Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) is a broad framework for understanding how individuals adjust their communicative behaviors during social interaction and the social consequences of those adjustments. Initially developed by Howard Giles in the early 1970s as Speech Accommodation Theory, CAT was designed to explain systematic variations in speech as a function of social context. Early work focused on phonetic and paralinguistic features such as accent, speech rate, and pauses, but the theory was later extended to encompass lexical choice, discourse strategies, and nonverbal behavior, as well as written and computer-mediated communication (Giles, Coupland, & Coupland, 1991).

At its core, CAT posits that communication is shaped by both interpersonal motives and intergroup dynamics. Speakers are sensitive to socio-historical contexts, salient social categories, and power relations, all of which influence how communication is produced and interpreted. A central assumption of the theory is that communicative behavior is evaluative: interactants continuously assess others’ speech and behavior, and these assessments affect social outcomes such as liking, trust, and perceived competence. Language and communication styles are therefore not neutral but function as markers of social identity and group membership (Giles & Ogay, 2007).

CAT identifies two primary accommodation strategies. Convergence refers to communicative adjustments that reduce social or linguistic distance between interactants, for instance by adopting similar vocabulary, speech rate, or interactional norms. Convergence is typically motivated by a desire for social approval, increased comprehension, or relational closeness. Divergence, by contrast, involves accentuating communicative differences in order to maintain or emphasize distinct social identities, particularly in contexts where group boundaries are salient or threatened. Importantly, CAT also emphasizes that accommodation is normatively constrained: what counts as appropriate or effective adjustment depends on contextual expectations, and over-accommodation or under-accommodation may lead to negative evaluations (Giles et al., 1991).

Beyond face-to-face interaction, CAT has increasingly been applied to mediated and organizational contexts. In marketing and advertising, the theory offers a useful lens for understanding how brands adapt their communication styles to align with target audiences. Firms may converge linguistically and symbolically with consumers by adopting familiar language styles, cultural references, or interaction norms, thereby reducing perceived social distance and fostering engagement. Research on brand communication in digital environments shows that stylistic alignment between brand messages and user-generated content can enhance consumer responses such as liking, sharing, and commenting, consistent with CAT predictions (Ludwig et al., 2013). More broadly, accommodation processes help explain why localized advertising, culturally adapted messaging, and conversational brand voices are often more effective than standardized approaches. In this sense, CAT provides a theoretically grounded explanation for adaptive communication strategies in contemporary marketing without reducing them to mere persuasion tactics (Dragojevic, Gasiorek, & Giles, 2015).

References

Dragojevic, M., Gasiorek, J., & Giles, H. (2015). Communication accommodation theory. In C. R. Berger (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (pp. 1–21). Wiley.

Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press.

Giles, H., & Ogay, T. (2007). Communication accommodation theory. In B. B. Whaley & W. Samter (Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 293–310). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ludwig, S., de Ruyter, K., Mahr, D., Wetzels, M., Brüggen, E., & de Ruyck, T. (2013). Take their word for it: The symbolic role of linguistic style matches in user communities. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1201–1217.