Powerful Versus Powerless Language: Consequences for Persuasion, Impression Formation, and Cognitive Response

Although the literature on the consequences of powerful and power-less language styles for impression formation is extensive, the persuasive effects of power of style have been neglected. Accordingly, a 2 x 2 x 2 experiment was conducted (strong vs. weak argument strength x high vs. low power language x relevant vs. irrelevant topic). Respondents read a message arguing for implementing comprehensive examinations for college seniors which served as a vehicle for the independent variables. Dependent measures consisted of scales assessing persuasion and communicator style/ability. Additionally, cognitive responses were assessed. Dependent measures for persuasion and communicator attributes yielded a three-factor solution: Persuasion, CompetencelControl and Sociability. Further analyses indicated that strong arguments were generally more persuasive than weak ones regardless of relevance, and power of style had no effect upon Persuasion. On the other hand, powerful versus powerless language had a strong effect upon ratings of communicator CompetencelControl and, in conjunction with argument strength, Sociability. Among other things, the cognitive response data indicated that persons were more likely to think about the powerless style than the style that was ostensibly powerful. The results offer little support for Petty and Cacioppo's Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasive effects.

[1]  Robert N. St. Clair,et al.  Recent Advances in Language, Communication, and Social Psychology , 2018 .

[2]  H. Giles,et al.  Handbook of language and social psychology , 1992 .

[3]  Kathy Kellermann,et al.  The Negativity Effect in Interaction It's All in Your Point of View , 1989 .

[4]  Blair T. Johnson,et al.  Effects of involvement on persuasion: a meta-analysis , 1989 .

[5]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

[6]  Franklin J. Boster,et al.  Cognitive processing: Additional thoughts and a reply to Petty, Kasmer, Haugtvedt, and Cacioppo , 1987 .

[7]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  Source and message factors in persuasion: A reply to stiff's critique of the elaboration likelihood model , 1987 .

[8]  E. Weldon,et al.  Cognitive effort in additive task groups: The effects of shared responsibility on the quality of multiattribute judgments , 1985 .

[9]  James J. Bradac,et al.  A Molecular View of Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles. , 1984 .

[10]  James J. Bradac,et al.  Ascribed Status, Lexical Diversity, and Accent: Determinants of Perceived Status, Solidarity, and Control of Speech Style , 1984 .

[11]  H. Giles,et al.  Attitudes towards language variation : social and applied contexts , 1984 .

[12]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. , 1983 .

[13]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement , 1983 .

[14]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. , 1983 .

[15]  James J. Bradac,et al.  Language style on trial: Effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech upon judgments of victims and villains , 1981 .

[16]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Personal involvement as a determinant of argument based persuasion , 1981 .

[17]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  Sex Differences in Influenceability , 1980 .

[18]  S. Chaiken.  Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. , 1980 .

[19]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. , 1979 .

[20]  S. Chaiken.  Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. , 1979 .

[21]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  Effects of Forwarning of Persuasive Intent and Involvement on Cognitive Responses and Persuasion , 1979 .

[22]  William M. O'Barr,et al.  Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech , 1978 .

[23]  Robert S. Baron,et al.  Distraction Can Enhance or Reduce Yielding to Propaganda: Thought Disruption Versus Effort Justification , 1976 .

[24]  Richard L. Street,et al.  Powerful and powerless styles of talk: A theoretical analysis of language and impression formation , 1989 .

[25]  James J. Bradac,et al.  Message effects in communication science , 1989 .

[26]  Keith P. Sentis,et al.  Advertising and consumer psychology , 1986 .

[27]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The Effects of Involvement on Responses to Argument Quantity and Quality: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion , 1984 .

[28]  W. O'barr.  Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom , 1982 .

[29]  B. L. Brown.  Effects of Speech Rate on Personality Attributions and Competency Evaluations , 1980 .

[30]  James J. Bradac,et al.  Effects of Intensity, Immediacy and Diversity Upon Receiver Attitudes Toward a Belief-Discrepant Message and Its Source , 1980 .

[31]  J. Rotter.  Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. , 1966, Psychological monographs.