The present research examines the effect of tag questions and hedges on attributions of a target's attitude and the confidence related to the target's behavior (i.e., writing a message). In Study 1, a message containing tag questions and hedges attenuated the correspondence bias when the target was constrained in his or her behavior. This attenuation was mediated by participants' perceptions of the target's confidence in his or her attitude toward the message topic. Study 2 replicated the attenuation effect and found attitudinal confidence rather than general confidence mediated the attenuation. It was further found that tag questions (rather than hedges) were responsible for the bias attenuation (Study 3), which was again mediated by participants' perceptions of the target's confidence.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
2.
Blankenship, K. L., & Craig, T. Y. (in press). Language and persuasion: Tag questions as powerless speech or as interpreted in context. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
3.
Blankenship, K. L., & Holtgraves, T. (2005). The effects of linguistic markers of powerlessness in the processes of persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 3-24.
4.
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. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 327-341.
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.
Brennan, S. E., & Williams, M. (1995). The feeling of another's knowing: Prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about metacognitive states of speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 383-398.
7.
Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941-951.
8.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1982). Felt, false, and miserable smiles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6, 238-252.
9.
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.
10.
Fleming, J. H., & Darley, J. M. (1989). Perceiving choice and constraint: The effects of contextual and behavioral cues on attitude attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 27-40.
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.
Gilbert, D. T., & Jones, E. E. (1986). Perceiver induced constraint: Interpretations of a self-generated reality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 269-280.
13.
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21-38.
14.
Holtgraves, T. M. (2001). Language as social action. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
Holtgraves, T., & Lasky, B. (1999). Linguistic power and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 506-516.
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., & Siltanen, S. A. (1994). The attributional and evaluative consequences of powerful and powerless speech styles: An examination of the “control of others” and “control of self” explanations. Language and Communication, 14, 287-298.
18.
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.
19.
Hudson, R. A. (1975). The meaning of questions. Language, 51, 1-31.
20.
Johnson, C., & Vinson, L. (1990). Placement and frequency of powerless talk and impression formation. Communication Quarterly, 38, 325-333.
21.
Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1-24.
22.
Kraut, R. E. (1978). Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 380-391.
23.
McConnell-Ginet, S. (1975). Our father tongue: Essays in linguistic politics. Diacritics, 5, 44-50.
24.
Ng, S. H., & Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
O'Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
26.
Petty, R. E., Brinol, P., & Tormala, Z. L. (2002). Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: A self-validation hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 722-741.
27.
Petty, R. E., & Krosnick J. A. (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 10-68). New York: Academic Press.
29.
Scherer, K. R., London, H., & Wolfe, J. J. (1973). The voice of confidence: Paralinguistic cues and audience evaluation. Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 31-44.
30.
Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2002). What doesn't kill me makes me stronger: The effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1298-1313.
31.
Whitley, B. E., & Greenberg, M. S. (1986). The role of eyewitness confidence in juror perceptions of credibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 387-409.
32.
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.
