l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lEllljfljllflflljllTllllll ,l/

6 4324

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Influence of Language Intensity
and Gender on Attitude Change
and Credibility

presented by
Becky L. Stewart

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

AIL—degree in Communication

We (9%

Major professor

Date August 27, 1987

0-7639

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

1V1531_J RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to

LlfiflARjES remove this checkout from

w your Y‘ECOY‘d. FINES will

 

 

 

‘ be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

~.;u,t.~ gfiaa g L = :
.= :- “: - . -: 7‘ } 9,9 ‘

‘ Né‘le (:5 fl)
.. -'- mt

 

 

 

I"

THE INFLUENCE OF LANGUAGE INTENSITY
AND GENDER ON ATTITUDE CHANGE
AND CREDIBILITY

BY

Becky L. Stewart

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Communication

1987

ABSTRACT
THE INFLUENCE OF LANGUAGE INTENSITY
AND GENDER 0N ATTITUDE CHANGE
AND CREDIBILITY
By

Becky L. Stewart

Language powerfully affects our lives. In this study
it was expected that language intensity at four levels
(high. medium. low. no). source gender (male. female) and
respondent gender (male. female) would impact the
respondent's judgment toward the source's credibility
(competence. trustworthiness, dynamism) and attitude change.

Two by two by four design methodology was employed to
examine the interaction of source gender. respondent's
gender and message intensity. All the measures tested
reliable.

Results of this study indicate that women are more
persuasible than men. Unlike past research. the gender of
the source did not effect the respondent's persuasibility.
And in general. language intensity and gender were
determined to be mostly unrelated to perceived source
credibility and attitude change.

The impact of these findings for the future direction
of the women's movement are addressed. Further. it is also
maintained that an "optimal level" of persuasibility is

needed for future research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first like to thank the members of my
committee: my advisor. Dr. G.R. Miller for his help in
choosing a topic and getting me started in the right
direction; Dr. Kathy Kellerman whose statistical knowledge
and guidance I could not have done without; and Dr. William
Donohue for his questions and support.

Thanks also to Renee Peltier and Nicki Stream for
their laughter and assistance in .coding the results. And
to Jill Beckman for a mountain retreat where I could start
the writing process.

Finally. a special thanks goes to my family and
friends whose prayers. love. concern and support kept me

going and brought me to the finish line.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List Of TabIBSI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Chapter 1' IntrOductionI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Chapter 2' "at hOdSI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Chapter 3' RBSUItSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Chapter 4' DiSCUBSionIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

TabIQSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Appendices
Appendix Ar-Opinionnaire.......................
Appendix B--Messages...........................
Appendix C--Message Intensity Scale............
_Appendix D--Attitude Measurement Scale.........
Appendix E--Credibility Scale..................
Appendix F--Purpose Statement..................
Appendix G--Introduction.......................
Appendix H--Manipulation Checks................
Appendix I--Demographics.......................

List Of ReferenCBSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

iii

....iv
.....1
....14
...24
....33

IIII46

....52
....60
....67
....68
....69
....70
....71
....72
....73

LIST OF TABLES

Table l
PilOt StUdY malysiSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII46

Table 2
Attitude Measure Analysis...........................47

Table 3
Message Intensity Analysis..........................48

Table 4
Credibility Measure Analysis........................49

Table 5
Message Intensity by Respondent's Gender............$0

iv

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTI 0N

"It's what you say. not how you say it." This
"revision" of an ”old" cliche expresses the power of
language. A number of studies have examined variables
pertaining to language. The results indicate that
variations in virtually all the properties of language
generate inferences in receivers. Of all the linguistic
variations. this study will examine those in the lexicon.
More directly. it will focus on the variable of language
intensity.

Osgood (1959) discussed the idea of message intensity
as the amount of deviation from evaluative neutrality in a
source's statement about a concept. Most researchers have
accepted Bowers (1963) similar definition of intensity as
language indicating the ;degree to which the speaker's
attitude toward the concept deviates from neutrality.

This study examined the impact of language intensity
on attitudes. In the past. research on language has been
viewed from many different perspectives. Bradac. Bowers
and Courtright (1979) put together a comprehensive review
of the important variables that affect language in
communicative interactions. These researchers suggest
three variables that are important in language analysis:
intensity. immediacy and diversity. These three variables
form the basis for a theoretical statement about language

1

2

in all communicative settings. Bradac et al.'s theoretical
background was used to express 26» generalizations {about
language. Of these generalizations. intensity is the
principal method by which language affects attitude
change. Two effects of language intensity are examined in
this thesis. The first is how language intensity can
affect a person's attitude toward a topic; the second.
how language intensity effects receivers' attitudes toward
the speaker's credibility.

In three separate studies. Burgoon and Miller (1971)
demonstrated that in the counterattitudinal advocacy
paradigm. language intensity was a useful predictor of
attitude change. McEwen and Greenburg (1970) also found a
positive correlation between language. intensity and
attitude change.

In 1975. Burgoon extended the language intensity
research by looking at the effects of communicator
credibility and language intensity on persuasive
effectiveness. To do this. Burgoon employed a rationale
from other studies dealing with fear appeals and
opinionated language. These two areas can be viewed as
special operationalizations of language intensity. A
strong fear appeal as well as opinionated acceptance and
rejection statements can be classified as highly intense

messages (Burgoon & Miller. 1985).

3

Source credibility interacts with language intensity
in terms of its personal effect. Three studies by Miller
and Hewgill (1966) examined the relationship between source
credibility. fear arousal and attitude change. These
studies support the hypothesis that communicators with high
credibility. are successful using strong-fear language in
their persuasive appeals.

Opinionated language can also be viewed as an
operationalization of language, intensity. Miller and Lobe
(1967). and Miller and Basehart ,(1969) examined the
persuas iveness of nonopinionated statements ( i. e. .
statements that indicate only the communicator's attitude
towards an idea) and. opinionated. statements (i.e..
statements that indicate the communicator's attitude toward
both the topic and those who agree or disagree with him or
her). Results of both of these studies were consistent
with those obtained by Miller and Hewgill (1966). These
studies suggest that if sources have high credibility. it
will be more effective for them to use stronger language
when specifying the harmful consequences of failure: to
comply rather than. using messages employing milder
language. Results from these studies indicate that highly
credible sources have more freedom in their language
choices than low credible sources. Referring to these
results. Burgoon (1975) found. as he predicted. that

highly credible sources are more persuasive when using

 

4
highly intense language and low-credible sources are more
persuasive using low intensity language.

One problem is that the Burgoon study. as well as most
all of the other studies on fear appeals and opinionated
language. is generalizable only to what is expected of male
communicators. since only male speakers were used. Also.
the respondent's gender has not been taken into
consideration in the process of data interpretation. To
make the results generalizable to the larger public one
needs to consider gender differences in the studies.

Gender has a strong influence on persuasiveness and
persuasibility. As early as 1915. Sapir. reporting on
anthropological research on sex differences in language.
labeled women's speech as "abnormal." Otto Jaspersen in
1922 had a chapter in his book called ”The Women" in which
he comments on women's inclination for avoiding "course and
gross expressions" (Jaspersen. 1949). Other researchers
have found that gender differences in the spoken language
are common to many cultures. and the contrasts found are
associated with assertions of masculine superiority
(Furley. 1944; Haas. 1964; Trudgill. 1972). Trudgill's
(1972) study found British women consciously used proper
English to improve their social status. as amusingly
evidenced in the popular musical ”My Fair Lady".
Trudgill's study suggests that women might use certain

linguistic strategies as credibility-enhancing techniques.

5

Ln American society evidence also indicates that men
and women are not of equal status. Studies supporting this
assertion include Goldberg (1968) and Mischel's (1974)
research. which reports that scholarly papers attributed to
a male were more positively evaluated than when’the same
papers were attributed to a female. Miller and HcReynolds
(1973) found that receivers rated a male communicator as
more competent than a female communicator when all other
source qualifications and the message were held constant.

One reason for the consistency of these results may be
attributed to stereotypes of men's and women's speech.
Lakoff (1975) argues that the speech used by females is
both a reflection and a cause of their lower status.
Kramer (1974). Lakoff and others characterized female
speech as ”wishy-washy mommy talk.” Women were expected to
use more hesitation forms ("well." "ah"). more tag
questions ("isn't it?"). more hedges ("kinda.” "sorta”).
speak more frequently. are interrupted more frequently. use
more 'Wflf' imperative constructions. use more frequent
qualifiers. more apologies. more polite commands. and use
more modal constructions (can. may. would. should. and
ought). Liska. Mechling. and Stathas (1981) examined
these characteristics but did not classify them by the
gender of the speaker. Instead. these researchers adopted
the term defggggtial language. as interactions are also
complicated by factors such as status. power. context.

prior interactions and the redationships between the

6
participants. The Liska. et al. study examined whether the
use of deferential language is perceived as feminine; their
study supported the view that deferential language users
are more likely to be perceived as feminine.

Two thorough reviews have appeared combining the
variables of attitude change and gender (Eagly. 1978;
Rosenfeld & Christie. 1974). Both reviews examine the
claim that women are more easily influenced than men.
Rosenfeld and Christie (1974) selected 21 studies from the
years 1930—1968 that claim women are more persuasible than
men. These researchers interpreted these results as
possibly' having' a historical cause. as talk of women's
liberation was not as popular from the 305 to the 60s as it
was in the late 70s. Controlling for extraneous variables
such as topic. speaker. and persuasive communication.
Rosenfeld and Christie reported that in. nine cases. no
significant differences were found in the persuasibility of
men versus women; in nine other cases females were found to
be significantly more persuasible than males. In several
other cases. females were more persuaded than males. but
the change was moderated by some other variable. such as
logic in the message. In none of the studies were males
found to be more persuaded by the message than females.

Rosenfeld and Christie designed a content and
communicator-free task to test persuasibility. and found
that males were more susceptible to influence. Rosenfeld

and Christie concluded that in the past women actually

 

7
were more susceptible to persuasion because of social
restraints but that ”modern" women (quotes mine. this was
written in 1974) do not have the same restrictions. The
problem with this study lies in its questionable
general izabi l ity. for how much communication is
communicator-free?

Alice Eagly (1978) reexamines the claim that women are
more persuasible than men. also finding that the time
period of the research is a major. determinant of reporting
that women are more susceptible to influence than men.
Among Eagly's sample of studies published before 1970. 32%
of the 22 studies yielded greater persuasibility among
females as compared with only 8% of the 40 studies
published in the 1970's. Two other areas of concern that
Eagly mentions are the content of the influence induction
and the source of the induction. Eagly points out that
past research has shown that individuals are more easily
persuaded if they have little information. or are not
involved or interested in the topic. People are also more
influenced if they lack confidence and perceive themselves
as incompetent on a task. It is important to see if the
informational and interest levels are different between
males and females in the topics chosen for the induction.

In much of the persuasion research. the message
centers on topics of social. economic. and political
issues. Other areas include university policy issues.

medical and health issues. The reason message topic is

 

8

important is that usually men are more knowledgeable and
interested in political and economic areas than are women
(Eagly. 1978). Experimental tests of the sex difference
effect have tended to support the knowledge or interest
hypothesis. Sistrunk and McDavid (1976) used '45 items
about everyday topics that were prejudged to be masculine.
feminine or neutral. These researchers found that men
agreed with the majority of feminine items. but women
showed more agreement on masculine items. Based on this
study. many researchers agree that the gender difference in
most investigations where women were found to be more
persuaded than men results from the fact that women were
less familiar than men with the issue in the message
(Petty & Cacioppo. 1981).

Burgoon and Miller ( 1985) discount the topic
familiarity argument. For example. Burgoon and Stewart
(1975) found females to be more persuasible than males on
the topic of admitting students to the university only if
they had a 3.25 grade point average. a topic that seems of
equal interest to men and women. The question is why so
many of the other experiments in the past yielded
nonsignificant results.

Perhaps the explanation may be more than just
familiarity with the issue. but may be based on the social
roles of men and women i.e.. that women are socialized to
be cooperative and men to be independent (Eagly. 1978).

Cacioppo and Petty (1980) hypothesized that if a person's

 

9
social role were influenced by gender it would be observed
in situations that lack important consequences for the
person. as when a message takes an agreeable position. But
when consequences are high. as when a message takes a
disagreeabLe position. the attitude change should be
determined more by the person's ability to react to the
issue-relevant information provided than by one's social
role. As expected. Cacioppo and Petty's results indicated
that under the high-consequences conditions men agreed more
with the inaccurate opinions of others about fashions (an
area in which women tested as having more interest and
knowledge). but women in the high-consequences condition
agreed more with the inaccurate opinions of others about
football (an area in which men tested as having more
interest and knowledge). In the low-consequences
conditions. the subjects were exposed to accurate
statements about fashions and football. In this situation
theme was no need to defend one's view; thus. Cacioppo and
Petty hypothesized that agreement would be determined more
by one's social. role. Women did agree more with the
opinions of others than men did for both the areas of
fashion and football in the low consequences condition.
Cacioppo and Petty concluded from these results that when
the consequences are low. the social roles of females to be
cooperative and males to be independent affect the extent
of influence. When the consequences of agreement are

increased. then the extent of influence is determined more

 

10
by the person's ability to process the issue-relevant
information presented.

As Eagly (1978) mentions. another concern in these
experiments is the source of the induction. Since most of
the communicators used in persuasion studies are male. the
gender of the influencing agent is very important. There
is a limited amount of empirical evidence in this area. In
1935. Knower reported greater opinion change when. the
source and respondent were of different sex. Haiman (1949)
reported a slight tendency for females to be more persuaded
than males by a male communicator. but male and female
respondents did not differ with a female source. The
results from various experiments after this time 'period
yield a diversity of findings ranging from no effect. same-
sex combinations having more effect. and cross-sex
combinations having more effect (Eagly. 1978). It is
difficult to draw specific conclusions about these findings
and make any generalizations when many of the studies only
use one gender for the source. For these reasons. it is
important to use both a male and female source presenting
the induction. and both male and female respondents in the
experiment. It is also imperative for this type of
research that the topic of the induction is of equal

interest and importance to both genders.

11
Using these criteria at a time when the growth of the
women's movement is much more apparent. important shifts in
how males and females respond to social influence and how
they perceive credibility are likely to be observed:
H1: Language intensity. source gender. and respondent's
gender will interact to influence :respondent's attitudes
toward the message.
As with past studies. a main effect will be expected for
the influence of language intensity on attitude change:
Hla: More attitude change toward the position
advocated in the message will result from a high-
intensity message than a low-intensity message.
Because of the confusion of the research on the influence
of source and respondent- gender as it interacts with
language intensity the following research questions will be
examined:
Research Question la: Will there be a significant
difference in attitude change between high- and low-
intensity messages when the source is a female or a
male?
Research Question lb: Will there be a significant
difference in attitude change between high- and low-
intensity messages when the respondent is a female or

a male?

 

In addition to persuasibility. credibility often
varies in relation to language intensity. It is also

likely that source and respondent gender interacts with

 

12
language intensity in the perceived credibility of the
source:
HZ: Message intensity. source gender. and respondent's
gender will interact in the production of perceived
credibility.

Based on past research a main effect for message
intensity on source credibility can be expected. However.
source credibility has three independent dimensions -
dynamism. trustworthiness. and .competence (expertise).
Therefore:

82a: The evaluation of source dynamism will be higher

when the receivers are given a high-intensity message

than a low-intensity message.

82b: The evaluation of source ggggtworthinggg will be

be higher when the receivers are given a high-

intensity message than low-intensity message.

H2c: The evaluation of source competence will be

higher when the receivers are given a high-intensity

message than a low-intensity message.

Again. due to the confusion in research the
interactions of source and respondents gender with message
intensity are left as research questions:

Research Question 2a: Is there a significant

difference in perceived credibility from high— and low-

intensity messages when the source is a M or a

female?

 

13
Research Question 2b: Is there a significant
difference in perceived credibility from high- and low-
intensity messages when the pespondent is a mg;p_or a

female?

 

CHAPTER 2

METHODS

Eilot Studies for Message Construction
Qhoosing the topic of 1h: ppssage. The purpose of

this pilot study was to isolate a gender-neutral topic for
the experimental message. Past research (Eagly. 1978;
Rosenfeld 5| Christie. 1974) has indicated that a message
topic can affect attitude change if men and women
differentially perceive its importance. have varying
knowledge on the topic. or are differentially favorable
toward the topic. Since the focus of the experiment was to
explore effects of gender on attitude change. the topic of
the message was selected in a way that sought to prevent it
confounding the results. Six controversial issues were
generated as potential topics for the experimental
message: annual mammograms for detecting breast cancer.
development of nuclear power facilities. engaging in daily
exercise. Mothers against Drunk Driving. the war on
terrorism. and mandatory testing for AIDS (Appendix A).
Fifty-eight persons were asked to report their
attitudes toward the six topics in terms of four measures:
(1) personal importance of the topic to the respondent. (2)
general importance of the topic to men. and women. (3)
amount of knowledge on. the topic. and (4) favorability
towards the topic. Personal importance and knowledge were
measured on 6-point Likert scales. general importance on a

14

15

7-point Likert scale. and favorability by four items on 7—
point semantic differential scales. In all instances. a
”1” indicates a low level of importance or knowledge while
a "6" or ”7" indicates a high level. Favorability was
measured using the adjectives of good/bad.
valuable/worthless. wise/foolish. and useless/useful. The
favorabilty measure had high reliability across topics as
can, be seen in Table 1. Table 1 also reports the results
of the analysis of the topics.

Only two topics exhibited no differences between men
and women on the topics of favorability. knowledge.
personal importance. and general importance: AIDS testing
and exercise. As the mean responses of males and females
were closer and the variance in responses smaller in the
exercise topic. the AIDS topic was rejected in favor of the
exercise topic. Hence. the exercise topic was selected for
the experimental message.

The intensity of the messpgp. High and low intensity
messages were initially constructed for the topic of
exercise by regulating the use of metaphors (Bowers. 1963).
levels of adverbial qualification (Burgoon & Miller. 1971).
and differential words (Liska et al.. 1981). The message
was written with ideas drawn from an article in 292
Physician and Sports Medicine (Mohahan. 1986). Multiple
iterations of testing and rewriting of the messages
occurred. yielding two significantly different messages in

terms of intensity (Appendix B).

16

Message intensity was measured by 11. 7-point (l=low.
7=high) semantic differential items (Appendix C). The high
intensity message (M=61.7. SD=8.8) was found to be
significantly more intense than the low-intensity (M=41.2.
SD=13.6) message ($35.82. 93:43. p_<.001>. As the intensity
measure has a possible range of 11-77 with a theoretic mean
of 44. these results indicate the messages are really of
high and moderate intensity. Perhaps this is an indication
that there is no such thing as ”loaf-intensity messages.
that all messages are perceived as moderately to highly
intense. Before the experiment was run. one last attempt
was made to obtain a third message. one that was lower than
the high- and moderate-intensity messages already
produced. Although not pretested. this message was
included in the experiment.

In conclusion. this experiment has a topic that is
gender neutral and minimally two messages varying in
intensity with potential for a low intensity message. All
three messages are in Appendix B.

Participants in the Experiment

Participants in the study were 519 student volunteers
in an introductory communication course at Michigan State
University. Of the 390 participants whose: surveys were
used. 229 (58%) were females and 161 (41.3%) were males.
The percentage of group members declined as class level

increased: freshman 46.7%. sophomores 23.3%. juniors 20.5%

 

l7

and seniors 9.5%. Most of the participants were from 17-20
years of age (79%). with 97.4% being 24 years old or under.
Experimental Description

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three
experimental groups or a control group. Participants in
the experimental conditions read an introduction and a
message of either high. medium or low intensity.
Participants were then asked to fill out measures of their
attitude toward the topic. their attitude toward the
speaker's credibility. and the intensity of the message.
The control group read the introduction but received no
message. The control group was then asked to provide their
attitude toward the topic. and their attitude on the
speaker's credibility.
Devglopment of Measures

Attitpde pgppure. Respondents' attitudes toward
vigorous exercise programs were measured by 11. 7-point
(l=low. 7=high) semantic differential items (Appendix D).
In this measure a unidimensional scale was expected. The
scale was factor analyzed using principal components factor
analysis with a varimax rotation. The average item mean
was 4.97 and the average standard deviation for the items
was 1.29. The attitude measure has a possible range of 1-7
for each item; the theoretic center is 4. The results
indicate that it has a good range of response though it was
not perfect as the mean was a bit off the theoretic

center. One factor was obtained and all the items loaded

 

 

 

18
highly on this factor (see Table 2). The lowest item
loading was .597. the average loading was .793. and the
highest loading was .863. The eigenvalue of Factor 1 was
7.09 accounting for 64.5% of the variance in attitudes.
From this information it can be concluded that this scale
is a unidimensional measurement of attitudes toward

vigorous exercise. As all items tap the worth of exercise

 

(positive or negative). this measure is reflective of
individuals' attitude toward exercise.

The overall mean of the attitude measure was found to
be 54.69 (which is above the theoretic mean of 44.) with a
variance of 128.74 (indicating’ good variance). As
coefficient alpha is high (alpha=.94). the scale is
internally consistent. All items had high item-total
correlations. Removal of any items would decrease the
reliability of the scale: hence. all items were retained
(see Table 2).

Lanqpage intensity meagure. Message intensity was
measured by 11. 7-point (l=low. 7=high) semantic
differential items (see Appendix C). In this measure a
unidimensional scale was expected. The scale was factor
analyzed using principal components factor analysis with a
varimax rotation. Each item on the message intensity scale
had a moderate mean and an adequate variance. The average
mean was 4.28. and the average standard deviation was 1.59.
indicating a good range and variance. One factor was

extracted with an eigenvalue of 6.88. accounting for 62.6%

 

19
of the variance. As seen in Table 3. all items have very
high and relatively even loadings. All of the items in the
measurement for the intensity of the message were highly
reliable (Cronbach's alpha=.94).

Qredibility. The source's perceived credibility was
measured by 15. 7-point ( 1=low. 7=high) semantic
differential items (see Appendix E). In this measure. a
three dimensional scale was expected for dimensions of
competence. trustworthiness. and dynamism. The scale was
factor analyzed using principal components factor analysis
with varimax rotation. Each item on the scale has a
moderate mean and an adequate variance: The average item
mean is 4.97 and the average standard deviation is 1.24.
This information indicates the 15 items differentiate
responses allowing a valid factor analysis. As three
factors are predicted. in the unrotated factor matrix all
loadings should not be high on the initial factor; rather
there should also be some items loading highly on other
factors. In the unrotated matrix. two items loaded
nowhere. five items loaded highly on factors other than the
first. and seven of the 14 items do not fit with the
unidimensional representation; i.e.. the items load below
.4. Because the structure was found not to be
unidimensional the solution from the rotated matrix was
examined. Three factors were extracted explaining 66.2% of

the total variance in credibility (Table 4). After

20
rotation. eigenvalues were 6.01 for Factor 1. 2.08 for
Factor 2 and 1.19 for Factor 3.

Factor 1 describes competence: items 1-5 were
intended to measure it and are the only ones that load on
that factor. Even though Item 5 has a secondary‘loading.
it is still highly reliable for competence; thus this item
was retained (Cronbach's alpha for competence=.895).

Factor 2 describes dynamism: items 6—10 were intended
to measure it. Since Item 6 had a low factor loading. the
reliability was checked with and without this item. It was
found that if Item 6 was removed. the alpha goes up
(Cronbach's alpha with items 6-10=.839. Cronbach's alpha
with Items 7-10=.87l). Consequently. Item 6 was deleted.

Factor 3 describes trustworthiness: items 11-15 were
intended to measure it. Item 13 (ethical/unethical) was
deleted as there was a typing error in the experimental
packet. It was also recognized that Items 11 and 15 have
high secondary loadings. though all items show a high
reliability (Cronbach's alpha=.773). Direct measures of
credibility were also obtained and correlate highly with
the scales developed in this study (competence p§.68.
p5.001; trustworthiness pF.49. p5.001; dynamism p?.56.
p(.001). These results indicate that there is convergent
validity. To summarize. the measures used do tap the
construct of source credibility and its dimensions. as

predicted.

21

Construction of Survey

The surveys were constructed so as to have variation
in the sources (male and female) and in message intensity
(high. medium. low. no message). The surveys were also
split so approximately one-half of the respondents would be
males and one-half would be females. The first page of the
experimental packet contained a purpose statement and
instructions (Appendix F). The next page introduced the
lecturer and established his/her credibility. The message
was represented as an excerpt from a lecture given at a
health symposium held at the University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee in late 1985. In each case. the source was
identified as a Ph.D. in exercise physiology from the
University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill (Appendix G).
Manipulation

§purce gender. In the male source condition. the
communicator was identified as "Dr. Richard Pelletier" and
in the rest of the introduction the masculine pronoun "he"
or "his" occurred. In the female source condition. the
source was identified as "Dr. Mary Pelletier." with the
feminine pronoun "she" or "her" inserted in the appropriate
spots in the rest of the introduction. All the other

elements of the introduction were identical (Appendix G).

22
Message intensity. Each experimental group received
one version of the message. either low. medium. or high
intensity. As noted earlier. the medium and high intensity
messages had been pretested for intensity. The Icontrol

group received no message and moved right into the

measurements.
Respondents' gender. Depending on the available
participants. the respondents were self-selected. The

purpose was to try and have approximately equal numbers of
male and female respondents.
Experimental Procedures

The surveys were randomly given to participants. The
participants were then told to read all the information in
their packets carefully. Participants first read the
purpose statement and the instructions. then the
introduction of the speaker. and then the message (except
for the control group who did not have a message). which
were followed by the measures. The measures included the
11-item attitude scale on vigorous exercise programs. the
15-item measure on source credibility and the 11-item
measure on the intensity of the message. Five
manipulation checks in the form of semantic differential-
type questions were also included: one on the doctor's
attitude toward vigorous exercise programs
(favorable/unfavorable). one to make sure the respondents
knew the source's gender (male. female. I don't know). and

three checks (for the three dimensions) on the source's

 

23

credibility (see Appendix H). The last page had measures
regarding the respondents' feelings toward exercise that
mirrored the pilot study questions concerning knowledge.
personal importance. and general importance of the topic.
The respondents then gave demographic information 'of their
year in college. their age range. and their gender
(Appendix I).
Des—ism

A 2 (Male. Female) x 2 (Male. Female) x 4 (No. Low.
Moderate. High) design was employed for examining the
interaction of source gender. respondent's gender and

message intensity.

CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
Manipulation Checks

Respondent's gepder. All the surveys were first
checked to make sure the respondent's gender was the same
as the indicated gender on the form for the respondent. Any
participants not stating their gender or indicating one
different from the experimental packet was removed from all

other analyses.

Source ggnder. The manipulation check for the
source's gender was then examined. Participants were

asked to indicate the gender of the lecturer. Of 519
participants. 126 (25%) either made the wrong indication
(wrongly said male. n=12 (9.5%). wrongly said female n=-‘19
( 15. 1%)) or indicated they did not know (n=93 (73. 8%)).
Since source gender was an important variable in this
study. the results reported here include only the

participants who correctly identified the gender of the

source.
Message Intensity. Three messages of varying
intensity were used: high. medium. and low. The messages

were assessed for their intensity by participants on the 11-
item intensity measure. All three messages were found to
be significantly different in items of intensity (Es91.27.
g;;2/276. p$.001). Newman-Keuls tests indicate that low
intensity messages (M=38.66. SD=11.78) were less intense
than moderate messages (M=44.7. SD=10.07) which were

24

 

 

25

less intense than high intensity messages (M=60.8.
SD=9.9). It can be noted that the medium group falls close
to the theoretic mean of 44. and the high group is 17
points from the theoretic "high" score of 77. While the
low intense message is less intense than the moderately
intense message. it is really not "low" in intensity; it
is. however. "lower-moderate" in. intensity» Furthermore.
no 3-way interactions (§=1. 12. gi=2/276. p(.33) or 2-way
interactions occurred (source's gender by the respondent'g
gender. 2?.55. g£?2/276. p(.46; source's gender by’ the
intensity of the message. 2?.93. gis2/276. p(.40;
respondent's gender by the intensity of the message. 3?.33.
d_f=2/276. p(.72). Thus. the intensity of the messages was
successfully manipulated without confounds due to gender.
Tests for Confounding Variables
The exercise topic was chosen for the experimental message
because pilot testing indicated that such variables as
favorability towards the topic. its general and personal
importance. and participants' knowledge on the topic did
not vary by gender. Furthermore. the messages were written
so that the source's attitude toward the topic was held
constant. These variables were controlled so that a test
for the effect of language intensity and gender on attitude
change and perceived credibility would not be confounded.

Checks were made of the experimental participants to
assure that pilot test results held for the experimental

sample. Prior to reporting the results of these checks. it

 

26
should be noted that any differences discovered are
differences that are .1191 desired and hold no theoretic
interest in this experiment. Thus. any differences are
reported golely to identify variables that need to serve as
covariates in the analyses that test the hypotheses.

When the dependent variable was the respondent's
knowledge of the topic there was a main effect for the
gender of the respondent (F=18.51. df=ll372. p(.001). When
the dependent variable was the importance of the topic to
the respondents personally. there again was a main effect
for the gender of the respondent (F=7.30. df=ll372.
p(.007). And when the dependent variable was the
importance of the topic of exercise to men and women
generally. there was a 3-way interaction reported (F=4.24.
df=3/372. p(.006). When the respondents were asked about
the source's attitude toward the topic of vigorous exercise
there was a main effect for message intensity (F=126.72.
df=3/372. p(.001). Since these were all assumed relatively
equal at the beginning of this research. these variables
were used as covariates in all further analyses.

Test 0 H otheses and estions

Effect on W. Hypothesis 1 predicted a
three-way interaction between language intensity. source
gender and respondent gender on attitude change. This
three-way interaction was not found. However. the analysis
of variance reveals a two-way interaction of respondent's

gender and message intensity on attitudes toward vigorous

27

exercise (§?5.44. gffi3/368. p(.001). When the zgppopdept
is a p;_a_l_e_ the intensity of the message does not affect
attitudes toward the benefits of exercise (£=1.96.
df=3/157. p(.122). but when the respondent is a fgmale the
intensity of the message does (3:17.36. g;=31225.'2<.001>.
Newman-Keuls tests indicate that female respondents exposed
to high- and medium- intensity messages see exercise as
being less beneficial than those exposed to the low
intensity message. All the female message groups see
exercise as less beneficial than the control group (see
Table 5).

When the message is of high or moderate intensity.
males find exercise more beneficial than females (high.
2:8.84. (£51180. p(.004; moderate. 5:31.82. df=1/104.
p(.OOl). When the message intensity‘ is low. males and
females perceive exercise as being equally beneficial
(F32.315. df=1/102. p(.1313). When there is no message.
men and women again think that exercise is equally
beneficial (F=.115. df=l/96. p(.735). In other words.
research‘ question lb should be answered in the
affirmative: language intensity interacts with
respondent's gender to produce attitude change.
Specifically females' attitudes change in response to
variations in language intensity whereas males' attitude do
not. Moreover. for females. moderate intensity is as
persuasive as high intensity and low intensity is no

different than receiving no message at all.

 

28

The interaction explored in research question 1a
between source gender and language intensity on attitude
change did not occur (§?1.05. ggs3/368. pfi.369).
Furthermore. no main effect for source gender on attitude
change occurred (1:31.02. (_i_f_=1/368.‘p(.3l4). However. the
main effect for language intensity on attitude change
predicted in. Hypothesis la did occur’ (E;4.58. gf§3l368.
p(.004). Because language intensity interacts with
respondent's gender. this main effect will not be
considered further. The earlier results imply. however.
that the influence of language intensity on attitude change
is restricted to female respondents. This finding agrees
with past research that females are more persuadable than
males when intense language is used. But this research
also indicates that it does not matter if the source is a
male or a female.
Influence on Credibility

Competence. Hypothesis 2 predicted a three-way
interaction between message intensity. source gender. and
respondent gender on perceived source credibility. in this
case. competence. This three-way interaction did not occur
(2;.71. gfs3l368. p(.549). There also were no Z-way
interactions. either for the gender of the sougge by the
pespondent'p gender on perceived competence (5;.02.
g£?1/368. p(.889). the gender of the gourge by the
intensity of the message (£=.51. $331368. p(.676) or the

pespondent'p gender by the intensity of the message (E;.46.

 

 

29
fi=3l368. p(.714). In other words. research questions 2a
and 2b are rejected. Hypothesis 2c predicted a main effect
for message intensity on perceived source competence. a
prediction that is denied by the results (Es2.17. ggs3/368.
p(.001). I

As no other main effects materialized for the gender
of the source (£5.01. (_i_f_=ll368. p(.924). or the gender of
the pespondent (£31.10. fi=ll368. p(.295). the only
conclusion possible is that message intensity and gender
are irrelevant to perceptions of source competence. All of
hypothesis 2 is rejected for source competence. These
results indicate that there are no significant effects and
the hypothesis that the evaluation of source competence
will be high when the receivers are given a high intensity
message is not found to be true.

Dynamism. Hypothesis 2 also predicted a three-way
interaction for message intensity. source gender. and
respondent gender on perceived dynamism; a 3-way
interaction occurred (£52.68. <_i_f_=3/368. p(.047). When the
message is of high intensity both the pespondent and the
source genders matter (F=6.566. d_f_=1/78. p(.012). Follow-
up tests couldn't identify the interaction. but examining
the means suggested the interaction may occur when a
respondent's and source's gender is the same versus
opposite. and consequently this contrast was tested. When
the source and respondent are> of the same gender. the

source is perceived as more dynamic (M=24.l6. SD=3.02) than

30
when the source and respondent are of opposite genders
(M=21.53. SD=6.01) (i=6.55. g_f_=ll8l. p(.012).

When the message intensity is medium there is no
effect on perceived dynamism of the sourge. for §ource
gender by respondent's gender. (F=.006. _d__f_=1/102. .p(.937).
When the message intensity is _l_p_w_ there is no effect of
dynamism of the source reported by either gender of
respondents (E=l.017. g_f_=1/100. p(.316). When there 153;;
any message. again. there is not any effect for either the
respondent's gender. or the source's gender (E;3.l88.
df=l/94. p(.077).

When the respondent is a ma_l_e_ there is a main effect
reported for message intensity on perceived dynamism
(3:8.607. gf_=3/153. p(.001). Newman-Kuels tests indicate

that male respondents perceive the source as most dynamic

 

when the message is of high intensity. equally dynamic with
a moderately intense or nonexistent message. and least
dynamic with a low intensity message (see Table 6). As
message intensity increases. males perceive the source to
be more dynamic. However. the source's credentials alone
(i.e.. no message) leads male respondents to assess the
source as being as dynamic as if the message were of
moderate intensity. And when the respondent is a female.
there is also a main effect for message intensity on
perceived dynamism (E36359. 51:53/221. p(.001). Newman-
Kuels tests indicate that female respondents perceive the

source as more dynamic when the message is of high

 

31

intensity than at any other time (see Table 6). Females
seem less responsive to message intensity in terms of
perceived dynamism than males. When the source is a yLa_l_e,
there is a main effect reported for message intensity on
perceived dynamism (§=9.383. gigs/194. p(.001). ' Newman-
Kuels test indicate that a male source is perceived as most
dynamic when the message is of high intensity. equally
dynamic with a moderately intense or nonexistent message.
and least dynamic with a low intensity message (see Table
6). When the source is a femalp there is a main effect
for message intensity on perceived dynamism (F=5.632.
fi=3l180. p(.001). Newman-Kuels tests indicate that a
female source is perceived as more dynamic when the message
is of high intensity than at any other time.

In general. then. Hypothesis 2 and 2a are supported by
these results on dynamism. High intensity messages result
in perceptions of the source as being more dynamic.
especially when the respondent and the source are of the
same gender. Research question 2a and 2b are not supported
in that opposite versus same gender between source and
respondent is more important that the actual gender of
either.

Trustworthiness. Hypothesis 2 predicted a three-way
interaction between message intensity. source gender. and
respondent gender on perceived source credibility. in this
case trustworthiness. This 3-way interaction did not occur

(§=l.12. clf53/368. p(.343). There also weren't any 2-way

A;

5..

32

interactions: for the gender of the source by the
respondent's gender (2:1.14. d_f_=1/368. p(.287); when the
gender of the source is by the intensity of the message
(2?.12. 9;?3/368. pfi.95); and when the respondent's gender
is by the intensity of the message (2;.197. ggs3/368.
p(.90). Analysis of variance also indicates there aren't
any main effects on trustworthiness for the source's
gender (EF2.68. _fF1/368. pfi.102). the gender of the
respondent (§?.505. gfsll368. p(.477) or for the intensity
of the message (E;1.90. ggs3/368. p(.129).

These results indicate that hypothesis 2 (as a whole)
is not supported; the source is not seen to be more
trustworthy when the receivers are given a high intensity
message.
§2flfl§£¥.

In general. language intensity‘ and gender are
unrelated to perceived source credibility. particularly in
terms of competence and ‘trustworthiness. Only' perceived
dynamism is influenced by these variables and. to a large
degree. in the expected manner: as intensity increases.
perceived dynamism increases.

Language intensity and gender are mostly unrelated to
attitude change. particularly when the respondent is a
gala. and regardless of the gender of the gpppgg. There is
more attitude change and responsiveness to language
intensity when the r_e_§_p_g_i_c_l§p;t_ is a f_e_g_q_a_l_e_: as intensity

increases. attitude change is more likely to occur.

 

CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine two effects
off language intensity. The first was how language
intensity could affect a person's attitude toward a topic.
the second. how language intensity effects r'eceivers'
attitudes toward the speaker's credibility. Three
dimensions of speaker credibility were investigated:
competence. trustworthiness and dynamism. The effects of
language intensity were also examined with respect to the
gender of the source of the message and the respondent to
the message.

For both perceptions of credibility and one's attitude
on a topic. gender of both the source and the respondent
were expected to matter. Interestingly enough. a male
speaker is perceived to be as competent and trustworthy as
a female speaker regardless of the gender of the respondent
or the intensity of the message. People are not judging
others by discriminating whether the source is a male or a
female. One-fourth of the respondents used in this study
did not even cue to the gender of the source. This was
after the gender was clearly specified in the introduction.
calling the source "Mary" or "Richard". and following with
the appropriate "he". and "she". Perhaps this manipulation
is still weak. However. these results show people are not
cueing in to gender and its effect on a speaker's
credibility. when they have scholarly papers attributed to

33

 

 

34
them. Unlike Goldberg (1968). Mischel's (1974) and Miller
and McReynolds (1973) which reported that scholarly papers
attributed to a male were more positively evaluated than
when the same papers were attributed to a female. Rather.
in this study. speakers are being viewed in terms of gender
as equally credible.

Traditionally. males have been perceived as more
competent than. females. Most of the studies on. source
competence were done in the 60s and early 70s. at the
beginning of the women's movement. Also many’ of these
studies examining competence used male sources. topics that
were stereotyped as male-oriented. and/or sources were
presented in a career position that was male-oriented
(Rosenfeld 8. Christie. 1974. Eagly. 1978). It perhaps may
be an effect of the women's movement that people perceive
speakers today as equally credible regardless of their
gender.

It is unclear. though. how perceptions of source
credibility have changed. Has females' perceived
credibility increased over time. or has males' credibility
decreased? Females may be rising in their perceived
position of credibility as people are socialized
differently. Or perhaps the standards held for males has
just decreased. Possibly. males' and females' credibility
have both changed directions a bit. with males' perceived

credibility decreasing and females' increasing. This is an

 

35
area for future research. investigating perceptions of
gender credibility and comparing results to past findings.

In this study. only for dynamism did the gender of the
respondent and the source matter: When the respondent's
and source's gender were the same. the source was seen as
more dynamic. This effect is only found. however. for the
high intensity message. Both males and females perceive
sources of high intensity messages as being more dynamic
than sources of moderate or low intensity messages.
However. females are less responsive to message intensity
than males in terms of perceived dynamism.

It is interesting that for years dynamism. was not
considered a dimension of credibility or ethos (McCroskey 6
Young. 1981). Credibility was originally thought of in two
dimensions. that of reputation ‘(trustworthiness) and
competence. Maybe dynamism is not part of source
credibility. The only place credibility varies in. this
study is in terms of perceived dynamism; no differences
between male and female sources of messages occur in terms
of perceived competence and trustworthiness.

It would make sense that as message intensity
increases the source is perceived as more dynamic. for
dynamism is represented by factors like: aggressive.
emphatic. and bold (Berlo. Lemert 6 Mertz. 1969). A
speaker perceived as more dynamic might use more concrete
visual images. ones that are specific as opposed to vague.

An example of vague versus specific images in the messages

36

used in this study is: "Suggesting exercise are the
exercise equipment manufacturers" (low intensity message)
versus "Promoting this torture and mass murders are the
pimps and panderers who manufacture the exercise equipment"
(high intensity message. see Appendix B). Dynamism also
appears to tap into an evaluative dimension referred to by
Berlo. et al. (pg. 575) as "disposable energy." In other
words. energy' that can be used to emphasize. augment. and
implement suggestions. Berlo. et al. also calls it an
"intensifier." meaning that given an evaluation of a source
as kind/cruel or experienced!inexperienced the polarity or
intensity of these evaluations of the source is intensified
through perceptions of high dynamism.

However. it was found that males were more sensitive
to changes in language intensity than females in terms of
perceived dynamism of the source. Perhaps men are more
observant of these intensifications than females. which
seems counterintuitive because it is often presumed that
women are the ones socialized to be more observant. It
may be that women cue more to nonverbal language. things
like facial expressions. intonation of the voice.
gesticulations; details they could not evaluate from a
written message. Patterson (1984) suggests a high level of
nonverbal involvement would indicate a high positive
intimacy. Intimacy focuses on the experience and quality
of a relationship. Intimate exchanges would be

characterized by openness. receptivity. harmony. concern

37

for the other person. and a surrender of manipulative
control over the other person (McAdams 6 Powers. 1981). To
the extent that intimacy. (positive or negative) determines

an interaction. nonverbal involvement should approximate
that intimacy (Patterson. 1984). This leads' one to
question whether there is really differential sensitivity.

or whether the sensitivity is based on the channel.

Perhaps men have been taught to be rational. to cue in on
rational appeals and women to cue in more on nonverbal

behavior. These areas of sensitivity and message channels
are territories for future research.

Supportive of this reasoning are the effects of
language intensity on persuasibility: As language
intensity increased. persuasibility increased. although
gender did make a difference. While Burgoon and Stewart
(1975) predicted men would be more persuasive when they
used highly intense language and women more persuasive when
they used language of lower intensity. the results in
this study indicate that it is the intensity of the
language that positively correlates with attitude change
disregarding the gender of the source. These results of
finding no source gender affect on credibility. also reject
Knower (1939) and Haiman's (1949) findings. There does.
though. seem to be a gender difference in terms of the
persuasibility of respondents. Eagly (1978) and Rosenfeld
and Christie (1974) all indicated that women are not really

more persuasible than men; they concluded that past studies

38
had some extraneous factors that influence the data. The
results of this research. however. indicate that women are
more persuasible than men. even controlling for the
extraneous factors (i.e. under the assumptions that the
topic used was gender-neutral and the gender of the source
was varied among the respondents.) Perhaps this indicates
that women are being perceived as equally predible today by
both males and females. but that females are still viewing
themselves personally as less competent and thus are up
easily persuaded than the males.

Nevertheless. even though an issue might be gender-
neutral and equally important to males and females. women
still are more easily persuaded than men. especially when
intense language is used. Researchers in the past (Eagly.
1978; Sistruck 6 McDavid. 1976) hypothesized that the
gender difference in most investigations of past research
where women were found to be more persuaded then men were
due to the fact that women were less familiar than men with
the issue in the message. This is not the case in this
study. that familiarity with the topic alone governs
persuasibility. for on this gender-neutral topic. women
were still more persuasible. The results of this research
support Burgoon and Miller (1985) which also discounts the
topic familiarity argument. Perhaps in the socialization
of children. males and females are being presented as equal
genders. but females are still being socialized to react

more to emotions than males. Studies support that parents

 

39

engage in differential child-rearing behavior depending on
whether the child is a girl or a boy (Ross. 1987). When
language is more intense. it is more emotionally laden.
The women's movement has made great strides in teaching
people not to judge others by their gender. but no one
seems to talk about how individuals cue to emotional
language. It seems in the American society that it is more
acceptable for women to cue into emotional language while
it is not as acceptable for men. A new focus for the
women's movement could be to help teach people to be marl
of persuasibility and how to think more for themselves.
Many times people are not even aware of their actions or
reactions. If the respondents were asked how persuasible
they saw themselves. there may not be a gender difference
in this perception. People may just need to have the issue
of persuasibility drawn to their attention.

It is interesting that throughout all the
persuasibility research there seems to be a negative
undertone that it is not good to be persuasible. Is there
an optimum level of persuasibility? While women are more
persuasible than men. po_tli_ could be too persuasible g;
perhaps neither men nor women are persuasible enough. If it
is the case that it is good to be open to persuasion. then
women are better off than men. In the area of decision
making and judgment research. there is evidence that
individuals do not revise their opinions enough; they do

not make full use of the information given to them. (see.

40

e.g.. Kahneman. Slovic. 6: Tversky. 1982; Nisbett & Ross.
1980). The conservatism effect deals with the willingness
of individuals to alter their opinions when presented with
new information; this alteration is in the "right"
direction though. it does not go "far enough" (Edwards.
1968). It is also known that people tend to arrive at
their opinions by starting from an initial value that is
adjusted; these adjustments are typically insufficient
(Slovic 6 Lichtenstein. 1971). In other words. different
starting points give different estimates that are biased
toward the initial values; this phenomenon is called
anchoring (Tversky 8: Kahneman. 1974). An example of
anchoring is symbolic sexism. Applying this to female-male
relations. symbolic sexism is: "(1) a. general. positive
attachment to the political. economic. and social
(including sexual) status quo. together with the belief
that existing societal arrangements should be maintained;
and (2) a vague apprehension that public policies designed
to promote sexual equality. somehow pose a threat to the
status quo. and by implication. to those cherished values
which serve to maintain the 'American way of life'" (Del
Boca. 1982. pp.19-20). One shouldn't make evaluative
judgments about persuasibility until an optimal level is
known.

The topic of gender differences is currently so value-
laden and emotionally charged that it makes it cannot be

approached with total objectivity (Ross. 1987) .

41

Researchers like Rosenfeld and Christie (1974) and Eagly
(1978) were trying to support the idea that women were not
more persuasible than men. The decision to look at this
area may have been because persuasibility has always been
seen as very negative. Perhaps persuasibility needs to be
looked at from a positive side. that it is " good" to be
open-minded and willing to change one's opinions. Perhaps
men are just more egocentric than women and less likely to
listen to other's opinions. Ashmore and Del Boca (1986)
found 75% of both genders agree that men are autocratic.
Ashmore (1981) also found that men are perceived by both
genders as harsh. critical. outspoken. argumentative.
cautious and egotistical; they are considered "hard" on a
hard versus soft (potency) dimension. Other literature
suggests men are not persuasible enough (i.e.. by being
egotistical. etc.) and that people in general are not
persuasible enough (i.e.. conservatism and anchoring). As
females are more persuasible than males. it could very well
be that the presumed negative evaluation of this gender-
based characteristic is really a "positive" characteristic
representing adaptiveness and openness. Future research on
this characteristic would be useful to be able to find the
optimal level of persuasibility.

Another way to look at the areas of persuasibility and
credibility instead of by gender. may be to examine a
person's role. In this study the speaker used had a high

status role (i.e.. by their credentials). Any variations

 

42

in this role could alter the results. Hewgill and Miller's
study (1966) is probably the best example of the
experimental manipulation of this variable. showing the
contrast between a high status versus a low status source.
In Hewgill and Miller's study. they contrasted a professor
of nuclear research with a high school student. However.
in this study. when the role is held constant. there is no
source gender effect on credibility. This is because both
speakers (whether male or female) are in the same role
(i.e. have the same credentials). This concept is the
"equal within rank" idea. It is a change from the past.
where before gender was perceived as different within the
same role. now. perhaps. only the role matters. If the
role is the same. the the credibility of the source will be
perceived as the same. According to Burgoon (1975) the
high status role results would probably be more persuasive
due to high credibility. and the low status role results
would probably be reversed due to the decrease in perceived
credibility. If it is true. that only the role matters.
this only applies to the gender of the source and not the
recipients. In this case. where the male role is different
than the female role or whatever role people are using does
matter to the respondent.
Siam

Unlike prior studies ( e.g. Eagly. 1978; Rosenfeld 8:
Christie. 1974). This study indicates that the gender of a

source of a message does not matter in regards to perceived

 

43
credibility. The intensity' of the message does make a
difference. If one is speaking to both males and females it
is best to use language with high intensity. For male
respondents. a low intensity message could actually' be
counterproductive. The source described apart' from a
message was seen as more credible than the same source
poised with a low intensity message. This difference
between the source poised with a low intensity message and
the source judged apart from a ,message is not true for
females; in terms of perceived dynamism. it is the same for
both the low intensity message and the no message group.
For males it could actually do harm to one's credibility to
use a low intensity message. So a person is better off not

saying anything at all if he/she speaks with low intensity

messages.
These results were obtained by using a
counterattitudinal message. It needs to be considered

though. how central or peripheral the topic is in terms of
being counter-attitudinal. There is a cultural truism
about exercise. that everyone feels it is good. though that
does not necessarily mean that they personally engage in
exercise. According to the expectancy theories and the
counterattitudinal theories research (Burgoon 6 Miller.
1971; Burgoon. 6 Miller. 1985; Burgoon 6 Stewart. 1975)
indicated that when people argue in a counter normative
position they lose credibility. Language intensity might

only matter with counterattitudinal messages; one may need

 

44
to be intense to get an attitude changed. Low intensity
messages are not persuasive and can do active harm to the
source's credibility.

It was discovered while doing this research that it is
very difficult to get an actual "low" intensity meSsage; it
is really a gradation of moderate to high intensity. Even
when someone is doing something as "nonintense" as giving a
greeting. they are still sharing opinions. giving points of
view. And when. someone is trying to be very' evasive.
language intensity is hard to hide. Ambiguity is the main
strategy of people trying to be evasive. and even hearing
ambiguity still creates intensity (Berger 6 Kellerman.
1985).

These results may also be limited to using gender
neutral topics. The topic of exercise was previously
tested to assure gender neutrality. Eagly (1978) points out
that one of the problems with many of the studies in the
past is that the topics are ones that males are more
knowledgeable about than females (i.e. political and
economic areas). Topics which females may be more
interested and knowledgeable in could be areas like fashion
and childcare. There is also a caution that the topic may
be time bound.

This study could be time bound as a result of cultural
and sociological levels of information. This information
shifts in populations. where there are stereotype shifts

over time. Somethings which maybe be perceived as extremely

45
important now. like being tan and physically fit. may not
be as important 20 years from :now. Knowing ‘this
information. though. helps individuals to communicate
better (Miller 6 Steinberg. 1975).

Some of the cultural/sociological information of this
group of respondents is that they are mostly college
educated. 18-21 year olds from the Midwest. Coming from
the Midwest. this age group will tend to be a conservative
group of students. and if this group is exhibiting changes
in attitudes from previous research it will probably be
true already in most other geographic areas. Since these
are all educated participants. it can be assumed that most
of them will have more liberal attitudes toward women.
Etaugh and Spandikow (1981) indicated that college students
show more liberal attitudes toward women with increasing
years of college attendance. And the fact that most of
these participants are between 18-21 is a consideration.
Participants from many of the original studies. many of
which were done in the 605. would be in their 405 now. If
they were retested it would be interesting to find out if
their attitudes have changed at all toward gender.

From these results. if a speaker where to address an
audience with both males and females and was presenting a
counterattitudinal message. he/she would be best to use a
message of high intensity' such. is the case because as
language intensity increases. persuasibility increases for
female respondents. and perceived dynamism of the source

increases for males.

TABLES

19219.

Mammograms

Nuclear Power

Exercise

Drunk Driving

Terrorism

AIDS Testing

GENDER

Overall
Males
Females

Overall
Males
Females

Overall
Males
Females

Overall
Males
Females

Overall
Males
Females

Overall
Males
Females

Table 1. Pilot Study Analysis

FAVOR- PERSONAL

11011.13? KNOWLEDGE IMPORTANCE
MEAN §p 1311;141:311 S_D MEAN §1_1_
25.50a 3.26 .03 3.72a 1.39 4.00a 1.27
25.168 3.33 3.40a 1.46 3.39b 1.12
25.09 3.19 4.00 1.27 4.70 1.07
10.22 6.98 .96 3.90c 1.10 4.200 1.10
20.74 5.57 4.39b 1.09 4.420 1.06
15.33 7.40 3.52 1.12 4.11 1.31
26.55 2.42 .93 5.21d .01 4.066 1.10
26.26 2.70 5.166 .97 4.046 1.32
26.09 2.06 5.26 .59 4.00 .00
23.70. 5.13 .97 4.093 1.25 4.12a 1.30
22.52 4.46 4.13a 1.20 3.048 1.37
25.22 5.55 4.04 1.32 4.44 1.15
21.22 6.69 .97 4.20f 1.06 4.57f 1.04
23.55 5.20 4.77 .00 4.07 .01
10.569 6.69 3.709 .95 4.229 1.19
22.74i 6.46 .96 3.57h 1.09 4.17h 1.35
23.32i 5.46 3.50h 1.15 4.03h 1.30
22.07 7.50 3.56 1.05 4.33 1.33

 

GENERAL
IMPORTANCE

1.00
2.29:
1.52

4.07c
4.10c
4.04

3.06
3.00:
3.93
3.068
3.948
3.70

4.29
4.26
4.33

HOHI

4.76
4.97g
4.529

02

1.11
1.30
.70

.49
.65
.19

.40
.48
.27

.93
1.06
.75

.84
.97
.68

.92
1.02
.75

 

Notes:

The same letter in the

"mean" column (for each topic) indicates
males and females respond similarly; different letters (for each topic)
indicate males and females respond differently (p(.05).

46

 

Table 2. Attitude Measure Analysis

FACTOR ITEM-TOTAL ALPHA IF
11§§§_ LOADING MEAN, SQ, CORRELATION ITEM DELETED
bad/good .856 5.18 1.31 .83 .93
worthless/valuable .796 5.36 1.22 .77 .94
foolish/wise .811 4.90 1.35 .78 .94
useless/uselful .800 5.44 1.20 .78 .94
harmful/beneficial .821 5.18 1.46 .79 .94
dangerous/safe .703 4.32 1.20 .69 .94
unpleasant/pleasant .597 3.93 1.51 .58 .95
unhealthy/healthy .814 5.27 1.21 .79 .94
negative/positive .863 5.29 1.23 .83 .93
destructive/constructive .825 5.19 1.31 .80 .94
awful/wonderful .673 4.62 1.18 .67 .94

47

 

Table 3. Message Intensity Analysis
FACTOR ITEM-TOTAL ALPHA IF
12§§§_ LOADING MEAN_ §Q_ CORRELATIONS ITEM DELETED

Intensity .77 4.43 1.68 .75 .93
Activity .73 4.34 1.55 .70 .94
Strength .70 5.41 1.54 .68 .94
Extremity .80 4.09 1.56 .78 .93
Forcefulness .78 4.16 1.74 .76 .93
Feeling .78 3.95 1.65 .76 .93
Vividness .69 4.29 1.57 .66 .94
Vigorousness .75 4.19 1.61 .74 .93
Powerfulness .84 3.92 1.54 .81 .93
Aggressiveness .80 4.40 1.63 .78 .93
Potency .77 3.97 1.53 .75 .93

48

 

 

Table 4. Credibility Measure Analysis

ITEM- ALPHA
FACTOR LOADING TOTAL IF
ILEHLS. mm m EST—0R CORREL- 1TB”

‘1 ;_ §_ MEAN §2, ATIQ!_ DELETED
inexperienced/experienced .71 -.20 -.30 4.99 1.33 .62 .88
uninformed/informed .77 -l.81 -.28 5.03 1.38 .70 .88
ignorant/expert .72 -.24 -.30 4.83 1.20 .65 .88
incompetent/competent .74 -.26 -.19 5.12 1.17 .68 .88
logical/illogical .76 -.17 .00 5.01 1.33 .70 .88
introverted/extroverted .35 .22 .04 4.43 1.30 .35 .89
unsure/confident .67 .41 .03 5.42 1.35 .63 .88
meek/aggressive .63 .60 .05 5.05 1.28 .59 .88
timid/bold .60 .64 .04 4.92 1.29 .54 .88
reserved/frank .52 .45 .10 5.15 1.30 .48 .89
unjust/just .66 -.27 .22 4.60 1.16 .60 .88
cruel/kind .37 -.35 .47 4.65 .97 .31 .89
dishonest/honest .57 -.24 .38 5.02 1.07 .53 .88
contemptible/admirable .61 -.21 y .16 4.54 1.06 .56 .88

49

 

Table 5. Message Intensity by Respondents' Gender

RESPONDENTS' GENDER

 

 

HALE FIBER—LB.
m
INTENSITY MEANS §Q_ MEANS g2
High 55.06 12.52 47.20 11.36 °
Medium 59.01a 0.05 47.23° 12.20
Low 57.40"6 10.54 54.501”6 9.33
No 60.02 a9.62 59.37 9.31 3
Notes: The same letter = means equal; different letters =

means significantly different (p(.05).. The message in this
study advocated that exercise was pp; beneficial to one's
health. It was indicated in the pilot study results. that
both males and females were favorable towrds exercise.
Therefore. respondents who indicated that exercise is
beneficial are not being persuaded by the message.
(Respondents who indicate that exercise is not beneficial are
being persuaded by the message.)

50

 

Table 6. Influences on Perceived Dynamism

Message Intensity

 

Respondent's
Gender Hig Moderate Lgy_ Np,
Male 24.56a 10.72° 17.73d 19.000
(2.91) (4.44) (4.57). (6.48)
Male b c c c
Female 21.45 19.50 17.94 ' 21.07
(6.18) (3.45) (4.95) (3.56)
Source
Gender b c d 0
Male 21.61 19.63 17.72 21.80
(5.99) (3.29) (5.78) (2.97)
Female
Female 23.003 20.550 19.06°’ 20.220
(3.12) (5.52) (4.08) (5.56)
Notes: The same letter means equal; different letters = means

significantly different (p(.05).

51

 

APPENDICES

Appendix A

OPINIONNAIRE
The purpose of this study is to see how you feel about
certain issue by having you judge each issue on a series of
descriptive scales. In completing these scales. please
make your judgements on the basis of how you feel about the
issues.

Here is how you are to use these scales:

If you feel very favorable or unfavorable about the issue.
you should place your check-mark as follows:
fair_§, : : : : : : unfair
or
fair : : : : : : X unfair
If you feel favorable or unfavorable. but not extremely so.
you should place your check-mark as follows:
strong :_§f : : : : : weak
or
strong : : : : : X : weak
If you feel only slightly favorable or unfavorable. then
you should place your check-mark as follows:
active : : X : : : : passive
or
active : : : : X : : passive
If you feel neutral about the issue or if you feel a
particular scale does not apply to the issue. then you
should place your check-mark in the middle space:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

safe : : : X : : : dangerous
IMPORTANT: (1) Place your check-marks in the middle of
spaces. not on the boundaries
this : X : t : 3 :
not this X : : : : :

 

 

 

 

 

(2) Be sure you check eve y scale for every
concgpt. do not cpit any.
(3) Never put more than one check-mark on a

single scale.
Do not try to remember how you checked similar items

earlier; make each item a separate and independent
judgement. Work at fairly high speed through these
issues. Do to worry or puzzle over individual items. It
is your first impressions. the immediate "feelings" about
the issues. that we want.

Thank you for participating.

52

 

53

 

Annual mammograms for detecting breast cancer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

good : : : : : : bad
worthless : : : : : : valuable
wise : : : : : : foolish
useless : : : : : : useful
Development of nuclear power facilities
good : : : : : : bad
worthless : : : : : : valuable
wise : : : : : : foolish
useless : : : : : : useful
Engaging in daily exercise
good : : : : : : bad
worthless : : : : : : valuable
wise : : : : : : foolish
useless : : : : : : useful
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
good : : : : : : bad
worthless : : : : : : valuable
wise : : : : : : foolish
useless : : : : : : useful
War against terrorism
good : : : : : : bad
worthless : : : : : : valuable
wise : : : : : : foolish
useless : : : : : : useful
Mandatory testing for AIDS
good : : : : : : bad
worthless : : : : : : valuable
wise : : : : : : foolish
useless : : : : : : useful

 

 

54

Now that you have expressed your feelings about the issues
themselves. we would like to get your impressions about
certain matters relating to them. Again. there are no
"correct" answers to these items; just mark the response
that best represents your judgement.

Annual mammograms for detecting breast cancer

How knowledgeable do you consider yourself to be on this
issue?
Very Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Slightly Knowledgeable
Slightly Unknowledgeable
Unknowledgeable
Very Unknowledgeable

How personally important is this issue to you?

Very Important
Important

Slightly Important
Slightly Unimportant
Unimportant

Very unimportant

Consider the implications of this issue for men and women
in general. How do you rate the relative importance of
this issue for women and men?

Much more important to men than to women
More important to men than to women

Slightly more important to men than to women
Equally important to men and women

Slightly more important to women than to men
More important to women than to men

Much more important to women than to men

55

Development of nuclear power facilities
How knowledgeable do you consider yourself to be on this

issue?
Very Unknowledgeable
Unknowledgeable
Slightly Unknowledgeable
Slightly Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Very Knowledgeable

How personally important is this issue to you?
Very Unimportant
Unimportant
Slightly Unimportant
Slightly Important
Important
Very Important

Consider the implications of this issue for men and women
in general. How do you rate the relative importance of
this issue for women and men?
Much more important to women than to men
More important to women than to men
Slightly more important to women than to men
Equally important to men and women
Slightly more important to men than to women
More important to men than to women
Much more important to men than to women

56

Engaging in daily exercise

How knowledgeable do you consider yourself to be on this
issue? ‘
Very Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Slightly Knowledgeable
Slightly Unknowledgeable
Unknowledgeable
Very Unknowledgeable

How personally important is this issue to you?
Very Important
Important
Slightly Important
Slightly Unimportant
Unimportant
Very Unimportant

Consider the implications of this issue for men and women
in general. How do you rate the relative importance of
this issue for women and men?
Much more important to men than to women
More important to men than to women
Slightly more important to men than to women
Equally important to men and women
Slightly more important to women than to men
Much more important to women than to men

57

Mother ainst Drunk Drivin
How knowledgeable do you consider yourself to be on this
issue?
Very Unknowledgeable
Unknowledgeable
Slightly Unknowledgeable
Slightly Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Very Knowledgeable

How personally important is this issue to you?
Very Unimportant
Unimportant
Slightly Unimportant
Slightly Important
Important
Very Important
Consider the implications of this issue for men and women
in general. How do you rate the relative importance of
this issue for women and men?
Much more important to women than to men
More important to women than to men
Slightly more important to women than to men
Equally important to men and women
Slightly more important to men than to women
More important to men than to women
Much more important to men than to women

 

 

 

58

War against terrorism

How knowledgeable do you consider yourself to be on this
issue? '
Very Unknowledgeable
Unknowledgeable
Slightly Unknowledgeable
Slightly Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Very Knowledgeable

How personally important is this issue to you?
Very Unimportant
Unimportant
Slightly Unimportant
Slightly Important
Important
Very Important
Consider the implications of this issue for men and women
in general. How do you rate the relative importance of
this issue for women and men?
Much more important to women than to men
More important to women than to men
Slightly more important to women than to men
Equally important to men and women
Slightly more important to men than to women
More important to men than to women
Much more important to men than to women

 

59

Mandatory tgpging for AIDS

How knowledgeable do you consider yourself to be on this
issue?
Very Unknowledgeable
Unknowledgeable
Slightly Unknowledgeable
Slightly Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Very Knowledgeable

How personally important is this issue to you?
Very Unimportant
Unimportant
Slightly Unimportant
Slightly Important
Important
Very Important
Consider the implications of this issue for men and women
in general. How do you rate the relative importance of
this issue for women and men?
Much more important to women than to men
More important to women than to men
Slightly more important to women than to men
Equally important to men and women
Slightly more important to men than to women
More important to men than to women
Much more important to men than to women

Finally. we need a few items of information about you.
(Circle the appropriate response).

Your age: (1) Under 20 (2) 20-29 (3) 30-39 (4) 40-49
(5) 50 or over

Your year in school: (1) Freshman (2) Sophomore (3) Junior
(4) Senior

Your gender: (1) Female (2)Male

 

APPENDIX B

Low intensity message
Engaging in Daily Ezgpcise

There seems to be an interest in America at times. the
trying of sporadic exercise. Some Americans may ‘begin to
think about the aim of having bodies in somewhat better
condition; people sometimes try a little in an attempt to
possibly move a bit more toward slightly better physical
form. The number of "sports medicine" clinics and the
number of sports-related discomforts may have gone up a
slight degree in the past few years or so. A possible
thing that some might occasionally take into consideration
in this situation may be to think about normal activity
rather than minor exercise that is moderate.

However. Americans are sometimes being requested to
"exercise" by the media. physicians. friends. and family;
at times. they may begin running. biking. or swimming a
little bit. A few of these exercises might have some
minimal side effects on the body over time. seemingly
contributing more discomfort than benefits. Jogging. for
example. could possibly be related to leg annoyances and
knee creaking.

Suggest ing exerc ise are the exerc ise equipment
manufacturers. They receive money as people occasionally
choose to use their equipment and clothes to try to appear
in slightly better shape.

60

 

61

Some people may be without instruction in exercise and
at times might have feelings of passing discomfort. When
they have instructions they occasionally might follow them
a bit more than they may should since "if a little bit is
o.k.. a little bit more might possibly be better."

There might be aerobic instructors who sometimes have
a little less information than they possibly could. and
organizers of races and triathalons who might occasionally
use slightly less than ideal safety precautions. Some
participants in these races may not be completely trained.
and there could be cases of individuals experiencing minor
annoyances which may be related to slightly improper
training techniques with some idea of maybe trying to be a
bit more in condition. Why do a few not seem to mind the
minor annoyances and give a small fraction of time to
exercise in order to try for a better condition that may
not be clearly define. for one's condition is at times a
somewhat subjective state.

At times people who live long lives have mixed
exercise histories--they sometimes lead a normally active
life-style. For some Americans. normal activity might be
enough for a long. healthy life. By "normal activities." I
mean things such as possibly walking from the car to the
office. sometimes using a push lawn mower. maybe walking
the dog. occasionally shopping. and at times using stairs
rather than the elevator. In view of these occasional

activities. there may be little need for some people to

 

 

 

62
think about possibly working a bit for a moderate period of
time. for exercise may possibly be related to insignificant
discomfort.
Activity may be a possible answer to a longer life.
not that exercise couldn't. You may not have to'exercise

to see improvements in your health.

 

63

Medium Intensity Message
n a n Dail Ex cise

There seems to be a new matter for thought in America
today. the use of exercise. Some Americans may begin to
follow the dream of obtaining physically ideal bodies;
people are spending some time and resources in an attempt
to achieve physical fitness. .The number of "sports
medicine" clinics and the number of sports-related injuries
have increased in the last five years. An alternative to
this situation may be to support the pursuit of normal
activity rather than exercise that is effortful.

However. there are some Americans being encouraged to
"exercise" by the media. physicians. friends. and family;
sometimes. they begin running. hiking. or swimming a little
too much. Some of these exercises have rather poor effects
on the body over time. occasionally causing more harm than
good. Jogging. for example. could possibly cause leg or
back problems.

Other promoters of exercise are the exercise equipment
manufacturers. They are receiving money while people use
their equipment and clothes for personal fitness.

Some people may not get proper instruction in exercise
and perhaps could sustain injuries. When they do get
proper instructions they might overdo; since "if a little

bit is good. a lot could be better."

 

64

There are people who may not be well-informed about
the effects of exercise. and organizers of races and
triathalons who are using less than desirable safety
precautions. Participants in these races may not be
properly trained. and there have been cases of individuals
having physical problems due to improper training
techniques in hopes of becoming physically fit. Why have
these effects. and use time in hope of getting something
that may not be clearly defined. for "physical fitness" is
a subjective term.

Many people who live long lives have little exercise
history--they lead a normally active life-style. For most
Americans. normal activity is enough for a long healthy
life. By "normal activities". I mean things such as
walking from the car to the office. using a push law mower.
walking the dog. shopping. and using stairs rather than the
elevator. In view of these activities. there is little
need for people to work harder. for such exercise may have
side effects.

Activity may be an acceptable key to long life. rather
than exercise. You need not strain yourself to improve

your health.

65

High Intensity Message-

En a i in l e cise

There is a festering epidemic in America today. the
overuse of exercise. Americans are becoming obsessed with
the goal of obtaining physically ideal bodies; people are
literally dying in an attempt to achieve physical fitness.
The number of "sports medicine" clinics and the number of
sports-related fatalities have tripled in. the last :five
years. An alternative to this devastating situation is
advocating normal activity’ rather than. exercise ‘that is
death defying.

Unfortunately. many Americans are practically being
forced to "exercise" by the media. physicians. friends. and
family; as a result they naively begin running. biking. and
swimming themselves to exhaustion. Many of these exercises
have terrible effects on the body over time. actually
causing more harm than good. Jogging. for example. can
cause the bones to become as brittle as twigs and the knees
to become a spongy mass of cartilage and ligaments.

Promoting this torture and mass murders are the pimps
and panderers who manufacture the exercise equipment. They
are raking in. several billion dollars while people are
seduced into using their equipment and clothes in pursuit
of personal fitness.

Many duped and misled people never get proper

 

66
instruction in exercise and become permanently damaged.
When they do get proper instructions they go overboard.
since "if a little bit is good. a lot is better."

There are aerobic instructors who are virtually
illiterate about the effects of exercise. and organizers of
races and triathalons who are using terrible safety
precautions. Participants in these races are horribly
trained. and there have been cases of individuals dying
from heat exhaustion and heart .attacks due to terrible
training techniques. all in the line of trying to achieve
physically fit bodies. Why go through all this pain and
agony and use up valuable time in hopes of achieving
something that is illusive. for "physical fitness" is a
subjective state.

Many people who live long lives have no exercise
history--they lead a normally active life-style. For most
Americans normal activity is all-that is need for a long.
healthy life. By "normal activities." I mean things such
as waling from the car to the office. using a push lawn
mower. walking the dog. shopping. and using the stairs
rather than the elevator. In view of these activities.
there is no need for people to work up a sweat and work at
maximum heart rate for a prolonged period of time. for
these things actually have terrible side effects.

Activity is the best of all answers to long life. not
strenuous exercise. You don't have to kill yourself to

improve your health.

APPENDIX C

Message Intensity Scale

INSTRUCTIONS:

We would like to know how you feel about the message.
Please mark how you feel about each question in the space
,provided. Mark the one response for each question that
best describes your judgment.

 

1. How intense (strong. extreme. etc.) is the ' posit ion
presented in this lecture?
not at all very
intense : : : : : : intense
2. How active is the language in the message?
very not at all
active : : : : : : active

 

3. How strongly does Dr. Pelletier feel about this issue?

 

very not at all
strongly : : : : : : strongly
4. How extreme do you think the language was in the
message?
very not at all
extreme : : : : : : extreme

 

5. How forcefully does Dr. Pelletier argue this postion?
not at all very
forcefully : : : : : : forcefully

6. To what extent is this position argued with feeling or

 

 

 

emotion?
not at all : : : : : : very much
7. How vivid is the language used in the message?
very not at all
vivid : : : : : : vivid

 

8. How vigorously is the position argued?
not at all very
vigorously : : : : : : vigorously

9. How powerful is the language in the message?
not at all very
powerful : : : : : : .powerful

10. How aggressive or assertive is Dr. Pelletier in
defending this position?
very much : : : : : : not at all

11. How potent is the language used in the message?
not at all very
potent : : : : : : potent

67

APPENDIX D

Attitude Measurement Scale

INSTRUCTIONS:

In this section. we are interested in learning how you
feel about vigorous exercise programs.

For each scale. please check the interval that most
closely represents your feelings.

Place your check-marks in the "fiddle of lines. not on
the boundaries. Be sure you check every scale for every
concept; do not omit any. Never put more than one check-
mark on a single scale.

Do not try to remember how you checked similar items
earlier; make each item a separate independent judgment.
Vigorous Exercise programs are:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

good____5 : : : : : bad
worthless_: _: _: _: : :_va1uable
wise : : : : : : foolish
useless : :____:____:____: : useful
beneficial : : : : : : harmful
safe____:____:____: : :____: dangerous
pleasant : : : : : :____unpleasant

 

healthy :

' unhealthy

 

 

 

 

positive : : : : ' negative
constructive . : ' : : : : destructive
awful : : : : : : wonderful

 

 

 

68

I"

 

APPENDIX F

Purpose Statement and Instructions

QUESTIONNAIRE
The purpose of this study is to learn about
impressions of a speech and a speaker. You will have the

opportunity to read an excerpt from a lecture and then to
express your feelings regarding the topic. the way the
message was presented. and about the lecturer. There will
be instructions from time to time in the survey. Please
READ EACH SET OF INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY.

We appreciate your help in this study. Thank you for

your participation.

70

APPENDIX G

Introduction

0n the next two pages are an excerpt from a lecture.
The excerpt is part of a lecture given by Dr. Richard
Pelletier at the 1985 Fall Health Symposium at the
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Dr. Richard Pelletier
is an exercise physiologist. He.received his Ph.D. from
the University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill. His lecture
was presented to physicians. physical therapists. athletic
trainers. and other health care practitioners as a part of
a new exercise awareness program.

Please read this excerpt and then follow the

instructions that come after it.

71

APPENDIX H

Manipulation Checks

INSTRUCTIONS

Dr.

Please answer the next questions about the lecturer

Pelletier. Mark the answer that best describes your

feelings.

1.

How would you characterize Dr. Pel let ier's attitude
toward vigorous exercise programs? '
very very

favorable : : : : : : unfavorable

Do you think Dr. Pelletier is:
( ) Male

( ) Female

( ) I don't know

How knowledgeable do you think Dr. Pelletier is about
the subject of exercise?

very not at all
knowledgeable : : : : : : knowledgeable

To what extent would you trust Dr. Pelletier?
not at all : : : : : : very much

How dynamic of a speaker do you think Dr. Pelletier
would be?

very not at
dynamic : : all dynamic

72

APPENDIX I

Demographics

INSTRUCTIONS:

Last. we would like to ask you a few questions about

yourself and your feelings. Please check the appropriate
blanks that best describe you feelings.

1.

5.

How knowledgeable do you consider yourself on. the
issue of exercise?

 

very not at all

knowledgeable : : : : : : knowledgeable

How personally important is this issue to you?

very not at all
important : : : : : :___important

 

Consider the impolications of this issue for men and
women in general. How do .you rate the relative
importance of this issue for women and men?

much more much more
important to important to
men than to women than to
wo men 3 : 2 3 2 : men

 

What year are you in college?
( ) Freshman
) Sophmore
( ) Junior
) Senior

What is your age range?

17-18 yrs.
19-29
21-22
23-34
other

AAAAA
vvvvv

) Male
) Female

What is your gender?
(
(

73

LIST OF REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Ashmore R.D.. (1981). Sex stereotypes 6 implicit
personality theory. In Hamilton D. L. (Ed.) Cognitive

Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior.

Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Assoc.

Ashmore. R.D.. DelBoca. F.K.. 6 Wohlers. A.J.. (1986).
Gender Stereotypes. In Ashmore R.D. Del Boca F.K.

(Eds.) The Social Psychology 9;: Female-Male
Relations. Orlando: Academic Press.

 

Berger C. 6 Kellerman K.. (1985). Personal Opacity and

Social Information Seeking: Seek but ye may not
find. Paper presented at I.C.A. in Hawaii.

Berlo. D.. Lemmert. J. 6 Mertz. R.. (1969). Dimension for
evaluating the acceptability of message sources.

Public Opinion Qparterly. 33, 563-576.

Bowers. J.W.. (1963). Language intensity. social
introversion and attitude change. Speech Monographs.

 

30. 345-352.

Bradac. J.. Bowers. J.. 6 Courtright. J.. (1979). Three
language variables in communicat ion research:
Intensity. immediacy. and diversity. Human

Communication Research. 1. 257-269.

Burgoon. M.. (1975). Empirical investigations of language
intensity: III. The effects of source credibility and
language intensity on attitude change and person
perception. Human Communication Research. 1. 251-256.

Burgoon. M.. Jones. 8.. 6 Stewart. D.. (1975). Toward a
message-centered theory of persuas ion: Three
empirical investigations of language intensity. Human
Communication Research. 1, 240-256.

Burgoon. M.. 6 Miller. G.. (1971). Prior attitude and
language intensity as predictors of message style and

attitude change following counterattitudinal
advocacy. Journal of Personality 6 Social Psychology.
29. 246-253.

Burgoon. M.. 6 Miller. G.R.. (1985). An expectancy
interpretation of language and persuasion. In H.
Giles 6 R.N. St.C1air (Eds.) Recent Advances in

language. communication and social psychology<pp.199-
229). London: Erbaum.

74

75

Burgoon. M. 6 Stewart. D.. (1975). Empirical
investigations of language intensity: I. The effects
of source. receiver. and. language intensity' on

attitudechange. Human Communication Research.1.244-
248.

Cacioppo. J.T.. 6 Petty. R.E.. (1980). Sex Differences in
influenceability: Towards specifying the underlying

processes. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin. 9, 651-656.

Del Boca F.K.. (1982). A test of three explanations of
attitudes toward public pplicy concerning sexual
eguality: 4591f interest. prejudice against women. and
symbolic sexism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Rutgers University.

 

Dickens. W.J. 6 Perlman D.. (1981). Friendship over the
life-cycle. In Duck S. and Gilmour R. (Eds.) Personal

Relationships 2 Developing Personal Relationships.

Eagly. A.H.. (1978). Sex Differences in Influenceability.
Psychological Bulletin. 8;. 86-116.

Edwards. W.. (1968). Conservatism in human information
processing. In Kleinmuntz. B. (Ed.) Formal

Representations of Human Judgment (pp.17-52). New
York: John Wiley.

Etaugh. C. 6 Spandikow. D.. (1981). Changing attitudes
toward women: A longitudinal study of college

students. Psychology of Women Quarterly; 5. 591-595.

Furley. P.. (1944). Men's and Women's Languages. The
American Catholic Sggioloqical Review. 5, 218-223.

Goldberg. P.. (1968). Are women prejudice against women?.
Transaction. 5. 28-30.

Haas. Mary. R.. (1964). Men's and Women's Speech in
Koasati. In Dell Humes (Ed.) Language in Culture and
Society (pp. 230-231). New York: Harper and Row.

Haiman. F.S.. (1949). An experimental study of the effects

of ethos in public speaking. Speech Monographs. l_6_.
190-202.

Heilman. M.E. 6 Kram. K.. (1983). Male 6 female
assumptions about colleagues' views of their
competence. Psychology pf Wopgn Qparterly. Z, 329-
337.

 

76

Jaspersen. Otto. (1949). Language: Its Nature.
Development. and Origi . New York: Macmillan.

Kahneman. D.. Slovic. P.. 6 Tversky. A. (Eds.). (1982).
Judgement under certainty: Heuristics and biases.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Knower. F.H.. (1936). Experimental Studies of changes in
attitudes: II. A. study of the effect of printed
argument on changes in attitudes. Journal of Abnormal

and Social Psychology. 99, 522-532.

Kramer. C.. (1974). Folklinguistics. Psychology Today.
9, 82-85.

Kramer. C.. (1974). Women's Speech: Separate but equal?.

Quarterly Journal of Speech. 99, 17.

Lakoff. R.. (1975). Language and Women's Place. New
York: Harper 6 Row.

Liska. J.. Mechling. E.W.. Stathas S.. (1981).
Differences in subject's perceptions of gender and
believability between users of deferential and

nondeferential language. Communication Quarterly. 40-
48.

McAdams. D.P. 6 Powers. J.. (1981). Themes of intimacy in
behavior and thought. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology. 19. 573-587.

McCrosky. J. 6 Young. T.. (1981). Ethos 6 Credibility:
The construct and its measurement after three

decades. Central States Speech Journal. 92, 24—34.

McEwen. W.J.. 6 Greenberg. B.. (1970). The effects of
message intensity on receiver evaluations of source.
message and topic. The Journal of Communicgtion. 29.
340-350.

Miller. G.R.. 6 Hewgill. M.. (1964). The effects of
variations in non-fluency on ratings of source

credibility. Qparterly Journal of Speech. 99. 36-44.

Miller G.R.. 6 Hewgill. M.. (1966). Some recent research
on fear-arousing message appeals. Speech Monographs.
99, 377-391.

Miller. G.R.. 6 Lobe. J.. (1967). Opinionated Language.
open- and closed-mindedness and response to persuasive
communications. Journal of Communication

77

Miller. G.R.. 6 McReynolds. M.. (1973). Male chauvinism 6
source competence. Speech Monographs. 40. 154-155.

 

Mischel. Harriet. (1974). Sex bias in the evaluation of
professional achievements. Journal of Educational
Psychology. 99, 157-166.

Monahan. T.. (1986). From activity to eternity. The
Physician and SportsMedicine. 91. 156-164.

Nisbett. R.. 6 Ross. L.. (1980). Human inference:
Strategies and shortcomings of social judqment.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Osgood. C.E.. (1959). The representational model 6
relevant research methods. In Ithiel de Sola Pool

(Ed.) Trends in Content Analysis (pp. 33-38). Urbana.
IL: University of Illinois.

Patterson. M.L.. (1984). A functional approach to
nonverbal behavior. In Derlega. ’V.J. (Ed.)
Communication. Intimgcy and Close Relationships.
Orlando: Academic Press.

Petty. R.E.. 6 Cacioppo. J.T.. (1981). Attitudes and
Persuasion: Classic and Contempprary Approaches.
Dubuque. IA: Wm. C. Brown Company.

Rosenfeld. L.. 6 Christie. V.. (1974). Sex and
persuasibility revisited. Western Speech. 38. 244-
253.

 

Ross. A.0.. (1987). Personality:y The Scientific Study of
Complex Human Behavior. New York: Holt. Rinhart and
Winston.

Slovic. P.. 6 Lintenstein. S.. (1971). Comparison of
bayesian and regression approaches to the study of
information processing in judgment. Organizational
gghavior and Human Performance. 9. 649-744.

 

 

Tversky. A. 6 Kahneman. D.. (1974). Judgment under
uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science. 185.
1124-1131.

 

I’IIr

 

 

"I71111111111111.1111