EQUIVOCATION: CHARACTER INSURANCE

This study investigated the effects of equivocation (deliberate vagueness) on source credibility (competence and character), agreement, and perceived vagueness. The results indicated that the equivocated message produced significantly higher character ratings for the speaker than did the clearly stated disagreeable message, but there was no significant difference for the competence ratings. The equivocated message also produced significantly more agreement than the clear message. These findings, as well as others, led the researchers to conclude that equivocating disagreeable arguments helps preserve credibility—most notably the character ratings; and that character is the best predictor of message agreement. The results were interpreted in terms of information processing theory, suggesting that equivocated messages evoke meanings which are congruent with prior experience and attitudes. In contrast to the tenet advocated since antiquity that all issues should be addressed clearly, this study indicates that under certain circumstances the speaker can enhance effectiveness by using the rhetorical technique of deliberate vagueness.     

THE LEGALIST SCHOOL1 AND LEGAL POSITIVISM2

Law is the authoritative principle for the people and is the basis of government; it is what shapes the people.
The Book of Lord Shang, Chap. V, Par. 26.
If the people be led by laws and controlled by punishments, they will try to evade them but have no sense of shame. If they be led by virtue and controlled by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame and will moreover attain character.
Analects, book ii, Chap. iii
Lcgge, Vol. 1. p. 146     

Should I Brag? Nature and Impact of Positive and Boastful Disclosures for Women and Men

What is the nature of a “positive” disclosure versus a “boastful” one? How are those who use these different types of disclosures differentially construed? A set of three studies was designed to investigate three general issues. Study 1 asked respondents to rate characters who disclosed in a boastful, positive, or negative fashion. Boasters and positive disclosers were viewed as more competent than negative disclosers, negative and positive disclosers were viewed as more socially sensitive than boasters, and positive disclosers were best liked. In Study 2, the gender of the target disclosing positively or boastfully was manipulated. Compared to the boaster, the positive discloser was rated as more socially involved and feminine (less masculine) but less competent. Polarized judgments were made by both genders. Study 3 had individuals generate “boasts” and “positive statements.” The few gender differences that emerged suggest that although females’ bragging strategies may be less extreme or extensive, it is only when gender information is known that the brags of men and women are differentially construed. The present work suggests that men and women, as perceivers, may differentially activate cognitive structures (involving social involvement and femininity, on one hand, and competence and masculinity, on the other) when evaluating men versus women. The nature of the communication itself (boasts being perceived as more masculine and positive disclosures as more feminine) may exacerbate such differential activation in the construction of “mental models” of another's communication.