Politics: The Grammar Effect

Here’s a question to consider as you prepare to cast your vote next week: Have you thought about the candidates’ grammar? According to a recently published study, you may have thought about it, even if only subconsciously.

Two psychologists had college students read statements about made-up political candidates and then rate the candidates’ electability. Sadly (or predictably, depending on your cynicism level), one candidate, “Mark Johnson,” had a little trouble with infidelity and corruption. Last year, he “was having an affair … and was taking hush money.” That’s what some of the students read. Others read that Johnson “had an affair … and took hush money.”

The difference between those statements is subtle but significant. Saying Johnson “was having” and “was taking” sorta kinda makes it sound like maybe he’s still having and taking. Saying he “had” and “took” implies that he made just the one little mistake and it’s all in the past now. (Yeah, right.… Oops! Cynical Me took over the keyboard for just a second.)

Over 75% of the students who read the first version—that Johnson was having and taking—were sure he would not be reelected. But only about 50% of those who read the second version—that Johnson had and took—thought his chances were shot.

So grammar can affect how we think about things. Or does affect. Or affects. Or has affected, is affecting, and will affect.

Let’s just say grammar matters.

(Read a more detailed description of the study at ScienceNOW.)