Language in the Teaching Operating Room: Expressing Confidence Versus Community

Abstract

Objective: Previous work has analyzed residency letters of recommendation for agentic and communal language, but this has not been applied to spoken language. Our objective was to analyze intraoperative spoken language by attending and resident surgeons for the use of agentic and communal language.

Design: We completed a linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC) analysis on 16 operating room transcripts (total time 615 minutes) between attendings and resident surgeons for categories associated with agentic and communal speech. Wilcoxon signed rank and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare attending versus resident and male versus female speech patterns for word count; "I," clout, and power (agentic categories); and "we," authentic, social (communal categories).

Setting: Midwestern academic university teaching hospital.

Participants: Sixteen male (9 attendings, 7 residents) and 16 female (7 attendings, 9 residents) surgeons, from 6 surgical specialties, most commonly from General Surgery.

Results: Attending surgeons used more words per minute than residents (40.01 vs 16.92, p < 0.01), were less likely to use "I" (3.18 vs 5.53, p < 0.01), and spoke more language of "clout" (75.82 vs 55.47, p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between attendings and residents in use of analytic speech (23.72 vs 24.67, p = 0.32), "causation" (1.20 vs 1.08, p = 0.72), or "cognitive processing" (10.20 vs 10.54, p = 0.74). Residents used more speech with "emotional tone" (92.91 vs 79.92, p = 0.03), "positive emotion" (4.98 vs 3.86, p = 0.04), more "assent" language (4.89 vs 3.09, p < 0.01), and more "informal" language (9.27 vs 6.77, p < 0.01). There were no gender differences, except for male residents speaking with greater certainty than female residents, although by less than 1% of the total word count.

Conclusions: In the operating room, attending surgeons were more likely to use agentic language compared to resident surgeons based on LIWC analysis. These differences did not depend on gender and likely relate to surgeon experience and confidence, learning versus teaching, and power dynamics.

Keywords: communication; gender; language; surgery; surgical education.