PERSUASION SOCIAL INFLUENCE & COMPLIANCE GAINING Robert H. Gass & John S. Seiter

Chapter 9 Message Structure and Organization

CICERO’S FIVE CANONS OF RHETORIC Dispositio The effective, orderly arrangement of ideas Elocutio Fluency, command of language Inventio The invention and discovery of arguments Memoria Memory and mnemonic devices Pronuntiato Delivery factors such as pitch, rate, voice quality

IMPLICIT VS EXPLICIT CONCLUSIONS Is it better to spell things out for the listener? The source may be perceived as more candid, forthright. There is less risk the listener will reach the wrong conclusion. Or is it better to let the listener figure things out him/her self? The source may seem less patronizing. There is less risk of psychological reactance (e.g., the perception the listener’s choice is being restricted)

“I hope I’ve given you all the information you need…” EXPLICIT CONCLUSIONS Filling in the blanks Persuasion is more participatory. Self-generated conclusions listeners draw their own conclusions. less risk of psychological reactance. “I hope I’ve given you all the information you need…” Kakigori Studio/Shutterstock.com

“So what I’m asking you to do is…” EXPLICIT CONCLUSIONS Explicit conclusions generally work best: Clear directions for receivers Less risk of misunderstanding the conclusion “So what I’m asking you to do is…” Kakigori Studio/Shutterstock.com

GAIN FRAMED VS LOSS FRAMED MESSAGES Is it better to emphasize potential gains? Gain-framed messages emphasize the positive. Low sensation seekers are more persuaded by gained- framed messages Or is it better to emphasize potential losses? Loss-framed messages emphasize the negative. Some people are risk averse They fear losing something they have over gaining something they don’t have Present-minded people respond more favorably to loss-framed messages

MESSAGE QUANTITY VS QUALITY The role of receiver involvement in the ELM: For receivers with low involvement, it is the quantity of arguments that counts. For receivers with high involvement, it is the quality of arguments that matters. When receivers have low involvement, quantity counts. When receivers have high involvement, quality counts.

EVIDENCE & PROOF Evidence usage almost always facilitates persuasion. Evidence can increase speaker credibility. High quality evidence may increase central processing. The quantity of evidence may serve as a peripheral cue. Evidence is most effective when receivers have high involvement. Castleski/Shutterstock.com

narrative vs statistical evidence People are, by nature, storytellers. Stories resonate with people But… Anecdotal evidence is subject to the “hasty generalization” fallacy. People often don’t trust statistics Yet… Meta-analyses show statistics are more effective than narratives Kida, T. (2006). Don’t believe everything you think. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. “Let me tell you about my own experience…” “In 70% of such cases we find that…” As a persuader, use both narrative and statistical evidence

REPETITION & MERE EXPOSURE Mere Exposure Effect Repeated exposure to a stimulus increases liking for the stimulus. Repetition can increase awareness, learning, retention. Wear-out can occur with over- exposure.

ORDER EFFECTS Should you put your best arguments and evidence first, last, or in the middle? Anticlimax order: the first information presented is easier to remember Climax order: the last information presented is easier to remember Pyramidal order: putting the best material in the middle Studies show putting your best material first or last is better than the middle.

ORDER EFFECTS People are better at remembering things that are earlier or later in a sequence, rather than in the middle. Word recall based on word order: cat apple ball tree square head house door box car king hammer milk fish book tape arrow flower key shoe

PRIMACY VS RECENCY EFFECTS When there are opposing sides, is it better to speak first or last? Primacy effect It is better to speak first if the speeches are back to back. Recency effect It is better to speak last if the speeches are separated in time.

INOCULATION THEORY Inoculation increases listeners’ resistance to a persuasive message Inoculation is based on a disease metaphor. A small dose of the opposing position increases resistance to subsequent persuasion. Inoculation is especially applicable to “cultural truisms.” beliefs we take for granted Inoculation is less effective on controversial topics. we expect alternative views

HOW INOCULATION WORKS Threat is the motivational trigger. Threat increases the receiver’s perceived vulnerability. The listener then bolsters his/her defenses. Inoculation protects beyond the original arguments used. Inoculation increases immunity to new, novel arguments as well.

ONE VS TWO-SIDE MESSAGES Two-sided messages are almost always more persuasive. A “refutational” approach is required. The persuader must directly refute, not merely acknowledge, opposing arguments. Exceptions are when receivers: already agree are easily confused are uneducated or unintelligent will not be exposed to the opposing side at a later time Brian A Jackson/shutterstock.com

THE PERSUASION HIERARCHY The persuasion hierarchy: (from most to least persuasive): 1. two-sided, refutational messages 20% more effective overall than one-sided messages 2. one-sided messages 20% more effective than two-sided, nonrefutational messages 3. two-sided, nonrefutational messages

FOREWARNING Forewarning increases resistance to influence attempts. receivers adopt a less receptive state of mind. receivers may prepare defenses and rehearse counter-arguments. Forewarning’s effectiveness depends upon motivation and ability to disagree. Forewarning versus inoculation: Forewarning merely warns a listener of an impending persuasive message (e.g. warning of persuasive intent). Inoculation includes actual examples of the opposing arguments.