If they use words like “might” or “could,” though, it signals more uncertainty. They think it could rain, but they’re not really sure.

Words like “might” or “could” are called hedges. They’re used to express ambiguity, caution, or indecisiveness. The same goes for words like “guess,” “speculate,” and “assume.

We hedge all the time. We note that we think something will work, that a solution could be effective, or that an alternate approach might work better. We suggest that something seems like a good course of action or that, in our opinion, something else is worth trying.

But without our realizing it, hedging can undermine our impact, because while we’re sharing our thoughts or recommendations, by hedging, we’re simultaneously undercutting them. We’re suggesting that we’re not sure those thoughts and recommendations are worth pursuing.

Hedging makes people seem less confident, less powerful, and less effective, but there’s another linguistic choice that hurts even more, and that is hesitations.

Indeed, research finds that hesitations are even more detrimental than hedges. They make people seem less powerful and authoritative and less effective at getting across whatever they are trying to communicate.

While some argue that hedging will reduce the credibility of both scientists and journalists, this isn’t the case. Reporting or acknowledging study limitations actually leads readers to see both scientists and journalists as more trustworthy.

When people know something is uncertain, pretending it’s not can backfire. It comes off as overconfident or unrealistic and undermines our ability to persuade.