Persuasive Communication - How Audiences Decide. 2nd Edition

270 Understanding Intuitive Decision Making

Audiences also use a number of vocal cues to identify credible sources of information. For

example, speech rate and fl uency correlate with audience perceptions of truthfulness.^137 Audiences

perceive fast-talking speakers as more credible than slow-talking ones.^138 Audiences fi nd speakers

who talk with a faster than average speech rate to be more persuasive as well.^139

On the other hand, audiences perceive speakers who frequently use hesitation forms and ques-

tioning intonations to be less credible than other speakers.^140 The more problems a speaker has

speaking fl uently—problems such as a repetitive use of fi ller words, the use of long pauses and

response latencies, or the unnecessary repetition of words or sounds—the lower audiences rate that

speaker’s competence and expertise.^141

Studies of people lying confi rm many of the audience’s preconceptions about vocal cues to

lying.^142 When people lie, they typically speak less fl uently, hesitate more, make more grammatical

errors, and vocalize more “ums” and “ers.” However, increased latency of response and a slower rate

of speech do not reliably discriminate between deceptive speakers and honest ones.

In addition to nonverbal cues, verbal cues can infl uence the audience’s perceptions of a speaker’s

credibility. Audiences give higher credibility ratings to speakers who document their evidence.^143

They give higher credibility ratings to speakers whose message is clear.^144 Unequivocal claims (e.g.,

“Apple’s stock price will fall” vs. “I think Apple’s stock price may fall”) can also enhance perceived

source credibility, but only when the source of information backs them up with high-quality argu-

ments.^145 With low-quality arguments, unequivocal claims decrease the audience’s perception of

source credibility.

Audiences perceive any speaker who frequently uses intensifi ers and hedges to be less credible

than other speakers.^146 Speakers who elaborate unnecessarily may also be perceived as less credible.

In a study of defendants’ credibility, mock jurors read courtroom testimony in which the defendant

provided more information than the prosecutor requested. For example, at one point when the

prosecutor asked the defendant if he were an insured driver, the defendant replied, “Yes, I’ve never

lost my insurance because of speeding tickets.” The jurors judged the defendant to be guilty more

often than other defendants who simply answered yes or no.^147

Ironically, speakers or writers who deny an assertion the audience initially believes to be

false often lead the audience to conclude the assertion must be true. For example, claiming

that one is not arrogant can boomerang and increase audience perceptions of arrogance.^148

When a group of voters was asked to read a newspaper report that denied President Ronald

Reagan was an alcoholic—a statement most of them initially believed was false—the group

came to believe Reagan was an alcoholic to a greater extent than those who did not read the

report. Conversely, voters who read a newspaper report that affi rmed a statement they initially

believed to be true (e.g., Republican congressmen belong to elitist country clubs) came to

believe that statement less.^149

Cognitive Processes in Person Perception

This section presents a model of person perception that describes how audiences evaluate the

professionals who communicate with them. Social psychological processes, such as person percep-

tion, rest on and involve more rudimentary psychological processes such as attention, perception,

memory, etc.^150 The model, as illustrated in Figure 6.1 , consists of six basic cognitive processes—

perception , attention , trait/emotion comprehension , schema activation , information acquisition , and information

integration.

The processes described in this model of person perception are essentially the same cogni-

tive processes as described in Chapter 3. However, the model of person perception differs from

the model of audience decision making in several ways. First the model allows for the input of