Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 (2006) 243 - PDF document

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 (2006) 243…261www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp0749-5978/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.004 The power of powerless speech: The eects of speech style and task interdependence on status conferralAlison R. Fragale AbstractTwo studies examine the eects of speech styles and task interdependence on status conferral judgments. In both studies, partici- Keywords:Status conferral; Speech Styles; Powerful speech; Powerless speech; Task interdependence; Task performance; Agency; CommunalityLanguage is power, in ways more literal than most peo- 244A.R. Fragale / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 (2006) 243…261(e.g.,kinda,Ž sort ofŽ), disclaimers (e.g., This may bea bad idea, but†Ž), intensiers (e.g., really,Ž veryŽ)and formal addresses (e.g., yes, sirŽ), inuence how aspeaker is evaluated. Individuals who speak assertively,by avoiding these tentative speech markers, are judgedby observers as more likely to be hired, promoted, andsupported by superiors (Gallois, Callan, & Palmer, 1992;Parton, Siltanen, Hosman, & Langenderfer, 2002; Wiley& Eskilson, 1985; see also Ng & Bradac, 1993 for areview), and are more inuential (Erickson, Lind, John-son, & OBarr, 1978) than individuals who include thesespeech characteristics. These relationships are consid-ered so robust that speech styles have been namedaccording to their consequences: PowerlessŽ speech is aspeech style dened by the presence of the abovemen-tioned linguistic markers, whereas powerfulŽ speech isned by the absence of these markers (Erickson etal.,1978; see also Lako, 1975Although this relationship between powerful speechand subsequent status attainment seems valid on its face,these ndings raise an important practical and theoreti-cal question that has not been adequately addressed inprior research: Is powerless speech truly as powerless asit seems? Or, under certain circumstances, can powerlessspeech actually be more eective for obtaining promo-tions and prestige than powerful speech? The rst goalof this paper is to answer this question. Specically, Iexamine whether one particular group-level factor, thelevel of interdependence in a task group, aects the rela-tionship between speech styles and status attainment. Indoing so, I adopt a denition of status used in priorresearch: Status is the extent to which an individual in agroup is seen as prominent, respected, and inuential byother group members (Anderson, John, Keltner, &Kring, 2001). This denition implies that status positionsare socially determined; one can only possess as muchstatus as others are willing to grant. In this sense, statusis conferred to one individual by another individual (orgroup of individuals). The studies in this paper investi-gate individuals decisions about how much status toconfer to an actor in an organizational context.Elucidating the eects of powerless speech on statusconferral has obvious prescriptive implications for howindividuals should communicate to gain status. However,investigating the relationship between speech styles andstatus conferral has broader theoretical implications aswell. The second goal of this paper is to gain some insightinto the process underlying status conferral judgments.The status benets of using powerless speech, if any,depend on how individuals make their status conferraldecisions. Two theoretical perspectives oer conictingviews on how status conferral decisions are made, andconsequently lead to dierent predictions about whetherpowerless speech should ever be status enhancing. Oneperspective, which I refer to as the xed criteria perspec-tive, is derived from research on status schemas (e.g., Con-way, Pizzamiglio, & Mount, 1996; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, &Xu, 2002; Fiske, Xu, Cuddy, & Glick, 1999) and suggeststhat powerful speech should lead to greater status confer-ral than powerless speech, independent of the context inquestion. The other perspective, which I term the contin-gent criteria perspective, is based on theories of statuscharacteristics (e.g., Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972; Ber-ger, Conner, & Fisek, 1974) and implies that both power-ful and powerless speech can be status enhancing,depending on the specic organizational context. Thestudies presented in this paper are designed to test thevalidity of these two theoretical perspectives.How do speech styles aect status?It is surprising that a behavior as subtle and poten-tially meaningless as ones speech style should aectsomething as consequential as ones ability to get pro-moted or be respected. Yet, individuals often make dis-positional inferences about an actor on the basisobservable behaviors (e.g., Ross, 1977), and these dispo-sitional attributions, in turn, aect how the actor is eval-uated. A host of behavioral cues„speech styles (e.g.,Erickson etal., 1978; Parton etal., 2002; Wiley & Eskil-son, 1985), speech rates (e.g., Brown, Strong, & Rencher,1973), vocal tones (e.g., Ridgeway, 1987), patterns of eyecontact (e.g., Washburn & Hakel, 1973), and emotionalexpressions (Tiedens, 2001)„have been shown to inence status positions because they inuence perceptionsof the actors personality traits.Work in the area of person perception has demon-strated that individuals organize their perceptions of oth-ers around two fundamental trait dimensions (Asch, 1946;Bakan, 1966; Carson, 1969; Fiske etal., 2002; Kiesler,1983; Leary, 1957; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Wiggins, 1979Bakan (1966) referred to these dimensions as agencycharacteristics associated with self-assertion and masteryof ones environment, such as ambition, dominance, andindependence, and communality, or characteristics associ-ated with selessness and nurturance, such as warmth, sin-cerity, and tolerance. Individuals who use powerful speechare rated by observers as more competent, intelligent, andstrong (i.e., agentic) than individuals who use powerlessspeech (Carli, 1990; Erickson etal., 1978; Parton etal.,2002; Siegler & Siegler, 1976; see also Ng & Bradac, 1993for a review). However, there is some evidence to suggestthat individuals who use a powerless speech style areviewed as nicer, more likeable and good-natured (i.e.,communal) than those who use a powerful speech styleLee, 1999; Parton etal., 2002Even though agency and communality may both beviewed as socially desirable traits for individuals to pos-sess, evidence to date suggests that only the agencydimension is used in making status conferral judgments.That is, when deciding whether to hire, promote, or 246A.R. Fragale / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 (2006) 243…261status generalization, Webster & Driskell, 1978) suggeststhat status is conferred to an actor based on othersassessments of the actors expected performance on thetask at hand: Individuals are conferred high status whenthey are expected to perform well on the given task, andconferred lower status when they are expected to per-form poorly. Proponents of this perspective have actu-ally used this argument to explain why status conferraljudgments should be relatively similar across situations(e.g., Ridgeway, 1987; see also Webster & Driskell, 1978Characteristics of agency, such as assertiveness and con-dence, facilitate successful performance in most taskgroups, so behaviors that convey a high level of agency,such as powerful speech, should result in status confer-ral, regardless of the specic group in question.However, by dening status in terms of expected per-formance, this theoretical framework suggests that statusconferral decisions may actually be more context-depen-dent than the original researchers assumed. If expectationsof performance are what individuals rely on when makingtheir status conferral decisions, then any trait or attributethat is seen as facilitating performance should result instatus conferral. To the extent that the traits or attributesassociated with successful performance change acrossgroups or situations, this implies that the criteria for statusconferral decisions should change as well. In other words,behaviors that convey high agency, such as powerfulspeech, should lead to status conferral insituations whereagency is viewed as a critical determinant of ones taskperformance, but behaviors such as powerless speech, thatconvey high communality, should lead to status conferralinsituations where communality is indicative of successfulperformance.Distinguishing between these perspectivesCurrent empirical evidence is not sucient to deter-mine which of these two perspectives best describes theprocess underlying individuals status conferral deci-sions, since both the xed and contingent perspectivescan be used to explain the previously observed positiverelationship between perceptions of agency and statusconferral. To distinguish between these perspectives, it isnecessary to examine status conferral decisions acrossgroup contexts. Although both theories predict thatassessments of agency may serve as the basis for statusconferral judgments, they dier in their predictionsabout whether this relationship generalizes acrossgroups. In this paper, I focus on one group-level factor,task interdependence, which may provide insight intowhich of these processes most adequately accounts forstatus conferral judgments.Task interdependenceThe level of task interdependence in a group is theextent to which group members need to collaborate,coordinate, or interact with others to complete theirassigned tasks (Thompson, 1967; Wageman, 1995). Thelevel of task interdependence in a group can be aectedby cultural values of the group, which result in normsabout how work should be completed (e.g., Shea &Guzzo, 1989; Wageman, 1995), or by features of the taskitself, which either require or prohibit collective actionThompson, 1967). Although all task groups or organi-zations, by denition, necessitate some degree of interde-pendence among members, there is substantial variationamong groups in the level of interdependence requiredfor task completion (Wageman, 1995). In general, thegreater the level of task interdependence in a group, thegreater the need for, and expectation of, collective eand coordination among group members (March &Simon, 1958; Thompson, 1967The level of task interdependence in a group mayect the criteria that individuals use when evaluatinggroup members performance. When interdependence islow, and individuals work primarily independently,characteristics of agency may be viewed as particularlyimportant predictors of a group members performance.High agency is associated with the ability to think inde-pendently, having condence in ones own views, and amotivation for achievement, which are all characteristicsthat should facilitate an individuals performance whenworking alone. In comparison, characteristics of com-munality, which indicate how an individual relates toand interacts with others, may be viewed as less criticalfor completing work in low interdependence settings,since interaction with others, by denition, is relativelylow. Thus, in low interdependence groups, individualsmay place greater weight on assessments of a groupmembers agency than on communality when judgingthe group members expected performance.In contrast, characteristics of communality may beviewed as more predictive of group members perfor-mance than characteristics of agency when task interde-pendence is high. High communality is associated withhigh levels of concern for others, a willingness to becooperative, and a desire for aliation, which are allcharacteristics that should facilitate an individuals per-formance when working collaboratively. At the sametime, characteristics of agency may be viewed as less pre-dictive of performance in highly interdependent groups,since the collaborative nature of these groups impliesthat members can pool their collective talents and relymore on the abilities of the group as a whole rather thanon the abilities of any one member: An individual thatexhibits relatively low levels of agentic traits (such asdominance, independence, and competitiveness) maystill be viewed as a star performer in a highly interdepen-dent group if this individual demonstrates an ability torelate to and work with others. Furthermore, agencymay sometimes be viewed as a liability in high interde-pendence groups, since these individuals may be A.R. Fragale / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 (2006) 243…261247perceived as preferring and pursuing individual accom-plishments (e.g., personal recognition and achievements)at the expense of group accomplishments (e.g., groupperformance; Ridgeway, 1982). Together, these forcesimply that perceptions of communality may inuenceexpectations of successful performance to a greaterdegree than perceptions of agency in high interdepen-dence groups.The xed and contingent criteria perspectives makeerent predictions about whether the level of taskinterdependence in a group should aect status conferraldecisions. On one hand, a reliance on xed criteriaimplies that dierences in task interdependence shouldnot aect status conferral judgments. This leads to thefollowing hypotheses derived from the xed criteria per-spective:Hypothesis1. In both high and low interdependencegroups, speakers using a powerful speech style will beconferred more status than speakers using a powerlessspeech style.Hypothesis2. In both high and low interdependencegroups, individuals will weight assessments of an actorsagency more than assessments of the actors communal-ity when making status conferral judgments.On the other hand, the contingent criteria perspectivepredicts that status conferral decisions should change asa function of the level of interdependence in a group, tothe extent that task interdependence aects the deni-tion of successful performance. Thus, the contingent cri-teria perspective leads to the following predictions:Hypothesis3a. In low interdependence groups, speakersusing a powerful speech style will be conferred more sta-tus than speakers using a powerless speech style.Hypothesis3b. In high interdependence groups, speakersusing a powerless speech style will be conferred morestatus than speakers using a powerful speech style.Hypothesis4a. In low interdependence groups, individu-als will weight assessments of an actors agency morethan assessments of the actors communality when mak-ing status conferral judgments.Hypothesis4b. In high interdependence groups, individ-uals will weight assessments of an actors communalitymore than assessments of the actors agency when mak-ing status conferral judgments.Study 1The objective of Study 1 was to investigate whether thelevel of task interdependence in a group would moderatethe relationship between speech styles and status confer-ral. In this experimental paradigm, participants interactedin an initial task with an individual that used either a pow-erful or powerless speech style and then made judgmentsabout the amount of status to confer to their partner in asubsequent task group, which manipulated the level oftask interdependence required. Status conferral wasassessed in two ways in this study. First, participants madeevaluations of how much status and respect the individualshould have in the task group. Second, prior research haddemonstrated that status is often conferred by endowingindividuals with formal titles that signify their high statusposition (e.g., leader, president, and captain; Tiedens,). Thus, status conferral was also assessed throughparticipants willingness to recommend the individual forthe formal position of group leader.ŽMethodParticipantsOne-hundred-twenty-four individuals (51 males, 64females, and 9 unidentied) aliated with a west-coastuniversity participated in this study in exchange for apayment of $15. Participants were recruited from anelectronic mailing list at the university that advertisesbehavioral studies to university members that haveexpressed an interest in participating in them.Materials and procedureBetween 6 and 12 individuals participated in eachexperimental session. As participants arrived, they wereseated in one of two laboratory rooms, each at individ-ual study carrels with computer terminals. The experi-menter informed participants that they would beparticipating in two decision-making tasks, each withother participants in the experimental session. The rstexercise was described as a computer-mediated problem-solving task in which participants would interact with apartner via a computer. In actuality, participants did notinteract with a partner; rather, they conversedŽ with ascripted computer program. This exercise was designedto manipulate the speech style of the partner.Ž In thepowerless condition, the partner used hedges, hesita-tions, disclaimers, formal addresses, and tag questions,whereas in the powerful condition, the partner did notuse these tentative speech patterns. After completing therst task, participants were given instructions for a sec-ond task, described as a 4-person group task, in whichtask interdependence was manipulated. In actuality,there was no second team task; this aspect of the coverstory was included to create a context for the status con-ferral measures of interest in this study, participantsevaluations of their partnerŽ from the rst task.Experimental design. The design of this study was a 2(Task 1 Partner Speech Style: Powerful vs. Powerless)(Task 2 Interdependence: High vs. Low) between-subjectsfactorial design. A.R. Fragale / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 (2006) 243…261251form better in the Task 2 group than did participants thatinteracted with a powerless speaker, (107)1.83, .069.However, when Task 2 was described as a high interdepen-dence task, participants that interacted with a powerlessspeaker thought their partner would perform better on thesecond task than did participants that interacted with apowerful speaker, (107)1.92, .058.The contingent criteria perspective also implies thatthe eects of an individuals speech style on status con-ferral judgments should be mediated by expectations ofthe individuals performance in the group: an individ-uals speech style provides a cue to how the individualwill perform in a group, the these performance expecta-tions, in turn, inuence how much status the individualshould be conferred. Following the procedures recom-mended by Baron and Kenny (1986) and Edwards andLambert (2004), I regressed status conferral on the inde-pendent variable (speech style), the moderator (taskinterdependence), the interaction between the indepen-dent variable and the moderator, the proposed mediator(expected performance), and the interaction of the medi-ator and the moderator (see Table 2, Regression 4).Expected performance signicantly predicted status con-ferral (.46, (105)5.78, .001) and, comparingthis model to Regression 2, the interaction betweenspeech style and task interdependence was no longer sig-cant when expected performance was added into themodel (.13, (105)1.31, n.s.). To interpret theseects, I then conducted a moderated path analysis (seeFig.3) to determine the specic form of mediation inquestion by examining simple paths (or slopes) at eachlevel of the moderator variable (Edwards & Lambert,2004). The rst thing to note is that speech styles exertedsignicant, yet opposite, eects on expected performanceacross levels of the moderator variable (task interdepen-dence). When task interdependence was low, powerfulspeech was associated with higher performance expecta-tions, whereas when interdependence was high, powerfulspeech was associated with lower performance expecta-tions. Furthermore, the path from the mediator(expected performance) to the dependent variable (sta-tus conferral) was statistically signicant in both highand low interdependence conditions, and the magnitudeof this path did not dier across levels of the moderator.To test for mediation, I then used a bootstrap proce-dure to test the magnitude of the indirect eect (the eectof speech style on status conferral through the mediator,expected performance) at each level of the moderatorvariable. Mediation is indicated when the size of an indi-rect eect diers signicantly from zero (Shrout & Bol-ger, 2002). I implemented the bootstrap by drawing 1000random samples with replacement from the full sampleEfron & Tibshirani, 1993; Stine, 1989). The indirectect was computed using each of these bootstrap sam-ples, and based on these results, I constructed bias-cor-rected condence intervals to ascertain whether theindirect eect diered signicantly from zero (see MacK-innon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). In the low interde- To determine whether the mediator (expected performance) andthe dependent measure (status conferral) were distinct constructs, Iconducted a two-factor conrmatory factor analysis in which the fac-tors were performance and status conferral, which had one and threeitems, respectively. For performance, the item loading and measure-ment error variance of the single item were xed to reect the assumedreliability of the item (Hayduk, 1987), and for status conferral, the itemloadings and measurement error variance were freely estimated. Theseanalyses revealed that, if the reliability of the single performance itemwas assumed to be .65 or higher (a reasonable assumption„see Wa-nous & Hudy, 2001; Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997 for discussionsof the reliability of single-item measures), the performance and statusconferral measures achieved discriminant validity, as indicated by afactor correlation whose 95% condence interval excluded unity (Ba-gozzi & Phillips, 1982 Fig.3. Study 1: Simple paths at each level of the moderator variable (task interdependence). Note. 111. For speech style, powerful speech wascoded 1 and powerless speech was coded 1. Figure entries are unstandardized path coecients. Paths with underlined coecients are signicantlyerent (.05) across levels of the moderator variable. +.10, *.05, ***.001. Low TaskInterdependence High TaskInterdependence -.11.48***-.33* SpeechStyle ExpectedPerformance .44*** .31+ SpeechStyle ExpectedPerformance Status Conferral Status Conferral 252A.R. Fragale / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 (2006) 243…261pendence condition, the indirect eect from the originaldata set was 0.14 (0.310.44), and the 90% condenceinterval for this eect excluded zero (0.01, 0.31), indicat-ing a marginally signicant indirect eect in the lowinterdependence condition. In the high interdependencecondition, the indirect eect from the original data set0.16 (0.330.48), and the 95% condence inter-val excluded zero (0.37, 0.02), indicating a signicantindirect eect in the high interdependence condition.Collectively, these ndings support the conclusion thatexpected performance mediated the relationshipbetween speech styles and status conferral in both thelow and high interdependence conditions.DiscussionThe ndings of Study 1 extend our current under-standing of status conferral judgments in several ways.First, these ndings suggest that behaviors that havebeen traditionally deemed ineective for enhancing onesstatus position may not necessarily be so. When anupcoming task necessitated independent work, theresults replicated prior research: Participants were morelikely to recommend their partner for a leadership posi-tion in the group, and they thought the partner shouldreceive more status and respect in the group, when thepartner used a powerful speech style than when the part-ner used a powerless speech style. However, this patternreversed when the task necessitated interdependentwork, and greater status was conferred to the partnerwhen the partner used a powerless speech style. To date,little value has been attributed to powerless speech, andconventional wisdom generally counsels against the useof such tentative speech patterns. On the surface, charac-teristics of powerless speech, such as hesitations, qualiers, and disclaimers, seem to convey only negativemessages about the speaker, such as the speakers lack ofcertainty (i.e., low agency). However, these negative attri-butions may be oset by attributing characteristics ofcommunality to the speaker, and consequently behaviorssuch as powerless speech may be status-enhancinginsituations where communality is valued for perfor-mance. Thus, this study suggests that the relationshipbetween an individuals verbal and nonverbal cues andtheir conferred level of status may be more complex thanpreviously thought.Second, this study provides greater insight into theprocess underlying status conferral decisions. Consistentwith the predictions derived from the contingent criteriaperspective, the eects of speech styles on status confer-ral judgments depended on the level of task interdepen-dence in the group. In further support of this perspective,these eects were mediated by expectations of the part-ners likely performance. In contrast, the xed criteriaperspective, predicting that powerful speech would leadto greater status conferral than powerless speech regard-less of the level of interdependence, was not empiricallysupported. Thus, this study provides a more conclusivetest of the process underlying status judgments thanthose conducted in prior empirical research.Study 2The objectives of Study 2 were both to replicate thepattern of results obtained in Study 1 and to explore therole of agency and communality in individuals statusconferral decisions. In support of the contingent criteriaperspective, Study 1 demonstrated that the status bene-ts of powerful versus powerless speech depended on thelevel of task interdependence in a group. This perspec-tive also predicts these eects are due to the dierentialweighting of agency and communality in status judg-ments across groups that vary in task interdependence(Hypotheses 4a and 4b): In low interdependence groups,individuals should weight agency more than communal-ity as a basis for status conferral judgments, whereas inhigh interdependence groups, individuals should weightcommunality more than agency. To explore this possibil-ity, participants in Study 2 were asked to rate an actoron several agentic and communal traits.Another objective of Study 2 was to replicate Study1s pattern of results using a more ecologically validmanipulation of task interdependence. In Study 1, par-ticipants were explicitly instructed to use either an inde-pendent or interdependent process in Task 2. In reality,however, individuals do not always receive such explicitinstructions about how a task should be completed.Rather, the increasing prevalence of self-managed workteams implies that organizational members are oftengiven tasks to complete, and left to their own devices todetermine the appropriate processes (Wageman, 1995In such cases, one important factor that is likely to aectthis process decision is the culture of the group or orga-nization. Organizational culture has been conceptualizedas a form of social control; a way to communicate toorganizational members about the values and normsthey are expected to uphold (OReilly & Chatman,1996). An important cultural distinction has been madebetween individualistic and collectivistic cultures (e.g.,Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, & Neale, 1998; Earley, 1993One of the most distinguishing characteristics betweenthese two types of cultures is the level of task interdepen-dence that they foster (Chatman etal., 1998; Cox, Lobel,& McLeod, 1991): In comparison to individualistic cul-tures, collectivistic cultures place greater emphasis oncollaborative work and collective action (i.e., they havenorms of high task interdependence; Hofstede, Neuijen,Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990; Wagner & Moch, 1986). In thisway, an organizations culture communicates the level oftask interdependence that is expected of its membersthrough implicit means„without explicitly mandating a 258A.R. Fragale / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 (2006) 243…261attention to specic group features that may aect thebehaviors that are most status enhancing. The ndingsof the current research suggest that the predominantresearch question should be shifted from What behav-iors are eective for enhancing ones status in a group?Žto When (and ) are these particular behaviors eec-tive?ŽThis research also provides empirical support for thecontingent criteria perspective suggested by status char-acteristics theory (e.g., Berger etal., 1972, 1974). Thendings of the current studies indicate that as the criteriafor evaluating successful performance changes acrossgroups, individuals criteria for status conferral judg-ments change as well. Of the existing theoretical perspec-tives on status conferral, this perspective is the one thathas been the most explicit about the process underlyingstatus conferral judgments. At a theoretical level, statusconferral decisions are presumed to be based on perfor-mance expectations. However, empirical tests of this per-spective have generally equated attributions of agencywith performance expectations, and most evidence for aperformance-based process comes from studies that linkcharacteristics associated with agency, such as gender,race, and communication behaviors, to high status posi-tions in task groups (see Webster & Driskell, 1978 for areview). While these ndings are consistent with the con-tingent criteria perspective, conclusive evidence for thisperformance-based status conferral process has beenlacking, since multiple processes can account for theseprior empirical results. Specically, the xed criteria per-spective suggested by status schema theories (Conwayetal., 1996; Fiske etal., 1999, 2002) implies that agencywill be used as the criteria for status conferral judgmentsregardless of the group context. This suggests a compet-ing decision process that could explain the empiricalrelationship between perceptions of agency and statusconferral judgments. The current studies were designedto provide a more stringent test of the contingent criteriaperspective, and help to distinguish this perspective fromanother competing theoretical account.Possible boundary conditions and future directionsThe current research also has some limitations thatare worthy of mention. Most importantly, the currentstudies investigate situations in which individuals havenot yet been assigned hierarchical positions, eitherbecause they are new to an existing group, or the groupis in its formative stages and no hierarchy has yetformed. In other words, these studies investigate howstatus positions are created. Individuals face such situa-tions frequently throughout their lives. Individualschange jobs and join new organizations, and organiza-tions often create cross-functional task forces or work-groups. Although outside the scope of this paper, it isalso interesting and important to think about how statuspositions can be changed. That is, once an individual hasbeen conferred a particular status position, how do theindividuals observed behaviors aect his or her subse-quent placement in the status ordering? The the current studies may or may not generalize to thesetypes of changes in status positions. An alternativehypothesis in such situations is that communicationbehaviors lose their potency as status signals once a sta-tus hierarchy has already been created. However,another possibility is that observed behaviors may inter-act with prior status positions to inuence future statusconferral. For example, once an individual has beenplaced in a low status position, the use of powerfulspeech may be seen as evidence that the individual is act-ing out-of-role (e.g., Rudman, 1998). Consequently, theindividual may not be able to gain status from this lowstatus position by using powerful speech, regardless ofthe level of interdependence in a group.In a similar vein, future research might address howspeech styles interact with other individual characteris-tics or behaviors to inuence status judgments. Priorresearch has demonstrated that demographic character-istics, such as gender, ethnicity, and age, inuence statusconferral judgments (see Webster & Driskell, 1978 for areview). These demographic dierences may also moder-ate the relationship between speech styles and statusconferral. For example, women are generally stereotypedas highly communal, and can sometimes be evaluatednegatively if they violate this stereotype (e.g., Rudman,1998). In the studies presented in this paper, the genderof the target was either unspecied (Study 1) or male(Study 2). It is possible that powerless speech may resultin even greater status conferral for women, since thisspeech style is associated with the stereotypically femaletrait of communality. Additionally, a host of other ver-bal and nonverbal behaviors have been linked to statusattainment, such as speech rates (e.g., Brown etal., 1973vocal tones (e.g., Ridgeway, 1987), patterns of eye con-tact (e.g., Washburn & Hakel, 1973), and emotionalexpressions (Tiedens, 2001). However, most studies todate have focused on only one of these behaviors in anygiven study, and consequently have not examined theects of simultaneous expression of multiple behaviors.Thus, it may be worthwhile to examine how observersmake sense of multiple, and possibly conicting, verbaland nonverbal behaviors when making status judgments.Finally, the current research also demonstrates that theects of speech styles on status positions require observersto make corresponding inferences about a speakers likelypersonality traits. That is, speech styles only aect statusconferral judgments because they inuence the traits andqualities that the speaker is believed to possess. Yet theremay be instances in which observers do not make the pre-dicted trait inferences on basis of speech styles. This couldoccur because observers possess more objectiveŽ infor-mation about an actors agency and communality (e.g., 260A.R. Fragale / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 (2006) 243…261Note.cations for powerless speech appear in parentheses.ReferencesAnderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Whoattains social status? Eects of personality and physical attractive-ness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,, 116…132.Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 1230…1240.Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing and testing orga-nizational theories: A holistic construal. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 27, 459…489.Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychol-ogy and religion. Oxford: Rand McNally.Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator…mediator vari-able distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, stra-tegic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 51, 1173…1182.Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1972). Status characteristicsand social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37, 241…255.Berger, J., Conner, T. L., & Fisek, M. H. (1974). Expectation states the-ory: A theoretical research program. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.Brown, B. L., Strong, W. J., & Rencher, A. C. (1973). Perceptions ofpersonality from speech: Eects of manipulation of acousticalparameters. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 54, 29…35.Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and inuence. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 59, 941…951.Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago:Aldine.Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998).Being dierent yet feeling similar: The inuence of demographiccomposition and organizational culture on work processes and out-comes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 749…780.Conway, M., Pizzamiglio, M. T., & Mount, L. (1996). Status, com-munality, and agency: Implications for stereotypes of gender andother groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7125…38.Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Eects of ethnicgroup cultural dierences on cooperative and competitive behav-ior on a group task. Academy of Management Journal, 34827…847.Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets west meets mideast: Further explora-tions of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy ofManagement Journal, 36, 319…348.Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2004). Methods for integrating moder-ation and mediation: An analytical framework using moderated pathanalysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society forIndustrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrapNew York: Chapman & Hall.Erickson, B., Lind, E. A., Johnson, B. C., & OBarr, W. M. (1978).Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: Theects of powerful and powerless speech. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 14, 266…279.Fiske, S. E., Cuddy, A. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (oftenmixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectivelyfollow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 82, 878…902.Fiske, S. E., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. C., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respectingversus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalentstereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55473…489.Gallois, C., Callan, V. J., & Palmer, J. A. M. (1992). The inuence ofapplicant communication style and interviewer characteristics onhiring decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1041…1060.Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psy-chological Bulletin, 117, 21…38.Grin, J. (1998). How to say it at work: Putting yourself across withpower words, phrases, body language, and communication secretsNew York: Prentice Hall.Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL. Bal-timore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Appendix AcontinuedMichael:Robert:I agree. A team meeting is (could be) a good idea.Michael:Robert:Lets meet Thursday, the 24th. (Well, I dont know. Maybe Thursday, the 24th?)Michael:Robert:(Maybe) 1 oclock.MichaelRobert:(Yes sir, that sounds) ne (to me.)Michael:Robert:(Well, I could be wrong, but I think) we still need to nd a way to speed this project up (a) little. Do you think it would be at all possible to have the team postpone working on the IBM project until after the Jackson project is done?Michael:Robert:I know. But (it seems like) the Jackson project is probably more important.Michael:Robert:(Um†)One other thing. Bill needs someone to make a presentation on the Jackson project at the monthly board meeting. (Please dont think Im putting words in your mouth, but) I told him you would do it.Michael:Robert:Great. (Is there) anything else (we should talk about?)Michael:Robert:Ok, (Ill talk to you) later, (Michael).