Persuasion and Message Structure

1. Persuasion and Message Structure arranging and organizing persuasive messages

2. Cicero’s five canons of speech • Inventio: the invention and discovery of arguments • Elocutio: eloquence, fluency, command of language, and language style • Memoria: memory, mnemonic devices • Pronuntiatio: delivery factors, rate, pitch, voice quality, and articulation • Dispositio: the effective and orderly arrangement of ideas

3. explicit vs. implicit conclusions: which should you use? • Is it better to spell things out for the listener? • The source might be seen as more frank, forthright • Less risk the listener would reach the wrong conclusion • Or let the listener figure it out for him or herself? • Less condescending, patronizing • Less risk the message would be perceived as restricting the listener’s free choice So what I’m asking you to do is…

4. explicit vs. implicit conclusions: draw your own conclusions • Generally speaking, implicit conclusions work best • more participatory, involving • greater conclusion comprehension • self-generated conclusions • less risk of psychological reactance • especially true for receivers with high involvement (Cruz, 1998) • also better with hostile audiences or counter-attitudinal messages • Exceptions to the general rule: • difficult, complex messages • messages that could be easily misconstrued • listeners with little knowledge, low involvement

5. quality vs. quantity of arguments • the role of receiver “involvement” according to the ELM model • Petty & Cacioppo (1984): • 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 counts. More than 100 scientific studies support the conclusion that global warming is a very real phenomenon

6. quality vs. quantity of arguments When receivers have low involvement, quantity counts. When receivers have high involvement, quality counts.

7. message repetition: “You can say that again” • Mere exposure effect: repeated exposure to an unfamiliar stimulus increases liking for the stimulus • messages “grow on us” • nonsense words, yearbook pictures, geometric shapes • corporate logos, slogans, brand names • repetition can facilitate attention, awareness, learning, retention • the “magic number” of exposures is three • the problem of “wear out”: excessive repetition can backfire

8. primacy versus recency effects • the primacy effect in impression formation (Asch, 1946) • Zunin (1972) first impressions are solidified within the first four minutes of interaction with a stranger • primacy vs. recency and the time interval between interaction • primacy effect if two messages follow back to back • recency effect if two messages are separated by a time delay

9. message order (internal organization) • climax order: saving the best for last • anticlimax order: putting your best material first • pyramidal order: sandwiching the best material in the middle • conclusion: • pyramidal scheme is the least effective • put your best ideas, arguments, and information first or last, but not in the middle

10. one-sided versus two-sided messages • two-sided messages are almost always more persuasive • (Allen et al, 19990) a “refutational” approach is required, e.g., directly refuting, not merely acknowledging, opposing arguments • exceptions; when receivers • already agree • are easily confused • are uneducated or unintelligent • will not be exposed to the opposing side later on

11. more about one-sided vs. two-sided messages • (Allen, 1991) 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 My opponent claims this plan is too costly, but in fact, this plan will save our company money, and pay for itself within 3 years.

12. inoculation theory • McGuire’s inoculation theory (1961, 1964) is based on a disease metaphor • The theory in a nutshell: • a small dose of the opposing position can increase resistance to subsequent influence attempts • Especially applicable to “cultural truisms” • cultural truisms are unquestioned beliefs that we take for granted, “givens.” • analogous to a person being raised in a germ-free environment—increased susceptibility upon exposure • (O’Keefe, 1990) inoculation is less effective on controversial topics

13. how inoculation works • Threat is the motivational trigger • Threat motivates receivers to recognize the vulnerability of their attitudes and beliefs to potential challenges • Threat motivates people to bolster their attitudes and beliefs • Inoculation affords protection beyond the original arguments to new novel arguments

14. types of inoculation • refutational “same” versus “different” conditions • It is the motivation to defend one’s beliefs, not the specific information provided, that bolsters resistance • combining “supportive” and “refutative” approaches works even better than refutation alone • Pfau (2004) • “All in all, research indicates that inoculation is amazingly robust in conferring resistance to influence”

15. Inoculation and comparative advertising • 1970’s: noncomparative ads, e.g., “brand X” • 1990’s: direct comparison advertising • Approximately ½ of all ads use comparison advertising (Levy, 1987) • Examples: pizza brands, rental car companies, long distance providers, pain relievers, allergy medicines • Inoculation via comparison ads appears to be more effective for products with high involvement (Pfau,1992)

16. forewarning: you better watch out... • 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 • forewarning increases resistance to influence attempts • receivers adopt a less receptive state of mind • receivers may prepare defenses and rehearse counter-arguments • a time interval is desirable (some say essential) to allow for counter-arguing to take place • depends upon motivation and ability to disagree

17. evidence: prove it to me • Evidence use facilitates persuasion in a variety of settings (advertising, political campaigns, health messages) • “The use of evidence produces more attitude change than no evidence” (Reynolds &Reynolds, 2002) • Reinard (1991) “evidence appears to produce general persuasive effects that appear surprisingly stable” • Quantity of evidence—most effective for receivers with low involvement • Quality of evidence—most effective for receivers with high involvement

18. more about evidence • Citing evidence sources can increase a persuader’s credibility (O’Keefe, 1998) • Evidence is more effective if the source is identified, and the source is highly qualified • Statistical evidence is more effective if the underlying methodology is explained (how the numbers were gathered, how the study was done) • Statistical versus anecdotal evidence • Best to combine the two; begin with an example or case study, then use statistics to show the example is not atypical

19. That's All Folks!