The reported study investigated the persuasive effects of nouns describing activities and their human actors in message design. Fictitious op-ed essays were created from the point of view of authors taking a complimentary or critical stance on two controversial topics. Different versions were created in which activity nouns (immigration, cosmetic surgery) or actor nouns (immigrants, cosmetic surgeons) referring to the topics were manipulated orthogonally to essay stance. Participants considered essays praising actors to be more persuasive than others praising activities, but were more persuaded by essays indicting activities than actors. The implications for message design theory and practice are discussed.
AlexiadouA. (2001). Functional structure in nominals: Nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
2.
AmesD. R.BianchiE. C.MageeJ. C. (2010). Professed impressions: What people say about others affects onlookers’ perceptions of speakers’ power and warmth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 152-158.
3.
BakerM. C.VinokuraN. (2009). On agent nominalizations and why they are not like event nominalizations. Language, 3, 517-556.
4.
BarrettH. C. (2008). Evolved cognitive mechanisms and human behavior. In CrawfordC.KrebsD. (Eds.), Foundations of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, applications and findings (pp. 173-189). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
BellR. A.McGloneM. S.DragojevicM. (2014a). Bacteria as bullies: Effects of linguistic agency assignment in health messages. Journal of Health Communication, 19, 340-358.
6.
BellR. A.McGloneM. S.DragojevicM. (2014b). Vicious viruses and vigilant vaccines: Effects of linguistic agency assignment in health policy advocacy. Journal of Health Communication, 19, 1178-1195.
7.
BerinskyA.J.HuberG.A.LenzG.S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351-368. doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057
8.
BilligM. (2008). The language of critical discourse analysis: The critical case of nominalization. Discourse & Society, 19, 783-800.
9.
BryanC. J.AdamsG. S.MoninB. (2013). When cheating would make you a cheater: Implicating the self prevents unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 1001-1005.
10.
BryanC. J.WaltonG. M.RogersT.DweckC. S. (2011). Motivating voter turnout by invoking the self. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 12653-12656.
11.
BussD. M. (1997). Human motivation in evolutionary perspective: Grounding terror management theory. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 22-26.
12.
CarnaghiA.MaasA.GrestaS.BianchiM.CadinuM.ArcuriL. (2008). Nomina sunt omina: On the inductive potential of nouns and adjectives in person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 839-859.
13.
ChomskyN. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In JacobsR.RosenbaumP. (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 184-221). Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.
14.
de BlacamC.KilmartinD.McDermottC.KellyJ. (2015). Public perception of plastic surgery. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, & Aesthetic Surgery, 68, 197-204.
15.
DillardJ. P.ShenL. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72, 144-168.
16.
DillardJ. P.SolomonD. H. (2000). Conceptualizing context in message-production research. Communication Theory, 10, 167-175.
17.
DragojevicM.BellR. A.McGloneM. S. (2014). Giving radon gas life through language: Effects of linguistic agency assignment in health messages about inanimate threats. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 89-98.
18.
EyalP.VosgerauJ.AcquistiA. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 1023-1031.
19.
FeatherN. T.ArmstrongD. J. (1967). Effects of variation in source attitude, receiver attitude, and communication stand on reactions to source and content of communications. Journal of Personality, 35, 435-455.
20.
FolkesV. S.SearsD. O. (1977). Does everybody like a liker?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 505-519.
21.
GawronskiB.WaltherE. (2008). The TAR effect: When the ones who dislike become the ones who are disliked. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1276-1289.
22.
GlowackiE. M.McGloneM. S.BellR. A. (2016). Targeting Type 2: Linguistic agency assignment in diabetes prevention messaging. Journal of Health Communication, 21, 457-468.
23.
GreenbergB. S.MillerG. R. (1966). The effects of low-credible sources on message acceptance. Speech Monographs, 33, 127-136.
24.
FowlerR.HodgeB.KressG.TrewT. (1979). Language and control. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
25.
HattieJ.TimperlyH. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112.
26.
HodsonG.MaioG. R.EssesV. M. (2001). The role of attitudinal ambivalence in susceptibility to consensus information. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 197-205.
27.
KaminsM. L.DweckC. S. (1999). Person vs. process praise and criticism: Implications for contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology, 35, 835-847.
28.
KeppelG. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.
29.
KincaidJ. P.AagardJ. A.O’HaraJ. W.CottrellL. K. (1981). Computer readability editing system. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications, 24, 38-42.
LangackerR. W. (1999). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
32.
MaeL.CarlstonD. E. (2005). Hoist on your own petard: When prejudiced remarks are recognized and backfire on speakers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 240-255.
33.
McGloneM. S.BellR. A.ZaitchikS. T.McGlynnJ.III. (2013). Don’t let the flu catch you: Agency assignment in printed educational materials about the H1N1 influenza virus. Journal of Health Communication, 18, 740-756.
34.
McGloneM. S.GilesH. (2011). Language and interpersonal communication. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 201-237). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
McGloneM. S.MerolaN. A. (2016). Time waits for no one: Mortality salience and temporal agency. In HarvellL.NisbettG. (Eds.), Denying death: An interdisciplinary approach to terror management theory (pp. 118-135). New York, NY: Routledge.
36.
McGloneM. S.PfiesterR. A. (2009). Does time fly when you’re having fun or do you? Affect, agency, and embodiment in temporal communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 28, 3-31.
37.
MenegattiM.RubiniM. (2013). Convincing similar and dissimilar others: The power of language abstraction in political communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 596-607.
38.
NgS. H.BradacJ. J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
39.
PaivioA. (1971). Imagery and deep structure in the recall of English nominalizations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 1-12.
40.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T.HeesackerM. (1981). The use of rhetorical questions in persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 432-440.
41.
PinkerS. (2014). The sense of style: The thinking person’s guide to writing in the 21st century. New York, NY: Penguin.
42.
PriceK. O.HarburgE.NewcombT. M. (1966). Psychological balance in situations of negative interpersonal attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 265-270.
43.
PriesterJ. R.PettyR. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 431-449.
44.
RichardsonJ. T. E. (1975). Imagery and deep structure in the recall of English nominalizations. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 333-339.
45.
SchumanH.PresserS. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. New York, NY: Academic Press.
46.
SearsD. O. (1983). The person-positivity bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 233-250.
47.
SinnoS.BarrJ.WilsonS.SmithB. D.TannaN.SaadehP. B. (2015). Public perceptions of plastic surgery: Analysis and implications. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 26, 1238-1241.
48.
SpyridakisJ. H.IsaksonC. S. (1998). Nominalizations vs. denominalizations: Do they influence what readers recall?Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 28, 163-188.
ToobyJ.CosmidesL. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In BussD. M. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 5-67). New York, NY: Wiley.
51.
WaltonG. M.BanajiM. B. (2004). Being what you say: The effect of essentialist linguistic labels on preferences. Social Cognition, 22, 193-213.
52.
WierzbickaA. (1986). What’s in a noun? (Or: How do nouns differ in meaning from adjectives?). Studies in Language, 10, 353-389.
53.
ZillmanD. (1972). Rhetorical elicitation of agreement in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 159-165.
