PSYCHOLOGY OF LANGUAGE: COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Abstract

1Introduction Psychology is a field that studies both human and animal behaviour in a scientific way and also embraces all aspects of conscious and unconscious experience as well as thought. Psychology equally attempts to make predictions based on the observable aspects of the human behaviour. As a field of study, it is gradually becoming more relevant to the understanding of human relations and interconnectivities among humans of various backgrounds for smooth co existence. One aspect of psychology that really explores language and communication is social psychology. It explains the areas of cultural knowledge, and the primary means by which we gain access to the contents of other peoples' mind. Language is implicated in most of the phenomena that lie at the core of social psychology: attitude change, social perception, personal identity, social interaction, intergroup bias and stereotyping, attribution, and so on. Moreover, for psychologists, language typically is the medium by which responses are elicited by individuals, and in which they also respond: in social psychological research, more often than not, language plays a role in both stimulus and response. Just as language use pervades social life, the elements of social life constitute an intrinsic part of the way language is used (Krauss and Chi-Yue, 1998). Language and its characteristics Wardhaugh (2002) defines language to be knowledge of rules and principles and of the ways of saying and doing things with sounds, words, and sentences rather than just knowledge of specific sounds, words, and sentences. Anjola (2013) while giving an overview of some of the characteristics of language pointed out that Language is the basic tool of effective communication and this is reinforced when users of language have a shared meaning which transcends the literal meaning of words. Keller (1994) reinforces this with his definition of natural languages as a product of social interaction created through a series of invisible processes whose main purpose is to get something. This, therefore, interrelates the field of psychology with that of language. Language is primarily made up of vocal sounds only produced by a physiological articulatory system in the human body. Initially, it comes as vocal sounds only which later transcended into

Full text

1
PSYCHOLOGY OF LANGUAGE: COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL
BEHAVIOUR
Opayemi, A.S., Department of Psychology, University of Ilorin.*
Oyeleke, J.T., Department of Psychology, University of Ilorin.
Popoola, A.B., Department of Psychology, University of Ilorin.
Oguntayo, R., Department of Psychology, University of Ilorin.
*Corresponding Author: E-mail Address: remiopayemi@gmail.com
1Introduction
Psychology is a field that studies both human and animal behaviour in a scientific way and
also embraces all aspects of conscious and unconscious experience as well as thought. Psychology
equally attempts to make predictions based on the observable aspects of the human behaviour. As
a field of study, it is gradually becoming more relevant to the understanding of human relations
and interconnectivities among humans of various backgrounds for smooth co existence. One aspect
of psychology that really explores language and communication is social psychology. It explains
the areas of cultural knowledge, and the primary means by which we gain access to the contents
of other peoples’ mind. Language is implicated in most of the phenomena that lie at the core of
social psychology: attitude change, social perception, personal identity, social interaction,
intergroup bias and stereotyping, attribution, and so on. Moreover, for psychologists, language
typically is the medium by which responses are elicited by individuals, and in which they also
respond: in social psychological research, more often than not, language plays a role in both
stimulus and response. Just as language use pervades social life, the elements of social life
constitute an intrinsic part of the way language is used (Krauss and Chi-Yue, 1998).
Language and its characteristics
Wardhaugh (2002) defines language to be knowledge of rules and principles and of the
ways of saying and doing things with sounds, words, and sentences rather than just knowledge of
specific sounds, words, and sentences. Anjola (2013) while giving an overview of some of the
characteristics of language pointed out that Language is the basic tool of effective communication
and this is reinforced when users of language have a shared meaning which transcends the literal
meaning of words. Keller (1994) reinforces this with his definition of natural languages as a
product of social interaction created through a series of invisible processes whose main purpose is
to get something. This, therefore, interrelates the field of psychology with that of language.
Language is primarily made up of vocal sounds only produced by a physiological articulatory
system in the human body. Initially, it comes as vocal sounds only which later transcended into

2
writing, as an intelligent means of representing vocal sounds. Writing is the pictorial representation
of the sounds of the language. According to the linguists, speech is primary. If change in the
meaning of a word occurs, it automatically becomes a vocal symbol which in due time with
specific principle and acceptable manner becomes a writing code which serves as a means of
communication.
Language consists of various sound symbols and their pictorialism which are employed to
denote some objects, occurrences or meaning. These symbols are arbitrarily chosen and
conventionally accepted and employed. Words in a language are not mere signs or figures, but a
symbol of meaning whose intelligibility depends on a correct interpretation of these symbols.
Change in meaning could develop from symbolic occurrences which once mutually intelligible
becomes conventionally accepted and employed. Although language is symbolic, yet its symbols
are arranged in a particular system. All languages have their system of arrangements. All languages
have phonological and grammatical systems, and within a system there are several sub-systems
either formally or informally as the case may be. Invariably, Language has features which are
creative and productive. The structural elements of human language can be combined to produce
new utterances, which has never been spoken by the speaker nor comprehended by the listeners,
yet both parties comprehend easily. Language changes in tune with time.
Language and communication as a social behaviour
Language which is the act of speaking can be regarded as actions intended to achieve a
particular goal by verbal means. It is usually done using utterances which can be referred to as
speech acts that can be identified in terms of their intended purposes—assertions, questions,
requests, etc. (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969, 1985). At first glance it might seem that the type of act
an utterance represents will be given by its grammatical sentence type, but languages are not
constructed in so simple a fashion. English, for example, has an interrogative mode for asking
questions, an imperative for issuing commands, a declarative for making assertions, and so on.
However, the grammatical form does not determine the speech act an utterance represents. For
instance, "Can you tell me your name?" (as typically used) and "Do you know how to sail a boat
with paddle stick?" are both in the interrogative mode, but they constitute quite different speech
acts. "Yes" might be an adequate response to the latter, but the former is intended to be understood
as a request rather than a question, and "Yes" would be a defective answer. Considerations of this
sort require a distinction be drawn between the semantic or literal meaning of an utterance and its

3
intended meaning. Acts of speaking typically are imbedded in a discourse made up of a coherently
related sequence of such acts.
There is the view that an understanding of the role of language use will illuminate the social
psychologist's understanding of several phenomena. Also that a clearer understanding of the social
nature of the situations in which language is used will deepen our general understanding of the
principles and mechanisms that underlie language use. Linguists often say that language and
communication is not the same thing, and certainly that is true. People can and do communicate
without language, and species that don't use language (which include all except Homo Sapiens)
seem able to communicate adequately for their purposes. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to
minimize the difference between the kinds of communication that can be accomplished with and
without language. The utility of language as a tool for communication seems to lend itself to
grandiose and sometimes vaporous pronouncements, but it is hardly an exaggeration to say that
the social order, as it is constituted in human societies, is predicated on the capacity for linguistic
communication, and without this capacity the nature of human social life would be radically
different. Even if language were nothing more than a tool for communication, it would warrant
social behaviour. In the most general sense, communication involves exchanges of representations
between the speaker(s) and the listener(s).
Communication is a process involving two information-processing devices. One device
modifies the physical environment of the other. As a result, the second device constructs
representations similar to the events already stored in the first device (Sperber & Wilson, 1986,).
In human communication, the information processing devices are people, the modifications of the
environment are (typically) the perturbations of air molecules caused by speech, and the
representations are mental representations. The main point here is focusing on the central role of
representations in communication, which is the object created in mind during exchange of speech;
precisely how the representations stored in one device come to be constructed by the second
device.
Social behaviours are initiated, maintained, changed and terminated through some
activities. A social activity is said to occur if: (i) two or more individuals are involved (ii)
individual perform mental acts, exhibit behaviour or engage in action (iii) the actions are in a
coordinated way (iv) which collectively has some purpose or function. The definition thus
connects social activities with more than one individual, with mental acts, behaviour or actions,

4
with coordination and with collective purpose or function. As institutionalization of the activity
sets in, it will in many cases be connected with certain artifacts and in some cases with specific
uses of the natural environment. In addition, it will be regulated by norms and conventions which
will be reinforced by more or less strong sanctions. As a consequence, a set of activity determined
social roles to be filled by the individuals who engage in the activity will develop and there will
be expectations about what behaviour is best for the activity, as whole and for the activity roles, in
particular. Activities in the sense defined here always elicit some degree of coordination and
cooperation, this can be heightened if the individuals in pursuing the purpose of the activity take
each other into ethnical or tribal consideration and trust each other (Allwood 1976). The concept
of “social activity” is crucial for a language and communication. It is through social activities that
the whole social structures such as instruments, groups and conglomerates are related on the one
hand, to each other and, on the other, to atomistic social constituents such as individuals (and their
acts, behavior and actions), aspects of the natural environment and artifacts (which are aspects of
the natural environment transformed by individuals). Social activities are the arenas where holistic
structures of various kinds (including institutionalized aspects of the activities themselves) are
initiated, maintained, changed or terminated through a selected language (expression) and means
of passing the information from the speaker to the listener(s) or receiver(s) (communication),
which provide a dynamic part of social life. Social behaviour in relation to language and
communication is inevitable in every facet of life structures both formally and informally.
Theoretical Concepts on language, communication and social behaviour
These theories are explored to explaining language, communication and social behaviour;
The Intentionalism, Manifestations of perspective-taking, Dialogic and Politeness Theory.
In the Encoding/Decoding paradigm, representations are conveyed by means of a code—a
system that maps a set of signals onto a set of significant or meanings. According to Krauss and
Fussell (1996), social psychological approaches to communication in much greater detail in
explaining communication in the social environ. In the simplest kind of code (e.g., Morse code),
the mapping is one-to-one (for every signal there is one and only one meaning and for every
meaning there is one and only existence of the code allows to be represented in order to be
transformed into signals (encoded) that can be transmitted, which in turn are transformed back into
representations (decoded) by the information processing device to which it is directed.

5
In human communication, the information processing devices are people and the code is
language, which allows speakers to create linguistic representations that incorporate the relevant
features of the mental representations they want to convey. By decoding the linguistic
representation, an addressee is able to construct a mental representation that corresponds, at least
in some respects, to the speaker's mental representation. Common to an encoding/decoding view
of communication are two assumptions. One is implicit in the concept of a code, namely, that the
meaning of a message is fully specified by its elements. The other assumption is that
communication consists of two autonomous and independent processes—encoding and decoding.
As general principles, both assumptions are defective. Granted that language can in certain respects
be likened to a code, and that both encoding and decoding processes are involved in
communication; nevertheless, encoding and decoding do not adequately describe what occurs in
communication. The grounds can be understood considering this example, it is often the case that
the same message will be understood to mean different things in different contexts.
Without making the context (more precisely, the relevant features of the context) part of the code,
a communication model that consists simply of encoding and decoding will have difficulty
explaining how the same encoding can at different times yield different decodings. Moreover, even
when context is held constant, the same message can mean different things to different addressees,
and there is considerable evidence to indicate that when speakers design messages they attempt to
take properties of their addressees into account (Bell, 1980; H. Clark & Murphy, 1982; Fussell &
Krauss, 1989a; Graumann, 1989; Krauss & Fussell, 1991).
The proponents of “Cooperative Principle” opined that to be able to be communicate
effectively, participants will implicitly adhere to a set of conventions, collectively termed the
"Cooperative Principle," by making their messages in-line with this four general rules or maxims
thus: (1). Quality (it should be real), (2). Quantity (they should be as informative as is expected,
but not beyond), (3). Relation (they should be coherent), and (4). Manner (they should be clear,
concise and orderly). Added to that, Grice (1975) argued that, Listeners expect speakers to adhere
to these rules, and communicators utilize this expectation when they produce and comprehend
messages. When an utterance appears to violate one or more of these maxims, the listener may
conclude that the violation was deliberate, and that the utterance was intended to convey something
other than its literal meaning.

6
The Speech Act theorists are the pro- Intentionalists who further contributed to the
philosophy of language and communication on what has come to be called speech act theory
(Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969, 1985). Any utterance can "Felicitously" here means with due regard
to the broad range of factors that constrain usage in particular situations. These factors include
social norms that govern usage in that situation, aspects of the speaker-addressee relationship,
information the addressee does and does not possess, etc. be thought of as constituting three rather
different types of acts: (1). A locutionary act (the act of uttering a specific sentence with a specific
conventional meaning), (2). An illocutionary act (the act of demanding, asserting, promising, etc.
through the use of a specific locution), and (3). A perlocutionary act (an attempt to have a
particular effect on the addressee). Fundamental to speech act theory is the idea that a variety of
different locutions (expressions) can have the same illocutionary (and perlocutionary) force.
Depending on circumstances, a speaker could perform the act of requesting another to open a
window by saying "Shut the window," "Would you mind opening the window?" "Did you forget
to open the window?" "Can you think of any reason we should keep the window shut?" etc.
Although each utterance has a different literal interpretation, all could be understood in the
appropriate context as a request to close the door. The illocutionary force of an utterance
corresponds to its intended meaning. When the locutionary and illocutionary force of an utterance
(i.e., its literal and intended meaning) are the same, the result is termed a direct speech act; when
an utterance's locutionary and illocutionary force are different (as was the case in all but the first
example), the result is termed an indirect speech act (Searle, 1985)
The Manifestations of perspective-taking proponents assert that, at the phonological level,
the care with which a speaker articulates a word is inversely related to the addressee's presumed
familiarity with it (Fowler, 1988; Fowler & Housum, 1987; Fowler & Levy, 1994; Hunnicut, 1985;
Lieberman, Katz, Jongman, Zimmerman, & Miller, 1985). Adults adjust their speech to suit
children's limited linguistic capacities by using syntactically simple sentences and special
intonation contours—a dialect called "motherese" (Bohannon, 1977; Hu, 1994). But perspective
taking is most clearly manifest at the level of lexical choice, and particularly with regard to
reference. For example, what a speaker will choose to call an innominate stimulus (a stimulus that
lacks a conventionalized name) will depend upon whether the name is for the speaker's own use
or for someone else's (Fussell & Krauss, 1989a; Gatewood & Rosenwein, 1985; Innes, 1976;
Kaplan, 1952; Krauss, Weinheimer, & Vivehananthan, 1968) : names addressed to others tend to

7
be literal and conventional, while names intended for oneself are more like to be figurative and
idiosyncratic (Fussell & Krauss,1989a; Krauss et al., 1968). The number of words a speaker uses
to refer to a stimulus depends on the addressee's perceived familiarity with it (Fussell & Krauss,
1992; Isaacs & Clark, 1987). Perspective-taking is accomplished by means of two processes that
operate in concert. One process employs heuristics to derive an addressee's perspectives from such
indices as group or category membership and situational context (H. Clark & Marshall, 1981). The
other process derives the addressee's perspective from information gleaned in the course of the
ongoing interaction. The relative balance between these two processes depends considerably upon
the form of the communicative exchange, and especially the amount of interaction or
responsiveness it affords.
The Dialogic Paradigm---This theorists propose that, It takes two people working together
to play a duet, shake hands, play chess, waltz, teach, or make love. To succeed, the two of them
have to coordinate both the content and process of what they are doing. Communication, of course,
is a collective activity of the first order. In psychology, the Dialogic approach to communication
is, to a great extent, an outgrowth of the analysis of discourse and the study of conversational
interaction. Careful and systematic observation of conversations reveals that long interchanges in
which participants produce well-formed sequential contributions that advance the conversation
toward some goal in an orderly fashion are relatively rare. More typical is a seemingly chaotic
process in which participants interrupt each other, complete each other’s sentences, interject
corrections, require each other to "fill in the blanks"—in short, engage in a variety of activities that
are inconsistent with the view of participant in conversations as "autonomous language
processors" (Brennan, 1993) . From an Encoding/Decoding perspective such talk might be thought
of as a degenerate version of some ideal form, but from a Dialogic perspective these apparent
deficiencies really are an intrinsic part of the way conversation operates as a communicative
process. From this point of view, conversation is an activity in which the participants jointly work
to achieve some common purpose that cannot be accomplished individually. The goal is to achieve
a state of intersubjectivity. The Norwegian social psychologist Ragnar Rommetveit applied the
notion of intersubjectivity to communication, arguing that every communicative act rests upon the
participants' mutual commitment to "… a temporarily shared social world" (Rommetveit, 1974).
Out of the divergent social realities participants bring to the situation, intersubjectivity is created

8
and continually modified by acts of communication. In this way, "… what is made known by what
is said is affected by what is tacitly taken for granted, and vice-versa" (Rommetveit, 1980).
This study investigated the roles of psychology of language and communication as related
to social behaviour. Having discussed the concepts of the phenomena, it is necessary to consider
some of the implications discovered to be initiated by the use of language and language interaction
thus:
Nonverbal Information in Conveyed Speech
The primary medium by which language is expressed—speech—also contains a good deal
of information that can be considered nonverbal. A speaker's voice transmits individuating
information concerning his or her age, gender, region of origin, social class, etc. In addition to this
relatively static information, transient changes in vocal quality provide information about changes
in the speaker's internal state, the most intensively studied of which has been affect. Changes in a
speaker's affective states usually are accompanied by changes in the acoustic properties of his or
her voice (Cosmides, 1983; Fairbanks & Pronovost, 1939; Frick, 1985; Streeter, Macdonald,
Apple, Krauss, & Galotti, 1983; Williams & Stevens, 1969, 1972) , and listeners seem capable of
interpreting these changes, even when the quality of the speech is badly degraded (Krauss, Apple,
Morency, Wenzel, & Winton, 1981; Scherer, 1986; Scherer, Koivumaki, & Rosenthal, 1972), or
the language is one the listener doesn't understand (Krauss, Morency, & Ferleger, 1983) .
Language, Culture and Cognition
Language and the Activation of Culturally Shared Ideas in the course of the evolution of
the mind, according to Donald (1993), homo sapiens passed through three cognitive transitions:
the development of mimetic skills, the evolution of language, and the invention of external
memory devices. Each development created a new way of representing reality and made possible
a new form of culture. Bruner (1990) suggests that "The symbolic systems that individuals used in
constructing meaning are systems that were already in place, already 'there,' deeply entrenched in
culture and language. They constituted a very special kind of communal tool kit whose tools, once
used, made the user a reflection of the community". Both Donald's and Bruner's accounts
underscore the close relation of language use, shared meaning representation and culture.
However, few social psychologists have pursued the impact of language use on culturally shared
cognition (Markus, Kitayama & Heiman, 1996).

9
Chiu, Krauss, Lam and Tong (1995) have summarized the relation of language use,
cognition and culture in terms of five propositions:
I. A language's grammatical structure is not sufficient to affect its speakers' ways of thinking.
Rather, for it to influence cognition, the structure must be activated or used to describe,
characterize, or label some state of affairs.
II. Using language to represent a state of affairs can evoke or create an internal representation that
differs from the internal representations of the same state of affairs evoked or created by other
means of encoding.
III. The internal representations evoked or created by language use can affect a language user's
subsequent cognitions.
IV. The form that a linguistic representation takes will be affected by the contexts of language use,
including the ground rules and assumptions that govern usage, audience design and the immediate,
ongoing and emerging properties of the communication situation.
V. Through communication, the private cognitions of individuals can be made public and directed
toward a shared representation of the referent. This proposition links language use to the
emergence of social representations (Moscovici, 1988) or socially shared cognitions (Hardin &
Higgins, 1996; Ruscher, Hammer, & Hammer, 1996; Schegloff, 1991), which are core elements
of cultural meaning systems (Bruner, 1990).
Communication and Cognition
Despite the negative findings of many experiments designed as tests of the linguistic
relativity hypothesis, it is not difficult to find clear evidence of effects of language on a number of
aspects of cognition (Hardin & Banaji, 1993; Hunt & Agnoli, 1991; Hunt & Banaji, 1988). These
include: (a) Visual scanning: Habitual ways of reading in a language can affect the preferred
direction of visual scanning (Braine, 1968; H. C. Chen & Chen, 1988; Hoosain, 1986, 1991;
Kugelmass & Lieblich, 1970). (b) Verbal learning: Phonological properties of language used to
encode stimulus materials can affect verbal learning (N. Ellis & Hennelly, 1980; Hoosain & Salili,
1987; Naveh- Benjamin & Ayres, 1986). (c) Visual memory: the manner at which a visual stimulus
is labeled can affect its representation in memory (Carmichael, Hogan, & Walter, 1932; Daniel,
1972; Kay & Kempton, 1984; Thomas & DeCapito, 1966). (d) Decision-making: Verbal framing
of a decision problem can affect problem representation and subsequent decisions (Kahneman &
Tversky, 1984; I. Levin, Schnittjer, & Thee, 1988; Northcraft & Neale, 1986). (e) Problem-

10
solving: the verbal encoding of visual stimuli can mar or aid problem-solving, depending on
whether or not the problem-solving task requires an accurate representation of the visual
information (Glucksberg & Weisberg, 1966; Ranken, 1963). In essence, these studies illustrate
that while grammatical categories in a language do not appear to affect cognition per se, language
does have significant cognitive consequences which when it is put in operation, a conclusion can
be drawn consistently with the discourse-centered approach to language and culture in linguistic
anthropology (Sherzer, 1987; Streeck, 1994).
Effects of Language Use on Listeners' Attitudes
The effect a particular linguistic variation has on a speaker's perceived effectiveness and
credibility will be determined primarily by cultural perceptions of how skilled a communicator
speaks. In most Western cultures a skilled communicator is expected to speak fluently, confidently
and articulately, and perceived effective but any deviations from these standards make such
speaker incompetent. Communicators are generally seen as less effective and less credible when
they speak slowly (Miller, Maruyama, Beaber, & Valone, 1976), or when their message is low in
lexical diversity (Bradac, Davies, Courtright, Desmond, & Murdock, 1977) or filled with hedges,
filled pauses and parenthetical remarks (Erickson, Lind, Johnson, & O'Barr, 1978; Hosman, 1989).
Using inappropriately crude language also hurts the communicator's credibility (Bostrom,
Baseheart, & Rossiter, 1973; Paradise, Cohl, & Zweig, 1980). However, a recipient's expectations
regarding the communicator's speech also is affected by the communicator's social category
(Burgoon, 1990; Scherer, 1979a). When encountering a persuasive message, a recipient will try to
determine its intended meaning on the basis of all the available information, including relevant
speech norms, the message's content and the communicator's verbal and nonverbal(gestures)
behaviours (Krauss, 1987). If the speech conforms to normative expectations, the recipient may
evaluate the communicator positively and be more receptive to the persuasive message (Burgoon,
1990), but if it falls outside the acceptable normative range for a member of the speaker's category,
the receptivity will be lowered. Considering gender cultural expectation, women are typically
expected to possess less power than men, people may expect them to employ less assertive and
more indirect strategies in attempting to influence men. As a result, women who speak in an
expectancy-congruent tentative style may have greater persuasive effectiveness with men than
women who speak assertively.

11
To buttress this view the researches of Carli (1990; Lakoff, 1973; Mulac & Lundell, 1982; Quina,
Wingard, & Bates, 1987) has found that women tend to speak more tentatively in persuasive
communication than men (to use more hedges, question tags and disclaimers), particularly when
they are communicating to a male audience, and female communicators are more persuasive with
a male audience when they speak tentatively than when they speak assertively. Similarly, Burgoon
and Stewart (1974) found that men who use fewer intensifiers and women who use more
intensifiers are less persuasive than those who conform to the gender norms regarding language
intensity. The recipient's own patterns of language use may also moderate the relation of the
communicator's language and persuasion. According to speech accommodation theory (Giles,
Coupland, & Coupland, 1991), similarity in language use between communicator and recipient
reduces the perceived psychological distance between communicator and recipient, and this in turn
can lead to greater receptivity to persuasive communication. Persuasive effectiveness has been
shown to be positively related to perceived communicator-recipient similarity in language intensity
(Aune & Kikuchi, 1993), lexical diversity (Bradac et al., 1977), and speech rate (Street & Brady,
1982; Street, Brady, & Putnam, 1983). However, more recent research suggests that the relation
of language and persuasion is more complicated. Although a communicator's language can
influence perceived credibility, linguistic style also can affect the comprehensibility of the
persuasive message. Communicators who speak rapidly may be judged more credible than those
who speak at a normal rate, but their rapid speech may adversely affect the clarity of their messages
(S. Smith & Shaffer, 1995). Similarly, although a communicator 's credibility may be reduced by
frequent use of intensifiers (e.g., really, very), hedges, hesitations, and tag questions, these
rhetorical devices also may enhance message clarity (M. Hamilton, Hunter, & Burgoon, 1990) and
inhibit positive and negative thoughts about the message (Gibbons, Busch, & Bradac, 1991). In
these examples, the same speech behaviour can have a positive effect on perceived speaker
credibility and negative effects on message comprehensibility or cognitive responding. As a result,
it is difficult to specify in the abstract how a given speech variable will affect attitude change in
any specific instance (e.g., Gibbons et al., 1991; Hosman, 1989; Miller & Burgoon, 1977; Woodall
& Burgoon, 1983). When effects of speech cues and message content are considered together, the
effects of speech cues on attitude change may be limited. The effects of speech cues on the
recipient's source credibility and attitude is likely to be attenuated when the message recipient has
sufficient capacity and motivation to process information relevant to the merits of the advocated

12
position. Unfortunately, except for a few studies (Gibbons et al., 1991; Giles, Henwood, Coupland,
Harriman, & Coupland, 1992), the role of language variations in attitude change has not been
systematically examined within the context of process models of persuasive communication.
Effects of Language Use on Communicators' Attitudes
Although attitude change research has been concerned primarily with the effects persuasive
messages have on their recipients, a persuasive message also may influence the attitudes of the
person who produced it. The effects of language use on a speaker's attitudes have been examined
in a small number of studies, and findings are generally consistent with ideas about the relation of
language use and cognition outlined above: describing an attitude object can evoke a linguistic
representation of the attitude object, and bias the speaker's subsequent representation of (i.e.,
attitude towards) the attitude object.
In a series of experiments, Eiser and his colleagues (Eiser & Ross , 1977; Eiser & Pencer,
1979) instructed some subjects to write essays on capital punishment containing words that were
pro-capital punishment and negative in connotation (e.g., irresponsible, indecisive, romanticising)
and others to include words that were anti-capital punishment and negative in connotation (e.g.,
barbaric, uncivilized). Based on a subsequent assessment, subjects' attitudes toward capital
punishment changed in the direction of the words they had included in their essays. Analogous
results have been obtained by T. Wilson and Schooler (1991; T. Wilson et al., 1993), who had
subjects choose one item from a set of alternatives (brands of jam, college courses, or wall posters).
Compared to their no verbalization controls, choices of subjects instructed to verbalize the reasons
for their choices were suboptimal (relative to expert opinion), and biased in the direction of the
reasons they had generated. T. Wilson and Schooler (1991) suggest that people asked to describe
the reasons for their preferences may tend to focus on attributes of the attitude object that are easy
to verbalize. As a result, the reasons they generate may not be representative of the actual sources
of their initial attitudes. Such effects of language use on attitude change appear to be relatively
shortlived. After six days, Eiser and Pancer's (1979) subjects had reverted to their original attitudes
toward capital punishment. Similarly, after 25 days subjects in T. Wilson et al's. (1993)
verbalization condition were more likely to regret their choices than the no verbalization controls.
On the other hand, studies by Higgins, McCann and their colleagues found effects of language use
on attitudes toward a fictitious individual increased over time (e.g., McCann, Higgins, &
Fondacaro, 1992). It may be that the modified attitudes in the Eiser and Pancer and T. Wilson et

13
al. studies eroded over time as the individual assimilated counter-attitudinal information in the
course of day-to-day experiences. Subjects in the McCann et al. studies were unlikely to encounter
counter-attitudinal messages.
Language and Interpersonal Relations
When people interact, the nature of their interpersonal relationship is manifested in a
variety of ways: by the distance they stand from each other, their postures, their facial expressions,
how much they gaze at one another, and so forth. It also is implicit in the language they use. The
expression of relationship in speech can be quite subtle.
For example, speakers can adjust certain parameters of their speech to make it more similar to that
of their conversational partners, but the adjustment (or accommodation, as it is called) is neither
automatic nor always symmetrical. Generally speaking, higher status and more powerful
individuals accommodate less than their lower status, less powerful co-participants (Giles, Mulac,
Bradac, & Johnson , 1987; Giles et al., 1991; Gregory & Webster, 1996; Thakerar, Giles, &
Cheshire, 1982). Relationship is also manifested in lexical choice—particularly in the terms people
use to address each other. Two related areas in which lexical choice reflects the relationship of
language use and interpersonal relations will be considered: address modes and politeness.
Inferring Personality from Speech
Several studies have tried to identify the person characteristics that listeners infer from the
language that speakers use (Bradac, 1990; Giles & Street, 1994). Typically in these studies, speech
characteristics are manipulated experimentally, and subjects evaluate the speaker along such
common person perceptual dimensions as competence and sociability. Overall, speakers with rapid
speech rates are judged favorably on the dimensions of competence, sociability and trustworthiness
(N. Miller et al., 1976; Street & Brady, 1982; Street et al., 1983). Long silent pauses and long
response latencies tend to lower evaluations of competence (Baskett & Freedle, 1974; Scherer,
1979b), whereas perception of dominance appears to increase with utterance length (Palmer, 1989;
Scherer, 1979b). The relationship between vocal pitch and social inference is less straightforward.
Apple, Streeter and Krauss (1979) found that elevated fundamental frequency could result in
perceptions of deceit and emotional instability, but Scherer, London and Wolf (1973) report that
speakers with higher vocal pitch level were perceived as more competent and dominant. The
results of these two studies cannot be compared directly because in the Apple et al. study
fundamental frequency and speech rate were manipulated electronically, while the Scherer et al.

14
study used selected speech samples with naturally-varying pitch. Finally, conversationalists tend
to adapt to each other's communicative behaviors by becoming more alike in a wide range of
prosodic and coverbal features, including pronunciation, pitch patterns, speech rates, pause and
utternance duration and vocal intensities (Giles et al., 1991), and those who adjust or accommodate
their communicative actions are generally seen as more attractive socially but lower in social status
than those who do not accommodate (Giles & Smith, 1979; Gregory & Webster, 1996; Street,
1982; Street & Brady, 1982; Street et al., 1983).
Conclusion
Globally, the use of language exists in every environment and the disability of language in
individual is a sign of psychopathology. Therefore, communication as a byproduct of language has
stimulated scientists from the humanities and social sciences to probe the relationship between
psychology of language, cognition, culture and social behaviour in general. Considering these
phenomena in this Information Technology era, learning, organization value and communication
process both formally and informally when it comes to social integration, interpersonal relation,
workplace environment are interdependent. Consequently, the understanding of the use of
language is fundamental to understanding communication, relationship and social behaviour
better.
The prospect for achieving knowledge of language as related to communication and social
behaviour will of no doubt go a long way to enhance quality learning, norms & values, effective
chain of communication, good leadership, and wider range of ethnic and ethnicity integration in
matter of interpersonal and intergroup relations when communicating. In fact, building effective
language understanding to enhance communication and productive social behaviour will build a
strong sense of public service in this 21st century where challenges of communication and
leadership has become imperative for every society.
References
Apple, W., Streeter, L. A., & Krauss, R. M. (1979). Effects of pitch and speech rate on personal
attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 715-727.
Aune, R. K., & Kikuchi, T. (1993). Effects of language intensity similarity on perceptions of
credibility, relational attributions, and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 12, 224-238.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Banaji, M. R., & Hardin, C. D. (1996). Automatic stereotyping. Psychological Science, 7, 136-

15
141.
Beattie, G. W. (1978). Sequential patterns of speech and gaze in dialogue. Semiotica, 23, 29-52.
Bell, A. (1980). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13, 145-204.
Bohannon, J. N., & Marquis, A. L. (1977). Children's control of adult speech. Child
Development, 48, 1002-1008.
Bostrom, R. N., Basehart, J. R., & Rossiter, C. M. (1973). The effects of three types of profane
language in persuasive messages. Journal of Communication, 23, 461-475.Bradac, J. J.
(1990). Language attitudes and impression formation. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson
(Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 387-412). New York: John
Wiley.
Bradac, J. J., Davis, R. A., Courtright, J. A., Desmond, R. J., & Murdock, J. I. (1977). Richness
of vocabulary: An attributional analysis. Psychological Reports, 41, 1131-1134.
Brennan, S. E. (1993). On the time course of understanding in conversation. Unpublished paper,
Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burgoon, M. (1990). Language and social influence. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.),
Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 51-72). Chichester: John Wiley.
Burgoon, M., & Stewart, D. (1974). Empirical investigations of language intensity: I. The effects
of sex of source, receiver, and language intensity on attitude change. Human
Communication Research, 1, 244-248.
Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language and influence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 941-951.
Carmichael, L., Hogan, H. P., & Walter, A. A. (1932). An experimental study of the effect of
language on the reproduction of visually perceived form. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 15, 73-86.
Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Krauss, R. M. (1995). Gaze direction and fluency in conversational
speech. Unpublished manuscript.
Chen, H. C., & Chen, M. J. (1988). Directional scanning in Chinese reading. In I. M. Liu, H. C.
Chen, & M. J. Chen (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of the Chinese language (pp. 15-26). Hong
Kong: Asian Research Service.
Chiu, C., Krauss, R. M., Lam, H. Y., & Tong, J. Y. (1995). Language, communication and
cognition: A post-Whorfian approach. Manuscript under review.
Chomsky, N. (1992). Language and thought. Wakefield, R.I.: Moyer Bell.
Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. E. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi,
I. Sag, & B. Webber (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10-63). Cambridge,
Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. In J.-F. L. Ny
& W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension (pp. 287-296). New York: North
Holland.
Cosmides, L. (1983). Invariances in the acoustic expression of emotion in speech. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Perception and performance, 9, 864-881.
Daniel, T. C. (1972). Nature of the effect of verbal labels on recognition memory for form.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96, 152-157.
Eiser, J. R., & Pancer, S. M. (1979). Attitudinal effects of the use of evaluatively biased
language. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 39-47.
Eiser, J. R., & Pancer, S. M. (1979). Attitudinal effects of the use of evaluatively biased

16
language. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 39-47.Eiser, J. R., & Ross, M. (1977).
Partisan language, immediacy, and attitude change. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 7, 477-489.
Ellis, N. C., & Hennelly, R. A. (1980). A bilingual word-length effect: Implications for
intelligence testing and the
relative ease of mental calculation in Welsh and English. British Journal of Psychology,
71, 43-51.Erickson, B., Lind, E. A., Johnson, B. C., & O'Barr, W. M. (1978). Speech style
and impression
formation in a court setting: The effects of "powerful" and "powerless" speech. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 266-279.
Fairbanks, G., & Pronovost, W. (1939). An experimental study of the pitch characteristics of the
voiace during the expression of emotion. Speech Monographs, 6, 87-104.
Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fowler, C. A. (1988). Differential shortening of repeated content words produced in various
communicative contexts. Language and Speech, 31, 307-319.
Fowler, C. A., & Housum, J. (1987). Talkers signalling of "new" and "old" words in speech and
listeners' perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 489-
505.
Fowler, C. A., & Levy, E. T. (1994). Talker-listener attunements to speech events. Unpublished
paper, Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT:
Frick, R. W. (1985). Communicating emotion: The role of prosodic features. Psychological
Bulletin, 97, 412-429.
Fussell, S. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1991). Accuracy and bias in estimates of others' knowledge.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 445-454.
Fussell, S. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1992). Coordination of knowledge in communication: Effects of
speakers' assumptions about others' knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62, 378-391.
Fussell, S. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1989a). The effects of intended audience on message production
and comprehension: Reference in a common ground framework. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 25, 203-219.Gibbons, P., Busch, J., & Bradac, J. J. (1991). Powerful
versus powerless language: Consequences for persuasion, impression formation, and
cognitive response. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10, 115-133.
Gibbs, R. W. J. (1991). A critical examination of the contribution of literal meaning to
understanding nonliteral discourse. Text, 2, 9-27.
Gibbs, R. W. J. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8, 275-304.
Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication,
context, and consequence. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland (Eds.), Context of
accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (1-68). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Giles, H., Henwood, K., Coupland, N., Harriman, J., & Coupland, J. (1992). Language attitudes
and cognitive mediation. Human Communication Research, 18, 500-527.
Giles, H., & Street, R. L. J. (1994). Communicator characteristics and behavior. In M. L. Knapp
& G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2 ed., pp. 103-161).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glucksberg, S., & Wiesberg, (1966). Verbal behavior and problem solving: Some effects of

17
labeling in a functional fixedness problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 659-
664.
Gregory, S. W. Jr., & Webster, S. (1996). A nonverbal signal in voices of interview partners
effectively predicts communication accommodation and social status perceptions. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1231-1240.
Grice, H. P. (1975). ‘Logic and Conversion’. In P. Cole .J. Morgan (Eds.) Studies in Syntax and
Semantics III: Speech Acts, New York: Academics Press, pp. 183-98.
Hamilton, M. A., Hunter, J. E., & Burgoon, M. (1990). An empirical test of an axiomatic model
of the relationship between language intensity and persuasion. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, 9, 235-255.
Hardin, C., & Banaji, M. R. (1993). The influence of language on thought. Social Cognition, 11,
277-308.
Hardin, C., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective
objective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and
cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 28-84). New York: Guilford.
Hoosain, R. (1986). Language, orthography and cognitive processes: Chinese perspectives for
the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9, 507-525.
Hosman, L. A. (1989). The evaluative consequences of hedges, hesitations, and intensifiers:
Powerful and powerless speech styles. Human Communication Research, 15, 383-406.
Hoosain, R., & Salili, F. (1987). Language differences in pronounication speed for numbers,
digit span, and mathematical ability. Psychologia, 30, 34-38.
Hu, Q. (1994). A study of some common features of mothers' vocabularies. In J. L. Sokolov &
C. E. Snow (Eds.), Handbook of research in language development using CHILDES.
Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hunnicut, S. (1985). Intelligibility versus redundancy--Conditions of dependency. Language and
Speech, 28(45-56),
Hunt, E., & Agnoli, F. (1991). The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective.
Psychological Review, 98, 377-389.
Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversation between experts and novices.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 26-37.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39,
341-350.
Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1978). What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist,
86, 65-79.
Kay, P., & McDaniel, C. K. (1978). The lingustic significance of the meaning of basic color
terms. Language, 54, 610-646.
Krauss, R. M. (1968). Language as a symbolic process in communication. American Scientist,
56, 265-278.
Krauss, R. M. (1987). The role of the listener: Addressee influences on message formulation.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6, 81-97.
Krauss, R. M., Apple, W., Morency, N., Wenzel, C., & Winton, W. (1981). Verbal, vocal and
visible factors in judgments of another's affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 40, 312-320.
Krauss, R. M., & Chiu, C. (1997). Language and Social Behaviour. in In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske &
G. Lindsey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4h ed.), Vol. 2. (pp. 41-88). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.

18
Krauss, R. M., & Chiu, C. (1993). Language, cognition and communication. Unpublished Paper
presented in the symposium "Language, Cognition and Communication" at the meetings
of the Society for Experimental Social Psychology, October 16, CA: Santa Barbara.
Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. (1991). Perspective-taking in communication: Representations
of others' knowledge in reference. Social Cognition, 9, 2-24.
Krauss, R. M., Apple, W., Morency, N., Wenzel, C., & Winton, W. (1981). Verbal, vocal and
visible factors in Judgments of another's affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 40, 312-320.
Krauss, R. M., Fussell, S. R., & Chen, Y. (1995). Coordination of perspective in dialogue:
Intrapersonal and interpersonal processes. In I. Markova, C. G. Graumann & K. Foppa
(Eds.), Mutualities in dialogue (pp. 124-145). Cambridge, Eng: Cambridge University
Press.
Krauss, R. M., Morency, N. L., & Ferleger, N. (1983). Expressive conventions and the cross-
cultural perception of emotion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4, 295–305.
Krauss, R. M., & Weinheimer, S. (1964). Changes in the length of reference phrases as a
function of social interaction : A preliminary study. Psychonomic Science, 1, 113-114.
Kugelmass, S., & Lieblich, A. (1970). Perceptual exploration in Israeli children. Child
Development, 41, 1125-1131.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society, 2, 45-80.
Levin, I. P., Schnittjer, S. K., & Thee, S. L. (1988). Information framing effects in social and
personal decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 520-529.
Lieberman, P., Katz, W., Jongman, A., Zimmerman, R., & Miller, M. (1985). Measures of the
intonation of read and spontaneous speech in American English. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 77, 649-657.
Liu, L. G. (1985). Reasoning counterfactually in Chinese: Are there any obstacles? Cognition,
21, 239-270.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S., & Heiman, R. J. (1996). Culture and "basic" psychological principles. In E. T. Higgins
& A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 857-913). New York: Guildord.
McCann, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1992). Personal and contextual factors in communication: A
review of the 'communication game'. In G. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Language,
interaction and social cognition (pp. 144-172). London: Sage.
Miller, M. D., & Burgoon, M. (1977). Predictors of resistance to persuasion: Propensity of
persuasive attack, pretreatment language intensity, and expected delay of attack. Journal
of Psychology, 95, 105-110.
Miller, N., Maruyama, G., Beaber, R. J., & Valone, K. (1976). Speed of speech and persuasion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 615-624.
Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of social representations. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 18, 211-250.
Mulac, A., & Lundell, T. L. (1982). An empirical test of the gender-linked language effect in a
public speaking setting. Language and Speech, 25, 243-256.
Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1986). Opportunity costs and the framing of resource
allocation decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 348-
356.
O'Barr, W. M., & Atkins, B. K. (1980). "Women's language" or "powerless language"? In S.
McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker & N. Furman (Eds.), Women and language in literature and
society (pp. 93-110). New York: Praeger.
Paradise, L. V., Cohl, B., & Zweig, J. (1980). Effects of profane language and physical

19
attractiveness on perceptions of counselor behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
27, 620-624.
Quina, K., Wingard, J. A., & Bates, H. G. (1987). Language style and gender stereotypes in
person perception. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 111-122.
Ranken, H. B. (1963). Language and thinking: Positive and negative effects of naming. Science,
141, 48-50.
Rommetveit, R. (1980). On "meanings" of acts and what is meant by what is said in a pluralistic
social world. In M. Brenner (Ed.), The structure action (pp. 108-149). Oxford: Blackwell
and Mott.
Ruscher, J. B., Hammer, E. Y., & Hammer, E. D. (1996). Forming shared impressions through
conversation: An adaptation of the continuum model. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 22, 705-720.
Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J.
M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 150-
171). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Scherer, K. R. (1979a). Voice and speech correlates of perceived social influence in simulated
juries. In H. Giles & R. S. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 88-120).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Scherer, K. R. (1986). Vocal affect expression: A review and a model for future research.
Psychological Bulletin, 99, 143-165.
Scherer, K. R., Koivumaki, J., & Rosenthal, R. (1972). Minimal cues in the vocal
communication of affect: Judging emotion fromcontent-masked speech. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 1, 269-285.
Schooler, J. W., & Engstler-Schooler, T. Y. (1990). Verbal overshadowing of visual memories:
Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 36-71.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1985). Indirect speech acts. In J. P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and
semantics: Speech acts. Academic Press: Academic Press.
Sherzer, J. (1987). A discourse-centered approach to language and culture. American
Anthropologist, 89, 295-309.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Streeck, J. (1994). Culture, meaning, and interpersonal communication. In M. L. Knapp & G. R.
Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 286-319). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Street, R. L. (1983). Evaluation of noncontent speech accommodation. Language and
Communication, 2, 13-31.
Street, R. L., & Brady, R. M. (1983). Speech rate acceptance ranges as a function of evaluative
domain, listener speech rate, and communication context. Communication Monographs,
49, 290-308.
Street, R. L., Brady, R. M., & Putnam, W. B. (1983). The influence of speech rate stereotypes
and rate similarity on listener's evaluations of speakers. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 2, 37-56.
Streeter, L. A., Macdonald, N. H., Apple, W., Krauss, R. M., & Galotti, K. M. (1983). Acoustic

20
and perceptual indicators of emotional stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
73, 1354-1360.
Thakerar, J. N., Giles, H., & Cheshire, J. (1982). Psychological and linguistic parameters of
speech accommodation theory. In C. Fraser & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Advances in the social
psychology of language (pp. 205-255). Cambridge, Eng: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, D. R., & DeCapito, A. (1966). Role of stimulus labeling in stimulus generalization.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 913-915.
Williams, C. E., & Stevens, K. N. (1969). On determining the emotional state of pilots during
flight: An exploratory study. Aerospace Medicine, 40, 1369-1372.
Williams, C. E., & Stevens, K. N. (1972). Emotions and speech: some acoustical correlates.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 52, 233-248.
Wilson, T. D., & Schooler, J. W. (1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the
quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
181-192.
Wilson, T. D., Lisle, D. J., Schooler, J. W., Hodges, S. D., Klaaren, K. J., & LaFleur, S. J. (1993).
Introspecting about reasons can reduce post-choice satisfaction. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 19, 331-339.
Woodall, G. W., & Burgoon, J. K. (1983). Talking fast and changing attitudes: A critique and
clarification. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 126-142.
www.books.google.com.ng/books?isbn=044481714X