BackHome
Refresh: OffView Personal Schedule
Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Investigating the Function of Implicit and Explicit Linguistic Indicators of Cohesion Among Teen Peer Dyads

Wed, April 7, 2:45 to 4:15pm EDT (2:45 to 4:15pm EDT), Virtual

Abstract

Partners’ use of “we” pronouns and linguistic style matching (LSM) have been independently identified as predictors of romantic relationship functioning (Bowen, Winczewski, & Collins, 2016; Ireland et al., 2010). Each of these linguistic cues has been tied to relationship connectedness in slightly different ways. Use of “we” pronouns has been described as an indicator of interdependence between partners (Karan, Rosenthal, & Robbins, 2018), while LSM has been framed as a measure of synchronicity and cohesion (Gonzales, Hancock, & Pennebaker, 2009). Given peers' importance to adolescent development, language use in peer conversations could inform on social development. Yet, research is lacking in this area. In order to better understand the developmental function of these linguistic indicators, this study examined the contexts and outcomes associated with LSM and use of “we” pronouns in a disagreement task between adolescent peers.

A representative community sample of 184 individuals and their peers was assessed at age 15 and 16. At age 15, participants and their peer performed a “revealed differences” task in which they were instructed to select from a set of hypothetical candidates for a space mission by discussing their choices for 8 minutes. Interactions were coded for Autonomy- and Relatedness-Promoting Behaviors (confidently stating reasons that advance one’s position, while maintaining warmth and respect for the partner; Allen et al., 2000). Interactions were transcribed and analyzed for “we” talk and LSM using LIWC (Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010). At ages 15 and 16, participants reported on their depressive symptoms (Childhood Depression Inventory), anxiety (Beck Anxiety Inventory), and friendship attachment (Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment). The sample had 94% retention; dropped out participants did not differ from retained participants on demographic or baseline qualities.

SAS PROC CALIS was used to run hierarchical linear regression analyses using FIML, covarying gender and family income. Findings suggested that, concurrently, teens who endorsed more secure attachment had peers that use less “we” talk (β = -.25, p < .05), while teens who endorsed more depressive symptoms had peers that used more “we” talk (β = .11, p < .001). Additionally, one year later, teens who used more “we” talk showed increases in Autonomy/Relatedness-Promoting Behaviors with their peer (β = 0.22, p < .05). When peers used more “we” talk, teens showed relative decreases in anxiety the following year (β = -0.30, p < .01). Dyadic LSM at age 15 predicted friendship stability (β = -0.33, p < .01) and relative increases in attachment security (β = 0.18, p < .05) at age 16.

Findings are interpreted as suggesting that positive social and psychological development may occur more readily in friendships that involve underlying, implicit cohesion between peers, as indicated by LSM's association with relative improvements in functioning over time. The function of “we” talk may be quite different. A teen explicitly grouping themself with a friend (through using “we”) may be a tactic to address particularly distressed peers. Some teens’ psychological health may benefit from the presence of a friend who identifies themselves as part of a unit with the teen. Limitations, implications, and future directions to be discussed.

Authors