This research examined the unique effects of different markers of linguistic powerlessness (hedges, hesitations, and tag questions) on persuasion. Participants read (Experiment 1) or listened to (Experiment 2) a communication advocating comprehensive exams. Under high message relevance, messages containing powerless markers resulted in less favorable attitudes and more negative perceptions of the message and source than did the control message. This effect occurred in both experiments and was a result of these markers lessening the impact of strong arguments; in Experiment 2, strong arguments were no more persuasive than weak arguments when the message contained any of these markers. Under low message relevance, tag questions improved the persuasiveness of message arguments relative to the control condition. These results demonstrate that the effects of linguistic markers of powerlessness are complex and depend on marker type and processing depth.
Areni, C. S. (2003). The effects of structural grammatical variables on persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach. Psychology & Marketing, 20, 349-375.
2.
Bowers, J. (1963). Language intensity, social introversion and attitude change. Speech Monographs, 30, 345-352.
3.
Bradac, J. J., Hemphill, M. R., & Tardy, C. H. (1981). Language style on trial: Effects of “powerful”and “powerless”speech upon judgements of victims and villains. The 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.
Brennan, S. E., & Williams, M. (1995). The feeling of another’s knowing: Prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states of speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 383-398.
6.
Brown, B. L. (1980). Effects of speech rate on personality attributions and competency evaluations. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 294-300). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
7.
Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941-951.
8.
Crosby, F., & Nyquist, L. (1977). The female register: An empirical study of Lakoff’s hypothesis. Language in Society, 6, 313-322.
9.
Dubois, B. L., & Crouch, I. (1975). The question of tag questions in women’s speech: They don’t really use more of them, do they?Language in Society, 4, 289-294.
10.
Erickson, B., Lind, E. A., Johnson, B. C., & O’Barr, W. O. (1978). Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 14, 266-279.
11.
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.
12.
Holtgraves, T. M. (1997). Styles of language use: Individual and cultural variability in conversational indirectness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 624-637.
13.
Holtgraves, T. M. (2001). Language as social action. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Holtgraves, T M.., & Lasky, B. (1999). Linguistic power and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 506-516.
15.
Hosman, L. A. (1989). The evaluative consequence of hedges, hesitations, and intensifiers powerful and powerless speech styles. Human Communication Research, 15, 383-406.
16.
Hosman, L. A., Huebner, T. M., & Siltanen, S. A. (2002). The impact of power of speech style, argument strength, and need for cognition on impression formation, cognitive responses,and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 361-379.
17.
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.
18.
Johnson, C., & Vinson, L. (1990). Placement and frequency of powerless talk and impression formation. Communication Quarterly, 38, 325-333.
19.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1999). Persuasion by a single route: A view from the unimodel. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 83-109.
20.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and a woman’s place. New York: Harper & Row.
21.
McCroskey, J. C., & Mehrley, R. S. (1969). The effects of disorganization and nonfluency on attitude change and source credibility. Speech Monographs, 36, 13-21.
22.
Miller, G. R., & Hewgill, M. A. (1964). The effects of variations in nonfluency on audience ratings of source credibility. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 50, 36-44.
23.
Ng, S. H., & Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
O’Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
25.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
26.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Heesacker, M. (1981). The use of rhetorical questions in persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 432-440.
27.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford.
28.
Rundquist, S. (1992). Indirectness: A gender study of flouting Grice’s maxims. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 431-449.
29.
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.
30.
Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Positive mood can increase or decrease message scrutiny: The hedonic contingency view of mood and message processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 5-15.
31.
Wright, J. W., & 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.
32.
Zillman, D. (1972). Rhetorical elicitation of agreement in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 159-165.
33.
Zillman, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1974). Rhetorical elicitation of concession in persuasion. Journal of Social Psychology, 94, 223-236.
