The Role of Different Markers of Linguistic Powerlessness in Persuasion

By Kevin L. Blankenship, Thomas Holtgraves. 2005

133 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Social Psychology, Human-Computer Interaction

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9c24cc3a9904e8e8a355338b2ee26aaab3a0a7d5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Language and Linguistics

1. N. D. Jong
2. Tobias Richter
3. Berna Hendriks

In Social Psychology

1. Ale Smidts
2. Peeter W. J. Verlegh
3. M. A. Britt
4. N. D. Jong
5. Tobias Richter
6. Berna Hendriks
7. Abraham Carmeli
8. Adamantios Diamantopoulos

In Human-Computer Interaction

1. N. D. Jong
2. Berna Hendriks

Citations in the corpus

• Scientific Literacy: The Role of Goal-Directed Reading and Evaluation in Understanding Scientific Information (2014, background): “…powerful language and have found that participants judge arguments with qualifiers as less persuasive and evaluate the writer more negatively (Blankenship & Holtgraves, 2005), and many readers also show a preference for more certain conclusions (Bra ten & Strømsø, 2010), which could…”
• Language Abstraction in Word of Mouth (2010, background): “Language also encompasses a variety of (para)linguistic phenomena which can affect receivers, such as features of utterances as interjection, intonation, tag questions, and hesitations (e.g., ‘uh’, ‘hmm’)(Blankenship & Holtgraves, 2005; Brennan & Williams, 1995).”
• Fluency in Second Language Testing: Insights From Different Disciplines (2018, background): “Blankenship and Holtgraves (2005), for instance, showed that when students were evaluating a message advocating comprehensive exams at university, the use of hesitations led to lower evaluations of the speaker and the message.”
• An experimental study of native speaker perceptions of non-native request modification in e-mails in English (2010, background): “…indicated that the use of speech act modification in oral messages can a¤ect recipients’ judgments of personal attributes of the sender of a message (Blankenship and Holtgraves 2005; Hosman and Siltanen 2006) and that even in e-mail communication, which lacks the visual and auditory cues…”