Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study examined the role of linguistic power in persuasion. Participants listened to a persuasive message conveyed in either a powerless style (frequent hedges, hesitations, and tag questions) or a powerful style (the absence of these features). In addition, the ability of participants to process the message and speaker gender were manipulated. Participants who heard the powerless version perceived the speaker and the arguments more negatively and were less in favor of the message proposal than were participants who heard the same message in a powerful style. These effects occurred regardless of whether participants were able to process the message deeply. There was also evidence that the effects of linguistic power on persuasion are mediated by its effects on perceptions of the speaker and the message arguments.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

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. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 327-341.

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.

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

Carli, L. L , LaFleur, S. J. , & Loeber, C. C. (1995). Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1030-1041.

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, 752-766.

Crosby, F. , & Nyquist, L. (1977). The female register: An empirical study of Lakoff’s hypothesis. Language in Society, 6, 313-322.

Erickson, B. , Lind, E. A. , Johnson, B. C. , & O’Barr, W. (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.

Fishman, P. M. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems, 25, 397-406.

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.

10.

Holtgraves, T. , & Bailey, C. (1991). Premise acceptability and message effectiveness. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 157-176.

11.

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.

12.

Mulac, A. , Wiemann, J. M. , Widenmann, S. J. , & Gibson, T. W. (1988). Male/female language differences in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads: The gender-linked language effect. Communication Monographs, 55, 315-335.

13.

Newcombe, N. , & Arnkoff, D. B. (1979). Effects of speech style and sex of speaker on person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1293-1303.

14.

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

15.

Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

16.

Petty, R. , Wells, G. , & Brock, T. C. (1976). Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding to propaganda: Thought disruption versus effort justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 874-884.

Linguistic Power and Persuasion

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References