This study explored the effects of tag questions, hedges, and argument quality on receivers’ perceptions of a speaker, perceptions of message quality, cognitive responses, and attitude change. The results showed that tag questions and argument quality directly affected speaker and message quality perceptions and cognitive responses. They also interacted to directly affect perceptions of the speaker’s power and credibility. Mediational analyses also showed that tag questions and argument quality had indirect effects on attitude change. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for the cognitive processing of and research on linguistic markers of powerlessness.
Areni, C.S. ( 2003). The effects of structural and grammatical variables on persuasion: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Psychology and Marketing, 20, 349-375.
2.
Blankenship, K.L., & Craig, T.Y. ( 2007). Language and persuasion: Tag questions as powerless speech or as interpreted in context. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 112-118.
3.
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.
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.
Durik, A.M., Britt, M.A., Reynolds, R., & Storey, J. ( 2008). The effects of hedges in persuasive arguments: A nuanced analysis of language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 27, 217-234.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
Hayes, A.F., & Krippendorf, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77-89.
9.
Holtgraves, T., & Lasky, B. ( 1999). Linguistic power and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18, 196-205.
10.
Hosman, L.A. ( 1989). The evaluative consequences of hedges, hesitations, and intensifiers: Powerful and powerless speech styles. Human Communication Research, 15, 383-406.
11.
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.
12.
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.
13.
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. ( 1983). Generalizing about messages: Suggestions for design and analysis of experiments. Human Communication Research, 9, 169-181.
14.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. ( 2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
