1073347

research-article2022
SGRXXX10.1177/10464964211073347Small Group ResearchMüller-Frommeyer and Kauffeld

Article
Small Group Research

Capturing the Temporal

2022, Vol. 53(4) 503­–531
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
Dynamics of Language sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/10464964211073347
https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964211073347
Style Matching in Groups journals.sagepub.com/home/sgr

and Teams

Lena C. Müller-Frommeyer1
and Simone Kauffeld1

Abstract
This article presents a dynamic conceptualization for the assessment of
language style matching (LSM) over time. LSM is a team’s mutual adaption
of function words like pronouns, articles, or prepositions. LSM is a
nonconsciously but frequently occurring communication behavior allowing
researchers unobtrusive insights into teams’ internal dynamics. Building
on guidelines for the alignment of construct and measurement, a dynamic
conceptualization and method for LSM are introduced. Simulated examples
and interactions of N = 160 individuals in 26 teams indicate that dynamic LSM
allows for a truer estimation of LSM than the hitherto used static method.
Implications for future application are discussed.

Keywords
temporal dynamics, team processes, language style matching, group process,
tutorial

Language is the gateway to analyzing implicit team processes and thereby

improving our understanding of team dynamics. Previous research assessing
language processes has already advanced our understanding of various

1
Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany
Corresponding Author:
Lena C. Müller-Frommeyer, RWTH Aachen University, Jägerstraße 17-19, 52066 Aachen,
Germany.
Email: mueller-frommeyer@psych.rwth-aachen.de
504 Small Group Research 53(4)

(emergent) team phenomena (e.g., cohesiveness in Gonzales et al., 2010;

influence in Yilmaz & Peña, 2015; conflict in Biesen et al., 2016). One spe-
cific linguistic process that is related to various team inputs (e.g., social sta-
tus, personality) and outputs (e.g., trust, cohesion) is language style matching
(LSM; Niederhoffer & Pennebaker, 2002). LSM is an implicit communica-
tion behavior characterized by the mutual use and adaption of function words
(e.g., pronouns, articles, or prepositions) over the course of an interaction
(e.g., Ireland & Pennebaker, 2010; Müller-Frommeyer & Kauffeld, 2021;
Müller-Frommeyer et al., 2019; Niederhoffer & Pennebaker, 2002). Function
words are uttered nonconsciously (Segalowitz & Lane, 2004). At the same
time, they are frequently used in natural language allowing for unobtrusive
insights into implicit communication dynamics in team interaction. In an
overarching input-process-output framework (Ilgen et al., 2005), LSM can be
classified as team process (Van Swol & Kane, 2019). Investigating LSM can
yield important insights into a team’s internal dynamics (Chung & Pennebaker,
2013) and advance our understanding thereof. As such, LSM is a relevant
phenomenon to team researchers and practitioners.
Although research on LSM in teams has flourished over the last decade,
LSM has uniformly been treated as a static concept (e.g., Gonzales et al., 2010;
Heuer et al., 2020; Yilmaz & Peña, 2015) by conceptualizing and investigating
it on a conversational level. However, team processes in general, and language
production in particular, are inherently dynamic phenomena, meaning that they
take place in social settings and develop over time (e.g., Kozlowski, 2015;
Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen, 2018; Müller-Frommeyer et al., 2019). By
choosing static conceptualizations, the temporal dynamics of LSM have been
neglected and its process mechanisms remain essentially unstudied. Hence, we
lack knowledge of the temporal process mechanisms of LSM and their contri-
bution to the emergence of team phenomena. However, this lack of knowledge
is grounded in a conceptual (i.e., theoretical and methodological) issue. This
issue ties into an on-going call for the introduction and use of adequate methods
that consider the process dynamics of team phenomena and processes that con-
tribute to it (e.g., Kozlowski, 2015; Kozlowski et al., 2013; Lehmann-
Willenbrock & Allen, 2018; Luciano et al., 2018; Waller et al., 2016).
Therefore, the present paper addresses this research gap. First, we re-con-
ceptualize LSM in teams as a dynamic process observed over time by provid-
ing a review of theoretical and empirical insights into LSM. By implementing
LSM in teams into a more dynamical framework, we contribute to expanding
our knowledge of the specific process dynamics of LSM in teams. Based on
our new conceptualization and a review of the existing static method to assess
LSM in teams (LSM-t), we then introduce a dynamic method to assess LSM
in team interactions (rLSM-t). With the new conceptualization, we follow
Müller-Frommeyer and Kauffeld 505

current recommendations for construct and measurement alignment (Luciano

et al., 2018). We then empirically compare both metrics: First, we use three
simulated examples to examine if rLSM-t is a truer estimation of LSM than
LSM-t. Then, we transfer these results to real-life interactions of N = 160
individuals in 26 innovation teams.
Throughout the paper, we provide several tutorials to facilitate the appli-
cation of this new method. We give a summary of concrete guidelines on the
collection, preparation, and quantification of language data from team inter-
actions. Further, we provide sample data, transcripts, and an R Script for the
calculation of our newly introduced method rLSM-t in the on the open sci-
ence framework (osf) for this paper (https://osf.io/n9zg6/).
The dynamic conceptualization of LSM implements LSM into the litera-
ture on (emergent) team processes. Its future application will yield important
insights for researchers interested in team dynamics in social, organizational,
and communication studies. Applying this method will further advance our
understanding of how verbal micro-processes like LSM contribute to the
emergence of team phenomena and practical implications thereof.

Language Style Matching in Teams

When assessing LSM, researchers are interested in the use of function words
such as prepositions, articles, or conjunctions. Making up less than 4% of our
vocabulary (in the English language; Van Gelderen, 2014), function words
account for up to 60% of the words we use in everyday conversations. Being
short and having almost no meaning outside the respective context, function
words reflect how we say things rather than what we say (Chung &
Pennebaker, 2013). Therefore, function words can be measured and com-
pared across different social settings and conversational contexts (Gonzales
et al., 2010). Their use is more automated and nonconscious than the use of
content words such as nouns and verbs (Segalowitz & Lane, 2004).
Linguistically, function words reflect the relationship between content words
and thereby signal shared knowledge among interaction partners (Brennan &
Hanna, 2009; Cannava & Bodie, 2017). Each individual’s specific pattern of
function word use is called language style (Pennebaker & King, 1999;
Pennebaker et al., 2003). With its specific focus on aspects of communication
that are nonconsciously but frequently used, LSM has an advantage over
other well-established research techniques for analyzing communication
(e.g., interaction analysis, content analysis) which focus on aspects of com-
munication that can be deliberately trained or changed. An overview of more
established research techniques for communication analysis and their spe-
cific goals in comparison to LSM can be found in Table 1.
506 Small Group Research 53(4)

Table 1. Overview of LSM in Comparison to Interaction and Content Analysis.

Example
Technique Explanation Aim of analysis Focus of analysis reference
LSM Assessment Analyze LSM Word-level, Gonzales et al.
of (dynamic) as potential specifically (2010), Heuer
mutual indicator function et al. (2020)
function word of internal words.
use. dynamics or
emergent
group
phenomena.
Interaction Detailed coding Uncover Ranges from Kauffeld and
analysis of specific pre- behavior single words Lehmann-
defined group patterns and to whole Willenbrock
behaviors. dynamics. sentences, (2012),
statements, Lehmann-
emotions or Willenbrock
non-verbal et al. (2011)
behavior.
Content Coding of text Make specific Depends on Arafat et al.
analysis and pre- replicable the aim of the (2020), Karl
defined parts and valid analysis, can et al. (2021)
of text. inferences. range from
specific words
or sentences
to the tone or
emotion of a
text.

Note. This table is meant to provide a first overview of LSM in comparison to other well-
established research techniques that can be applied for the analysis of team communication.
However, this table is not exhaustive in the presentation of research techniques.

When interacting with each other, team members match their language
styles to one another (e.g., Gonzales et al., 2010; Heuer et al., 2020; Scissors
et al., 2008), called LSM. LSM in teams is defined as verbal mimicry repre-
sented by how each team member matches the other team members on spe-
cific categories of function words in a given conversation (e.g., Carmody
et al., 2017; Gonzales et al., 2010; Van Swol & Carlson, 2017; Yilmaz, 2016)
and can, thus, be conceived as a form of behavior coordination. Research
shows that LSM is empirically linked to team inputs (e.g., personality, social
status) and outcomes (e.g., performance, cohesion). For example, Muir et al.
(2016) showed that social power and personality influence LSM in a way that
Müller-Frommeyer and Kauffeld 507

more LSM in low-power individuals positively influences perceptions of rap-

port and attractiveness. Scissors et al. (2008) report higher trust in teams that
show higher LSM as compared to teams with lower LSM. Gonzales et al.
(2010) found that LSM positively predicted cohesiveness in face-to-face as
well as computer-mediated communication, whereas LSM influenced task
performance positively only in face-to-face interactions. Heuer et al. (2020)
found a negative relationship between LSM and team performance and a
positive relationship between LSM and social support in face-to-face team
meetings. Carmody et al.’s (2017) findings deviate from the picture presented
above: They found a negative relationship between LSM and trust and no
relationship between LSM and cohesion and rapport in computer-mediated
communication. In summary, these empirical findings illustrate the important
influence of LSM in team interaction, but at the same time these findings
remain ambiguous.
Taken together, assessing LSM in teams allows researchers interested in
team communication to gain unobtrusive insights into team processes that
can neither be applied consciously nor deliberately changed and, thus, reflect
a starting point to gain a deeper understanding of how different team phe-
nomena develop as a result of this naturally occurring team process. However,
to date approaches to assess LSM in teams have uniformly treated the phe-
nomenon as static by neglecting its dynamic changes over time from a theo-
retical and methodological perspective.

Toward a Dynamic Theoretical Approach to LSM

Traditionally, LSM has been explained under a variety of theoretical frame-
works including, for example, behavior mimicry (Chartrand & Lakin, 2013;
Ireland & Pennebaker, 2010), interpersonal synchrony (Bernieri & Rosenthal,
1991), communication accommodation theory (Giles & Coupland, 1991;
Shephard et al., 2001) or interpersonal alignment (Garrod & Pickering, 2009;
Menenti et al., 2012). These theoretical approaches provide explanations of
the occurrence and positive effects of LSM agreeing on two basic assump-
tions: (1) LSM happens automatically and (2) affects the interaction posi-
tively (Müller-Frommeyer et al., 2019). However, research has shown that
LSM varies depending on team inputs (Muir et al., 2016) and there is empiri-
cal evidence that LSM does not only yield positive outcomes (Heuer et al.,
2020). Additionally, the theoretical approaches to LSM named above all miss
a temporal dimension of coordination that considers the dynamic and emer-
gent nature inherent in natural language production.
Therefore, in the following, we integrate different theoretical approaches
based on dynamic theories to develop a comprehensive dynamic theoretical
508 Small Group Research 53(4)

foundation for LSM for the present paper and future research. Building on
this theoretical foundation, we further present a comprehensive conceptual-
ization of LSM.

Integrating Dynamic Theories

The unifying feature of all dynamic theories relevant in the explanation of
LSM is the assumption that LSM is dynamic and over time. This temporal
component can take different forms which can be summarized into three gen-
eral types of temporal frameworks (for more detailed information see Luciano
et al., 2018): (1) Developmental models which suggest that dynamic con-
structs have a pre-defined life span and naturally change as they mature over
time with their current state depending on their previous state. (2) Episodic
models which treat dynamic constructs as dependent on a goal or end state
resulting in different characteristics at different points in time. (3) Event-
based models suggest that external stimuli—that is, everything that happens
in the direct environment—intermit the natural emergence of the dynamic
construct by activating internal processes. Dynamic constructs like LSM can
be based on multiple temporal models at the same time (Luciano et al., 2018).
For LSM, this interplay of temporal models could look as follows: (1)
Following developmental models, the stage of team development (e.g., newly
formed vs. experienced teams) might affect LSM. (2) In episodic models, the
requirements, and goals of a specific task at hand might influence LSM. (3)
In event-based models, LSM might be affected by external events (e.g., team
feedback).
One theoretical approach to LSM which combines aspects of all three
temporal models is the interpersonal synergy approach (Riley et al., 2011).
Interpersonal synergy provides a dynamical framework for LSM which is
inspired by dynamical systems theory and has previously been used to explain
the temporal dynamics of LSM in dyadic interactions (Müller-Frommeyer
et al., 2019). The above-mentioned traditional assumption of automatic coor-
dination is challenged by the interpersonal synergy framework that conceptu-
alizes individual communication behavior as part of a complex process in
which individuals coordinate and adapt their behavior (and specific aspects
thereof) to one another (i.e., event-based) depending on contextual and situ-
ational constraints (i.e., episodic) over the course of an interaction (i.e.,
developmental; Fusaroli et al., 2014). Additionally, empirical evidence chal-
lenges the assumption of only positive effects of LSM (Heuer et al., 2020).
We therefore propose that interpersonal synergy is also a more suitable
framework for LSM in teams. Transferred to LSM in teams, this means, that
all members in a team coordinate their function words—that is, they use their
Müller-Frommeyer and Kauffeld 509

function words depending on the other team members’ function word use—
and thereby develop LSM over the course of the interaction to meet immedi-
ate common goals throughout the interaction (e.g., solving a common task;
Fusaroli et al., 2014; Riley et al., 2011).

A dynamic conceptualization of LSM in teams. After theoretically integrating

LSM in teams into the concept of interpersonal synergy, the deviance between
the dynamic nature of the theoretical foundation of LSM and its current defi-
nition in teams as presented in the introduction is striking. The importance of
a clear and unambiguous definition of constructs in line with the theoretical
framework is a fundamental aspect of high research quality and has regained
attention in recent years (e.g., Aguinis & Vandenberg, 2014; Luciano et al.,
2018; Podsakoff et al., 2016). Our conceptualization of LSM in teams is
based on the four-stage model necessary for the explication of dynamic con-
structs defined by Luciano et al. (2018). These four stages encompass the
construct’s space (i.e., content and dimensionality), nature (i.e., property
such as process or emergent state), and entity (e.g., affect, behavior and/or
cognition) as well as structure (i.e., the construct’s shape and change over
time) and appearance (i.e., the observable manifestation of the construct and
conditions for this manifestation to occur).
Following this four-stage model, we present a new conceptualization of
LSM in teams: First, when analyzing LSM in teams, we investigate each
individual’s function word use (space). All research on LSM in teams is
based on computerized text analyses using the software Linguistic Inquiry
and Word Count (LIWC; Pennebaker et al., 2015). LIWC is dictionary-based
and assigns all words in a transcript into pre-defined categories. We therefore
propose that LSM analysis only includes words that are listed in the LIWC
function word categories. The current versions of the English and German
dictionaries comprise the seven function word categories pronouns (e.g., I,
them, itself), articles (e.g., a, an, the), prepositions (e.g., to, with, above),
auxiliary verbs (e.g., am, will, have), adverbs (e.g., very, really), conjunctions
(e.g., and, but, whereas), and negations (e.g., no, not, never). Deviations from
the LIWC categories should be an exception and well justified. All these
seven function word categories are weighed equally when investigating over-
all function word use. Second, we define LSM as a behavioral team process
(nature). Third, following the interpersonal synergy framework, we expect
LSM in teams to develop and change over the course of team interactions
depending on environmental constraints (e.g., tasks, goals) (structure). Thus,
methods applied to investigate LSM in teams need to be able to capture this
dynamic over time. Fourth, we propose that LSM manifests in verbal interac-
tion—this includes face-to-face and virtual interactions—of at least three
510 Small Group Research 53(4)

interlocutors (for LSM in dyadic interaction see Müller-Frommeyer et al.,

2019) (appearance). In summary, we define LSM as a dynamic verbal pro-
cess that describes how individuals in a team interaction coordinate their
function word use with each other over the course of an interaction depend-
ing on situational and environmental constraints.

Collection, Preparation, and Quantification of

Language Samples
After providing the theoretical and conceptual foundations, we now proceed
with a hands-on tutorial that aims at providing helpful guidelines to research-
ers who want to collect, prepare, and/or quantify communication data from a
team interaction. Here, we partly deviate from classic academic writing to
facilitate understanding. Based on the literature on LSM, there are currently
no guidelines on these rather practical steps of conducting research. However,
these steps form the basis for subsequent analysis and are possibly the most
time-consuming in interaction research. Therefore, ensuring the collection of
high-quality data and minimizing potential errors in and time spent on data
preparation and quantification is an important step.
The basis for the analysis of LSM in teams is based on natural team inter-
actions. These can be protocols of verbal team interactions that originate
from more traditional video or audio recordings of face-to-face interactions
or software-aided (e.g., Skype) interactions. With the rise of virtual team
interactions, written protocols of these interactions (e.g., email, chat) or time-
stamped discussions on social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Facebook) have
also been considered in LSM research (Gonzales et al., 2010; Heuer et al.,
2020). Because of the amount of data generated when analyzing team com-
munication (i.e., streams of words in an interaction), communication data
produced by teams can be classified as a word-related stream of big data
(Luciano et al., 2018). Using LIWC, these streams of words are quantified
into meaningful categories (Pennebaker et al., 2015).

Data Preparation: Getting Team Interactions Ready for LSM

Calculation
Before LSM can be calculated, several data preparation and data processing
steps need to be fulfilled. The steps of data preparation and analyses using
LIWC are similar when working with natural language samples independent
of the number of speakers or the method that is used to assess LSM. Short
examples of correctly prepared transcripts are available in on the osf.
Müller-Frommeyer and Kauffeld 511

Recording face-to-face interactions. When working with face-to-face team

interactions, those interactions need to be recorded to extract the team’s com-
munication using video- and/or audio recording. Before deciding on how to
record a team interaction, the following aspects should be considered: What
is the primary aim of your research? For dynamic LSM research, you need to
be able to (1) clearly identify each speaker throughout the whole interaction,
and (2) transcribe each word uttered by each team member. With an increas-
ing number of speakers, identifying each individual solely by their voice
becomes more difficult. Therefore, we advise using video recordings when
working with teams, and if applicable even video recordings combined with
individual audio channels for each team member.

Transcribing face-to-face interactions. Once all team interactions are recorded,

they need to be transcribed word for word clearly marking each team mem-
ber. Sequences of clean-cut statements are created and each of the statements
is assigned to one team member. A statement starts when a first speaker says
their first word, and it ends with their last word before the following speaker
utters their first word. Unfortunately, speaking turns in real-life conversations
are often overlapping, for example when multiple team members react to a
preceding statement simultaneously. In such cases, clean-cuts need to be arti-
ficially created, either by representing the chronological order in the range of
milliseconds or by determining the order to the best of your knowledge and
belief (Müller-Frommeyer et al., 2019). More details on the transcription of
oral language are provided in the LIWC 2007 manual. Final transcripts
include all words uttered throughout the interaction organized in clean-cut
statements that are clearly assigned to one team member. To process tran-
scripts with LIWC, they can either be prepared in a text (e.g., .doc, .txt) or
table (e.g., .csv, .xlsx) format. We recommend working with table formats
because this allows you to include information relevant for further analyses
in addition to the linguistic content uttered by each speaker (e.g., team num-
ber, speaker). An example of a correctly prepared transcript can be found in
Table 2 (columns one to three).

Editing written protocols of virtual team interaction. Sometimes, it might be the

case that researchers have access to protocols of virtual team interactions
(e.g., chat protocols from Skype or Microsoft Teams, or email conversations).
When working with such protocols, the (tedious) step of transcription can be
skipped. However, to make sure that virtual communication data is processed
correctly, a series of steps needs to be conducted to bring it into the correct
format. We illustrate the importance of this step with the help of an example:
Imagine that you conducted an experiment with newly formed virtual teams
512 Small Group Research 53(4)

Table 2. Example Transcript Illustrating the Calculation of rLSM–t Scores.

Function Score
Team no. Speaker Linguistic content words (%) rLSM for
1 A So we start? So, they’re 66.67
asking for a brochure.
So, what do you think
could be important
information that we
should include in
brochure?
1 B So as soon as the students 72.73 .96 B
come in, the new the
first and foremost thing
they have to do is a
registration.
1 A Ok. 0 .00 A
1 B So they should be. . . 100 NA B
1 A Timetable registration and 33.33 .50 A
1 B Yeah, the registration 50 .80 B
includes a timetable
and registering in their
courses and. . .
1 A Yes. 0 .00 A
1 B Like enrolling in the 50 NA B
university, you get a
rendered ID-card made,
student ID made. So,
yeah, the foremost
thing should be the
first chapter, the first
bullet point should be
registration.
1 C But there should also be 76.92 .80 C
a map, like a map of the
campus.
rLSM-t .51

Note. Example is taken from an interaction between three team members we recorded in
a research project that had the aim of identifying the relationship between language use
in teams and perceptions of warmth and competence. Team no. = Number that clearly
identifies the team. Speaker = Team member. Linguistic Content = transcribed statement
or documentation of virtual communication. Function Words (%) = percentage of function
words in the text. rLSM = rLSM score for two successive statements. Score For = rLSM score
assigned to the respective team member. NA = no score was calculated due to missing values.
Müller-Frommeyer and Kauffeld 513

consisting of three members each. The teams completed a decision-making

task communicating only via email. In total, you have data from 42 teams
who wrote between 15 and 33 emails. While conducting the experiment, you
already created a folder for each team that contains the emails exchanged by
this specific team.
Now, how can we best handle and prepare the data? In a first step, all
emails need to be reviewed to extract the most important aspects: (1)
Chronological order: To create a chronological order, you need to identify the
exact time each email was sent. (2) Speaker: To assign each email to a
speaker, information on the sender needs to be extracted. (3) Linguistic con-
tent: The written language produced in the specific email by the sender. All
this information is then transferred to a table in a chronologically correct
order so that no information is lost. The most relevant aspects from the exam-
ple (chronological order, speaker, linguistic content) are also available in
other forms of virtual communication (e.g., chats or forum discussions).
However, when working with chats or discussions in forums, the protocols
are often in the correct order and only need to be transferred into a table
format.

Analyzing language styles using the software linguistic inquiry and word count. Once
the team interactions are prepared following the guidelines above, they are
processed using LIWC. LIWC reads all words in each transcript and com-
pares them with a built-in dictionary. The current version of the English dic-
tionary, for example, contains more than 18,000 entries that are assigned to
one or more of 70 nonexclusive categories. Function words are part of the
basic linguistic processes theme in LIWC. Depending on the individual
research question, researchers can choose their level of analysis (e.g., single
words, statements, or complete conversations). When assessing LSM in
teams, the interest is in the dynamic coordination of function words across all
statements of the team interaction—therefore statement is the level of analy-
sis for our successive LSM calculations. Traditionally, static LSM uses whole
conversations as level of analysis. LIWC reports the proportion of words in
the given level of analysis (i.e., a statement) that fall into the category of
interest (i.e., function words). These results are then saved and used for fur-
ther analyses.
Since the introduction of the 2015 LIWC version, the LIWC dictionary
contains a category called function words in addition to the seven individual
function word categories (pronouns, articles, prepositions, auxiliary verbs,
adverbs, conjunctions, and negations). The function word category reports
the overall frequency of function words used in the level of analysis, not
distinguishing between the types of function words used. We acknowledge,
514 Small Group Research 53(4)

that this category is a great addition to the dictionary and that overall function
word use might be interesting to answer specific research questions, such as
investigating if overall individual language style depends on the context (e.g.,
Müller-Frommeyer et al., 2020). However, we clearly recommend using indi-
vidual function word categories for more fine-grained insights into the
dynamics of LSM.

Methodological Approaches to Calculating LSM in

Teams
Past and present research on LSM in teams has used one existing method-
ological approach to LSM. In the following paragraphs, we first present and
explain the existing static approach (Language Style Matching in teams, that
is, LSM-t) and continue with the introduction of a dynamic methodological
approach that overcomes the shortcomings of the hitherto used method
(reciprocal Language Style Matching in teams, that is, rLSM-t). A summary
of both approaches comparing conceptual and methodological aspects can be
found in Table 3.

The Status Quo: Current Methodological Approach to LSM in

Teams (LSM-t)
To date, LSM in teams was analyzed by comparing each team member’s
language style with the overall language style of the remaining team mem-
bers (Gonzales et al., 2010). This strategy resulted in a separate LSM score
for each team member. We subsequently call this strategy LSM-t.
Prior to LSM-t calculations, the transcripts are separated by team mem-
bers creating one block of text containing all statements by one member.
Additionally, a second block of text is created that contains all statements by
the remaining team members. For example, in a team with three members, for
member A, the team block is composed of the statements uttered by members
B and C; for member B, it contains statements uttered by members A and C,
and so on. This step is repeated for every team member in the team under
investigation. By rearranging the interactions into separate blocks of text, the
temporal dynamics of the interaction are erased from the interaction—this is
what makes the approach static.
In the next step, blocks of texts are analyzed using LIWC, resulting in one
LIWC score for each of the seven function word categories. Based on these
scores, LSM is calculated for each team member individually (Gonzales
et al., 2010) using the following equation (1):
Müller-Frommeyer and Kauffeld 515

Table 3. Conceptual Comparison of LSM-t and rLSM-t.

Dimension of
comparison Static LSM-t Dynamic rLSM-t
Construct Overall similarity in function Dynamic matching of
words between team members function words between
(i.e., similarity in language style team members (i.e., turn-
across a whole conversation). by-turn matching) across
the conversation.
Theoretical basis Various, for example, Interpersonal synergy (Riley
interpersonal synchrony et al., 2011)
(Bernieri & Rosenthal, 1991),
behavior mimicry (Chartrand
& Lakin, 2013), communication
accommodation theory
(Shephard et al., 2001).
Shared limitation: Lack of
temporal component.
Methodological Difference score (represented in Difference score
approach equations (1) and (2)) applied (represented by equations
to summarized statements per (3)–(5)) applied to
team member. sequential, temporal
order in the conversation.

C X − CY
LSM X ( C ) = 1 − (1)
C X + CY + 0.0001
where X refers to the team member whose LSM-t score is calculated, C is the
LIWC function word category (e.g., prepositions) we calculate the score for,
CX is the specific LIWC score for the focal team member and CY is the LIWC
score for the remaining team members. In the denominator, the 0.0001 is
added to prevent empty data sets (Ireland & Pennebaker, 2010). LSM-t can
take values between 0 and 1, with 0 representing no and 1 representing per-
fect LSM. This calculation is repeated for each team member and each of the
seven function word categories—resulting in seven LSM-t scores per team
member. To calculate overall LSM-t per team member, these scores are aver-
aged across the seven function word categories. Once one LSM score per
team member is calculated, the team LSM score is calculated following equa-
tion (2):

LSM − tT ( FW ) =
∑ LSM ( FW )
n (2)
n
516 Small Group Research 53(4)

where T represents the team, FW represents the average across all individual
function word categories, ∑LSM ( FW )
n
is the sum of averaged function
word LSM scores of all n members of the team under investigation and,
accordingly, n is the number of team members in the team under
investigation.
This analytic strategy captures similarity in function word use across the
whole conversation between all members. Taking all empirical research that
used this method into account (e.g., Gonzales et al., 2010; Heuer et al., 2020;
Yilmaz, 2016; Yilmaz & Peña, 2015), a similarity in function word use
between team members seems highly relevant as it influences the teams’
interrelatedness and effectiveness. However, this strategy neglects the tempo-
ral dynamics of LSM. As a result, the relationship between dynamic LSM
and a teams’ interrelatedness and effectiveness is still unexplored.

Approaching Temporal Dynamics: Reciprocal LSM in Teams

(rLSM–t)
To adequately capture the proposed conceptual dynamics of LSM in teams,
we now present a new method that captures these temporal dynamics called
rLSM-t. This method is based on the reciprocal LSM (rLSM) metric intro-
duced by Müller-Frommeyer et al. (2019) which assesses dynamic LSM in
dyadic interactions. The present paper adapts this metric to the team context.
In contrast to the static approach, rLSM-t focusses on successive statements
in conversations in their original, chronological order. Hence, LIWC analyses
and rLSM-t calculations are based on the analyses of each team members’
statement in chronological order within the interaction. In the example pre-
sented in Table 2, we provide all scores calculated in the following para-
graphs to facilitate the understanding of our step-by-step explanation.
We provide an R script for the calculation of rLSM-t on the osf for this
paper. This R script is accompanied by exemplary data.

Step 1: Preserving the temporal dynamics of LSM. The first step in calculating
rLSM–t is based on the calculation of rLSM in dyadic interactions (see Müller-
Frommeyer et al., 2019). By investigating each pair of successive statements in
the interaction (e.g., statement 1 and statement 2, statement 2, and statement 3),
this approach preserves the temporal dynamics of the interaction.
To extract the temporal sequence of rLSM, equation (3) is applied to
LIWC results of each pair of successive statements and function word
category.
Müller-Frommeyer and Kauffeld 517

C X − CY
rLSM XY ( C ) = 1 − (3)
C X + CY + 0.0001

where X and Y refer to a pair of successive statements by different individuals

(e.g., person X utters a statement and person Y then reacts to it by uttering
another statement). Hence, Y is defined as X+1, thereby representing the
temporal order of statements. C refers to the LIWC function word category
used in this analysis, whereas CX and CY are the LIWC scores for the specific
function word category. The resulting LSM score it then attributed to the
individual who uttered statement Y. See Table 2 for another example of this
process. This step is repeated for each of the seven LIWC function word cat-
egories and then averaged across all seven function word categories per pair
of successive statements. Once averaged, only the overall rLSM score is rel-
evant for further analyses (unless theoretically specified otherwise). Referring
to our example, LIWC function word scores for each statement can be found
in column Function Words (%) in Table 2.
The rLSM-t metric is based on the static metric to assess LSM. Accordingly,
scores can take values between 0 and 1 with higher values representing higher
LSM. Applying equation (3) to a complete team interaction results in a tem-
poral sequence of rLSM scores—represented by rLSM scores for each pair of
successive statements. In the example provided in Table 2, this temporal
sequence is displayed in column rLSM.
Following Müller-Frommeyer et al. (2019), missing values are treated as
follows: Only if a specific function word category is used in the first state-
ment, it is considered in the successive statement. If no words in the first
statement or in the pair of successive statements fall into that specific func-
tion word category—represented by a LIWC score of 0—they are replaced
by missing values. Including them into the analyses leads to skewed results.

Step 2: Extracting relevant information. The temporal sequence of rLSM scores

created in Step 1 allows us to extract different information (potentially) rel-
evant for further analyses: First, the temporal sequence of rLSM scores
allows us to investigate how LSM (represented by rLSM) unfolds in a team
over the course of an interaction. Please refer to Knight et al. (2016) or Mei-
necke et al. (2020) for further information on working with time-series data
in teams.
Second, each score is assigned to different parties within the team. If you
work with the R script provided in this paper and follow the input instructions
thoroughly, each rLSM score is automatically assigned to (1) a team repre-
sented in the column Team No. in Table 2, and (2) a specific team member as
518 Small Group Research 53(4)

shown in column Score For in Table 2. Because each of these scores is poten-
tially relevant depending on your individual research question, we explain
the calculation, function, and meaning of each with the help of an example
we introduced earlier in this paper. In this exemplary study, we worked with
data from 42 newly formed virtual teams who communicated via email to
complete a decision-making task. The main aim of this study was to investi-
gate the relationship between LSM and team satisfaction. In the following,
we add additional information to the basic information provided to better
differentiate between the respective scores.

Team score. The team score—rLSM-t—represents overall LSM in a

team considering its temporal dynamics. rLSM-t is calculated following
equation (4):

rLSM − tn = M ( rLSM XY ) (4)

where n is the team identifier (i.e., team number), and X and Y are the first and
the last statement in the interaction under investigation. Please note that it is
also possible to calculate rLSM-t to phases of a team interaction if you are,
for example, specifically interested in LSM within the first 5 minutes of an
interaction or if you want to compare LSM between different phases of the
interaction. The rLSM-t score is also displayed in Table 2.
rLSM-t is particularly relevant for researchers who want to compare
effects between teams—basically any team researcher interested in the tem-
poral dynamics of function word use in a team. Concerning our example, a
researcher may ask whether LSM has the same assumed effect on team satis-
faction across all 42 teams in the study.

Individual score. The individual score reflects each team member’s LSM to
all other team members. For example, if member B’s statement follows mem-
ber A’s statement, the score is assigned to member B. In contrast to Müller-
Frommeyer et al. (2019), the individual score focuses on the overall adaption
of one team member to all other team members rather than the adaptation
of two specific members to each other. Individual scores are represented by
equation (5):

rLSM − t X = M ( rLSM XK ) (5)

where X is the individual team member and K is every other team member.
Individual scores can be used to compare LSM between individual team
members, for example, whether member A (leader) shows more LSM than
Müller-Frommeyer and Kauffeld 519

team members B and C. Additionally, individual scores are relevant if

researchers are interested in multilevel effects to test assumed effects on the
individual (within teams) and team level (between groups) (e.g., Grille et al.,
2015; Schulte et al., 2015).

Comparing LSM-t and rLSM-t

Building on the theoretical and methodological outline provided above, we
proceed with an application of both scores—the static LSM-t and the dynamic
rLSM-t score—to illustrate how the conceptual differences manifest in the
calculated scores. Considering the temporal dynamics by assessing state-
ment-based LSM across an interaction, we expect rLSM-t values to be sig-
nificantly lower than LSM-t values. We propose that the lower rLSM-t is a
truer estimation of LSM (Hypothesis 1). We further expect this difference to
be present for the individual as well as overall team scores.
In the next sections, we first illustrate this assumption with the help of
three simulated examples that highlight the subtleties in methodological dif-
ferences by varying the temporal sequences of function word use. Building
on this example, we proceed with an application of both scores to real-life
interactions of N = 160 individuals in 26 innovation teams.

The Simulated Example: Three Scenarios of Function Word Use

In the following, we use three simulated examples of LIWC results for short
conversations of a team with three members. As function words account for
almost 60% of the words we utter (Pennebaker, 2013), we used function word
scores between 0 and 1 rounded to a single decimal point to facilitate under-
standing. These scores represent the percentage of function words used in
each statement by the respective speaker. All three examples are displayed in
Table 4. For this comparison, we use individual and team scores of the static
LSM-t score calculated following equations (1) and (2), and the rLSM-t cal-
culated following equations (4) and (5).
Example one illustrates that LSM–t and rLSM-t scores are only identical
in one very unlikely case: When all team members use the same amount of
function words throughout the whole conversation. This scenario results in
LSM-t/rLSM-t scores of 1. However, this scenario is highly unlikely in real-
life interactions as the example in Table 4 illustrates. Whenever there is a
fluctuation in the use of function words over the course of an interaction—
which is always the case in natural conversations—the calculation of LSM–t
and rLSM-t results in significantly different scores.
520 Small Group Research 53(4)

Table 4. Simulated Examples of Function Word Use to Illustrate Differences in

rLSM–t and LSM-t Values.

Function word scores

Speaker Example 1 Example 2 Example 3

A .6 .6 .4
B .6 0 .3
C .6 .6 .1
B .6 0 .5
A .6 .6 .4
C .6 0 .7
LSM-t scores
LSM-tA 1 .57 1
LSM-tB 1 .0002 1
LSM-tC 1 1 1
LSM-t 1 .52 1
rLSM-t scores
rLSM-tA 1 .0002 .89
rLSM-tB 1 .0002 .60
rLSM-tC 1 .0002 .61
rLSM-t 1 .0002 .70

Note. M = Mean. FW = Function Words. LSM-t = score based on equation (2). rLSM–t = score
based on equation 4. A, B, and C mark the respective speakers.

In example two, function words are only used in every other statement. To
calculate LSM-t scores, first, average function word use per speaker is calcu-
lated (MA = .6, MB = .0, MC = .3). In a next step, for each speaker average func-
tion word use for all other team member is calculated (MAB = .3, MAC = .45,
MBC = .24). Then, equation (1) is applied to these average scores and results
in the LSM-t scores displayed in Table 4. To calculate rLSM-t scores, first
rLSM is calculated for each pair of successive function word scores—result-
ing in a score of rLSM = .00002 for all pairs of successive statements.
Averaging these scores results in the individual and overall rLSM-t scores
displayed in Table 4. These results indicate that rLSM-t captures the temporal
dynamics in function word use more appropriately than LSM-t scores.
In example three, the use of function words varies randomly across team
members. When calculating LSM-t this—by chance—results in identical
mean scores for each team member (MA = .4, MB = .4, MC = .4) which results
in identical average scores for the remaining team members (MAB = .4,
MAC = .4, MBC = .4) leading to individual and team LSM-t scores of 1. This
Müller-Frommeyer and Kauffeld 521

score indicates perfect LSM throughout the interaction. The rLSM–t metric,
on the other hand, picks up on the dynamics and results in different scores for
each speaker (rLSM-tA = .89, rLSM-tB = .60, rLSM-tC = .61) and a signifi-
cantly lower rLSM-t team score (rLSM-t = .70).

The Real-Life Example: LSM in Real-Life Innovation Teams

To empirically confirm the differences between LSM-t and rLSM-t, we addi-
tionally present an empirical example. The data for the empirical example
come from a larger research project funded by the Federal Ministry of
Education and Research (Germany). In this study, we used video recordings
from N = 160 researchers (Mage = 30.92, SD = 6.85, 56% male) in N = 26 inno-
vation teams from a variety of academic disciplines (35% technical, 27%
science, 15% social sciences, 15% humanities, 4% computer science, 4%
economics). Team size ranged from four to ten team members (M = 6,
SD = 1.41). All teams were filmed during a regular team meeting by a fellow
research associate of the executing department. Team meetings were held in
German. After the meetings, most team members (91%) stated that the video-
taped team meeting resembled a regular team meeting. All participants pro-
vided written consent to be videotaped. All procedures of the study were
approved by the institutional review boards on data security and ethics.

Measures. We followed all recommendations for transcription, data prepara-

tion, and rLSM-t/LSM-t score calculation provided in this paper. Therefore,
we will only summarize the measures here.

Data preparation. Because we worked with video recordings in this study,

team meetings had to be transcribed prior to rLSM-t/LSM-t calculation. We
followed the recommendations provided in this paper and created clean-cut
speaking turns that were assigned to a specific team member.

LSM-t. Prior to LSM-t calculation, transcripts were separated by team

members to create one block for each team member containing all statements
the respective team member uttered in the conversation. We additionally cre-
ated one block of text for each team member that included all statements
uttered by the rest of the team. For example, in a team with four team mem-
bers, for team member A the second block of text included all statements by
team members B, C, and D. All the created blocks of text were then analyzed
using LIWC. Individual and team LSM-t scores were calculated following
equations (1) and (2).
522 Small Group Research 53(4)

rLSM-t. For rLSM-t calculations, the temporal order of the transcripts was
maintained. Each transcript was analyzed using LIWC with statements as
level of analysis. To do so, statements by individual speakers were separated
by two presses of the enter key whereas there was no such separation within
a statement. Accordingly, we chose LIWC settings that automatically rec-
ognized this formatting and calculated the proportion of each function word
category for each statement in the transcript. More information on the exact
preparation of transcripts for rLSM-t calculation can be found on the osf. For
the comparison to LSM-t scores, we calculated rLSM-t individual and team
scores following equations (3) and (4).

Data analysis. We performed all analysis using SPSS 25. First, we performed
Shapiro-Wilk tests to assess normality of the data. Results can be found in
Table 5 and indicated, that the assumption of normality was violated for all
individual LSM-t and rLSM-t scores as well as most team LSM-t scores. To
empirically test the differences between rLSM-t and LSM-t, we performed
Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for individual and team scores.

Results. Following Heuer et al. (2020), we only included team members into
our analyses that had verbal contributions in the recorded team meeting
(N = 151). Overall, the sample comprised 125,829 words. On average teams
used 4840 words (SD = 531.37) per meeting. Each speaker used on average
833 words (SD = 919.63) per meeting.

Difference between team scores. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed a sig-

nificant difference between the average rLSM-t (Mdn = 0.44) and LSM-t scores
(Mdn = 0.87, z = –4.46, p < .0001, r = –.87), with rLSM-t values being signifi-
cantly lower than LSM-t values. These results are consistent for each of the
individual function word categories. The results can be found in Table 6. All
effect sizes can be interpreted as large (Cohen, 1988).

Difference between individual scores. Individual scores show the same

effects as team scores—there is a significant difference between rLSM-
t (Mdn = 0.43) and LSM-t (Mdn = 0.89, z = −10.14, p < .001, r = −.83), with
rLSM-t values again being significantly lower than LSM-t values. Results are
the same for each of the seven individual function word categories. All effect
sizes can be interpreted as large (Cohen, 1988). To conclude, Hypothesis 1
was confirmed, that is, we find rLSM-t scores to be significantly lower than
LSM-t scores for individual and team scores.
Müller-Frommeyer and Kauffeld 523

Table 5. Results of Shapiro-Wilks Tests.

rLSM-t LSM-t

Category D df p D df p
Individual scores
Overall score .95 150 <.001 .44 151 <.001
Pronoun .93 149 <.001 .42 151 <.001
Article .97 150 .004 .39 151 <.001
Preposition .97 149 .003 .55 151 <.001
Auxiliary verbs .95 150 <.001 .41 151 <.001
Adverbs .97 146 .007 .51 151 <.001
Conjunctions .95 149 <.001 .56 151 <.001
Negations .90 142 <.001 .66 151 <.001
Team scores
Overall score .98 26 .56 .78 26 <.001
Pronoun .97 26 .73 .76 26 <.001
Article .97 26 .12 .68 26 <.001
Preposition .94 26 .28 .87 26 .004
Auxiliary verbs .95 26 .79 .74 26 <.001
Adverbs .98 26 .96 .80 26 <.001
Conjunctions .99 26 .11 .81 26 <.001
Negations .94 26 .93 .93 26 .063

Discussion
Assessing team dynamics has allowed researchers important insight into
teams’ functioning. In this vein, research on LSM in teams has begun to
flourish in the last years suggesting that LSM is affected by team inputs like
social power or personality and affects team outputs like cohesion and perfor-
mance (e.g., Gonzales et al., 2010; Heuer et al., 2020; Scissors et al., 2008).
However, theoretical, conceptual, and methodological approaches to date
have treated LSM in teams as static, neglecting the dynamic nature of lan-
guage (style) that unfolds over the course of social interactions (Müller-
Frommeyer & Kauffeld, 2021). In this paper, we integrated existing temporal
frameworks to build a theoretical foundation for LSM that considers tempo-
ral dynamics in function word use. Based on this dynamic theoretical founda-
tion, we further provided an extensive conceptualization of LSM as basis for
the present paper and future work. By providing a solid theoretical and con-
ceptional foundation for LSM, we contribute to standardizing the understand-
ing of LSM and thus strengthen the impact of LSM in team research.
524 Small Group Research 53(4)

Table 6. Results of Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Tests.

rLSM-t LSM-t

Category M (SD) Mdn M (SD) Mdn n z r

Team scores
Overall score 0.44 (0.06) 0.44 0.85 (0.10) 0.87 26 −4.46 −.87
Pronoun 0.53 (0.08) 0.53 0.90 (0.11) 0.95 26 −4.46 −.87
Article 0.43 (0.07) 0.43 0.90 (0.11) 0.95 26 −4.46 −.87
Preposition 0.34 (0.07) 0.35 0.86 (0.12) 0.86 26 −4.46 −.87
Auxiliary verbs 0.48 (0.07) 0.49 0.90 (0.11) 0.95 26 −4.46 −.87
Adverbs 0.35 (0.07) 0.35 0.88 (0.10) 0.91 26 −4.46 −.87
Conjunctions 0.52 (0.08) 0.52 0.66 (0.07) 0.68 26 −4.46 −.87
Negations 0.19 (0.05) 0.19 0.81 (0.13) 0.84 26 −4.46 −.87
Individual scores
Overall score 0.41 (0.13) 0.43 0.81 (0.20) 0.89 150 −10.14 −.83
Pronoun 0.50 (0.18) 0.53 0.90 (0.22) 0.96 149 −9.68 −.79
Article 0.41 (0.17) 0.42 0.90 (0.21) 0.96 150 −10.28 −.84
Preposition 0.32 (0.16) 0.33 0.85 (0.24) 0.93 149 −10.47 −.86
Auxiliary verbs 0.45 (0.17) 0.46 0.90 (0.22) 0.96 150 −9.89 −.81
Adverbs 0.35 (0.15) 0.36 0.87 (0.21) 0.94 146 −10.25 −.85
Conjunctions 0.50 (0.17) 0.51 0.66 (0.16) 0.70 149 −8.35 −.68
Negations 0.18 (0.13) 0.17 0.81 (0.25) 0.89 142 −10.19 −.86

Additionally, we reviewed the existing methodological approach to LSM

in team research called LSM-t based on our new theoretical and conceptual
foundation. By erasing the temporal order within a conversation, this meth-
odological approach is contrary to the previously established criteria. We,
therefore, proposed a new methodological approach to LSM in teams called
rLSM-t that considers these temporal dynamics. When comparing LSM-t and
rLSM-t with the help of three simulated examples and data from 26 real-life
team interactions, we showed, that by considering the temporal dynamics the
new methodological approach—rLSM-t—is a truer estimation of LSM in
teams. These findings are in line with Müller-Frommeyer et al. (2019) who
found similar effects for LSM in dyadic interaction when comparing static to
dynamic methods. Using LSM-t results in rather high estimates of LSM in
teams leading to ceiling effects for the phenomenon under investigation
where all teams show a high amount of LSM. The use of rLSM-t, on the other
hand, gives us a much more detailed insight into the dynamics of LSM where
situational or task-related constraints might uncover differences in LSM in
teams.
Müller-Frommeyer and Kauffeld 525

These results are particularly interesting considering existing results on

the effects of LSM in teams. The name of the phenomenon alone—Language
Style Matching—implies that we examine a process. However, all existing
research on LSM in teams (e.g., Gonzales et al., 2010; Heuer et al., 2020),
used the method we identified as static in this paper. If we regard the different
theoretical and conceptual assumptions behind the two methodological
approaches presented in this paper, the importance of a clear distinction
between the two becomes apparent. We, therefore, propose the following to
differentiate between both approaches: Previous studies that have chosen the
static approach rather investigated a similarity of language styles, than the
process of matching. Empirical evidence from those studies clearly demon-
strate that this similarity of language styles is relevant to a team’s collabora-
tion (e.g., Gonzales et al., 2010; Heuer et al., 2020; Scissors et al., 2008).
However, in future studies these previous results need to be interpreted con-
sidering our new differentiation and the stream of research should be contin-
ued under the concept of similarity.

Implications for Future Research

With the introduction of rLSM-t a new field of research emerges. Applying
rLSM-t in real-life team interactions leaves us with a whole set of unan-
swered and potentially interesting and relevant research questions. First ideas
of potential avenues for future research are outlined below.
First, the differentiation of the two methodological approaches highlights
a lack of knowledge on how an actual matching of language styles over the
course of an interaction relates to team outcomes. Additionally, there is no
empirical evidence of how this matching is influenced by (team) inputs.
These questions need to be investigated in future research. A first approach
would be a replication of previous studies that include both LSM-t and rLSM-
t assesses their effects on the chosen outputs.
Second, we lack knowledge if high LSM across a whole process positively
influences the outcomes of team interactions. We know that the repetition of
identical behaviors—that is, high LSM across the whole process of a conver-
sation—negatively affects the team (e.g., Meinecke et al., 2018; Stachowski
et al., 2009). Identifying thresholds of beneficial versus non-beneficial LSM
by applying rLSM-t to team interactions would further expand our under-
standing of this phenomenon and allow us to derive practical implications on
the use of LSM.
Third, the introduction of the new method offers the possibility to con-
sider LSM as a phenomenon in the direct observation of emergent team
phenomena (Kozlowski et al., 2013). Emergent team phenomena are
526 Small Group Research 53(4)

defined as multilevel, meaning that they comprise (at least) two different
levels of analysis—the individual level where the phenomenon originates,
and the team level where it manifests (Kozlowski et al., 2013). Higher-
level emergence results from the dynamic social interaction of individual
team members over time and arises in their affect, cognition, behavior, or
individual characteristics (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). To further advance
our understanding of emergence in teams and to be able to provide work
environments that support positive relationships between LSM and favor-
able team outcomes, the identification of behavioral patterns and adequate
methods that capture the process of emergence is of importance for
researchers and practitioners alike. Assessing verbal micro-behaviors like
LSM could broaden our understanding of the emergence of team phenom-
ena in more detail. In the same vein, clarifying to what extent LSM is an
emergent team phenomenon itself and how different situational and envi-
ronmental factors influence its emergence is of central importance to
design team-work situations.
Fourth, the newly introduced rLSM-t could be used to assess temporal
trends in team interactions. This comprises, for example, a comparison of
LSM (and potentially related emergent phenomena) in (1) early versus late
team interaction, (2) depending on a variety of contextual factors such as the
task, goal, or duration of a team interaction or (3) in newly formed versus
existing teams. All of these examples will eventually help us to broaden our
knowledge and understanding of temporal processes in teams.

Conclusion
This paper introduced a metric that allows researchers in psychological and
communication science to assess the coordination of function words (i.e.,
LSM) over the course of a team interaction. Building on a theoretical and
conceptual revision, we provided a tutorial on how to prepare interaction data
from teams for LIWC analyses. We further reviewed the existing metric to
assess LSM in teams and introduced a new metric that considers the temporal
dynamics of LSM, called rLSM-t. An empirical comparison of both metrics
showed that rLSM-t is a truer and lower estimation of LSM in teams.
Therefore, we recommend the differentiation of both metrics and the use of
rLSM-t when interested in temporal dynamics in teams.

Author’s Note
Lena C. Müller-Frommeyer is now affiliated to RWTH Aachen University.
Simone Kauffeld is now affiliated to Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany.
Müller-Frommeyer and Kauffeld 527

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a
research grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF;
No. 16FWN005, 2013-2019).

ORCID iD
Lena C. Müller-Frommeyer https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3220-1555

References
Aguinis, H., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2014). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure: Improving research quality before data collection. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 569–595. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091231
Arafat, S. M. Y., Kar, S. K., Menon, V., Kaliamoorthy, C., Mukherjee, S., Alradie-
Mohamed, A., Sharma, P., Marthoenis, M., & Kabir, R. (2020). Panic buying:
An insight from the content analysis of media reports during COVID-19 pan-
demic. Neurology Psychiatry and Brain Research, 37, 100–103. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.npbr.2020.07.002
Bernieri, F. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1991). Interpersonal coordination: Behavior matching
and interactional synchrony. In R. S. Feldman & B. Rimé (Eds.), Fundamentals
of nonverbal behavior: Studies in emotion & social interaction (pp. 401–432).
Cambridge University Press.
Biesen, J. N., Schooler, D. E., & Smith, D. A. (2016). What a difference a pronoun
makes: I/We versus you/me and worried couples’ perceptions of their interaction
quality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35(2), 180–205. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0261927x15583114
Brennan, S. E., & Hanna, J. E. (2009). Partner-specific adaptation in dialog.
Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-
8765.2009.01019.x
Cannava, K., & Bodie, G. D. (2017). Language use and style matching in support-
ive conversations between strangers and friends. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 34(4), 467–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516641222
Carmody, P. C., Mateo, J. C., Bowers, D., & McCloskey, M. J. (2017). Linguistic
coordination as an unobtrusive, dynamic indicator of rapport, prosocial team
processes, and performance in team communication. Proceedings of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 61(1), 140–144. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1541931213601518
528 Small Group Research 53(4)

Chartrand, T. L., & Lakin, J. L. (2013). The antecedents and consequences of human
behavioral mimicry. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 285–308. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143754
Chung, C., & Pennebaker, J. (2013). The psychological functions of function words.
In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 343–359). Psychology Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum.
Fusaroli, R., Rączaszek-Leonardi, J., & Tylén, K. (2014). Dialog as interpersonal syn-
ergy. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newidea-
psych.2013.03.005
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2009). Joint action, interactive alignment, and dia-
log. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 292–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-
8765.2009.01020.x
Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1991). Language contexts and consequences. Open
University Press.
Gonzales, A. L., Hancock, J. T., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). Language style match-
ing as a predictor of social dynamics in small groups. Communication Research,
37(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209351468
Grille, A., Schulte, E.-M., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). Promoting shared leadership: A mul-
tilevel analysis investigating the role of prototypical team leader behavior, psycho-
logical empowerment, and fair rewards. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 22(3), 324–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051815570039
Heuer, K., Müller-Frommeyer, L. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2020). Language matters: The
double-edged role of linguistic style matching in work groups. Small Group
Research, 51(2), 208–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419874498
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in orga-
nizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual
Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
psych.56.091103.070250
Ireland, M. E., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). Language style matching in writing:
Synchrony in essays, correspondence, and poetry. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 99(3), 549–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020386
Karl, K. A., Peluchette, J. V., & Aghakhani, N. (2021). Virtual work meetings dur-
ing the COVID-19 pandemic: The good, bad, and ugly. Small Group Research.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964211015286
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team
meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43(2),
130–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411429599
Knight, A. P., Kennedy, D. M., & McComb, S. A. (2016). Using recurrence analysis
to examine group dynamics. Group Dynamics Theory Research and Practice,
20(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000046
Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2015). Advancing research on team process dynamics:
Theoretical, methodological, and measurement considerations. Organizational
Psychology Review, 5(4), 270–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386614533586
Müller-Frommeyer and Kauffeld 529

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., & Kuljanin, G.
(2013). Advancing multilevel research design: Capturing the dynamics of
emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 581–615. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1094428113493119
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research
in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S.
W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). Jossey Bass.
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Allen, J. A. (2018). Modeling temporal interaction
dynamics in organizational settings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(3),
325–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9506-9
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Meyers, R. A., Kauffeld, S., Neininger, A., & Henschel,
A. (2011). Verbal interaction sequences and group mood: Exploring the role of
team planning communication. Small Group Research, 42(6), 639–668. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1046496411398397
Luciano, M. M., Mathieu, J. E., Park, S., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (2018). A fitting
approach to construct and measurement alignment: The role of big data in
advancing dynamic theories. Organizational Research Methods, 21(3), 592–632.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117728372
Meinecke, A. L., Handke, L., Müller-Frommeyer, L., & Kauffeld, S. (2018, July).
Content and structural recurrence: Do stable behavioral patterns lead to
satisfied teams? [Paper presentation]. 13th Annual INGRoup Conference,
Washington, DC.
Meinecke, A. L., Handke, L., Mueller-Frommeyer, L. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2020).
Capturing non-linear temporally embedded processes in organizations using
recurrence quantification analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 29, 483–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2019.1658624
Menenti, L., Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. C. (2012). Toward a neural basis of inter-
active alignment in conversation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 185.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00185
Muir, K., Joinson, A., Cotterill, R., & Dewdney, N. (2016). Characterizing the lin-
guistic chameleon: Personal and social correlates of linguistic style accommoda-
tion. Human Communication Research, 42(3), 462–484. https://doi.org/10.1111/
hcre.12083
Müller-Frommeyer, L. C., Frommeyer, N. A. M., & Kauffeld, S. (2019). Introducing
rLSM: An integrated metric assessing temporal reciprocity in language
style matching. Behavior Research Methods, 51(3), 1343–1359. https://doi.
org/10.3758/s13428-018-1078-8
Müller-Frommeyer, L. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2021). Gaining insights into organiza-
tional communication dynamics through the analysis of implicit and explicit
communication. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte
Organisationspsychologie (GIO), 52(1), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11612-021-00559-9
530 Small Group Research 53(4)

Müller-Frommeyer, L. C., Kauffeld, S., & Paxton, A. (2020). Beyond consistency:

Contextual dependency of language style in monolog and conversation. Cognitive
Science, 44(4), e12834. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12834
Niederhoffer, K. G., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2002). Linguistic style matching in social
interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21(4), 337–360. https://
doi.org/10.1177/026192702237953
Pennebaker, J. W. (2013). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us.
Bloomsbury Press.
Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development
and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. University of Texas at Austin. https://
repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/31333
Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an indi-
vidual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1296–
1312. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1296
Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. G. (2003). Psychological aspects
of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54,
547–577. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145041
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2016). Recommendations
for creating better concept definitions in the organizational, behavioral, and
social sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 19(2), 159–203. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1094428115624965
Riley, M. A., Richardson, M. J., Shockley, K., & Ramenzoni, V. C. (2011).
Interpersonal synergies. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 38. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2011.00038
Schulte, E.-M., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). Treat us fairly
and we won’t complain: Multilevel effects of procedural justice on complain-
ing behavior in team meetings. Psychology, 6(14), 1795–1810. https://doi.
org/10.4236/psych.2015.614176
Scissors, L. E., Gill, A. J., & Gergle, D. (2008, November 8–12). Linguistic mimicry
and trust in text-based CMC. In B. Begole (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2008 ACM
conference on computer supported cooperative work, San Diego, CA. ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1460563.1460608
Segalowitz, S. J., & Lane, K. (2004). Perceptual fluency and lexical access for func-
tion versus content words. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 307–308.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04310071
Shephard, C., Giles, H., & LePoire, B. (2001). Communication accommodation the-
ory. In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The new handbook of language and
social psychology (pp. 33–56). Wiley.
Stachowski, A. A., Kaplan, S. A., & Waller, M. J. (2009). The benefits of flexible
team interaction during crises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1536–1543.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016903
Van Gelderen, E. (2014). A history of the English language (rev ed.). John Benjamins.
Van Swol, L. M., & Carlson, C. L. (2017). Language use and influence among minor-
ity, majority, and homogeneous group members. Communication Research,
44(4), 512–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215570658
Müller-Frommeyer and Kauffeld 531

Van Swol, L. M., & Kane, A. A. (2019). Language and group processes: An integra-
tive, interdisciplinary review. Small Group Research, 50(1), 3–38. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1046496418785019
Waller, M. J., Okhuysen, G. A., & Saghafian, M. (2016). Conceptualizing emer-
gent states: A strategy to advance the study of group dynamics. The Academy
of Management Annals, 10(1), 561–598. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.201
6.1120958
Yilmaz, G. (2016). What you do and how you speak matter: Behavioral and linguistic
determinants of performance in virtual teams. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 35(1), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x15575772
Yilmaz, G., & Peña, J. (2015). How do interpersonal behaviors and social categories
affect language use? The case of virtual teams. Communication Quarterly, 63(4),
427–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2015.1058285

Author Biographies
Lena C. Müller-Frommeyer, PhD, is a postdoctoral research associate at the RWTH
Aachen University. She received her PhD from Technische Universität Braunschweig,
Germany. Her research areas include the dynamic coordination of behavior such as
natural language, communication, or emotion in different forms and contexts of indi-
vidual, dyadic, and team interaction.
Simone Kauffeld is full professor at the Department of Industrial/Organizational and
Social Psychology, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany. She received
her PhD from the University of Kassel and held a professorship at the University of
Applied Sciences, Northwestern Switzerland. Her research focuses on team and lead-
ership interaction, career, competence, and change.