1500 - THE MANY VOICES OF STUDENTS: UNDERSTANDING SPEAKER PROFILES THROUGH VOCABULARY AND CLIMATE PERCEPTIONS

Session: P_D01S006 - Poster Session 6 - Division 1
AUTHORS:
Déprez Guillaume (Université de Bordeaux, Laboratoire de psychologie UR 4139 ~ Bordeaux ~ France) , Chenard-Poirier Léandre-Alexis (HEC Montréal ~ Montréal ~ Canada) , Dujardin Emilie (Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition et l'Apprentissage (CeRCA), Université de Poitiers, Université de Tours, CNRS ~ Poitiers ~ France)
Abstract text:
Introduction: Voice is essential for achieving tasks and being efficient, especially in a group setting, where it is vital to communicate clearly and effectively with others. While traditionally conceptualized positively, researchers advocate a dual perspective (promotive vs. prohibitive) and daily fluctuations in voices used for collective or individual tasks. Language skills may also shape speaking up, since difficulties in word retrieval and perceptions of climate could prevent people from expressing themselves clearly and frequently.


Purpose: This study examines Master students' speaker profiles (beyond promotional and prohibitive conceptualizations) and their relationships with voice climate at work (i.e., efficiency and safety), vocabulary language skills (namely synonymy knowledge and word knowledge), and the frequency with which they speak in class.


Method: Survey data were collected from 368 master's students (M = 24.20, SD = 6.8). Latent profiles analysis (LPA) identified voice behaviors profiles. Relationship between profiles, voice climate, vocabulary language skills, and speaking up frequencies were tested using the Block-Croon-Hagenaars (BCH) method.


Results: LPA revealed five profiles of voice behaviors: Silent Speaker (14%), Supportive Speaker (18%), Promotive Speaker (14%), Prohibitive Speaker (23%), Multi-Vocal Speaker (31%). BCH analysis also showed significant associations with voice climate (ꭕ²(4) = 17.50, p = .002) and words knowledge (ꭕ²(4) = 16.30, p = .003). Specifically, Muti-vocal and Prohibitive Speaker profiles are related to lower efficiency climate compared to Supportive Speaker and Promotive Speaker profiles. Promotive Speaker reported higher word knowledge than Supportive, Prohibitive and Multi-Vocal Speakers Profiles. No other significant effect emerged for synonymy knowledge, speaking up frequency, or safety climate.


Conclusion: Findings suggest that voice behaviors profiles are differentially associated with efficiency climate, but not with safety climate. Word knowledge seems to be related to promotive voice use. These results highlight the value of considering both language skills and nuanced speaker profiles in understanding voice behaviors.