Equivocation is advisable as a persuasive strategy only under limited conditions. Information-processing theory was used to model the effect of precise language on receiver evaluations of message and source. Path analyses found that the effects of language intensity (specificity and opinionatedness) on ratings of source competence and trust-worthiness were mediated by language perceptions and message evaluation variables such as assessed argument quality. The effect of language intensity on trustworthiness was mediated by attributions of either source bias or intolerance of discrepant opinions. Meta-analyses found that message discrepancy and personalization of the issue made the effects of intense language on competence more negative, whereas better quality arguments made the effect of intensity on competence and trustworthiness more positive.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andreoli, V
, & Worchel, S. (1978). Effects of media, communicator, and message position on attitude change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 59-70.
2.
Bavelas, J. B.
, Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullett, J. (1990). Equivocal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
Bradac, J.
, Bowers, J., & Courtright, J. (1979). Three language variables in communication research: Intensity, immediacy and diversity. Human Communication Research, 5, 257-269.
4.
Bradac, J.
, Bowers, J., & Courtright, J. (1980). Lexical variations in intensity, immediacy and diversity: An axiomatic theory and causal model. In R. N. St.Clair & H. Giles (Eds.), The social and psychological contexts of language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Brehm, J. W
(1968). Attitude change from threat to attitudinal freedom. A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes. New York: Academic Press.
6.
Burgoon, M.
, Jones, S., & Stewart, D. (1975). Toward a message-centered theory of persuasion: Three empirical investigations of language intensity. Human Communication Research, 1, 240-256.
7.
Dillard, J. P.
, Wilson, S. R., Tusing, K J., & Kinney, T. A. (1997). Politeness judgments in personal relationships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 297-325.
8.
Donnellan, K. S.
(1978). Speaker references, descriptions and anaphora. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Volume 9. New York: Academic Press.
9.
Eagly, A. H.
, Wood, W, & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 424-435.
10.
Edwards, R.
(1998). The effects of gender, gender role, and values on the interpretation of messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 52-71.
11.
Eisenberg, E.
(1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227-242.
12.
Feezel, J. D.
(1974). A qualified certainty: Verbal probability in arguments. Speech Monographs, 41, 348-356.
13.
Fraser, B.
(1975). Hedged performatives. In R Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press.
14.
Goss, B.
, & Williams, M. L. (1973). The effects of equivocation on perceived source credibility. Central States Speech Journal, 24, 162-167.
15.
Grice, H. P.
(1975). Logic and conversations. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press.
16.
Hamilton, M. A. (1987). The mediated impact of language intensity on attitude change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.
17.
Hamilton, M. A.
(1997). The phase interfaced omnistructure underlying the processing of persuasive messages. In G. A. Barnett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Advances in communication science (pp. 1-42). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
18.
Hamilton, M. A.
, & Costa. (1988, November). The effect of opinionation in language. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
19.
Hamilton, M. A.
, & Hunter, J. E. (in press-a). The effect of language intensity on receiver evaluations of message, source, and topic. In M. Allen & R. Preiss (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis. Rochester, MI: Hampton.
20.
Hamilton, M. A.
, & Hunter, J. E. (in press-b). A framework for the interpretation of meta-analyses of the persuasion literature. In M. Allen & R. Preiss (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis. Rochester, MI: Hampton.
21.
Hamilton, M. A.
, Hunter, J. E., & Boster, F. J. (1993). The elaboration likelihood model as a theory of attitude formation: A mathematical analysis. Communication Theory, 3, 50-65.
22.
Hamilton, M. A.
, & Hunter, J. E., & Burgoon, M. (1990). An empirical investigation of an axiomatic model of the effect of language intensity on attitude change. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9, 235-255.
23.
Hamilton, M. A.
, & Mineo, P. J. (1996). Personality and persuasibility: Developing a multidimensional model of belief systems. World Communication, 25, 1-20.
24.
Hamilton, M. A.
, & Mineo, P. J. (1998). A framework for understanding equivocation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 3-35.
25.
Hamilton, M. A.
, & Rendino, S. (1987, November). The effects of lexical precision. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, Boston, MA.
26.
Hamilton, M. A.
, & Stewart, B. (1993). Extending an information processing model of language intensity effects. Communication Quarterly, 41, 231-246.
27.
Hamilton, M. A.
, & Thompson, W L. (1994). Testing an information processing model of message intensity effects. World Communication, 23, 1-14.
28.
Hooper, J. B.
(1975). On assertive predicates. In J. P Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press.
29.
Hunter, J. E.
, Danes, J., & Cohen, S. (1984). Mathematical models of attitude change (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.
30.
Hunter, J. E.
, & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31.
loup, G.
(1975). Some universals for quantifier scope. In J. P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press.
32.
Lysvag, P.
(1975). Verbs of hedging. In J. P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press.
33.
Manis, M.
(1961). The interpretation of opinion statements as a function of message ambiguity and recipient attitude. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 76-81.
34.
McGuire, W
(1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson, (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., vol. 3, pp. 136-314). Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley.
35.
Mineo, P. J.
(1996, May). Assessment of critical thinking while message processing. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Chicago.
36.
Petty, R.
, & Cacioppo, J. (1986). Communication and persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
37.
Rokeach, M.
(1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.
38.
Scherer, K R.
(1984). On the nature and function of emotion: Component process approach. In P Ekman & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 293-316). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
Sherif, C. W
, Sherif, M. & Nebergall, R. E. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment-involvement approach. Philadelphia: W B. Saunders.
40.
Shirer, W. L.
(1960). The rise and fall of the Third Reich. New York: Simon & Schuster.
41.
Slater, M. D.
(1997). Persuasion processes across receiver goals and message genres. Communication Theory, 7, 125-148.
42.
Smith, M. J. (1975). Human responses to threatening persuasive communications: A test of psychological reactance theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas.
43.
Smith, M. J.
(1977). The effects of threats to attitudinal freedom as a function of message quality and initial receiver attitude. Communication Monographs, 44, 196-206.
44.
Thurstone, L. L.
, & Chave, E. J. (1929). The measurement ofattitude. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45.
Williams, M. L.
, & Goss, B. (1975). Equivocation: Character insurance. Human Communication Research, 1, 265-270.
46.
Zimbardo, P. G.
(1960). Verbal ambiguity and judgmental distortion. Psychological Reports, 6, 57-58.
47.
Brehm, J. W
, & Sensing, J. (1966). Social influence as a function attempted and implied usurpation of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 703-707.
48.
Carver, C. S.
, & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Self-consciousness and reactance. Journal of Research in Personality, 15, 16-29.
49.
Mehrley, R. S.
, & McCroskey, J. C. (in press). Opinionated statements and attitude intensity as predictors of attitude change and source credibility. Speech Monographs.
50.
Miller, G. R.
, & Baseheart, J. (1969). Source trustworthiness, opinionated statements, and response to persuasive communication. Speech Monographs, 36, 1-7.
51.
Miller, G. R.
, & Lobe, J. (1967). Opinionated language, open-and closed-mindedness and response to persuasive communications. Journal of Communication, 17, 333-341.
52.
Sensing, J.
, & Brehm, J. W (1968). Attitude change from an implied threat to attitudinal freedom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 324-330.
53.
Snyder, M. L.
, & Wicklund, R. A. (1976). Prior exercise of freedom and reactance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 120-130.
54.
Wicklund, R. A.
, & Brehm, J. W (1968). Attitude change as a function of felt competence and threat to attitudinal freedom. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 64-75.
55.
Worchel, J. W
, & Brehm, J. W (1970). Effect of threats to attitudinal freedom as function of agreement with the communicator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 18-22.
