CHAPTER 9

S T RU

CTU

RI N

G A

ND

OR

DER

I NG

P E RSU

A S I VE M

E S S AGE S

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D 1

Prepared by Robert Gass & John Seiter

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

WHAT IS AN ATTITUDE?

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

2

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

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)

3

IMPLICIT VERSUS EXPLICIT CONCLUSIONS

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

For involved listeners, implicit conclusions are generally preferred

For knowledgeable receivers implicit conclusions are also preferred

Persuasion is more participatory Self-generated conclusions are more

palatable Involved listeners can draw their

own conclusions There is less risk of psychological

reactance The message is more acceptable to

a hostile audience

4

IMPLICIT VERSUS EXPLICIT CONCLUSIONS

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

Explicit conclusions are better when:

The message is not personally relevant to the listener

The listeners aren’t knowledgeable about the issue

The message is complex or could be easily misconstrued

5

IMPLICIT VERSUS EXPLICIT CONCLUSIONS

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

Is it better to emphasize potential gains?

Gain-framed messages emphasize the positive

“You could get rich on this investment opportunity!”

Or is it better to emphasize potential losses?

Loss-framed messages emphasize the negative

“You could lose everything you’ve saved.”

6

GAIN-FRAMED VS. LOSS-FRAMED MESSAGES

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

In general, loss-framed messages are more effective

People are generally risk averse

They are more worried about losing what they already have

“a bird in the hand…” Present-minded people

respond better to loss-framed messages

Future-minded people are equally receptive to gain or loss framed messages

In a controlled study, 75% of respondents chose option A (gain-framed)

58% of respondents chose option B (loss-framed)

The probability is the same for both scenarios

So why do more people choose A?

When designing a persuasive message, tell your audience what it stands to lose by non-compliance

7

GAIN-FRAMED VS. LOSS-FRAMED MESSAGES

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

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

8

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS

When receivers have low involvement, quantity counts.

When receivers have high involvement, quality counts.

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

Evidence use almost always facilitates persuasion (Reinard, 1988)

Evidence can increase speaker credibility

High quality evidence may increase central processing

There is a “ceiling effect” for high credibility sources who use evidence

Evidence is most effective when receivers have high involvement

Evidence can function as a peripheral cue

a prosecutor presents “a mountain of evidence”

9

EVIDENCE AND PROOF

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

By nature, people are drawn to stories (Kida, 2006)

“Let me tell you about an experience I had…”

But…

Anecdotal evidence is subject to the “hasty generalization” fallacy.

People often distrust statistics.

“You can prove anything with statistics.”

Yet…

Quantifiable evidence is more testable, more generalizable.

10

ANECDOTAL VS. STATISTICAL PROOF

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

However, a meta-analysis found a slight advantage for statistical evidence (Allen & Preiss, 1997)

Different types of statistical proof have an additive effect (Kim et al., 2012)

However…

In laboratory studies, subjects are paying close attention (high involvement)

When receivers pay close attention, statistics tend to be more effective

When receivers do not pay close attention, narratives tend to be more effective

As a persuader, you should use both

begin with a narrative example, then add statistics to show the example is not atypical

11

ANECDOTAL VS. STATISTICAL EVIDENCE

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

REPETITION AND MERE EXPOSURE EFFECT

Mere Exposure Effect (MEE) Repeated exposure to a stimulus increases liking

for the stimulus. ideas, brands, and people tend to grow on us what’s familiar is comfortable, reassuring

Americans who were exposed to Chinese characters preferred the ones they saw more frequently

The MEE is stronger for topics and issues that are personally relevant

Repetition can increase awareness, learning, retention.

Wear-out can occur with over-exposure.

12

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

Anticlimax order Giving your best

arguments first

Pyramidal order Placing your best

arguments in the middle

Climax order Saving your best

arguments for the end

Research shows it is better to place your strongest arguments first or last.

The worst approach is to put your best arguments in the middle.

13

ORDER EFFECTS

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

People are better at remembering things that are earlier or later in a sequence, rather than in the middle.

14

PRIMACY VERSUS RECENCY

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

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

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.

In a live political debate, speaking first would be an advantage.

In campaign ads shown a week apart, appearing last would be an advantage.

15

PRIMACY VERSUS RECENCY

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

PRIMACY VERSUS RECENCY EFFECTS

16

Primacy effect most likely

1st persuasive message

2nd persuasive message

Time delay

Measurement of

persuasive outcome

Recency effect most likely

1st persuasive message

Time delay

2nd persuasive message

Measurement of persuasive

outcome

Neither a primacy nor a recency effect

1st persuasive message

Time delay

2nd persuasive message

Time delay

Measurement of persuasive

outcome

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

Bland topics A recency effect is more

likely with uninvolving , noncontroversial material.

Intriguing topics A primacy effect is more

likely with involving, interesting material.

Product comparisons (Biswiss, et al., 2010)

Recency effect for equally desirable music

Primacy effect for equally undesirable music

Experiential products (like music, clothing)

Produce a recency effect

Non-experiential products (like scissors, light bulbs)

Produce a primacy effect

17

PRIMACY VERSUS RECENCY

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

INOCULATION

Inoculation theory is based on a disease metaphor

A small dose of the opposing position increases resistance to subsequent persuasion

Inoculation is more effective than a supportive, bolstering strategy

Inoculation is especially applicable to “cultural truisms.”

beliefs we take for granted

Inoculation is less effective on controversial topics

we expect alternative views

18

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

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

19

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

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

20

ONE-SIDED VS. TWO-SIDED MESSAGES

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

HIERARCHY OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR ONE-SIDED VS. TWO-SIDED MESSAGES

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 Least effective of all

21

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

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 warns a listener of an impending attack (e.g. warning of persuasive intent)

Forewarning may or may not mention the topic area that will be attacked

Inoculation not mentions the topic area, it includes a weakened dose of the actual opposing arguments

22

FOREWARNING

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

STRENGTH MODEL OF SELF CONTROL

Mental fatigue reduces one’s willpower to resist persuasion

Forewarning conserves mental resources Without forewarning: a diabetic goes out to dinner,

but doesn’t know the restaurant has fresh baked bread and loads of desserts. The diabetic can’t resist.

With forewarning: a diabetic knows a restaurant has fresh bread and tempting desserts. The diabetic steels him/her self and decides “I’ll have one piece of bread and no dessert.”

23

C O PY R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E RV E D

PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE

Forewarning may elicit psychological reactance

Perceived threats to one’s freedom increase resistance

A warning of persuasive intent galvanizes a person to resist the influence attempt

24