This study investigated the impact of power-of-speech style, need for cognition, and argument quality on participants’ perceptions of a speaker, cognitive responses, and attitude toward the topic. Based on the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of persuasion, it was hypothesized that the three independent variables would interact to affect cognitive responses and attitude toward the topic. The results did not support the hypothesis. Path analysis was also used to analyze the data. The path analysis revealed that power-of-speech style had a small, direct effect on attitude and several, indirect effects mediated by cognitive response categories. Argument quality had a direct effect on attitude toward topic. The results are discussed in terms of their importance for the persuasive effects of power-of-speech style, with specific focus on the role of speech style in an ELM framework.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adkins, M.
, & Brashers, D. E. (1995). The power of language in computer-mediated groups. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 289-322.
2.
Berger, C. R.
, & Bradac, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in inter-personal relations. London: Edward Arnold.
3.
Bradac, J. J.
, Hemphill, M. R., & Tardy, C. H. (1981). Language style on trial: Effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech upon judgments of victims and villains. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 327-341.
4.
Bradac, J. J.
, & Mulac, A. (1984). A molecular view of powerful and powerless speech styles: Attributional consequences of specific language features and communicator intentions. Communication Monographs, 51, 307-319.
5.
Bradac, J. J.
, & Street, R. L., Jr. (1989/1990). Powerful and powerless styles of talk: A theoretical analysis of language and impression formation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 23, 195-242.
6.
Cacioppo, J. T.
, Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253.
7.
Cacioppo, J. T.
, Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
8.
Clepper, A. D. (1992). An investigation of the evaluative consequences and persuasive impact of gender and hedges. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg.
9.
Erickson, B.
, Lind, E. A., Johnson, B. C., & O’Barr, W. M. (1978). Speech style and impression-formation in a court setting: The effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 266-279.
10.
Gibbons, P.
, Busch, J., & Bradac, J. J. (1991). Powerful versus powerless language: Consequences for persuasion, impression formation, and cognitive response. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10, 115-133.
11.
Haleta, L. L.
(1996). Student perceptions of teachers’ use of language: The effects of powerful and powerless language on impression formation and uncertainty. Communication Education, 45, 16-28.
12.
Holtgraves, T.
, & Lasky, B. (1999). Linguistic power and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18, 196-205.
13.
Hosman, L. A.
(1989). The evaluative consequences of hedges, hesitations, and intensifiers: Powerful and powerless speech styles. Human Communication Research, 15, 383-406.
14.
Hosman, L. A.
, & Siltanen, S. A. (1994). The attributional and evaluative consequences of powerful and powerless speech styles: An examination of the “control over others” and “control of self” explanations. Language & Communication, 14, 287-298.
15.
Hosman, L. A.
, & Wright, J. W., II. (1987). The effects of hedges and hesitations on impression formation in a simulated courtroom context. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 51, 173-188.
16.
Maronick, T. J.
, & Andrews, J. C. (1999). The role of qualifying language on consumer perceptions of environmental claims. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 33, 297-321.
17.
Ng, S. H.
, & Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18.
Petty, R. E.
, & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 323-390). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
19.
Priester, J. R.
, & Petty, R. E. (1995). Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 637-654.
20.
Smith, V.
, Siltanen, S. A., & Hosman, L. A. (1998). The effects of powerful and powerless speech styles and speaker expertise on impression formation and attitude change. Communication Research Reports, 15, 27-35.
21.
Sparks, J. R.
, Areni, C. S., & Cox, K. C. (1998). An investigation of the effects of language style and communication modality on persuasion. Communication Monographs, 65, 108-125.
22.
Toulmin, S. E.
(1969). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Wright, J. W., II
, & Hosman, L. A. (1983). Language style and sex bias in the courtroom: The effects of male and female use of hedges and intensifiers on impression formation. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 48, 137-152.
