The Effects of Hedges in Persuasive Arguments

Abstract

Drawing together research on persuasion and text comprehension, two experiments test the effects of hedge placement (Experiment 1) and hedge type (Experiment 2) on attitudes, source evaluations, and perceptions of argument strength. Participants read an editorial in support of implementing comprehensive exams at their university. Experiment 1 shows that hedges placed on data statements (and not interpretation statements) lead to negative perceptions of the policy, source, and argument. This is especially pronounced on source evaluations among individuals with more scientific training. Experiment 2 reveals that colloquial, but not professional, hedges placed on interpretation statements lead to more negative evaluations relative to no hedges. Data related to perceptions of the source are moderated by individual differences in scientific reasoning. This research suggests that hedges describing data statements and/or that use colloquial language can, but do not always, undermine persuasive attempts.

Keywords

persuasion attitudes hedges qualifiers

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Blankenship, K.L. , & Holtgraves, T. (2005). The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 3-24.

Butler, C.S. (1990). Qualifications in science: Modal meanings in scientific texts. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar (pp. 137-170). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cacioppo, J.T. , Petty, R.E. , Kao, C.F. , & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion an individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1032-1043.

Carli, L.L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941-951.

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-756.

Chaiken, S. , Liberman, A. , & Eagly, A.H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford.

Eagly, A.H. , & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

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.

Holtgraves, T.M. , & Lasky, B. (1999). Linguistic power and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 506-516.

10.

Horn, K. (2001). The consequences of citing hedged statements in scientific research articles. BioScience, 51, 1086-1093.

11.

Hosman, L.A. (1989). The evaluative consequences of hedges, hesitations, and intensifiers: Powerful and powerless speech styles. Human Communication Research, 15, 383-486.

12.

Hosman, L.A. , & Siltamen, S.A. (2006). Powerful and powerless language forms: Their consequences for impression formation, attributions of control of self and control of others, cognitive responses, and message memory. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25(1), 33-46.

13.

Hosman, L.A. , Huebner, T.M. , & Siltamen, 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.

14.

Hovland, C.I. , Janis, I.L. , & Kelly, H.H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

15.

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Philadelphia: John Benjamin.

16.

Kruglanski, A.W. , & Thompson, E.P. (1999). Persuasion by a single route: A view from the unimodel. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 83-109.

17.

Lawson, A.E. (2000). Classroom test of scientific Reasoning (Rev. ed.) . Tempe: Arizona State University .

18.

Leippe, M.R. , & Elkin, R.A. (1987). When motives clash: Issue involvement and response involvement as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 269-278.

19.

Markkanen, R. , & Schroeder, H. (1997). Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts. New York: Walter de Gruyter.

20.

Ng., S.H. , & Bradac, J.J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .

21.

Petty, R.E. , & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York : Springer-Verlag.

22.

Petty, R.E. , Cacioppo, J.T. , & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 41, 847-855.

23.

Simpson, P. (1990). Modality in literary-critical discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 63-94). London: Sage.

24.

Skelton, J. (1988). Comments in academic articles. In P. Grunwell (Ed.), Applied linguistics in society (pp. 98-108). London: CILT, The National Center for Languages.

25.

Toulmin, S.E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.