Style Versus Substance : Multiple Roles of Language Power in Persuasion

This research explores how message style influences persuasion in conjunction with message substance. Using the elaboration likelihood model, the study operationalizes message style as language power and message substance as argument quality, then considers the multiple roles language power can assume in persuasion. The authors investigate whether language power acts as a (a) central argument, (b) peripheral cue, (c) biasing influence on assessment of arguments, or (d) distraction that inhibits argument processing. Additionally, they manipulate exposure time to examine how processing ability influences which persuasive roles language power assumes. The authors find empirical support for the multiple-roles perspective and conclude that the role of message style depends partially on the ability to process message details.

[1]  James M. Munch,et al.  The Effects of Argument Structure and Affective Tagging on Product Attitude Formation , 1993 .

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

[3]  T. J. Crawford,et al.  Theories of attitude change and the "beyond family planning" debate: the case for the persuasion approach in population policy. , 1974, Family planning resume.

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

[5]  C. Areni,et al.  The effects of conditional indicative language on the comprehension and acceptance of advertising claims , 2004 .

[6]  James M. Munch,et al.  Rhetorical Question, Summarization Frequency, and Argument Strength Effects on Recall , 1988 .

[7]  George Y. Bizer,et al.  Self‐Schema Matching and Attitude Change: Situational and Dispositional Determinants of Message Elaboration , 2005 .

[8]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Cognitive processes in attitude change , 1994 .

[9]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility. , 1976 .

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

[11]  J. W. Wright,et al.  The effects of hedges and hesitations on impression formation in a simulated courtroom context , 1987 .

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

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

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

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

[16]  A. Greenwald.  6 – Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuasion, and Attitude Change1 , 1968 .

[17]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  C. Areni.  The Proposition-Probability Model of Argument Structure and Message Acceptance , 2002 .

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

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

[21]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Need for cognition and desire for control as moderators of extrinsic reward effects: a person x situation approach to the study of intrinsic motivation. , 1993, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[23]  D. L. Moore,et al.  Time Compression, Response Opportunity, and Persuasion , 1986 .

[24]  Bernard J. Jaworski,et al.  Enhancing and Measuring Consumers’ Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability to Process Brand Information from Ads , 1991 .

[25]  Charles S. Areni,et al.  Language power and persuasion , 2005 .

[26]  M. Heil,et al.  Unattended Distractor-Induced Priming in a Visual Selective Attention Task: N400 Effects in the Abse , 2004 .

[27]  A. Mulac,et al.  Attributional Consequences of Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles in a Crisis-Intervention Context , 1984 .

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

[29]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[30]  Charles S. Areni,et al.  An investigation of the effects of language style and communication modality on persuasion , 1998 .

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

[32]  Charles S. Areni,et al.  The effects of sales presentation quality and initial perceptions on persuasion: a multiple role perspective , 2002 .

[33]  Charles S. Areni,et al.  The effects of structural and grammatical variables on persuasion: An elaboration likelihood model perspective , 2003 .