The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 3-24

  Blankenship, Kevin L ^a,c   Holtgraves, Thomas ^b  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BALL STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Persuasion; Powerless language

Indexed keywords

EID: 14544286388     PISSN: 0261927X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X04273034     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Areni, C. S. (2003). The effects of structural grammatical variables on persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach. Psychology & Marketing, 20, 349-375.
2. Bowers, J. (1963). Language intensity, social introversion and attitude change. Speech Monographs, 30, 345-352.
3. Bradac, J. J., Hemphill, M. R., & Tardy, C. H. (1981). Language style on trial: Effects of "powerful" and "powerless" speech upon judgements of victims and villains. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 327-341.
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. Brennan, S. E., & Williams, M. (1995). The feeling of another's knowing: Prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states of speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 383-398.
6. Brown, B. L. (1980). Effects of speech rate on personality attributions and competency evaluations. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 294-300). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
7. Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941-951.
8. Crosby, F., & Nyquist, L. (1977). The female register: An empirical study of Lakoff's hypothesis. Language in Society, 6, 313-322.
9. Dubois, B. L., & Crouch, I. (1975). The question of tag questions in women's speech: They don't really use more of them, do they? Language in Society, 4, 289-294.
10. Erickson, B., Lind, E. A., Johnson, B. C., & O'Barr, W. O. (1978). Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of "powerful" and "powerless" speech. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 14, 266-279.
11. 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.
12. Holtgraves, T. M. (1997). Styles of language use: Individual and cultural variability in conversational indirectness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 624-637.
13. Holtgraves, T. M. (2001). Language as social action. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Holtgraves, T M., & Lasky, B. (1999). Linguistic power and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 506-516.
15. Hosman, L. A. (1989). The evaluative consequence of hedges, hesitations, and intensifiers powerful and powerless speech styles. Human Communication Research, 15, 383-406.
16. 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.
17. 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, 57, 173-188.
18. Johnson, C., & Vinson, L. (1990). Placement and frequency of powerless talk and impression formation. Communication Quarterly, 38, 325-333.
19. Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1999). Persuasion by a single route: A view from the unimodel. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 83-109.
20. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and a woman's place. New York: Harper & Row.
21. McCroskey, J. C., & Mehrley, R. S. (1969). The effects of disorganization and nonfluency on attitude change and source credibility. Speech Monographs, 36, 13-21.
22. Miller, G. R., & Hewgill, M. A. (1964). The effects of variations in nonfluency on audience ratings of source credibility. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 50, 36-44.
23. Ng, S. H., & Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24. O'Barr, W.M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
25. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
26. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Heesacker, M. (1981). The use of rhetorical questions in persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 432-440.
27. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford.
28. Rundquist, S. (1992). Indirectness: A gender study of flouting Grice's maxims. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 431-449.
29. Sparks, J. R., Areni, C. S., & Cox, K. C. (1998). An investigation of the effects of language style and communication modality on persuasion. Communication Monographs, 65, 108-125.
30. Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Positive mood can increase or decrease message scrutiny: The hedonic contingency view of mood and message processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 5-15.
31. Wright, J. W., & Hosman, L. A. (1983). Language style and sex bias in the courtroom: The effects of male and female use of hedges and intensifiers on impression formation. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 48, 137-152.
32. Zillman, D. (1972). Rhetorical elicitation of agreement in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 159-165.
33. Zillman, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1974). Rhetorical elicitation of concession in persuasion. Journal of Social Psychology, 94, 223-236.