Language style on trial: Effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech upon judgments of victims and villains

Two studies are reported. The first examined consequences of “powerful”; and “powerless”; speech styles on attribution of fault to a defendant and plaintiff in a hypothetical courtroom context. A powerless style included hedges, intensifiers, polite forms, hesitation forms, and deictic phrases; a powerful style omitted these while including short or one‐word replies. Results suggested that subjects attributed greater fault to the high‐power style, regardless of whether the speaker was the plaintiff or defendant. Also, female subjects saw the alleged act as more serious when the speaker exhibited the high‐power style in the role of defendant. The second study included a high‐ or low‐power version of the testimony of a second speaker. In this case, subjects read two messages, contrasting in role (defendant vs. plaintiff) and power (high vs. low). Results for seriousness and fault were not replicated. In this case, power of style had a strong effect on judgments of communicator “internality.”; Results of both studies are compared.