References
Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Gamon, M., & Dumais, S. (2011). Mark my words! Linguistic style accommodation in social media. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web (pp. 745-754). Retrieved 05, December, 2024, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51890203_Mark_My_Words_Linguistic_Style_Accommodation_in_Social_Media.
Elhami, A. (2020). Communication accommodation theory: A brief review of the literature. Journal of Advances in Education and Philosophy, 4(05), 192-200. Retrieved 05, December, 2024, from https://www.academia.edu/42981981/Communication_Accommodation_Theory_A_Brief_Review_of_the_Literature.
Farzadnia, S., & Giles, H. (2015). Patient-provider interaction: A communication accommodation theory perspective. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 3(2), 17-34. Retrieved 05, December, 2024, from https://www.ijscl.com/article_12768_2e0a7c7fec5a59eee3901cecf53020ad.pdf.
Giles, H., Edwards, A. L., & Walther, J. B. (2023). Communication accommodation theory: Past accomplishments, current trends, and future prospects. Language Sciences, 99, 101571. Retrieved 05, December, 2024, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373589494_Communication_accommodation_theory_Past_accomplishments_current_trends_and_future_prospects.
Gnisci, A., & Bergquist, G. (2016). Methods of CAT Inquiry: Quantitative Studies. In Giles, H. (Ed.), Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge University Press. p. 60-76.
Gnisci, A., Giles, H., & Bergquist, G. (2016). CAT on Trial. In Giles, H. (Ed.), Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge University Press. p. 169-185.
Romero, D. M., Swaab, R. I., Uzzi, B., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). Mimicry is presidential: Linguistic style matching in presidential debates and improved polling numbers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(10), 1311-1319. Retrieved 05, December, 2024, from https://business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/pubfiles/16128/Galinsky_mimicry.pdf.
Salvi, F., Ribeiro, M. H., Gallotti, R., & West, R. (2024). On the conversational persuasiveness of large language models: A randomized controlled trial. Retrieved 05, December, 2024, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381186642_On_the_Conversational_Persuasiveness_of_Large_Language_Models_A_Randomized_Controlled_Trial.
Sytch, M., & Kim, Y. H. (2021). Quo vadis? From the schoolyard to the courtroom. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(1), 177-219. Retrieved 05, December, 2024, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342050185_Quo_Vadis_From_the_Schoolyard_to_the_Courtroom
Sytch, M., & Kim, Y. H. (2021). Quo vadis? From the schoolyard to the courtroom. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(1), 177-219. Retrieved 05, December, 2024, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342050185_Quo_Vadis_From_the_Schoolyard_to_the_Courtroom
What the research says about Rhetoric.
Is Rhetoric’s platform effective? Does it really make a difference?
Research shows that tailoring your legal arguments based on judge preferences and communication patterns is an effective way to improve your odds of success in litigation.
-
Linguistic mirroring, which involves matching the language styles of your judge, can increase your odds of success in litigation by 20% or more (Sytch & Kim, 2020).
Rhetoric’s platform helps users leverage this technique through our scoring system in DeBrief that assesses the similarity between your writing and judge preferences. Additionally, our quote tables of persuasive judge language, as well as our ReWrite tool that helps re-draft arguments in the style preferred by the judge, help users utilize these methods of persuasion.
What other research supports the validity of Rhetoric’s platform and the notion that it can increase your competitive edge?
Communication/Speech Accommodation Theory (CAT/SAT) proposes that humans adjust communication behaviors such as language choices, speech patterns, accents, and nonverbal communication styles to better persuade intended audiences (Zhang & Giles, 2018).
-
Increasing the similarities between speakers is known as “Convergence”, while exaggerating differences between speakers is known as “Divergence” (Zhang & Giles, 2018).
-
Increasing convergence between two parties can improve the understanding and overall effectiveness of a party's persuasive efforts (Elhami, 2020).
A meta-analysis of over 18,000 individuals across 76 individual studies was conducted to evaluate effects of accommodation - or the use of audience preferences and communication styles - to improve persuasiveness.
-
After adjusting for several variables, the effect size of accommodation was found to be statistically significant (p<0.01) and found that language accommodation improved perceived relatability, compliance, relational solidarity, and the evaluation of the speaker, while non-accommodation was found to be detrimental regarding these variables (Gnisci & Bergquist, 2016).
These findings suggest that using Rhetoric’s tool DeBrief could not only improve performance, but that failing to use such a tool may be detrimental to your likelihood of success.
Is this also helpful for juries? Are similar techniques useful in other industries?
Application of language accommodation techniques has been shown to be beneficial across numerous fields.
-
Strategic accommodation can lead to positive evaluations from jurors, enhancing the persuasive impact of arguments and potentially influencing verdicts (Gnisci, Giles & Bergquist, 2016).
-
Politicians that engaged in language accommodation trend higher in polling numbers than their counterparts who did not (Romero, 2015).
-
Providers who effectively accommodate patients' communication preferences can build trust, making patients more receptive to medical advice and more likely to adhere to treatment plans (Farzadnia & Giles, 2015).
Can AI really do an effective job at increasing human persuasiveness?
A randomized controlled trial of 900 participants who engaged in debates with ChatGPT-4, where the AI had access to their personal information, reported an 81.7% higher likelihood of increased agreement with the AI's arguments compared to those debating human opponents who did not have access to their personal information (Salvi, Ribeiro, Gallotti, West, 2024).
These findings support the idea that AI-input, which is central to the Rhetoric platform, can significantly increase persuasiveness, especially when the AI is provided the appropriate data.