Are All Threats Created Equal?

Is a threat simply a statement about bad things that will happen to the others if they resist? Or is there more to it? Gibbons, Bradac, and Busch (1992) identify five linguistic dimensions of making threats:

1. The use of polarized language, in which negotiators use positive words when speaking of their own positions (e.g., generous, reasonable, or even-handed) and negative words when referring to the other party’s position (e.g., tight-fisted, unreasonable, or heavy-handed).

2. The conveyance of verbal immediacy (a measure of intended immediacy, urgency, or relative psychological distance), either high and intended to engage or compel the other party (“OK, here is the deal” or “I take great care to…”) or low and intended to create a sense of distance or aloofness (“Well, there it is” or “One should take great care to…”).

3. The degree of language intensity, whereby high intensity conveys strong feelings to the recipient (as with statements of affirmation or the frequent use of profanity) and low intensity conveys weak feelings.

4. The degree of lexical diversity (i.e. the command of a broad, rich vocabulary), where high levels of lexical diversity denote comfort and competence with language and low levels denote discomfort, anxiety, or inexperience.

5. The extent of a high-power language style, with low power denoted by the use of verbal hedges, hesitations, or politeness to the point of deference and subordination and high power denoted by verbal dominance, clarity and firmness of expression, and self-assurance.

According to Gibbons, Bradac, and Busch, threats are more credible and more compelling if they incorporate negatively polarized descriptions of the other party and his or her position, high immediacy, high intensity, high lexical diversity, and a distinctively high-power style.