Structuring & Ordering Persuasive Messages

1. Structuring & OrderingPersuasive Messages

2. 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 Cicero’s five canons of rhetoric

3. 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) Explicit Vs. Implicit Conclusions

4. Implicit conclusions are generally the best option. • 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. “I hope I’ve given you all the information you need…” Explicit Vs. Implicit Conclusions

5. Explicit conclusions are better when: • The listeners aren’t knowledgeable about the issue. • The message is complex or difficult to understand. • The conclusions could be easily misconstrued. • Listeners have low involvement on the issue. “So what I’m asking you to do is…” Explicit Vs. Implicit Conclusions

6. Is it better to emphasize potential gains? • Gain-framed messages emphasize the positive. • Or is it better to emphasize potential losses? • Loss-framed messages emphasize the negative. Option A: You have developed a virulent, antibiotic resistant infection that may prove fatal. You can try an experimental drug, Zidol. If you do, there is a 68% chance of living more than one year. Would you do it? Option B: You have developed a virulent, antibiotic resistant infection that may prove fatal. You can try an experimental drug, Xinar. If you do, there is a 32% chance that you will not live more than one year. Would you do it? Gain-Framed Vs. Loss-Framed Messages

7. 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? • People are generally risk averse. • They are worried about losing what they already have. • Option A emphasizes potential gain. • Option B emphasizes potential loss. • When designing a persuasive message, tell your audience what it stands to lose by non-compliance. Message Framing

8. 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. Quality Vs. Quantity

9. 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. Evidence and Proof

10. People generally prefer stories over statistics (Kida, 2006). • People are, by nature, storytellers. But… • Anecdotal evidence is subject to the “hasty generalization” fallacy. • People generally shy away from statistics. • They don’t trust statistics • “You can prove anything with statistics.” Yet… • Quantifiable evidence is more testable, more generalizable. “Let me tell you about my own experience…” “In 70% of such cases we find that…” Narrative Vs. Statistical Evidence

11. A meta-analysis found an advantage for statistical evidence (Allyn & Preiss, 1997). 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. Narrative Vs. Statistical Evidence

12. 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. Repetition and Mere Exposure

13. 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. Order Effects

14. 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

15. 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. Primacy Vs. Recency

16. Bland topics • A recency effect is more likely with uninvolving , noncontroversial material. • Intriguing topics • A primacy effect is more likely with involving, interesting material. • Chunked information • High involvement favors information that is clearly segmented (pro & con). • Unchunked information • Low involvement favors information that is uncategorized. Primacy Vs. Recency

17. Inoculation theory 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 Inoculation Theory

18. 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. How Inoculation Works

19. 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 One-sided Vs. Two-sided Messages

20. 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 The Persuasion Hierarchy

21. 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. Forewarning