Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech

Erickson, Bonnie E.; Lind, E. Allan; Johnson, Bruce C; O’Barr, William M.

doi:10.1016/0022-1031(78)90015-x

Cited by 315 publications

(225 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

210

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings of Erickson et al (1978) have been replicated with audiotaped testimony (Johnson & Vinson, 1987), videotaped testimony (Lisko, 1992), and written trial transcripts (Bradac et al, 1981). Others have extended the study's findings by examining specific components of powerless speech.…”

Section: Witness Preparation 169mentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Project researchers studied recordings of actual courtroom testimony and designed experiments to assess the impact of different testimony styles on perceptions of witnesses' credibility and persuasiveness. The project produced several publications Erickson, Lind, Johnson, & O'Barr, 1978;Lind, Erickson, Conley, & O'Barr, 1978;O'Barr, 1982;O'Barr & Conley, 1976) and prompted a series of follow-up studies by other researchers (Barry, 1991;Bell, Zahn, & Hopper, 1984;Bradac, Hemphill, & Tardy, 1981;Hosman, 1989;Hosman & Wright, 1987;Hurwitz, Miron, & Johnson, 1992;Johnson & Vinson, 1987;Lisko, 1992;Parkinson, 1981;Parkinson, Geisler, & Pelias, 1983;Pryor & Buchanan, 1984;Wright & Hosman, 1983). Findings from this body of research provide the only direct empirical knowledge about the relation between witnesses' verbal communication styles and jurors' perceptions of their credibility and persuasiveness.…”

Section: Verbal Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fluent speakers who speak at a moderately fast rate and use variations in pitch and loudness are perceived as being credible (see Erickson et al, 1978;Leathers, 1997;Miller, Maruyana, Beaber, & Valore, 1976;Scherer, London, & Wolf, 1973). Credible speakers also avoid using a rise in pitch at the end of a sentence because this vocal cue is usually interpreted as a sign of uncertainty (Frick, 1985).…”

Section: Vocal Cuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Karen Lisko (1992) hypothesized that nonverbal behavior in the courtroom could be classified as being powerful or powerless, just as courtroom language has been found to be amenable to this type of classification (see O'Barr, 1982). To examine this hypothesis, she videotaped actors reading (acting out) the powerful and powerless trial transcripts of witness testimony that were used in the Law and Language Project study of linguistic power (see Erickson et al, 1978). Each actor read each transcript twice, once using a powerful nonverbal style and once using a powerless nonverbal style.…”

Section: Nonverbal Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

What do we really know about witness preparation?

Boccaccini

2002

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Witnesses often meet with an attorney or witness preparation specialist before trial to review, discuss, and sometimes modify the substance and delivery of their anticipated testimony. This process is commonly referred to as witness preparation. During witness preparation, witnesses are taught to use effective testimony delivery skills (e.g., verbal and nonverbal communication skills) so that they will be perceived as being credible and persuasive in the courtroom. Although social scientists know much about communication skills, credibility, and persuasion, few published studies have attempted to determine whether or not these factors can be modified through witness preparation training. The present article reviews the psychological literature pertaining to witness preparation and makes recommendations for needed witness preparation research. Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Witness testimony is often the most important component of a trial. Attorneys argue legal cases by presenting witnesses who have information supporting their side of the case and by cross examining witnesses called to testify by opposing attorneys. Although attorneys direct the presentation of information to the court by deciding which witnesses to call and what questions to ask, most of the information that is presented comes from witnesses' testimony (e.g., litigants, victims, eye-witnesses, and expert witnesses). Because attorneys structure their cases according to their witnesses' testimony, they often tell jurors during opening and closing statements that this testimony is the 'real evidence' of the case (Selkirk, 1992, p. 18).It is a common misbelief that witnesses simply arrive at the courthouse, take an oath of honesty, and then testify to the court about what they know (Applegate, 1989). In reality, witnesses often meet with an attorney or witness preparation specialist before trial to review, discuss, and sometimes modify the substance and delivery of their anticipated testimony. This process, typically referred to as witness preparation, allows attorneys to present witnesses who are thoroughly familiar with the subject matter of their testimony and able to persuade judges (Applegate, 1989).Although witness preparation is common, numerous controversies surround its use. Witness preparation has been called a 'dark secret' of the legal profession because it occurs behind closed office doors and often remains confidential (Applegate, 1989). For example, attorneys are not obligated to reveal the witness preparation procedures that they use to prepare their own clients because this information is protected by attorney-client privilege (Davis & Beisecker, 1994). These circumstances have led the public to mistakenly believe that the purpose of witness preparation is for attorneys and clients to collaborate in the fabrication of misleading testimony (Applegate, 1989). It is unethical and illegal for attorneys to assist in the fabrication of misleading testimony (American Bar Association, 2001, §1.2d & §3.4b; see Salmi, 1999,...

show abstract

Section: Witness Preparation 169mentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Verbal Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Vocal Cuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Nonverbal Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What do we really know about witness preparation?

Boccaccini

2002

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the one hand, increased attention to the wording of polite forms might result in improved memory for the meaning of the remarks. On the other hand, there is some evidence that when speakers use very indirect wordings, the content carries less weight in subsequent judgments (Erickson, Lind, Johnson, & O'Barr, 1978) and actions (Goguen & Linde, 1983). Because ofthe possible theoretical and practical implications, it seemed wise to include analyses of memory for meaning.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Politeness and memory for the wording of remarks

Holtgraves

1997

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments were conducted to examine whether people spontaneously remember the wording used to convey politeness, In all experiments, subjects heard statements varying in politeness that had been made by either a high-status (e,g" a professor) or equal-status (e.g, another student) speaker. Subjects' incidental memory for these statements was then tested with either a recognition (Experiments 1 and 3) or a recall (Experiment 2) procedure. As expected, there was evidence of significant memory for wording that conveyed politeness, and subjects were more likely to remember forms that were incongruous with the speaker's status. There was also some evidence that subjects encoded the politeness of a remark even when they were unable to recall the specific remark. The results demonstrate the role of the interpersonal dimension in the processing of language in context.There have been only a handful of studies that have examined incidental memory for the wording of remarks in naturally occurring situations. This is unfortunate, because language use in real interactions (as opposed to the abstract materials used in laboratory studies) has an interpersonal dimension, and it is likely that this dimension will play some role in memory for the wording ofremarks. One feature of language with clear interpersonal implications is politeness (P. Brown & Levinson, 1987). In this research, I examined whether people spontaneously remember the wording used to convey politeness and how memory for politeness might vary as a function of the social context.Much early research on memory for verbal materials indicated that sentences were quickly transformed into an underlying abstract meaning and the original surface structure was lost (

show abstract

Distinguishing eyewitness descriptions of perceived objects from descriptions of imagined objects

Pickel

1999

Appl. Cognit. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech

Cited by 315 publications

References 9 publications

What do we really know about witness preparation?

What do we really know about witness preparation?

Politeness and memory for the wording of remarks

Distinguishing eyewitness descriptions of perceived objects from descriptions of imagined objects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About