Abstract
A survey was conducted to test whether or not the label “mouthpiece,” which appeared in the headline “Sinatra’s Mouthpiece,” was viewed as a derogatory term by a representative sample of financial publication readers who saw it used in reference to a lawyer. Four matched groups of subjects rated the person described by four headlines that varied the label (“mouthpiece” vs. “spokesman”) and the employer (Sinatra vs. John Doe) in a 2 × 2 ANOVA design. Results showed that the label “mouthpiece” produced a significantly negative impression regardless of the employer (p <.0001). The data were presented in a Federal Court lawsuit that produced a ruling more in favor of the First Amendment to the Constitution than toward either litigant.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
