The effects of hedges in persuasive arguments: A nuanced analysis of language

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 217-234

  Durik, Amanda M ^a   Britt, M Anne ^a   Reynolds, Rebecca ^a   Storey, Jennifer ^a  

^a NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Hedges; Persuasion; Qualifiers

Indexed keywords

EID: 48849088897     PISSN: 0261927X     EISSN: 15526526     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X08317947     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. 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.
2. Butler, C.S. (1990). Qualifications in science: Modal meanings in scientific texts. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar (pp. 137-170). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Kao, C.F., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion an individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1032-1043.
4. Carli, L.L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941-951.
5. 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, 752-756.
6. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A.H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford.
7. Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
8. 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.
9. Holtgraves, T.M., & Lasky, B. (1999). Linguistic power and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 506-516.
10. Horn, K. (2001). The consequences of citing hedged statements in scientific research articles. BioScience, 51, 1086-1093.
11. Hosman, L.A. (1989). The evaluative consequences of hedges, hesitations, and intensifiers: Powerful and powerless speech styles. Human Communication Research, 15, 383-486.
12. Hosman, L.A., & Siltamen, S.A. (2006). Powerful and powerless language forms: Their consequences for impression formation, attributions of control of self and control of others, cognitive responses, and message memory. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25 (1). 33-46.
13. Hosman, L.A., Huebner, T.M., & Siltamen, 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.
14. Hovland, C.I., Janis, I.L., & Kelly, H.H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Philadelphia: John Benjamin.
16. Kruglanski, A.W., & Thompson, E.P. (1999). Persuasion by a single route: A view from the unimodel. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 83-109.
17. Lawson, A.E. (2000). Classroom test of scientific Reasoning (Rev. ed.). Tempe: Arizona State University.
18. Leippe, M.R., & Elkin, R.A. (1987). When motives clash: Issue involvement and response involvement as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 269-278.
19. Markkanen, R., & Schroeder, H. (1997). Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
20. Ng., S.H., & Bradac, J.J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
22. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855.
23. Simpson, P. (1990). Modality in literary-critical discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 63-94). London: Sage.
24. Skelton, J. (1988). Comments in academic articles. In P. Grunwell (Ed.), Applied linguistics in society (pp. 98-108). London: CILT, The National Center for Languages.
25. Toulmin, S.E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.