24:I[63208,["8920","static/chunks/8920-efbff8517d590b7e.js","9097","static/chunks/9097-7e60ff382fede0de.js","5914","static/chunks/5914-356082358a498a0b.js","9903","static/chunks/9903-11222066602aad8e.js","5438","static/chunks/5438-cfc6cd3ec63ed58c.js","3851","static/chunks/3851-d9d99b9df58ccefb.js","4621","static/chunks/4621-60797c2425663d2a.js","6871","static/chunks/6871-85cb03c97585f46a.js","6736","static/chunks/6736-932312a004c99faf.js","4550","static/chunks/4550-0bf059e3050c08b3.js","688","static/chunks/688-a6a2ac7bff269cd3.js","3984","static/chunks/3984-063c0b62f32133c7.js","7038","static/chunks/7038-4f87670d4e55ef18.js","9039","static/chunks/9039-75366c62dc7d0d0e.js","4563","static/chunks/4563-ad980d1babbf7b0b.js","6761","static/chunks/6761-0c10d1446de7ae1c.js","744","static/chunks/744-1e76229abb9e297b.js","7342","static/chunks/7342-1586df78600bf911.js","3617","static/chunks/3617-1f62a097637f4747.js","5895","static/chunks/5895-caa6c774914eb108.js","7481","static/chunks/7481-3b84c503a2ebfb3f.js","3668","static/chunks/3668-7dab69e4121c33af.js","39","static/chunks/39-e93a27d0920e6d92.js","2881","static/chunks/2881-445cc2384af2c6f9.js","2364","static/chunks/2364-e83d52fb21729d99.js","3208","static/chunks/3208-e65462d166bd3688.js","7582","static/chunks/app/toc/%5Btla%5D/%5Bvolume%5D/%5Bissue%5D/page-694a0e465c2c1334.js"],"default"] 25:T44b,

Verbal person centeredness (VPC) is a long-dominant conceptualization of quality in supportive communication, but prior work provides limited guidance for researchers seeking to examine its impact in interaction. This study examined the extent to which overall VPC for an interaction is predicted by support providers’ specific behaviors. In a laboratory setting, pairs of friends (320 dyads) discussed a problem that one of them was currently experiencing. Transcripts of these interactions were coded by separate research teams for overall VPC of support provision and for the topic, function, and experiential focus of each discrete thought-unit produced by the support provider. Regression analyses showed that VPC was predicted by units representing specific, theoretically interpretable combinations of topical, functional, and experiential focus. The findings provide evidence of validity for procedures used to code VPC for supportive interactions while also displaying ways in which person centeredness is accomplished somewhat differently in interaction than in discrete messages.

26:T43b,

Negative utterances and words have been found to be stronger than positive utterances and words, but what happens if positive and negative utterances are intensified? Two online experiments were carried out in which participants judged the strength of (un)intensified positive and negative evaluations in written dialogues. Both studies showed intensified language was perceived as stronger than unmarked language (i.e., language that was not intensified), and negative evaluations were stronger than positive evaluations. What is more, intensification and polarity interact; the increment of perceived strength for intensified positive adjectives (Study 1) and purely intensified adverbs (really, very; Study 2) was bigger than the increment in perceived strength of intensified negative adjective and adverbs. When a meaningful intensifier (deliciously, disgustingly) was used, the negativity effect remained. The findings were discussed within cognitive frameworks such as relevance theory, theory of mind, and theory on verbal aggression.

27:T493,

Psychological models of second language (L2) communication have focused on cognitive, affective, and motivational precursors to L2 communication, while largely neglecting sociostructural factors. One way to conceptualize structural variables is in terms of social network reciprocity (mutually acknowledged network ties) and brokerage (social intermediaries). To investigate whether network positions predict willingness to communicate in the second language (L2 WTC), a cohort of English-for-Academic-Purposes students (N