1991•Journal of Language and Social PsychologyRequires access

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

Pamela Ellen Gibbons, Jon Busch, James J. Bradac

Open publisher page 124 citations

Abstract

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.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 124 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

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.

Key concepts: Persuasion, Elaboration likelihood model, Psychology, Style (visual arts), Argument (complex analysis), Persuasive communication, Social psychology, Cognition

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Powerful Versus Powerless Language: Consequences for Persuasion, Impression Formation, and Cognitive Response — Research Paper | ScholarLens