In an increasingly complex world where absolute certainty is rare, the way individuals and organizations communicate uncertainty profoundly impacts their ability to persuade and influence. A groundbreaking study co-authored by Wharton marketing professor Jonah Berger, Harvard Business School business administration professor Demi Oba, and Arizona State University information systems professor Reihane Boghrati, published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology, reveals that hedging, far from always being a weakness, can be a powerful tool for persuasion when executed strategically. Their research pinpoints a "communications sweet spot" where expressing uncertainty, particularly through personal perspective and higher likelihood language, enhances communicator confidence and, consequently, their persuasive power. This finding challenges conventional wisdom that often equates hedging with indecisiveness or a lack of conviction, offering a nuanced understanding of how we can better navigate the grey areas of communication.
The Ubiquity of Qualification: Why We Hedge
The act of hedging, or qualifying statements with words like "might," "could," "arguably," or "it seems," is a pervasive feature of human communication across virtually all domains. From casual conversations with family members to high-stakes business negotiations and academic discourse, individuals frequently employ linguistic hedges to soften assertions, manage expectations, or acknowledge potential limitations. As Professor Berger observes, "Whether we are talking to a boss or a colleague, a salesperson talking to a client, a marketer trying to pitch something, or even talking to family members, we often say things like ‘That could work’ or ‘This might be a good approach.’"
The motivations behind hedging are multifaceted. Some individuals hedge out of habit or politeness, seeking to avoid confrontational language or to appear modest. Others hedge defensively, aiming to mitigate potential backlash or criticism should their predictions or recommendations prove inaccurate. In professional settings, hedging can be a mechanism for risk management, allowing communicators to avoid definitive pronouncements that could later expose them to accountability for unforeseen outcomes. For instance, a medical doctor might say a treatment "should improve" a condition rather than "will cure" it, managing patient expectations while acknowledging the inherent variability of human physiology. Similarly, financial analysts often use qualifying language when forecasting market trends, understanding the unpredictable nature of economic forces. The prevailing assumption has long been that such qualifications dilute the message, making the speaker appear less knowledgeable or committed, thereby diminishing their persuasive impact. However, the new research suggests this assumption is overly simplistic, revealing that the type of hedging employed is critical.
Unpacking Persuasion: The Wharton-Harvard-ASU Research
To systematically investigate the persuasive impact of different types of hedges, Professors Berger, Oba, and Boghrati embarked on a series of seven distinct studies. This rigorous methodological approach allowed them to examine two primary dimensions of hedging: likelihood and perspective.
-
Likelihood refers to the perceived probability that an asserted event or outcome will occur. This dimension spans a spectrum, from lower-probability words and phrases that convey a weaker sense of possibility (e.g., "might," "could," "it feels like") to higher-probability words that suggest a stronger, though still not absolute, chance (e.g., "arguably," "likely," "should"). The researchers hypothesized that the choice of likelihood markers could significantly alter how an audience perceives the speaker’s confidence and, consequently, their message’s persuasiveness. For example, telling a client a new strategy "might succeed" conveys less conviction than stating it "is likely to succeed," even if both acknowledge a degree of uncertainty.
-
Perspective, the second critical dimension, addresses whose viewpoint is being expressed. Hedges can be general or impersonal, such as "it sounds like" or "probably," implying a widely held or objective assessment. Alternatively, communicators can attach a personal perspective to their hedges, using phrases like "it sounds like to me," "in my opinion," or "I believe this could work." This personal attribution shifts the perceived ownership of the statement from a general observation to a specific, individual judgment. The researchers theorized that injecting a personal perspective, even within a hedged statement, could enhance the speaker’s perceived accountability and confidence.
The seven studies, despite their varied designs and contexts—ranging from consumer recommendations to professional advice scenarios—yielded remarkably consistent results. Across these diverse experimental setups, the findings unequivocally demonstrated that hedges characterized by higher likelihood language and the inclusion of a personal perspective were significantly more effective in persuading audiences. This consistency underscores the robustness of the findings and their broad applicability. The research design involved presenting participants with various scenarios where advice or recommendations were delivered with different types of hedges. For instance, in one study, participants might evaluate a recommendation for a running shoe, as exemplified by the opening anecdote of an influencer stating, "I think these running shoes could be great for narrow feet." The subtle difference between "These shoes could be great" and "I think these shoes could be great" proved pivotal.
The ‘Sweet Spot’: Confidence Through Calculated Ambiguity
The core mechanism explaining these findings lies in the perception of communicator confidence. When a speaker employs hedges that suggest a higher likelihood of an outcome and attaches their personal perspective to that statement, they are perceived as more confident, even while acknowledging uncertainty. Professor Berger elaborates, "When we hear someone hedge, the more confident we think they are, the more likely we often are to listen to them."
Consider the mechanic analogy: If a mechanic states, "This repair might work," a customer is likely to feel a significant degree of apprehension and distrust. The low-likelihood hedge ("might") combined with an impersonal tone implies a lack of conviction or perhaps even expertise. Conversely, if the mechanic confidently declares, "I believe this repair will solve the problem," the personal perspective ("I believe") coupled with a higher likelihood assertion ("will solve") instills greater confidence in the customer, even though "will solve" still carries an implicit margin of error inherent in any complex repair. The latter approach makes the mechanic appear to be taking greater ownership of the diagnosis and proposed solution, enhancing their credibility.
This "communications sweet spot" allows speakers to reap the benefits of acknowledging uncertainty—such as appearing thoughtful, realistic, and open to alternative viewpoints—without suffering the typical backlash associated with perceived indecisiveness. By strategically employing personal, high-likelihood hedges, communicators can maintain an aura of confidence and expertise, thereby increasing their persuasive influence. Psychologically, humans are often drawn to confident leaders and advisors. Confidence projects competence and reliability, which are crucial elements in establishing trust and motivating action. When a speaker takes personal ownership of a hedged statement, it signals a deeper engagement and a willingness to stand behind their qualified judgment, distinguishing it from a purely speculative or non-committal remark.
Strategic Hedging in the Corporate Sphere
The implications of this research are particularly significant for business and leadership contexts, where effective communication is paramount for driving decisions, fostering collaboration, and motivating teams. Managers and leaders frequently navigate situations replete with uncertainty, from project timelines and market forecasts to strategic initiatives and organizational changes.
In a business meeting, for example, dismissing a colleague’s idea with a blunt "That might not work" is not only unpersuasive but can also stifle creativity and psychological safety within the team. Such a low-likelihood, impersonal hedge conveys negativity and a lack of constructive engagement. In contrast, the research suggests a more effective approach: "This could work, but we need these three things to happen first." Here, the higher-likelihood hedge ("could work") is paired with a constructive call for action, demonstrating a confident, problem-solving mindset rather than outright dismissal. By specifying the conditions under which an idea could succeed, the speaker projects confidence in their analytical ability and commitment to finding solutions, even while acknowledging challenges. This approach builds trust and encourages further discussion, rather than shutting it down.
Furthermore, strategic hedging can be a powerful tool for fostering collaboration and open dialogue, especially in environments where hierarchical structures might otherwise inhibit junior team members from expressing dissenting opinions. As Professor Berger notes, "If we’re trying to get people to open up, to share opposing viewpoints, or to get younger members of the team to share their opinions, hedging can be a great way to signal that you’re not certain, making others feel more comfortable in sharing their views." A manager who speaks in absolutes might inadvertently create an atmosphere where subordinates fear being wrong or challenging authority. However, a manager who frames proposals with phrases like "I believe this approach could yield significant results, but I’m keen to hear your thoughts on potential pitfalls" signals openness and a willingness to consider other perspectives. This creates a psychologically safe space, encouraging diverse viewpoints and ultimately leading to more robust decision-making.
Sales professionals can also leverage these findings. Instead of making overly aggressive, unqualified claims that might trigger customer skepticism, a salesperson could say, "I’m confident that, based on your requirements, this solution should significantly improve your operational efficiency." The personal perspective ("I’m confident") combined with a higher-likelihood hedge ("should significantly improve") builds trust by acknowledging that no solution is universally perfect, yet still conveys strong conviction in its suitability for the specific client.
The Evolving Landscape of Brand Communication
The study’s insights extend crucially to the realm of marketing and brand communication, which is increasingly dominated by social media and influencer strategies. The research found a significant nuance: while personal hedges are highly effective for interpersonal communication, their persuasive impact is reduced when the communicator is a brand itself. This is largely because brands, by their nature, lack the inherent human trust and personal accountability that individuals possess. Consumers often view direct brand communications with a degree of skepticism, perceiving them as inherently commercial and less authentic.
However, brands can circumvent this challenge by leveraging anthropomorphized agents, a strategy that has fueled the explosive growth of influencer marketing. Influencers, by definition, embody a personal perspective. When an influencer taps her long nails on a shoebox and declares, "I think these running shoes could be great for narrow feet," she is employing both a personal perspective ("I think") and a higher-likelihood hedge ("could be great"). This type of communication resonates powerfully with consumers because it mimics trusted word-of-mouth recommendations from a peer. The influencer, unlike a faceless brand, is perceived as a real person offering a genuine, albeit qualified, opinion.
The influencer marketing industry has grown exponentially in recent years, projected to reach an estimated $21.1 billion in 2023, up from $1.7 billion in 2016. This growth is directly tied to brands’ recognition that consumers trust people more than corporate entities. Brands are constantly seeking to "sort out whether they should talk like people, pay others to spread the word, or engage in other activities to boost engagement," as Berger observes. The study provides a clear empirical basis for the efficacy of the influencer model: it allows brands to tap into the persuasive power of personal, high-likelihood hedging by proxy. Influencers can create a sense of authenticity and relatability that direct brand messaging often struggles to achieve, effectively becoming the "human face" that delivers qualified recommendations with perceived confidence.
Navigating the Pitfalls: When Hedging Undermines
While the study elucidates the strategic benefits of certain types of hedging, it also implicitly underscores that not all hedging is created equal, and indiscriminate use can still undermine persuasion. The researchers are clear: "Don’t hedge just because it’s convenient," advises Berger. Instead, communicators should "hedge with the right amount of uncertainty, or call out the uncertainty."
There are certainly contexts where hedging can be detrimental. In situations requiring absolute clarity, such as safety warnings, legal advice, or critical instructions, any form of hedging could introduce dangerous ambiguity. For instance, a warning sign stating, "This area might be hazardous" is far less effective than "This area is hazardous." Similarly, a doctor providing life-saving instructions cannot afford to use low-likelihood or overly general hedges. In these scenarios, direct, unequivocal communication is paramount, and any perceived uncertainty could have severe consequences.
Moreover, excessive hedging, even with personal perspective and high-likelihood language, can still be perceived as evasiveness or a lack of conviction if overused or applied inappropriately. A communicator who hedges every statement might eventually erode trust, appearing consistently indecisive or unwilling to commit. The key lies in strategic application—using hedges where uncertainty genuinely exists and framing them in a manner that conveys thoughtful consideration and confidence, rather than doubt. The research suggests a calculated approach, where uncertainty is acknowledged not as a flaw, but as a realistic assessment of a situation, delivered with a confident, personal conviction.
A New Paradigm for Effective Communication
The research from Berger, Oba, and Boghrati offers a significant refinement to our understanding of persuasive communication. It moves beyond the simplistic notion that all expressions of uncertainty weaken a message, instead revealing a sophisticated interplay between language, perception, and influence. By identifying that hedges involving personal perspective and higher likelihood words enhance perceived confidence, the study provides actionable insights for anyone seeking to communicate more effectively in an uncertain world.
From leadership development programs emphasizing nuanced communication to marketing strategists crafting authentic brand narratives, the implications are far-reaching. The findings encourage a shift from viewing uncertainty as a communication hurdle to recognizing it as an opportunity for strategic engagement. By embracing a more thoughtful approach to how we qualify our statements, we can not only enhance our persuasive power but also foster greater trust, collaboration, and informed decision-making across personal, professional, and public spheres. This new paradigm champions a form of communication that is both realistic about the world’s complexities and confident in its delivery, proving that in the right hands, a well-placed "I think this could work" is far more powerful than a hesitant "This might work."
About the Author
