Mobilize Is a Verb: The Use of Verbs and Concrete Language Is Associated With Authors’ and Readers’ Perceptions of a Text’s Action Orientation and Persuasiveness

Abstract

In three studies, we investigated the role of linguistic features characterizing texts aiming to mobilize others. In Study 1 (N = 728), participants produced a leaflet either mobilizing others to engage in an action or expressing their thoughts about that action, and evaluated how action-oriented their text was. Mobilizing texts included more verbs and concrete words, and the presence of these linguistic characteristics was positively linked to participants’ evaluations of their messages as action-oriented. In Studies 2 and 3 (N = 557 and N = 556), independent groups of participants evaluated texts produced in Study 1. Readers’ perceptions of texts as action-oriented were associated with the same linguistic features as in Study 1 and further positively linked to perceived message effectiveness (Study 2) and behavioral intention (Study 3). The studies reveal how encoding and decoding of verbs and concrete words serve as distinct persuasive tools in calls to action.

Keywords

agency persuasion language concreteness

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alter

A. L.

Oppenheimer

D. M.

(2009). Suppressing secrecy through metacognitive ease: Cognitive fluency encourages self-disclosure. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1414–1420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02461.x

Aristotle. (2007). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. Oxford University Press.

Asbury

L. D.

Wong

F. L.

Price

S. M.

Nolin

M. J.

(2008). The VERB campaign: Applying a branding strategy in public health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(Suppl. 6), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.03.010

Bandura

(2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

Bhatia

Walasek

(2016). Event construal and temporal distance in natural language. Cognition, 152, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.03.011

Brysbaert

Warriner

A. B.

Kuperman

(2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 904–911. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5

Cappa

S. F.

Pulvermüller

(2012). Cortex special issue: Language and the motor system. Cortex, 48(7), 785–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.04.010

Carrera

Muñoz

Caballero

Fernández

Albarracín

(2012). The present projects past behavior into the future while the past projects attitudes into the future: How verb tense moderates predictors of drinking intentions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1196–1200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.04.001

Douglas

K. M.

Sutton

R. M.

(2003). Effects of communication goals and expectancies on language abstraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 682–696. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.682

10.

Formanowicz

(2020). Verb intergroup bias: Verbs are used more often in reference to in-groups than out-groups. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(6), 854–864. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619893957

11.

Formanowicz

Pietraszkiewicz

Roessel

Suitner

Witkowska

Maass

(2021). “Make it happen!” Social Psychology, 52(2), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000435

12.

Formanowicz

Roessel

Suitner

Maass

(2017). Verbs as linguistic markers of agency: The social side of grammar. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(5), 566–579. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2231

13.

Foroni

Semin

G. R.

(2009). Language that puts you in touch with your bodily feelings: The multimodal responsiveness of affective expressions. Psychological Science, 20(8), 974–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02400.x

14.

Friestad

Wright

(1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. The Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1086/209380

15.

Gollwitzer

P. M.

Oettingen

(2012). Goal pursuit. In Ryan

R. M.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 208–231). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399820.013.0013

16.

Gollwitzer

P. M.

Sheeran

(2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38(1), 69–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1

17.

Hansen

Wänke

(2010). Truth from language and truth from fit: The impact of linguistic concreteness and level of construal on subjective truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1576–1588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210386238

18.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

19.

Honnibal

Johnson

(2015). An improved non-monotonic transition system for dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 1373–1378). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D15-1162

20.

Idan

Halperin

Hameiri

Reifen Tagar

(2018). A rose by any other name? A subtle linguistic cue impacts anger and corresponding policy support in intractable conflict. Psychological Science, 29(6), 972–983. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618772823

21.

Kelley

(2007). Confidence intervals for standardized effect sizes: Theory, application, and implementation. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(8), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v020.i08

22.

Liberman

Trope

(2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322(5905), 1201–1205. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161958

23.

Lee

C. H.

(2020). The impact of language on retweeting during acute natural disasters: Uncertainty reduction and language expectancy perspectives. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 120(8), 1501–1519. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-12-2019-0711

24.

Mayr

Erdfelder

Buchner

Faul

(2007). A short tutorial of GPower. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p051

25.

Miller

C. H.

Lane

L. T.

Deatrick

L. M.

Young

A. M.

Potts

K. A.

(2007). Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00297.x

26.

Noar

S. M.

Barker

Bell

Yzer

(2020). Does perceived message effectiveness predict the actual effectiveness of tobacco education messages? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Communication, 35(2), 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1547675

27.

Oinas-Kukkonen

Harjumaa

(2009). Persuasive systems design: Key issues, process model, and system features. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 24, 485–500. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02428

28.

Packard

Berger

(2021). How concrete language shapes customer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(5), 787–806. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucaa038

29.

Packard

Berger

Boghrati

(2023). How verb tense shapes persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 50(3), 645–660. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucad006

30.

Paivio

(1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084295

31.

Palmeira

(2015). Abstract language signals power, but also lack of action orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.003

32.

Pan

McNamara

Lee

J. J.

Haleblian

J. J.

Devers

C. E.

(2017). Give it to us straight (most of the time): Top managers’ use of concrete language and its effect on investor reactions. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2204–2225. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2733

33.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Berkowitz

, (Ed.), Communication and persuasion (pp. 1–24). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1_1

34.

Pietraszkiewicz

Formanowicz

(2023). Verbs are associated with agency. Social Psychology, 54(5), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000522

35.

Rains

S. A.

(2013). The nature of psychological reactance revisited: A meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research, 39(1), 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01443.x

36.

Reber

Winkielman

Schwarz

(1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9(1), 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00008

37.

Rhodes

Leslie

S.-J.

Yee

K. M.

Saunders

(2019). Subtle linguistic cues increase girls’ engagement in science. Psychological Science, 30(3), 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618823670

38.

Rocklage

M. D.

Rucker

D. D.

Nordgren

L. F.

(2018). Persuasion, emotion, and language: The intent to persuade transforms language via emotionality. Psychological Science, 29(5), 749–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617744797

39.

Sadoski

Goetz

E. T.

Rodriguez

(2000). Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.85

40.

Schwanenflugel

P. J.

Stowe

R. W.

(1989). Context availability and the processing of abstract and concrete words in sentences. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 114. https://doi.org/10.2307/748013

41.

Sebanz

Bekkering

Knoblich

(2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009

42.

Sebanz

Knoblich

(2021). Progress in joint-action research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(2), 138–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420984425

43.

Steiger

J. H.

(2004). Beyond the F test: Effect size confidence intervals and tests of close fit in the analysis of variance and contrast analysis. Psychological Methods, 9(2), 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.2.164

44.

Tausczik

Y. R.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676

45.

Teeny

J. D.

Siev

J. J.

Briñol

Petty

R. E.

(2021). A review and conceptual framework for understanding personalized matching effects in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(2), 382–414. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1198

46.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1982). Judgments of and by representativeness. In Kahneman

Slovic

Tversky

(Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 84–98). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809477.007

47.

van Zomeren

. (2013). Four core social-psychological motivations to undertake collective action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(6), 378–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12031

48.

Vigliocco

Vinson

D. P.

Druks

Barber

Cappa

S. F.

(2011). Nouns and verbs in the brain: A review of behavioural, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.04.007

49.

Weingarten

Chen

McAdams

Hepler

Albarracı́n

(2016). From primed concepts to action: A meta-analysis of the behavioral effects of incidentally presented words. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 472–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000030

50.

Weis

P. P.

Nikadon

Herbert

Formanowicz

(2022). The verb–self link: An implicit association test study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(5), 1946–1959. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02105-0

51.

Whillans

A. V.

Caruso

E. M.

Dunn

E. W.

(2017). Both selfishness and selflessness start with the self: How wealth shapes responses to charitable appeals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 242–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.11.009

52.

Yeomans

(2021). A concrete example of construct construction in natural language. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 162, 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.10.008

53.

Zhu

Kim

Park

(2020). Do messages spread widely also diffuse fast? Examining the effects of message characteristics on information diffusion. Computers in Human Behavior, 103, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.006