Theory The Suasory Effects of Lexical Complexity and Syntactic Complexity On Effective Message Design

This article was downloaded by: [University Of Pittsburgh]
On: 21 March 2015, At: 11:49

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Communication Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcst20
Expanding Language Expectancy

Theory: The Suasory Effects of Lexical
Complexity and Syntactic Complexity on
Effective Message Design
a b
Joshua M. Averbeck & Claude Miller
a
Department of Communication , Western Illinois University
b
Department of Communication , University of Oklahoma
Published online: 17 Dec 2013.
Click for updates
To cite this article: Joshua M. Averbeck & Claude Miller (2014) Expanding Language Expectancy
Theory: The Suasory Effects of Lexical Complexity and Syntactic Complexity on Effective Message
Design, Communication Studies, 65:1, 72-95, DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2013.775955
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2013.775955
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University Of Pittsburgh] at 11:49 21 March 2015
Communication Studies
Vol. 65, No. 1, January–March 2014, pp. 72–95
Expanding Language Expectancy

Theory: The Suasory Effects of Lexical
Complexity and Syntactic Complexity
on Effective Message Design
Joshua M. Averbeck & Claude Miller
This research uses language expectancy theory (LET; Burgoon, Jones, & Stewart, 1975;
Miller & Burgoon, 1979) to explore message design effectiveness as a function of syntactic
and lexical complexity, in a 2 (lexical: simple vs. complex) 2 (syntactic: simple vs.
complex) design. Pilot test and main study findings indicate optimal message features
include the use of lexically simple language combined with syntactically simple sentence
structure for receivers who are more likely to think on concrete as opposed to abstract
levels, since such an arrangement makes integration of new information easier. Future
directions are discussed for message design and for advancement of the theoretical
contributions offered by examining syntactic complexity and lexical complexity within
the explanatory framework of LET.
Keywords: Cognitive Complexity; Language; Message Complexity; Message Processing;

Persuasion
Language expectancy theory (LET) is a message-based theory of persuasion positing

that communicators develop socially and culturally appropriate expectations about
how others communicate (Burgoon, 1995; Miller & Burgoon, 1979). Language is
defined as a rule-governed system whereby one may choose to either follow or violate
Joshua M. Averbeck (PhD, 2011, University of Oklahoma) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Communication at Western Illinois University. Claude Miller (PhD, 2000, University of Arizona) is an Associate
Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma. Correspondence to: Joshua M.
Averbeck, Department of Communication, Western Illinois University, 1 University Circle, Macomb, IL, 61455,
USA. E-mail: JM-Averbeck@wiu.edu
ISSN 1051-0974 (print)/ISSN 1745-1035 (online) # 2014 Central States Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2013.775955
Expanding LET 73
norms. In most transactions, communicators conform to the rules, thereby confirm-

ing and reinforcing their normative status. Beyond such confirmations, however,
message sources can positively or negatively violate expectations (termed expectancy
violations). When an expectation is positively violated, a source is said to have
exceeded the normative bandwidth of expectations in a positive direction within
the relevant context, whereupon LET predicts the persuasive message will result in
a more favorable attitude or behavior change (Burgoon & Miller, 1971). On the other
hand, expectancies may be negatively violated when an individual either uses
language deviating from the norm in a negative direction or when a high-credibility
source falls short of normative expectations. In such instances, no attitude or beha-
vior change is predicted; moreover, in certain instances, negative violations may be
met with boomerang effects, whereby changes in attitudes and=or behavior will occur
in the opposite direction intended by the source. As mentioned, LET specifies that
when expectations are met, by definition, a confirmation has occurred, meaning

the source has communicated within the normative bandwidth of expectations; thus,
outcomes should generally trend in a mildly positive direction, although LET predicts
relatively little change is likely to occur.
According to LET, expectancies can be derived in a variety of ways grounded
in interpersonal, social and cultural norms. By observing language behaviors,
individuals learn what is appropriate and expected of them, unique behavior patterns
are developed and displayed, and specific expectations about individuals may
vary slightly within the culturally dominant social customs and patterns (Miller &
Burgoon, 1979). Additionally, sources’ personality idiosyncrasies and=or their unique
relationships with receivers can also contribute to variance in receiver expectations,
either in positive or negative directions (Burgoon, 1995).
Extensive research has explored various factors related to language intensity
and expectancy violations (for a review, see Burgoon, Denning, & Roberts, 2002);
however, variables associated with several aspects of linguistic complexity have yet
to be examined within the LET literature. Although verbal intensity is an important
area of study, Burgoon (1995) laments the lack of research examining other message
features influencing message effectiveness, since, for instance, the forcefulness with
which one pursues a desired end could vary in length, lexical complexity, number
of sentences, number of arguments, and=or argument form (Burgoon & Miller,
1985). Burgoon et al. (2002) echoed this sentiment, adding that, although a number
of message variables have been considered, the approaches used have been rather
broad and the contexts in which they’ve been examined have been rather narrow
(e.g., within fear appeals).
Along these lines, variations in sentence structure and word choice are likely
to exert a considerable effect on message reception (Averbeck, 2010; Averbeck &
Hample, 2008; Burgoon et al., 2002). With rare exceptions, messages such as fear
appeals are constructed with little concern for word choice or sentence structure
or their effects on message reception.
With these issues in mind, the present project seeks to accomplish two goals:
first, to examine cognitive complexity as a more comprehensive predictor of multiple
74 J. M. Averbeck & C. Miller
language expectancies and, second, to investigate two commonly varied but under-
studied language behaviors in everyday speech (i.e., lexical and syntactic complexity).
With regard to cognitive complexity, it has thus far proven difficult to ascertain an
individual’s expectations for particular language behaviors without some notion of
the relevant cognitive dynamics involved (Burgoon et al., 2002).
Expectations of specific language behaviors are numerous and will vary from
person to person based on prior experience, social norms, and personal preference.
Such conditions make it increasingly difficult to accurately predict particular
language behaviors based on expectations for that language behavior in particular.
It may be more practical to determine whether a broader personality construct, such
as cognitive complexity, may be related to a variety of key language behaviors, and
thus perhaps may be more predictive of message reception in general and=or within
particular contexts involving specific populations. Such a broader or more global
predictor of multiple language expectations could offer a more practical and efficient
means for understanding language expectations.
Finally, as noted, lexical and syntactic forms of linguistic complexity have thus far
remained largely unexplored within the persuasion literature. Therefore, this project
seeks to investigate these two specific language behaviors, which have commonly
shown great variance in everyday speech but have nevertheless remained under-
studied in the communication literature, in general, and within the framework of
LET, in particular.
Lexical Complexity
Simple language versus complex language can have a relatively potent impact on the
persuasiveness of a message, depending on various factors related to source and
receiver characteristics (Bradac, Bowers, & Courtright, 1979). Studies on reading
comprehension demonstrate individuals are more comfortable and engaged when
the language complexity of a message matches their own abilities (Berne & Clark,
2006; Brabham & Villaume, 2002; Lloyd, 2004). These studies, however, do not
address the expectations associated with complex language. Lexical complexity—
which is a combination of the average length of words in a message and the ratio
of unique words to total words—can alter the way a message is interpreted (Bradac,
Desmond, & Murdock, 1977). For example, ‘‘You should throw your trash away’’
is lexically simpler than ‘‘Citizens ought to dispose of their refuse properly.’’
Interpersonal cognitive complexity refers to the variety and number of psychological
constructs one may use to describe others (Medvene, Grosch, & Swink, 2006). Cognitive
complexity should be functionally related to a message receiver’s vocabulary, involve-
ment, and interests in particular subjects and=or people (Shah, Kwak, Schmierbach,
& Zubric, 2004). Logically, it would seem cognitive complexity should interact
with lexical complexity to affect message reception. Therefore, the greater knowledge,
interest, and involvement held in a particular subject, the greater variety of psychological
constructs at one’s disposal for describing that subject (Crockett, 1965; Delia, 1972),
and the more one should be influenced by lexically complex messages.
Expanding LET 75
This reasoning should also hold when considering message reception (Burleson &
Caplan, 1998). Schrodt, Wheeless, and Ptacek (2000) found individuals experienced
informational reception apprehension wherein those lacking knowledge or vocabu-
lary were likely to reject complex messages. Those possessing information-processing
skills capable of understanding complex messages not only demonstrate the ability to
process such complex messages but also show some affinity for complex messages.
Greater cognitive complexity is likely to result in greater ease in comprehending,
processing, and responding to more complex messages (Rockwell, 2007). Such
abilities and affinities for complex messages may thus result in a desire or expectation
for complex messages. Therefore, the reception of lexically complex messages is likely
to depend heavily upon one’s cognitive complexity, such that greater complexity
should result in more positive reception of lexically complex messages due to
a preference for higher lexical complexity resulting in a positive expectancy violation.
A more complicated message is likely to be handled and processed with relative

ease by individuals who are more cognitively complex. On the other hand, less
cognitively complex individuals should be more likely to struggle with a lexically
complex message, and, as a result, they should be more likely to derogate the message
and=or the source and ultimately to consider the resulting influence attempt less
persuasive. Language expectancy theory predicts those higher in cognitive complexity
should prefer and have their expectations positively violated when receiving lexically
complex messages, which should then result in higher ratings of persuasiveness,
behavioral intentions, and perceived source credibility, along with lower message
derogation. Conversely, those lower in cognitive complexity should prefer lexically
simple messages and have their expectations negatively violated when they receive
lexically complex messages, resulting in lower ratings of persuasiveness and behavior
intentions and higher message and source derogation. Based on this reasoning
and previous research, the following hypotheses are predicted:
H1: Individuals higher in cognitive complexity will prefer lexically complex mes-
sages, which will elicit greater perceived persuasiveness compared to lexically
simple messages.
sages, which will elicit more positive behavioral intentions compared to lexi-
cally simple messages.
sages, which will elicit decreased message derogation compared to lexically
simple messages.
Syntactic Complexity
In addition to language choice, the layout of a sentence may also have a significant
effect on message reception or rejection. One way to think about syntactic complexity
is to consider the difference between a declarative sentence and a sentence with
a dependent clause at the beginning. A declarative sentence is easier to read than
a compound sentence or a sentence beginning with a dependent clause. Take the
following example:
A: The dog barks loudly if a squirrel is in the yard.

B: If a squirrel is in the yard, the dog barks loudly.
Each of these sentences presents the same information. However, Sentence A is

a declarative sentence and is syntactically simple, whereas Sentence B has a dependent
clause at its beginning and is therefore considered syntactically complex; thus,
Sentence B, with its dependent clause at the beginning (i.e., to the left of the declara-
tive phrase) may be referred to as a left-branching sentence, whereas Sentence A, with
its dependent clause at the end (i.e., to the right of the declarative phrase), may be
referred to as a right-branching sentence (Anderson & Davison, 1988).

Whereas any number of conditions may appear at the end of a simple declarative—
right-branching—sentence, a syntactically complex—left-branching—sentence first
identifies the conditions under which pertinent information is to be applied then
directs receivers to better incorporate that information into the appropriate associative
networks, presumably making the message more persuasive (Fazio, 2007; Fazio &
Roskos-Ewoldsen, 1994; Pfau et al., 2003; Roskos-Ewoldsen, Hu, & Rhodes, 2004).
Left-branching provides a context (i.e., the dependent clause) toward which the
remainder of the information (i.e., the declarative phrase) can be applied and may thus
allow pertinent information to more easily fit into existing attitudes and memory,
satisfying the expectation or preference for ease of comprehension. On the other
hand, right-branching sentences should provide a comparatively poorer fit, since the
conditions upon which the subject of the sentence must act are not initially stated
(Grodner & Gibson, 2005), resulting in a less preferred sentence structure, possibly
producing a negative expectancy violation for most receivers. Thus, a syntactically
complex message using left-branching sentences (being preferred) should be perceived
as more persuasive and credible and should result in greater attitude change relative to
a syntactically simple message using right-branching sentences (possibly constituting
a mildly negative confirmation).
There should also be an interaction between syntactic complexity and cognitive
complexity. A more syntactically complex message would seem to provide a more
straightforward method for incorporating the information and, therefore, may be
more preferred by less cognitively complex individuals. However, more cognitively
complex individuals will be relatively better able to incorporate the information
provided in syntactically simple, yet more challenging, right-branching structured
messages. Thus, due to the variety of psychological constructs they hold, more
cognitively complex receivers should process such messages with relative ease,
preferring them to the simpler, less challenging, left-branching sentences, and
therefore should see them as positive violations, thereby resulting in more effective
persuasive outcomes. On the other hand, those lower in cognitive complexity should
have their expectations negatively confirmed—or perhaps even mildly negatively
Expanding LET 77
violated—when they receive syntactically simple, yet more challenging, right-

branching messages, resulting in less effective persuasive outcomes (e.g., lower ratings
of persuasiveness, lesser behavior intentions, and higher message and=or source
derogation). Based on this reasoning and previous research, the following inter-
actions are predicted:
H4: Individuals higher in cognitive complexity will prefer syntactically simple

messages, which will elicit greater perceived persuasiveness compared to
syntactically complex messages.
messages, which will elicit more positive behavioral intentions compared to
messages, which will elicit decreased message derogation compared to

To address these hypotheses, two studies are presented: The first develops
a measure of message complexity to pilot test and demonstrate the key theoretic
differences between the relevant test messages, and the second builds on this opera-
tionalization by applying the persuasive appeals to directly test the hypotheses.
Method: Study 1
Participants
Seventy-four participants were drawn from the department of communication
subject pool at large Midwestern university. All experimental materials were
approved by the human subjects institutional review board.
Procedures
Data were gathered using an online survey. In the repeated measures design 2 (lexical:
simple vs. complex) 2 (syntactic: simple vs. complex), participants were asked
to read each of the four messages and to assess the complexity of each message.
Participants were then thanked and debriefed.
Message Construction
All four versions of the messages were based on a message produced by the U. S. Centers
for Disease Control (CDC). The principal message template was manipulated to fulfill
each of the message conditions (messages variations are included in Appendix A).
Lexical complexity was determined in accordance with the Index of Contingency
(Becker, Bavelas, & Braden, 1961; Compton & Pfau, 2008). The less complex
messages (M ¼ 1.44, SD ¼ 0.03) were manipulated through a higher overlap percent-
age indicating more repetition and fewer unique words. The less complex messages
should have a lower concept score due to the repetition of nouns, which results in
an overall lower index of readability indicated by the concept score. The more com-
plex messages (M ¼ 0.82, SD ¼ 0.02) were constructed to have a lower repetition per-
centage indicating less repetition and more unique words. The concept score,
therefore, was higher due to repetition of nouns present in the message, resulting
in an overall higher index. An independent sample t test indicated the difference
in scores was significant, t(6) ¼ 31.50, p < .001, r ¼ .996, d ¼ 25.7.
Syntactic complexity was also manipulated a priori through the use of left- and
right-branching clauses. Simple messages had the same information as complex
messages; however, the dependent clause in syntactically complex messages began as
left-branching sentences, whereas the same dependent clause appeared at the end of
syntactically simple, right-branching sentences. For example, ‘‘Given that sexually
transmitted infections are extremely dangerous, you should make testing a regular part
of your overall health’’ is a complex message due to the left-branching clause; whereas,
‘‘You should make testing a regular part of your overall health since sexually transmitted
infections are extremely dangerous’’ is a syntactically simple message, because it includes
the qualifying clause at the end (i.e., within the right branch) of the sentence.
Dependent Variable
Thirteen semantic differential items assessed on 7-point scales were generated and
subjected to a principal component analysis (PCA) to assess message complexity.
Syntactic complexity and lexical complexity were expected to interact such that lexically
complex=syntactically simple messages would be rated as the most complex, whereas
lexically simple=syntactically simple message should be rated as the least complex.
A scree plot and 95th percentile parallel analysis were utilized to assess the number
of components, and Varimax (orthogonal) rotation was used to improve inter-
pretation. As a result, six items were removed based on poor communalities and
cross-loading, leaving the following seven adjective pairs to assess message complexity:
complex=simple, intricate=straightforward, complicated=uncomplicated, difficult=easy,
compound=uniform, demanding=undemanding, and convoluted=simplistic, coded so
higher means indicate greater perceived message complexity. Factorability was accept-
able (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy [MSA] ¼ .90 and Bartlett’s
Test of Sphericity, v2 [df ¼ 21] ¼ 2157.17, p < .001). Univariable MSA values are also
acceptable (all values exceed .86). Based on the scree plot and the parallel analysis,
one factor was extracted, and the final unidimensional model accounted for 69.66%
of the variance, with no loadings below .67. The resulting scale computed from these
items produced a 7-item Cronbach’s a ¼ .93 (M ¼ 5.12, SD ¼ 1.32).
Results: Study 1
The newly computed scale was then used in a repeated-measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to examine the main effects for syntactic and lexical complexities (means
and standard deviations are reported in Table 1). Results indicated significant main
effects for both syntactic complexity, F(1, 62) ¼ 26.01, p < .001, g2 ¼ .30, and lexical
Expanding LET 79
Table 1 Message Complexity Means (and Standard Deviations)

for Syntactic and Lexical Complexities in Study 1
Message complexity
Syntactically Simple
Lexically Simple 5.45 (1.07)
Lexically Complex 5.52 (1.17)
Syntactically Complex
Lexically Simple 4.47 (1.26)
Lexically Complex 5.05 (1.30)
complexity, F(1, 62) ¼ 11.65, p < .001, g2 ¼ .16, which were qualified by a significant
interaction, F(1, 62) ¼ 5.37, p < .001, g2 ¼ .08.

As expected, the syntactically complex (left-branching) messages were considered
less difficult to understand, whereas the lexically complex messages were considered
more difficult to understand overall. These messages were thus deemed appropriate
for use in Study 2.
Method: Study 2
Participants
A total of 303 participants were drawn from the department of communication
subject pool, of whom 180 were females, 96 males, and 27 unidentified as to sex, with
a mean age of 20.86 (SD ¼ 3.49) for all participants, who were 3% Asians, 9% African
Americans, 5% Latinos, 67% Whites, 5% Native Americans, 3% indicating Other,
and 8% who did not report race. Year in college was also recorded, with 25%
freshmen, 25% sophomores, 21% juniors, 20% seniors, 0.3% graduate, and 9%
not indicating grade level. Roughly 0.5% (n ¼ 16) reported having had a sexually
transmitted disease (STD) infection of some kind. As in Study 1, all experimental
materials were approved by the human subjects institutional review board.
Procedures
The experimental design used a 2 (lexical: simple vs. complex) 2 (syntactic: simple
vs. complex) design. After providing demographic information, participants read
a message encouraging testing for sexually transmitted diseases, followed by measures
assessing message derogation and message effectiveness. Finally, participants com-
pleted the cognitive complexity measures developed in Study 1.
Message Complexity
The seven syntactic differential items described above were used as a manipulation
check for the two language complexity predictor variables, with the resulting scale
showing good internal consistency (seven-item a ¼ .90, M ¼ 2.30, SD ¼ 1.11).
Predictor Variables
Cognitive complexity was assessed using the Cognitive Complexity Instrument (CCI;
Bagdasarov, 2009), which consisted of a 21-item three-dimensional measure of
cognitive complexity, capturing one’s affinity for thinking on an abstract level,
abilities to integrate new information, and capacity to differentiate psychological
constructs. The CCI, compared to the Role Category Questionnaire (RCQ; Crockett,
1965; Delia, 1972), examines the ways in which an individual may think on a complex
level beyond being able to identify multiple personality characteristics of others. The
abstractness component of this measure consists of seven items, for example, ‘‘I like
to think about abstract ideas’’ and ‘‘Typically, I avoid philosophical discussions’’
(seven-item a ¼ .69, M ¼ 4.51, SD ¼ 0.92). The integration component, also com-
prised of seven items, included ‘‘I spend a lot of time reflecting on how things are
connected,’’ and ‘‘I can bring a new perspective to a situation’’ (seven-item a ¼ .84,
M ¼ 5.44, SD ¼ 0.85). Finally, the differentiation component also consisted of seven
items, for example, ‘‘When describing a person, I typically go beyond just physical
description,’’ and ‘‘When someone is telling a story I wish they would get straight
to the point,’’ although demonstrating less internal consistency (seven-item
a ¼ .58, M ¼ 4.63, SD ¼ 0.73).
Dependent Variables
Message derogation concerned the extent to which a message was considered
manipulative, for example, ‘‘This message was exaggerated,’’ and ‘‘This message
was overblown’’ (Smalec & Klingle, 2000) (four-item a ¼ .93, M ¼ 2.19, SD ¼ 1.07).
Perceived persuasiveness (Miller & Averbeck, in press) was assessed with items
measured along a 7-point syntactic differential scale, asking if the message was
persuasive=unpersuasive, effective=ineffective, and influential=not influential (five-
item a ¼ .95, M ¼ 5.30, SD ¼ 1.30).
Behavioral intentions (three-item a ¼ .95, M ¼ 3.61, SD ¼ 1.76) was assessed using
a scale adapted from Park, Klein, and Smith (2007), including ‘‘I plan to get tested for
sexually transmitted diseases before my next sexual encounter.’’
Data Analysis and Results: Study 2

A two-way ANOVA was used for the message complexity manipulation check.
Although the high lexical complexity manipulations created significantly higher levels
of perceived complexity, F(1, 261) ¼ 7.61, p < .01, g2 ¼ .03, the effect for syntactic
complexity was not significant, F(1, 263) ¼ 0.15, ns, g2 ¼ .00, nor was the interaction
between lexical and syntactic complexity, F(1, 263) ¼ 0.70, ns, g2 ¼ .00.
To analyze the interactions between the continuous cognitive complexity variables
and lexical complexity and syntactic complexity, we followed Aiken and West’s (1991)
method of plotting interactions from multiple regression equations, whereby the
independent variables in the regression are the binomial experimental manipulation
Expanding LET 81
(e.g., lexical complexity), the moderating variable (e.g., cognitive complexity), and
a multiplicative term of the two independent variables. Graphs were generated based
on Cohen and Cohen’s (1983) recommendation of designating a high and low value of
moderating variables based on one standard deviation above and below the mean of
cognitive complexity. These equations were then plotted to display the interactions.
Hypotheses 1–3 predicted individuals higher in cognitive complexity would prefer
lexically complex messages, which would elicit greater perceived persuasiveness,
more positive behavioral intentions, and decreased message derogation compared to
lexically simple messages. To test this, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was calculated. The independent variables were lexical complexity and the three
dimensions of the cognitive complexity instrument (CCI). The dependent variables
were perceived persuasiveness, behavior intentions, and message derogation. Multi-
variate tests are reported first then, followed by univariate effects only if a significant
interaction was observed.

Although the interaction between lexical complexity and integration was not
significant, Wilks’ Lambda ¼ .92, F(10, 412) ¼ 1.78, ns, g2p ¼ :04, the interaction
between lexical complexity and abstractness was significant, Wilks’ Lambda ¼ .91,
F(10, 412) ¼ 2.09, p < .05, g2p ¼ :05, as was the interaction between lexical complexity
and differentiation, Wilks’ Lambda ¼ .9, F(10, 412) ¼ 2.22, p < .05, g2p ¼ :05.
For lexical complexity and abstractness, there was a significant univariate effect
for message derogation, F(2, 210) ¼ 3.12, p < .05, g2p ¼ :03, and as Figure 1 indicates,
as abilities to think on an abstract level increased, lexically simple messages were
derogated more than lexically complex messages, providing partial support for
Hypothesis 1. Thus, for at least one aspect of cognitive complexity, significantly lower
levels of message derogation were associated with more lexically complex messages.
There were, however, no other significant univariate effects associated with the ability
to think on an abstract level.
Similar results were found for lexical complexity and differentiation, where there
was a significant univariate effects for perceived persuasiveness, F(2, 210) ¼ 5.92,
p < .01, g2p ¼ :05, and, as Figure 2 shows, greater differentiation abilities were
Figure 1 Interaction between abstraction and lexical complexity for message derogation.
Figure 2 Interaction between differentiation and lexical complexity for persuasiveness.
associated with higher ratings of perceived persuasiveness. Moreover, lower levels of

differentiation were associated with greater perceived persuasiveness for the lexically
simple message, whereas greater differentiation was associated with higher perceived
persuasiveness for the lexically complex message.
Although behavior intentions were relatively unchanged as differentiation increased,
as Figure 3 shows, the lexically simple message elicited greater behavior intentions
when participants’ differentiation was low, and there were greater behavior intentions
associated with the lexically complex message when differentiation was high.
Likewise, message derogation decreased as differentiation increased, and, as
Figure 4 shows, lexically simple messages were derogated more when differentiation
was low but derogated less as differentiation increased, F(2, 210) ¼ 5.16, p < .01,
g2p ¼ :05. The interaction between lexical complexity and differentiation provided
mixed support for Hypothesis 3. There were greater perceived persuasiveness and
behavior intentions for the lexically complex messages as differentiation increased,
Figure 3 Interaction between differentiation and lexical complexity for behavior intentions.
Expanding LET 83
Figure 4 Interaction between differentiation and lexical complexity for message derogation.
but there was also greater message derogation compared to the lexically simple
message. However, message derogation decreased as differentiation abilities increased.
In summary, Hypothesis 1 received mixed results: For lexically complex messages,
there was greater perceived persuasiveness when individuals reported higher levels of
differentiation. Hypothesis 2 also appears to have received mixed support: As ability
to think on an abstract level increased, lexically simple messages were derogated more
than lexically complex messages; however, higher cognitive complexity was associated
with less behavior intentions for lexically complex messages rather than lexically
simple messages, as predicted. Hypothesis 3 also received mixed support: Lexically
simple messages were derogated more based on one’s ability to think abstractly
but were derogated less based on differentiation.
Hypotheses 4–6 predicted individuals higher in cognitive complexity would prefer
syntactically complex messages, which would elicit greater perceived persuasiveness,
more positive behavioral intentions, and decreased message derogation compared to
Although the interaction between syntactic complexity and abstractness was not
significant, Wilks’ Lambda ¼ .92, F(10, 414) ¼ 1.67, ns, g2p ¼ :04, there was a signifi-
cant interaction between syntactic complexity and integration, Wilks’ Lambda ¼ .86,
F(10, 414) ¼ 3.35, p < .001, g2p ¼ :08, and syntactic complexity and differentiation,
Wilks’ Lambda ¼ .82, F(10, 414) ¼ 4.25, p < .001, g2p ¼ :09.
For syntactic complexity and integration, there was a significant univariate effect
for persuasiveness, F(2, 211) ¼ 5.20, p < .01, g2p ¼ :05, and, as Figure 5 indicates,
syntactically simple messages were perceived as more persuasive by receivers
who were lower in information integration ability. On the other hand, contrary
to Hypothesis 4, the syntactically complex message was more persuasive when
integration abilities were high. On the other hand, message derogation was higher for
syntactically complex messages when integration scores were low, F(2, 211) ¼ 6.94,
p < .001, g2p ¼ :06. However, contrary to Hypothesis 6, syntactically complex
messages were derogated less when integration scores were high (see Figure 6). There
Figure 5 Interaction between integration and syntactic complexity for persuasiveness.

were no significant univariate effects for behavior intentions, thus Hypothesis 5 was
not supported.
For syntactic complexity and differentiation, there were significant univariate
effects for persuasiveness, F(2, 211) ¼ 7.35, p < .001, g2p ¼ :07, such that messages
were rated as being more persuasive as differentiation increased (see Figure 7). More-
over, syntactically simple messages were more persuasive than syntactically complex
messages regardless of level of differentiation abilities, providing a measure of
support for Hypothesis 4. As Figure 8 illustrates, behavior intentions were higher
as differentiation scores increased, F(2, 211) ¼ 3.35, p < .05, g2p ¼ :03. Despite the
syntactically simple message eliciting greater behavior intentions when differentiation
was higher, the difference between syntactically complex and simple messages was
minimal. As Figure 9 shows, message derogation was highest for the syntactically
complex message combined with low differentiation, F(2, 211) ¼ 13.57, p < .001,
g2p ¼ :11. Furthermore, syntactically complex messages were derogated more regard-
less of differentiation scores, providing support for Hypothesis 6.
Figure 6 Interaction between integration and syntactic complexity for message derogation.
Expanding LET 85
Figure 7 Interaction between differentiation and syntactic complexity for persuasiveness.
Figure 8 Interaction between differentiation and syntactic complexity for behavior intentions.
Figure 9 Interaction between differentiation and syntactic complexity for message derogation.
In sum, Hypothesis 5 did not receive support: Behavior intentions did not appear
to be affected by syntactic complexity. However, mixed support was found for both
Hypotheses 4 and 6: Increases in integration were associated with higher ratings of
persuasiveness and less message derogation for syntactically complex messages.
Moreover, syntactically simple messages were more persuasive and resulted in less
message derogation when differentiation skills increased.
Discussion
To assess the effects of lexical complexity and syntactic complexity on the persuasive-
ness of a health message, two studies were conducted. The first, serving as a pilot,
demonstrated the differences in perceived message complexity for lexical and syn-
tactic complexity manipulations. The second study examined the effects of these
message manipulations on message processing, and interactions between the message

manipulations and individual difference variables such as cognitive complexity were
tested. Based on the analyses performed, cognitive complexity appears to play a major
role in the reception of lexically complex and syntactically complex messages. In the
following sections, these results will be discussed in terms of message characteristics,
preferences and expectations affecting persuasiveness, and theoretical and contextual
contributions. Finally, limitations and future directions are discussed.
Message Characteristics
Based on Study 1, it appears people form expectations and preferences about the lexi-
cal and syntactic complexity of the message they receive. In particular, messages
designed to be higher in lexical complexity were indeed considered more complex.
Although the syntactically simple messages were also rated as complex, the expecta-
tions associated with them appear to depend more heavily upon individual
differences.
For the most part, participants who were cognitively complex showed a distinct
preference for lexically simple message when reporting behavior intentions. Indivi-
duals who think about issues longer differentiate between ideas, but lack abilities
to identify different personality constructs in others, found lexically complex
messages more persuasive. Lexically complex messages were derogated less by those
who have a greater tendency to think on an abstract level and have less abilities to
differentiate between ideas.
Perhaps lexically simple messages do not allow for as much interpretation, nor
effectively satisfy the reflective needs of receivers. Lexically complex messages may
help receivers distinguish concepts from one another and may provide more useful
language features for receivers to contemplate at length. As argued in the reasoning
leading up to the hypotheses, related expectations and preferences may be tied to
one’s reading comprehension levels and experience with complex ideas. That is,
individuals who do not have much experience with complex ideas may shy away
from complex terminology and prefer a lexically simple message. Those who have
Expanding LET 87
more experience with complicated terminology may be less concerned with how to
understand the message in front of them. Rather, these individuals may be more
interested in thinking about all possible meanings and considering applications
for the message’s content. Thus, lexically complex messages may do a better job of
providing the raw materials for more a cognitively complex individual to think on
more abstract levels.
The integrative aspect of cognitive complexity also affected the reception of
syntactically complex messages. Greater abilities to integrate new information and
to differentiate between personality constructs in others were associated with
a preference for syntactically complex messages. Specifically, relative to syntactically
simple messages, individuals with higher integrative abilities found syntactically
complex messages more persuasive, reported more favorable attitudes and expressed
less message derogation. Integration abilities should make syntactically complex
messages easier to process; therefore, it makes sense those who have greater inte-
gration abilities should have a preference for messages that provide a clearer context
for integrating the information. Thus, syntactically complex messages may positively
violate the expectations of those who have greater integration abilities.
On the other hand, those who showed greater differentiation abilities found syn-
tactically simple messages more persuasive, reported more favorable attitudes, and
less message and source derogation. Differentiation skills may create a preference for
messages providing content without as much need for context. An individual with such
a preference might prefer to think about how this information is new or different from
previous knowledge and to decide whether or not to incorporate the new information.
Given their lack of contextualization, syntactically simple messages may meet—or
perhaps even positively violate—the expectations of high-differentiation receivers.
Future Directions and Limitations

There is definitely room for elaboration and improvement within this line of research
using expectancy violation theory, especially regarding the measurement of expect-
ancy violations. One potential approach would be to assess receivers’ expectations
about a language feature prior to message exposure; then, after the message has been
viewed, participants could complete the same measures in a posttest to indicate
the extent to which the message met or violated their expectations. For instance,
participants could be asked the extent to which they expect or prefer complex
sentences. The message complexity scale used in the present studies could be applied
to pretest message complexity; for example, message receivers could indicate how
much they prefer messages to be complex and=or straightforward, then, after reading
a target message, perceived levels of complexity could be assessed in a posttest,
with the difference in scale means used to indicate both the direction and magnitude
of any potential expectancy violations. An additional limitation is the use of college
students to examine a phenomenon that is hypothesized to affect all people at various
levels of education, experience, and knowledge. Thus, the generalizability of the
findings reported here are limited due to this restricted aspect of the sample, and
replication of this study with a more diverse sample and multiple messages (Jackson
& Jacobs, 1983) would be valuable.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Anderson, R. C., & Davison, A. (1988). Conceptual and empirical bases of readability formulas.
In A. Davisson & G. M. Green (Eds.), Linguistic complexity and text comprehension:
Readability issues reconsidered (pp. 23–53). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Averbeck, J. M. (2010). Irony and language expectancy theory: Evaluations of expectancy violation
outcomes. Communication Studies, 61, 356–372. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10510971003776147
Averbeck, J. M., & Hample, D. (2008). Ironic message production: How and why we produce ironic
messages. Communication Monographs, 75, 396–410. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/

10.1080/03637750802512389
Bagdasarov, Z. (2009). Developing and validating a measure of cognitive complexity: The role of
cognitive complexity in processing of health messages (Doctoral Dissertation). New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University.
Becker, S. W., Bavelas, A., & Braden, M. (1961). An index to measure contingency of English
sentences. Language and Speech, 4, 138–145.
Berne, J. I., & Clark, K. F. (2006). Comprehension strategy use during peer-led discussion of text:
Ninth graders tackle ‘‘the lottery.’’ Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49, 674–686.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.49.8.4
Brabham, E. G., & Villaume, S. K. (2002). Leveled texts: The good news and the bad news. The
Reading Teacher, 55, 438–441.
Bradac, J. J., Bowers, J. W., & Courtright, J. A. (1979). Three language variables in communication
research: Intensity, immediacy, and diversity. Human Communication Research, 5, 257–269.
Bradac, J. J., Desmond, R. J., & Murdock, J. I. (1977). Diversity and density: Lexically determined
evaluative and informational consequences of linguistic complexity. Communication
Monographs, 44, 273–283.
Burgoon, M. (1995). Language expectancy theory: Elaboration, explication, and extension. In C. R.
Berger & M. Burgoon (Eds.), Communication and social influence processes (pp. 29–52). East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
Burgoon, M., Denning, P. V., & Roberts, L. (2002). Language expectancy theory. In J. P. Dillard &
M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 117–137).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burgoon, M., Jones, S. B., & Stewart, D. (1975). Toward a message-centered theory of persuasion:
Three empirical investigations of language intensity. Human Communication Research,
1, 240–256.
Burgoon, M., & Miller, G. R. (1971). Prior attitude and language intensity as predictors of message
style and attitude change following counterattitudinal advocacy. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 20, 246–253.
Burgoon, M., & Miller, G. R. (1985). An expectancy interpretation of language and persuasion.
In H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair (Eds.), Recent advances in language communication and social
psychology (pp. 199–229). London, United Kingdom: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Burleson, B. R., & Caplan, S. E. (1998). Cognitive complexity. In J. C. McCroskey, M. J. Beatty,
J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin & D. Cegala (Eds.), Communication and personality: Trait perspec-
tives (pp. 233–286). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression=correlation analyses for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Expanding LET 89
Compton, J., & Pfau, M. (2008). Inoculating against pro-plagiarism justifications: Rational and
affective strategies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 98–119. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909880701799329
Crockett, W. H. (1965). Cognitive complexity and impression formation. In B. A. Maher (Ed.),
Progress in experimental personality research (Vol. 2, pp. 47–90). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Delia, J. G. (1972). Dialects and the effects of stereotypes on interpersonal attraction and cognitive
processes in impression formation. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58, 285–297.
Fazio, R. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition,
25, 603–637. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.603
Fazio, R. H., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (1994). Acting as we feel: When and how attitudes guide
behavior. In T. C. Brock & S. Shavitt (Eds.), Psychology of persuasion (pp. 71–94). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentenial
complexity. Cognitive Science, 29, 261–290. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15516709cog0000_7
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1983). Generalizing about messages: Suggestions for design and analysis of
experiments. Human Communication Research, 9, 169–181.
Lloyd, S. L. (2004). Using comprehension strategies as a springboard for student talk. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48, 114–124. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/
JAAL.48.2.3
Medvene, L., Grosch, K., & Swink, N. (2006). Interpersonal complexity: A cognitive component of
person-centered care. The Gerontologist, 46, 220–226. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/geront/46.2.220
Miller, C. H., & Averbeck, J. M. (in press). A measure of hedonic relevance: Insight and application.
Electronic Journal of Communication.
Miller, M. D., & Burgoon, M. (1979). The relationship between violations of expectations and the
induction of resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 5, 301–313.
Park, H. S., Klein, K., & Smith, S. (2007, May). The power of subjective norms, university descriptive
and injunctive norms, and U.S. descriptive and injunctive norms on drinking behavior inten-
tions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Associ-
ation, San Francisco, CA.
Pfau, M., Roskos-Ewoldsen, R., Wood, M., Yin, S., Cho, J., Lu, K., & Shen, L. (2003). Attitude
accessibility as an alternative explanation for how inoculation confers resistance. Communi-
cation Monographs, 70, 39–51. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/715114663
Rockwell, P. (2007). The effects of cognitive complexity and communication apprehension on
the expression and recognition of sarcasm. In J. A. Zebrowski (Ed.), New research on social
perception (pp. 193–205). Hauppauge, NY: Nova.
Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Hu, J. H., & Rhodes, N. (2004). Fear appeal messages affect accessibility of
attitudes toward the threat and adaptive behaviors. Communication Monographs, 71, 49–69.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0363452042000228559
Schrodt, P., Wheeless, L. R., & Ptacek, K. M. (2000). Informational reception apprehension,
educational motivation, and achievement. Communication Quarterly, 48, 60–73. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463370009385580
Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., Schmierbach, M., & Zubric, J. (2004). The interplay of news frames on
cognitive complexity. Human Communication Research, 30, 102–120. Retrieved from http://
dx.doi.org/10.1093/hcr/30.1.102
Smalec, J. L., & Klingle, R. S. (2000). Bulimia interventions via interpersonal influence: The role of
threat and efficacy in persuading Bulimics to seek help. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 23,
37–57.
Appendix A – Messages
Syntactically Simple, Lexically Simple
Being tested for STDs can be one of the most essential things you can do to stay
healthy. You have to ask for an STD test. Doctors will not routinely test for STDs.
You should feel comfortable to ask. It’s absolutely essential to get tested. It is
essential to be treated as soon as possible if you do have an STD— like chlamydia
or gonorrhea, for example. You and your doctor will decide what STD tests make
the most sense for your case.
Before your appointment

. Think of problems or questions you have. It is helpful to write them down even if
you have only one or two questions so you have them with you.
. Tell the receptionist that you would like to be tested for STDs when you make your
appointment and you will be tested.
The appointment
It is the day of your appointment. Take a deep breath! Bring a family member or friend
with you if you want company. It may even be OK to bring someone else into the room
during your test. Just let the doctor know in advance that you would like to do that.
Also, tell your doctor if you want to talk in private. Ask lots of questions and
be honest. Ask for explanations when you do not understand a question or answer
so you can understand it.
The talk
A good sexual health exam begins with a good sexual health history. Here are some
common questions that doctors ask:
. How many sexual partners have you had recently?

. How many sexual partners have you had in your lifetime?
. Do you have sex with women, men, or both?
. Do you have oral sex?
. Do you have anal sex?
. Do you use condoms?
. Do you have symptoms?
. Have you have had symptoms in the past?
. Have you ever had a sexually transmitted infection (STI)?
. Have you used over-the-counter medications to treat your symptoms?
. Do your partner(s) have any STIs or symptoms of STIs?
. Do you have any drug allergies?
. When was your last period? (if you are a woman)
Expanding LET 91
These questions might seem really personal. It is essential to be honest with your doc-
tor so you get the most out of your test. Your doctor will help you make essential
decisions about what test(s) you may need.
And remember! Be sure to ask about when you will get the results.
Below is contact information to schedule your screening today.
OU Health Services
Goddard Health Center
620 Elm Avenue
Norman, Oklahoma 73019-3146
405-325-4441
Planned Parenthood
2100 W Lindsey St Ste B

Norman, Oklahoma 73069
405-360-1556
800-230-7526
Cleveland County Health Department
250 12th Ave NE
405-321-4048
Syntactically Simple, Lexically Complex

Being tested for sexually transmitted diseases can be one of the most important
things you can do to stay healthy. You should petition for an STD test. Health care
providers don’t automatically screen for STDs.
You should feel comfortable to request it. It’s absolutely fundamental to your
well-being to be assessed. It’s important to seek treatment as soon as possible
for comprehensive infection management if you do have an STD—like chlamydia
or gonorrhea, for example. You and your physician will decide what STD tests make
the most sense for your circumstances.
. Think of concerns or questions you have. It’s helpful to put them in writing to
remember them even if you have only one or two inquiries.
. Tell the receptionist that you’d like to be checked for sexually transmitted infec-
tions when you make your appointment so you receive a complete examination.
The appointment
It’s the day of your scheduled examination. Inhale deeply! Bring a family member or
friend with you if you want. It may even be acceptable to bring someone else into the
room during your assessment. Just let the provider know in advance that you would
like to do that.
Also, tell your general practitioner if you want to speak in confidence. Ask
numerous questions and be straightforward. Ask for explanations when you don’t
comprehend a query or response so you can best utilize the prognosis.
The talk
A good sexual health exam commences with an extensive sexual health history.
There are several inquiries that health care providers ask:

. Have you ever had a sexually transmitted infection?
. When was your last period? (if you’re a woman)
These questions might seem really delicate. It’s necessary to be candid with
your health care provider to obtain preeminent remedies. Your caregiver can assist
you to make important judgments about what test(s) you may require.
Remember! Inquire about when you’ll get the outcome.
Below is contact information to schedule your screening immediately:
OU Health Services
620 Elm Avenue
405-325-4441
Planned Parenthood
405-360-1556
800-230-7526
250 12th Ave NE
405-321-4048
Expanding LET 93
Syntactically Complex, Lexically Simple

One of the most essential things you can do to stay healthy is to be tested for
STDs. During a visit, doctors will not routinely test for STDs. In order to be
tested, you have to ask.
You can feel comfortable about asking to be tested as it really is essential. If you
have an STD—like chlamydia or gonorrhea—it is essential to be treated as soon as
possible to stay healthy. In terms of what STD tests to take, you and your doctor will
decide what makes the most sense for your condition.

. If you have questions, write them down to keep them in mind. It is essential,
even if you have only one or two.

. When you make an appointment with the receptionist, ask to be tested for STDs
to make sure you are tested.
The appointment
On the day of your visit, take a deep breath! If you want someone else in the room
with you during your test, it is okay to bring family or a friend. When you want
someone to be with you, just let the doctor know in advance.
If you want to talk in private, tell your doctor. As soon as there is a question
or answer you would like explained, ask for an explanation, ask lots of questions,
and be honest so you can use the answers you get.
The talk
To have a good sexual health exam, you will provide a sexual health history. There
are many questions a doctor can ask, and here are some common ones:
Some of these questions might seem really personal, but it is essential to be open with
your doctor to stay healthy. When deciding what test(s) you may need, your doctor
can help you make this essential decision.
Remember, ask about when you will get the results.
To schedule your screening today, use the information below:
OU Health Services
620 Elm Avenue
405-325-4441
Planned Parenthood
405-360-1556
800-230-7526
250 12th Ave NE
405-321-4048
Syntactically Complex, Lexically Complex

One of the most significant things you can do for your health is to be screened for
sexually transmitted diseases. During a checkup, health care providers won’t auto-
matically test for STDs. In order to be tested, you’ll need to ask.
You should feel comfortable about asking, and it’s absolutely fundamental you are
assessed. If you have an STD—like chlamydia or gonorrhea—it’s imperative to seek
treatment as soon as possible to remain healthy. In terms of what STD tests to take,
you and your physician will decide what makes the most sense for your circumstances.

. If you have questions, put them in writing so you’ll remember them. It’s impor-
tant, even if you have only one or two.
. When you make an appointment, inform the receptionist that you’d like to be
checked for sexually transmitted infections to ensure you are screened.
The appointment
On the day of your scheduled examination, inhale deeply! If you want someone else
in the room with you during your assessment, it’s acceptable to bring a family mem-
ber or friend. When you want someone to accompany you, just let the physician
know beforehand.
If you prefer to speak in confidence, tell your general practitioner. As soon as there’s
a query or response you would prefer clarification on, then ask for an explanation, ask
Expanding LET 95
numerous questions and be straightforward so you are better equipped to utilize the
prognosis.
The talk
For a good sexual health exam, you will provide an extensive sexual health history. There
are several inquiries a health care provider can ask, and here are some typical ones:

Some of these matters might seem really delicate, but it’s necessary to be candid with
your health care provider to obtain preeminent remedies. In order to decide what
test(s) you may require, your caregiver can assist you to make this important
judgment.
Moreover, remember, inquire about when you’ll get the outcome.
To schedule your screening immediately, utilize the contact information below:
OU Health Services
620 Elm Avenue
405-325-4441
Planned Parenthood
405-360-1556
800-230-7526
250 12th Ave NE
405-321-4048

Theory The Suasory Effects of Lexical Complexity and Syntactic Complexity On Effective Message Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theory The Suasory Effects of Lexical Complexity and Syntactic Complexity On Effective Message Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University Of Pittsburgh]

On: 21 March 2015, At: 11:49

Expanding Language Expectancy

Click for updates

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2013.775955

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Expanding Language Expectancy

Joshua M. Averbeck & Claude Miller

Keywords: Cognitive Complexity; Language; Message Complexity; Message Processing;

Language expectancy theory (LET) is a message-based theory of persuasion positing

norms. In most transactions, communicators conform to the rules, thereby confirm-

when expectations are met, by definition, a confirmation has occurred, meaning

A more complicated message is likely to be handled and processed with relative

A: The dog barks loudly if a squirrel is in the yard.

Each of these sentences presents the same information. However, Sentence A is

referred to as a right-branching sentence (Anderson & Davison, 1988).

violated—when they receive syntactically simple, yet more challenging, right-

H4: Individuals higher in cognitive complexity will prefer syntactically simple

messages, which will elicit decreased message derogation compared to

Table 1 Message Complexity Means (and Standard Deviations)

interaction, F(1, 62) ¼ 5.37, p < .001, g2 ¼ .08.

Data Analysis and Results: Study 2

interaction was observed.

Figure 2 Interaction between differentiation and lexical complexity for persuasiveness.

associated with higher ratings of perceived persuasiveness. Moreover, lower levels of

Figure 5 Interaction between integration and syntactic complexity for persuasiveness.

Figure 7 Interaction between differentiation and syntactic complexity for persuasiveness.

message manipulations on message processing, and interactions between the message

Future Directions and Limitations

messages. Communication Monographs, 75, 396–410. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/

Before your appointment

. How many sexual partners have you had recently?

2100 W Lindsey St Ste B

Syntactically Simple, Lexically Complex

Before your appointment

. Do you have oral sex?

Syntactically Complex, Lexically Simple

Before your appointment

even if you have only one or two.

Syntactically Complex, Lexically Complex

Before your appointment

. Do you have symptoms?

You might also like