Advertisement

Communication and Trust: A Linguistic Analysis

  • Anna-Maria MeckEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In times of shifting media, communication shifts as well. With these changes, today we observe a fundamental change in trust attribution away from formerly established systems. Institutions and the classic media have been sources of trust for a long time but recipients nowadays would rather trust their family, friends, and even strangers with Rachel Botsman having shaped the term “Distributed Trust” to refer to this phenomenon. If it is no longer institutions people trust in, they trust individuals which bears the danger of arbitrariness as these individuals are not backed and monitored by any institutional tradition, reputation, or control. This becomes even more critical as (social) media paves the way for a tremendous amount of individuals to position themselves quickly and effortlessly on numerous channels 24/7. Whilst being exposed to this kind of sensory overload, people do not only have to consider whom to trust and whom not to multiple times a day, they furthermore have to decide at once. What does it take to assign or deny trust though? This article is concerned with the how exactly trust and communication are intertwined: Is it the voice itself which demands for trust or rather the content? If so, how does that content have to be structured to evoke trust? How is trust transported linguistically? And what role does the listener hold? As the established question is multi-layered, it is crucial to first define trust and the character traits that form it. Hereinafter—and only focusing on spoken language—paraverbal, nonverbal as well as content-related features leading to a development of trust on the listener’s side are compiled and described to answer the question “How can communication be utilized to build trust?”.

References

  1. Adler RF, Iacobelli F, Gutstein Y (2015) Are you convinced? A Wizard of Oz study to test emotional vs. rational persuasion strategies in dialogues. Comput Hum Behav 57(April 2016):75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakir V, Barlow DM (2007) The age of suspicion. In: Bakir V, Barlow DM (eds) Communication in the age of suspicion. Trust and the media. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 3–8Google Scholar
  3. Beattie G, Ellis AW (2017) The psychology of language and communication. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger T, Engel C, Meuret S, Fuchs M (2014) Alters- und geschlechtsspezifische Normwerte für Sprechstimmprofile in der Allgemeinbevölkerung: Erste Ergebnisse aus der Leipziger LIFE- Adult-Studie, 31. Wissenschaftliche Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Phoniatrie und Pädaudiologie (DGPP) zusammen mit dem 5. Pädakustiker-Symposium der Akademie für Hörgeräte-Akustik. Viewed 21 Mar 2018, from http://www.egms.de/static/en/meetings/dgpp2014/14dgpp24.shtml
  5. Botsman R (2018) Q&A: Rachel Botsman on the third trust revolution. Digit Bus Lawyer 20(2):10–11Google Scholar
  6. Braet AC (1992) Ethos, pathos and logos in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: a re-examination. Argumentation 6(3):307–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burgoon J, Birk T, Pfau M (1990) Nonverbal behaviors, persuasion, and credibility. Hum Commun Res 17(1):140–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carbone T (1975) Stylistic variables as related to source credibility: a content analysis approach. Speech Monogr 42(1975):99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Comadena ME, Hunt SK, Simonds CJ (2007) The effects of teacher clarity, nonverbal immediacy, and caring on student motivation, affective and cognitive learning. Commun Res Rep 24(3):241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeLemos D, Chen M, Romer A, Brydon K, Kastner K (2010) Building trust through communication in the intensive care unit: HICCC*. Pediatr Crit Care Med 11(3):378–384Google Scholar
  11. Franke U (2016) Logopädisches Handlexikon. UTB, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  12. Gebhard C (2012) Sprechtempo im Sprachvergleich: Eine Untersuchung phonologischer und kultureller Aspekte anhand von Nachrichtensendungen. Ph.D. thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamilton MA, Hunter JE, Burgoon M (1990) An empirical test of an axiomatic model of the relationship between language intensity and persuasion. J Lang Soc Psychol 9(1990):235–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hammer SS, Teufel-Dietrich A (2017) Stimmtherapie mit Erwachsenen: Was Stimmtherapeuten wissen sollten. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hurwitz SD, Miron MS, Johnson BT (1992) Source credibility and the language of expert testimony. J Appl Soc Psychol 22(1992):1909–1939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jackob N, Roessing T, Petersen T (2011) The effects of verbal and nonverbal elements in persuasive communication: findings from two multi-method experiments. Communications 36(2011):245–271Google Scholar
  17. Kosfeld M, Heinrichs M, Zak PJ, Fischbacher U, Fehr E (2005) Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature 435(2005):673–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mika S (1981) Some determinants of source credibility. Pol Psychol Bull 12(1981):79–86Google Scholar
  19. Montrey J (2005) An investigation of the effects of speakers’ vocal characteristics on ratings of confidence and persuasion. Ph.D. thesis, University of Central FloridaGoogle Scholar
  20. Ostermeier H (1967) Effects of type and frequency of reference upon perceived source credibility and attitude change. Speech Monogr 34(1967):137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peters J, Hoetjes M (2017) The effect of gesture on persuasive speech. Proc Interspeech 2017:659–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pompino-Marschall B (2009) Einführung in die Phonetik. De Gruyter, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reinsch NL Jr (1974) Figurative language and source credibility: a preliminary investigation and reconceptualization. Hum Commun Res 1(1974):75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Renn O, Levine D (1991) Credibility and trust in risk communication. In: Kasperson RE, Stallen PJ (eds) Communicating risks to the public. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 175–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rompf SA (2015) Trust and rationality. An integrative framework for trust research. Springer, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenberg A, Hirschberg J (2005) Acoustic/prosodic and lexical correlates of charismatic speech. INTERSPEECH-2005, pp 513–516Google Scholar
  27. Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, Camerer C (1998) Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad Manage Rev 23(3):393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Seltzer LJ, Ziegler TE, Pollak SD (2010) Social vocalizations can release oxytocin in humans. Proc R Soc B 277:2661–2666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Seltzer LJ, Prososki AR, Ziegler TE, Pollak SD (2012) Instant messages vs. speech: hormones and why we still need to hear each other. Evol Hum Behav 33(1):42–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shim HS, Park S, Chatterjee M, Scherer S, Sagae K, Morency L-P (2015) Acoustic and paraverbal indicators of persuasiveness in social multimedia. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), pp 2239–2243Google Scholar
  31. Vygotsky LS (1994) Extracts from thought and language and mind in society. In: Stierer B, Maybin J (eds) Language, literacy, and learning in educational practice: a reader. Multilingual Matters, Bristol, pp 45–58Google Scholar
  32. Whorf B (1940) Science and linguistics. Technol Rev 42(6):229–231, 247–248, 207–219Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VUI.agencyMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations