The Effects of Hedges in Persuasive Arguments

Drawing together research on persuasion and text comprehension, two experiments test the effects of hedge placement (Experiment 1) and hedge type (Experiment 2) on attitudes, source evaluations, and perceptions of argument strength. Participants read an editorial in support of implementing comprehensive exams at their university. Experiment 1 shows that hedges placed on data statements (and not interpretation statements) lead to negative perceptions of the policy, source, and argument. This is especially pronounced on source evaluations among individuals with more scientific training. Experiment 2 reveals that colloquial, but not professional, hedges placed on interpretation statements lead to more negative evaluations relative to no hedges. Data related to perceptions of the source are moderated by individual differences in scientific reasoning. This research suggests that hedges describing data statements and/or that use colloquial language can, but do not always, undermine persuasive attempts.

[1]  H. Kelley,et al.  Communication And Persuasion , 1953 .

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

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

[4]  C. F. Kao,et al.  Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. , 1986 .

[5]  M. R. Leippe,et al.  When motives clash: Issue involvement and response involvement as determinants of persuasion. , 1987 .

[6]  John Skelton.  Comments in Academic Articles. , 1988 .

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

[8]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. , 1989 .

[9]  Paul L. Simpson.  Modality in Literary-Critical Discourse , 1990 .

[10]  Linda L. Carli,et al.  Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes Gender, Language, and Influence , 2022 .

[11]  J. Bradac,et al.  Powerful Versus Powerless Language: Consequences for Persuasion, Impression Formation, and Cognitive Response , 1991 .

[12]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1993 .

[13]  Sik Hung Ng,et al.  Power in Language: Verbal Communication and Social Influence , 1993 .

[14]  Raija Markkanen,et al.  Hedging and discourse : approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts , 1997 .

[15]  K. Hyland,et al.  Hedging in scientific research articles , 1998 .

[16]  T. Holtgraves,et al.  Linguistic Power and Persuasion , 1999 .

[17]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  Persuasion by a Single Route: A View From the Unimodel , 1999 .

[18]  K. Horn,et al.  The Consequences of Citing Hedged Statements in Scientific Research Articles , 2001 .

[19]  Lawrence A. Hosman,et al.  The Impact of Power-of-Speech Style, Argument Strength, and Need for Cognition on Impression Formation, Cognitive Responses, and Persuasion , 2002 .

[20]  Kevin L. Blankenship,et al.  The Role of Different Markers of Linguistic Powerlessness in Persuasion , 2005 .

[21]  Lawrence A. Hosman,et al.  Powerful and Powerless Language Forms , 2006 .

[22]  Lawrence A. Hosman,et al.  The Evaluative Consequences of Hedges , Hesitations , and Intensifiers Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles , 2022 .