Abstract
Presidential candidates use different language intensity in different situations. However, the literature is unclear as to when they should use low‐ or high‐intensity language. We applied language expectancy theory and Edwards’ theory of presidential influence to situations varying in circumstances during a presidential campaign. Results indicated significant interactions between language intensity and economic conditions. In support of theories of persuasion applied to presidential campaign contexts, the effects of language intensity and circumstances each depend on the other. During exigent economic times, people consider a presidential candidate to have more presidentiality and trustworthiness when using high‐ instead of low‐intensity language. And during stable economic times, people consider a presidential candidate to have more presidentiality and trustworthiness when using low‐ instead of high‐intensity language.
