  The current research used the contexts of U.S. presidential debates and
negotiations to examine whether matching the linguistic style of an opponent in
a two-party exchange affects the reactions of third-party observers. Building
off communication accommodation theory (CAT), interaction alignment theory
(IAT), and processing fluency, we propose that language style matching (LSM)
will improve subsequent third-party evaluations because matching an opponent's
linguistic style reflects greater perspective taking and will make one's
arguments easier to process. In contrast, research on status inferences
predicts that LSM will negatively impact third-party evaluations because LSM
implies followership. We conduct two studies to test these competing
hypotheses. Study 1 analyzed transcripts of U.S. presidential debates between
1976 and 2012 and found that candidates who matched their opponent's linguistic
style increased their standing in the polls. Study 2 demonstrated a causal
relationship between LSM and third-party observer evaluations using negotiation
transcripts.
