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93.
11.
Brown, R., & Fish, D. (1983). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition, 14, 233-274.
12.
Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
13.
Fiedler, K., Semin, G. R., & Koppetsch, C. (1991). Language use and attributional biases in close personal relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 147-155.
14.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol.3, pp.41-58). New York: Academic Press.
15.
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). New York: Guilford.
16.
Hoffman, C., & Tchir, M. A. (1990). Interpersonal verbs and dispositional adjectives: The psychology of causality embodied in language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 765-778.
17.
Hunt, E., & Agnoli, F. (1991). The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective. Psychological Review, 98, 377-389.
18.
Ickes, W., Stinson, L., Bissonnette, V., & Garcia, S. (1990). Naturalistic social cognition: Empathic accuracy in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 730-742.
19.
Ickes, W., Tooke, W., Stinson, L., Baker, V. L., & Bissonnette, V. (1988). Naturalistic social cognition: Intersubjectivity in same-sex dyads. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 58-84.
20.
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. London: Lund
21.
Humphries. Kohler, W. (1976). The place of value in a world of facts. Address given at Harvard University. Reprinted by Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1938)
22.
Maass, A., Milesi, A., Zabbini, S., & Stahlberg, D. (1995). Linguistic intergroup bias: Differential expectancies or in-group protection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 116-126.
23.
Maass, A., Salvi, D., Arcuri, L., & Semin, G. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 981-993.
24.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test the significance of the mediated effect. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.
25.
Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1296-1312.
26.
Perdue, C. W., Dovidio, J. F., Gurtman, M. B., & Tyler, R. B. (1990). Us and them: Social categorization and the process of intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 475-486.
27.
Rubini, M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1997). Brief encounters ending in estrangement: Motivated language use and interpersonal rapport in the question-answer paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1047-1060.
28.
Semin, G. R., & De Poot, C. (1997). The Question-Answer Paradigm: You might regret not noticing how a question is worded. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 472-480.
29.
Semin, G. R., Gil de Montes, L., & Vlancia, J. F. (2003). Communication constraints on the linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 142-148.
30.
Semin, G. R., Goerts, C. A., Nandram, S., & Semin-Goossens, A. (2002). Cultural perspectives on the linguistic representation of emotion and emotion events. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 11-28.
31.
Semin, G. R., & Marsman, G. (1994). Multiple inference inviting properties of interpersonal verbs: Event instigation, dispositional inference and implicit causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 836-849.
32.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.
33.
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity: Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language (No. 17, pp. 70-96). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35.
Wertheimer, M. (1923). Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt II [Laws of organization in perceptual forms]. Psycologische Forschung, 4, 301-350.
36.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
37.
Wigboldus, D. H. J., Semin, G. R., & Spears, R. (2000). How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic biases and inferential consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 5-18.
