This study investigates the effect of hedges, tag questions, intensifiers, and powerful messages on four sets of dependent variables: speaker evaluation, control of self and control of others attributions, cognitive responses, and message memorability. The results show that the four message types differ across measures of dynamism, control of self and control of others attributions, and three cognitive response categories. For the speakerevaluation and control-attribution variables, intensifiers are evaluated most positively and hedges are evaluated most negatively. On the cognitive-response measures, a more mixed pattern of results emerges. The results are discussed in terms of their importance for understanding the cognitive processing of these four message types.
Adkins, M., & Brashers, D. E. (1995). The power of language in computer-mediated groups. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 289-322.
2.
Badzinski, D. M. (1989). Message intensity and cognitive representations of discourse: Effects on inferential processing. Human Communication Research, 16, 3-32.
3.
Bradac, J. J., Cargile, A. C., & Hallett, J. S. (2001). Language attitudes: Retrospect, conspect, and prospect. In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology(pp. 137-155). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
4.
Bradac, J. J., Hopper, R., & Wiemann, J. M. (1989). Message effects: Retrospect and prospect. In J. J. Bradac (Ed.), Message effects in communication science(pp. 294-317). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5.
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.
6.
Bradac, J. J., & Street, R. L., Jr. (1989/1990). Powerful and powerless styles of talk: Atheoretical analysis of language and impression formation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 23, 195-242.
7.
Bradac, J. J., Wiemann, J. M., & Schaefer, K. (1994). The language of control in interpersonal communication. In J. A. Daly & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication(pp. 91-108). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
Burgoon, M., Jones, S. B., & Stewart, D. (1975). Toward a message-centered theory of persuasion: Three empirical investigations of language intensity. Human Communication Research, 1, 240-256.
9.
Crismore, A., & Vande Kopple, W. J. (1988). Readers' learning from prose: The effects of hedges. Written Communication, 5, 184-202.
10.
Erickson, B., Lind, A. E., Johnson, G. 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.
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.
Giles, H., Henwood, K., Coupland, N., Harriman, J., & Coupland, J. (1992). Language attitudes and cognitive mediation. Human Communication Research, 18, 500-527.
13.
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.
14.
Holtgraves, T., & Lasky, B. (1999). Linguistic power and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18, 196-205.
15.
Holtgraves, T., Srull, T. K., & Socall, D. (1989). Conversation memory: The effects of speaker status on memory for the assertiveness of conversation remarks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 149-160.
16.
Hosman, L. A. (1989). The evaluative consequences of hedges, hesitations, and intensifiers: Powerful and powerless speech styles. Human Communication Research, 15, 383-406.
17.
Hosman, L. A. (1997). The relationship between locus of control and the evaluative consequences of powerful and powerless speech styles. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 70-78.
18.
Hosman, L. A. (2002). Language and persuasion. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice(pp. 371-406). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
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.
20.
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.
21.
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.
22.
Shapiro, M. A. (1994). Signal detection measures of recognition memory. InA. Lang (Ed.), Measuring psychological responses to media messages(pp. 133-148). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
Sparks, J. R., Areni, C. S., & Cox, K. C. (1998). An investigation of the effects of the effects of language style and communication modality on persuasion. Communication Monographs, 65, 108-125.
24.
VandeKopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
25.
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.
