Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Leveraging Processing to Understand Linguistic Cues, Power and Persuasion

  • Chapter
The Exercise of Power in Communication

Abstract

In a persuasion context, how something is said can influence perceptions of power and subsequent information processing just as much as what is said. Here we focus predominantly on the ways in which various linguistic cues and styles (e.g. rhetorical questions, linguistic extremity) can impact persuasion attempts. Using common dual- and multi-process models as a guide, we examine how linguistic cues and the associated power dynamic serve multiple roles in a persuasion context. Taken together, the role and resultant information processing determine the durability of attitudes formed in the persuasion context. Taking each linguistic variable in turn, there are clear indicators that linguistic cues also convey information about power dynamics. This information about the relative power between source and audience also influences information processing and attitude strength. By leveraging information-processing models it is possible to discuss implications for attitude strength, confidence and durability. As a result of these processes, linguistic cues provide a mechanism by which power dynamics are both revealed and reified. Finally, while most research has focused on the impact of persuasion on attitudes towards a wide variety of topics, we propose that using particular linguistic cues can influence not only attitudes toward messages, but also attitudes toward people.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Areni, Charles S. (2003). The Effects of Structural and Grammatical Variables on Persuasion: an Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective. Psychology & Marketing 20: 349–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Areni, Charles S. and Richard J. Lutz (1988). The Role of Argument Quality in the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Advances in Consumer Research 15: 197–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Areni, Charles S. and John R. Sparks (2005). Language Power and Persuasion. Psychology and Marketing 22: 507–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (1926). The Art of Rhetoric (John Henry Freese, trans.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aune, R. Kelly and Toshiyuki Kikuchi (1993). Effects of Language Intensity Similarity on Perceptions of Credibility, Relational Attributions and Persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 12: 224–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, John E. (1976). Sex Differences in Group Communication: a Review of Relevant Research. Quarterly Journal of Speech 62: 179–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blankenship, Kevin L. and Traci Y. Craig (2006). Rhetorical Question Use and Resistance to Persuasion: an Attitude Strength Analysis. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 25: 111–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blankenship, Kevin L. and Traci Y. Craig (2007a). Language and Persuasion: Tag Questions as Powerless Speech or as Interpreted in Context. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43: 112–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blankenship, Kevin L. and Traci Y. Craig (2007b). Powerless Language Markers and the Correspondence Bias: Attitude Confidence Mediates the Effects of Tag Questions on Attitude Attributions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26: 28–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blankenship, Kevin L. and Traci Y. Craig (2011). Language Use and Persuasion: Multiple Roles for Linguistic Styles. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 5: 194–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blankenship, Kevin. L. and Traci Y. Craig (2012). Something about Mary: Information Processing and the Persistence of Implicit Causality. Social Cognition 30: 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blankenship, Kevin L. and Thomas Holtgraves (2005). The Role of Different Markers of Linguistic Powerlessness in Persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 24: 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, John W. (1963). Language Intensity, Social Introversion, and Attitude Change. Speech Monographs 30: 345–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradac, James J., John W. Bowers and John A. Courtright (1979). Three Language Variables in Communication Research: Intensity, Immediacy, and Diversity. Human Communication Research 5: 257–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradac, James J., Aaron C. Cargile and Jennifer Hallett (2001). Language Attitudes: Retrospect, Conspect, and Prospect. In Howard Giles and Peter Robinson (eds), The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology (pp. 37–55). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradac, James J. and Anthony Mulac (1984). A Molecular View of Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles: Attributional Consequences of Specific Language Features and Communicator Intentions. Communication Monographs 51: 307–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooke, Mark E. and Sik Hung Ng (1986). Language and Social Influence in Small Conversational Groups. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 5: 201–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buller, David B., Ron Borland and Michael Burgoon (1998). Impact of Behavioral Intention on Effectiveness of Message Features: Evidence from the Family Sun Safety Project. Human Communication Research 24: 433–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buller, David B., Michael Burgoon, John R. Hall, Norman Levine, Ann M. Taylor, Barbara H. Beach, Mary Klein Buller and Charlene Melcher (2000a). Long Term Effects of Language Intensity in Preventative Messages on Planned Family Solar Protection. Health Communication 12: 261–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buller, David B., Michael Burgoon, John R. Hall, Norman Levine, Ann M. Taylor, Barbara H. Beach, Charlene Melcher, Mary Klein Buller, Sid L. Bowen, Frank G. Hunsaker and Alan Bergen (2000b). Using Language Intensity to Increase the Success of a Family Intervention to Protect Children from Ultraviolet Radiation: Predictions from Language Expectancy Theory. Preventive Medicine 30: 103–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, Michael and Gerald R. Miller (1971). Prior Attitude and Language Intensity as Predictors of Message Style and Attitude Change Following Counterattitudinal Advocacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 20: 246–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnkrant, Robert E. and Rao H. Unnava (1989). Self-Referencing: a Strategy for Increasing Processing of Message Content. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 15: 628–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, Nancy A. and Randal J. Koper (1998). The Efficacy of Powerful/Powerless Language on Attitudes and Source Credibility. In Mike Allen and Raymond W. Preiss (eds), Persuasion: Advances through Meta-Analysis (pp. 203–17). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, Deborah, Fiona McAlinden and Kathy O’Leary (1988). Lakoff in Context: the Social and Linguistic Functions of Tag Questions. In Deborah Cameron and Jennifer Coates (eds), Women in their Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex (pp. 74–93). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cargile, Aaron, Howard Giles, Ellen Bouchard Ryan and James J. Bradac (1994). Language Attitudes as a Social Process: a Conceptual Model and New Directions. Language & Communication 14: 211–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, Shelly (1978). The Use of Source versus Message Cues in Persuasion: an Information Processing Analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, Shelly and Alice H. Eagly (1983). Communication Modality as a Determinant of Persuasion: the Role of Communicator Salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45: 241–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, Shelly, Akiva Liberman and Alice H. Eagly (1989). Heuristic and Systematic Processing within and beyond the Persuasion Context. In James S. Uleman and John A. Bargh (eds), Unintended Thought (pp. 212–52). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, Shelly and Durairaj Maheswaran (1994). Heuristic Processing Can Bias Systematic Processing: Effects of Source Credibility, Argument Ambiguity, and Task Importance on Attitude Judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66: 460–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, Traci Y. and Kevin L. Blankenship (2011). Language and Persuasion: Linguistic Extremity Influences Message Processing and Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 15: 290–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, Dena S., Anthony D. Cox, Lynne Sturm and Greg Zimet (2010). Behavioral Interventions to Increase HPV Vaccination Acceptability among Mothers of Young Girls. Health Psychology 29: 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, Alice H. and Shelly Chaiken (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, Tex.: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, Richard M. (1962). Power Dependence Relations. American Sociological Review 27: 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, Bonnie, E. Allan Lind, Bruce C. Johnson and William M. O’Barr (1978). Speech Style and Impression Formation in a Court Setting: the Effects of ‘Powerful’ and ‘Powerless’ Speech. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology 14: 266–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, Susan T. (1993). Controlling Other People: the Impact of Power in Stereotyping. American Psychologist 48: 621–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, Susan T. (2010). Interpersonal Stratification: Status, Power, and Subordination. In Daniel Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske and Gardner Lindzey (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology (5th edn, Vol. 2, pp. 941–82). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, Susan T., Beth Morling and Laura E. Stevens (1996). Controlling Self and Others: a Theory of Anxiety, Mental Control, and Social Control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22: 115–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, Pamela, Jon Busch and James J. Bradac (1991). Powerful versus Powerless Language: Consequences for Persuasion, Impression Formation, and Cognitive Response. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 10: 115–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, Anthony G. (1968). Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuasion and Attitude Change. In Anthony G. Greenwald, Timothy C. Brock and Thomas M. Ostrom (eds), Psychological Foundations of Attitudes (pp. 147–70). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grob, Lindsey M., Renee A. Meyers and Renee Schuh (1997). Powerful/Powerless Language Use in Group Interactions: Sex Differences or Similarities? Communication Quarterly 45: 282–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, Mark A. (1998). Message Variables that Mediate and Moderate the Effect of Equivocal Language on Source Credibility. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 17: 109–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, Mark A. and John E. Hunter (1998). The Effect of Language Intensity of Receiver Evaluations of Message Source and Topic. In Mike Allen and Raymond W. Preiss (eds), Persuasion: Advances through Meta-Analysis (pp. 99–138). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, Mark A. and Becky L. Stewart (1993). Extending an Information Processing Model of Language Intensity Effects. Communication Quarterly 41: 231–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haney, Craig, Curtis Banks and Philip G. Zimbardo (1973). Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology 1: 69–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtgraves, Thomas and Benjamin Lasky (1999). Linguistic Power and Persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 17: 506–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosman, Lawrence A. (1989). The Evaluative Consequences of Hedges, Hesitations, and Intensifiers: Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles. Human Communication Research 15: 383–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosman, Lawrence A. (1997). The Relationship between Locus of Control and the Evaluative Consequences of Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16: 70–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosman, Lawrence A. (2002). Language and Persuasion. In James P. Dillard and Michael Pfau (eds), The Persuasion Handbook: Theory and Practice (pp. 371–90). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hosman, Lawrence A., Thomas M. Huebner and Susan A. Siltanen (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: 361–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosman, Lawrence A. and Susan A. Siltanen (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: 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosman, Lawrence A. and Susan A. Siltanen (2011). Hedges, Tag Questions, Message Processing, and Persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 30: 341–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosman, Lawrence A. and John W. Wright II (1987). The Effects of Hedges and Hesitations on Impression Formation in a Simulated Courtroom Context. Western Journal of Speech Communication 51: 173–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, Herbert C. (1958). Compliance, Identification and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change. Journal of Conflict Resolution 2: 51–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, Robin (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leaper, Campbell and Rachael D. Robnett (2011). Women Are more Likely than Men to Use Tentative Language; Aren’t They?: a Meta-Analysis Testing for Gender Differences and Moderators. Psychology of Women Quarterly 35: 129–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMullen, Linda M. and Deborah D. Pasloski (1992). Effects of Communication Apprehension, Familiarity Partner, and Topic on Selected ‘Women’s Language’ Features. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 21: 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, Stanley (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67: 371–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, Sik H. and James J. Bradac (1993). Power in Language: Verbal Communication and Social Influence. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, Richard E. (1977). A Cognitive Response Analysis of the Temporal Persistence of Attitude Changes Induced by Persuasive Communications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ohio State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, Richard E., Pablo Briñol and Zakary L. Tormala (2002). Thought Confidence as a Determinant for Persuasion: the Self-Validation Hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82: 722–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, Richard E., Pablo Briñol, Zakary Tormala and Duane T. Wegener (2007). The Role of Meta-Cognition in Social Judgment. In E. Tory Higgins and Arie W. Kruglanski (eds), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (2nd edn, pp. 254–84). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1981). Issue Involvement as a Moderator of the Effects on Attitude of Advertising Content and Context. Advances in Consumer Research 8: 20–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo and Rachel Goldman (1981a). Personal Involvement as a Determinant of Argument Based Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41: 847–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo and Martin Heesacker (1981b). The Use of Rhetorical Questions in Persuasion: a Cognitive Response Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40: 432–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, Richard E., Curtis P. Haugtvedt and Stephen M. Smith (1995). Elaboration as a Determinant of Attitude Strength. In Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick (eds), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences (pp. 93–130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, Richard E. and Jon A. Krosnick (eds) (1995). Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, Richard E. and Duane T. Wegener (1991). Thought Systems, Argument Quality, and Persuasion. In Robert S. Wyer and Thomas K. Srull (eds), Advances in Social Cognition (Vol. 4, pp. 147–61). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, Richard E. and Duane T. Wegener (1998). Attitude Change: Multiple Roles for Persuasion Variables. In Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske and Gardner Lindzey (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th edn, Vol. 1, pp. 323–90). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, John R. and Charles S. Areni (2002). The Effects of Sales Presentation Quality and Initial Perceptions on Persuasion: a Multiple-Role Perspective. Journal of Business Research 55: 517–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, John R. and Charles S. Areni (2008). Style versus Substance: Multiple Roles of Language Power in Persuasion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 38: 37–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, John R., Charles S. Areni and K. Chris Cox (1998). An Investigation of the Effects of Language Style and Communication Modality on Persuasion. Communication Monographs 65: 108–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, John W. and Harold H. Kelly (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tormala, Zakary L., Pablo Briñol and Richard E. Petty (2006). When Credibility Attacks: the Reverse Impact of Source Credibility on Persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42: 684–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tormala, Zakary L. and Richard E. Petty (2002). What Doesn’t Kill Me Makes Me Stronger: the Effects of Resisting Persuasion on Attitude Certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83: 1298–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zillmann, Dolf and Joanne R. Cantor (1974). Induction of Curiosity via Rhetorical Questions and its Effect on the Learning of Factual Materials. British Journal of Educational Psychology 43: 172–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Traci Craig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin L. Blankenship
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Annie Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz University of Hanover, Germany

    Rainer Schulze

  2. Technische Universität, Berlin, Germany

    Hanna Pishwa

Copyright information

© 2015 Traci Craig, Kevin L. Blankenship and Annie Lewis

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Craig, T., Blankenship, K.L., Lewis, A. (2015). Leveraging Processing to Understand Linguistic Cues, Power and Persuasion. In: Schulze, R., Pishwa, H. (eds) The Exercise of Power in Communication. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137478382_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation