The Effects of Message Intensity on Receiver Evaluations of Source, Message and Topic

Abstract

This study investigated the consequences of increased levels of expressed message intensity on receivers' subsequent evaluations of the source and topic of the message, in addition to their perceptions of the message itself.A basic message was prepared in which a previously neutral source attacked a relatively low-salience topic. The intensity with which the source stated his attitudinal position was systematically varied by the alternative insertion of verbs and modifiers of known intensive value. This created two experimental messages, one of low intensity, the other of high intensity. Subjects read one of the messages and responded via rating scales.Obtained results provided partial support for the experimental hypotheses, in that the high intensity message was judged as clearer and its source as more dynamic than the low intensity message. A secondary analysis based solely on perceived message intensity conformed even more closely to the experimental predictions. Messages rated as being highly intense were also rated as clearer and more logical, and having sources who were judged to be more trustworthy, more qualified and more dynamic.A number of recent studies have attempted to explicate variables which pertain to the general area of language style, i.e., how something is said rather than what is said. Several of these studies share a common focus on examining the effects of the strength or degree of emphasis with which a source states his attitudinal position toward a topic. This variable is here termed "message intensity."

Bacteria as Bullies: Effects of Linguistic Agency Assignment in Health Message

“…Although our efforts to avoid doing so were effective in this study, one consequence is that our language for threat agency was not as strong as it could have been. Yet linguistic intensity and agency language are naturally confounded (McEwen & Greenberg, 1970) and differences in intensity between human and health threat agency messages may be unavoidable and not necessarily problematic. Thus, our efforts to hold constant linguistic intensity across our agency assignment manipulations may be masking the true impact of linguistic agency.…”

The Evaluative Consequences of Hedges, Hesitations, and Intensifies Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles

“…A fourth explanation is that under some circumstances the components could signal powerfulness rather than powerlessness. Hedges are related to authoritativeness (Goss & Williams, 1973), and intensifiers are perceived as powerful (Bradac, Schneider, Hemphill, & Tardy, 1980;McEwen & Greenberg, 1970). The various explanations need to be unraveled.…”

Generalizing About Messages: Suggestions for Design and Analysis of Experiments

“…Intensity has been found to be significantly related to opinion change, either as a main effect or in interaction with other variables, by Baseheart (1971), Burgoon, Jones, and Stewart (1975, studies 1 and 2), Burgoon and King (1975), Carmichael and Cronkhite (1965), and Miller and Baseheart (1969), though the direction of the relationship has been sometimes positive, sometimes negative. Intensity has failed to produce significant effects on opinion change in studies by Burgoon, Jones, and Stewart (1975, study 3) and McEwen and Greenberg (1970). In a design that presented each subject with two messages (one inoculation message, one counterattitudinal persuasive message), Chase and Kelly (1976) found a significant effect for the intensity of one speech but not for the other.…”

“…In a vast number of reported experiments, only a solitary message is used to instantiate each message category studied. (An arbitrary sample of such cases includes Adams & Beatty, 1977;Baseheart, 1971;Bostrom & Tucker, 1969;Bryant & Comisky, 1978;Cantor, 1979;Chase & Kelly, 1976;Clark, 1979;Daly, Richmond & Leth, 1979;Delia, Kline, & Burleson, 1979;Daniels & Whitman, 1981;Eiland & Richardson, 1976;Lashbrook, Snavely, & Sullivan, 1977;Lustig & King, 1980;McCroskey & Mehrley, 1969;McCroskey, Young, & Scott, 1972;McEwen & Greenberg, 1970;McLaughlin, Cody, & Robey, 1980;Miller & Baseheart, 1969;Miller, Boster, Roloff, & Seibold, 1977;Miller & Burgoon, 1979;Petrie & Carrell, 1976;Plax, Sereno, & Bodaken, 1977;Pryor & Steinfatt, 1978;Sereno & Bodaken, 1972;Smith, 1977;and Wheeless, 1978. Additionally, a great many other studies use a single message as a nonvariable context for all experimental conditions, creating a slightly different barrier to generalization.)…”

“…For example, in studies of language intensity (e.g., Baseheart, 1971;Burgoon & Chase, 1973;Burgoon, Jones, & Stewart, 1975;Burgoon & King, 1974;Carmichael & Cronkhite, 1965;Chase & Kelly, 1976;Franzwa, 1969;McEwen & Greenberg, 1970;Miller & Baseheart, 1969;Miller & Burgoon, 1979), message levels are typically created by taking a single basic message and replacing certain words and phrases with high-or low-intensity elements. In this way, the topic, length, substantive content, interest value, etc., are held constant between the levels of intensity, so that differences between the several messages appear to be attributable to the effects of intensity alone.…”