Persuasion Final Flashcards
Implicit Conclusions
It’s better to let the audience figure things out themselves.
The source may seem less patronizing.
There is less risk of psychological reactance
Use with highly involved
or “high in the need for cognition” audience
Listeners prefer to draw their own conclusions.
Use with a hostile audience.
Self-generated conclusions are more acceptable.
Explicit Conclusions
It’s better to spell things out for the audience.
The source may be perceived as more candid, forthright.
There is less risk the listener will reach the wrong conclusion.
The listeners aren’t knowledgeable about the issue.
The message is complex or difficult to understand.
The conclusions could be easily misinterpreted.
Listeners have low involvement with the issue.
Gain-framed messages
Gain-framed messages are good for
Disease prevention (dental hygiene, sunscreen, eating healthy)
Gain-framed messages make people think & scrutinize them more
E.g.: Applying sunscreen daily can reduce your risk of skin cancer.
Loss-framed messages
Loss-framed messages are more effective in
Real risky situations
Early disease detection (mammogram, HIV testing)
E.g.: If you fail to get a mammogram at recommended screening intervals, you are reducing your chances of detecting a breast tumor in the early stages when it is potentially curable.
Gain framed messages
Gain-framed messages are good for
Disease prevention (dental hygiene, sunscreen, eating healthy)
Gain-framed messages make people think & scrutinize them more
E.g.: Applying sunscreen daily can reduce your risk of skin cancer
Quantity/quality of arguments
When receivers of a message have low involvement in a cause, the quantity of arguments counts.
When receivers of a message have high involvement in a cause, argument quality matters.
Evidence
For low involved receivers evidence may work as a peripheral cue (increases credibility)
Quantity matters
Use narratives (personal stories), testimonials, quotations, etc.
Evidence is most effective when receivers have high involvement.
Quality matters
Use quantitative evidence
Order effects
Where is the best place for your strong arguments?
A. Anticlimax order- strong arguments come first
B. Climax order- saving the best for the end
C. Pyramidal order- a“sandwich” with strong arguments in the middle
Most research suggests that putting your strongest argument either first or last is the best strategy
Primacy/recency effects
When there are opposing sides, is it better to speak first (A), last (B)or
(C) It depends ?
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.
If in campaign ads are shown a week apart, appearing last would be an advantage.
Inoculation theory
Is based on a vaccine metaphor.
A small dose of the opposing position increases resistance to subsequent persuasion.
Inoculation is based on “cultural truisms.”
beliefs we take for granted
Inoculation is less effective on controversial topics.
we expect alternative views
Inoculating people against one particular argument may make them resistant to other, different arguments
People start thinking of more arguments to support their beliefs
Support strategy
- One strategy is to eat your Wheaties and Flintstones vitamins, avoid fats and sugars, stay rested, and exercise. This is what is known as a supportive strategy or treatment.
- For example, imagine you are a lawyer hired to defend someone who is accused of murder but who is innocent. you could use a supportive strategy, making the jury’s belief in your client’s innocence as “healthy” as possible by spending a lot of time discussing reasons the client is not guilty.
One vs. Two sided messages
- a one-sided message, presenting arguments in favor of a single proposition
- a two-sided message presents arguments in favor of one proposition and considers opposing arguments as well
- Two-sided refutational messages are almost always more persuasive.
A “refutational” approach is required.
The persuader must directly refute, not merely acknowledge, opposing arguments.
Exceptions (one-sided messages) are used when receivers:
already agree
are easily confused
are uneducated or unintelligent
will not be exposed to the opposing side later on
Compliance gaining
Compliance gaining research focuses on how to get others do something or act in a particular way
Miller et. al, 1977 Compliance Gaining Study results:
The situation strongly affected strategy choice
People preferred more positive strategies in all the situations (e.g., liking) but were likely to use different tactics in different situations
Threat tactics more likely in short-term, non interpersonal contexts
In non interpersonal situations, people chose a greater variety of strategies
Marwell and Schmitt’s (1967) original types of compliance gaining strategies
Gerald Marwell and David Schmitt (1967) grouped taxonomy of 16 compliance gaining tactics into 5 basic types (see the following slide)
This study became a springboard for compliance gaining studies that followed
Reward (e.g., You got a promotion!)
Punishment (e.g., I’ll take away your Ipad.)
Expertise (e.g., I know best.)
Activation of Impersonal Commitments
(e.g., You will feel bad about yourself if you don’t help your friend.)
5. Activation of Personal Commitments
(e.g., You owe me.)
Effects of intimacy
- more intimate relationship you have the more easily you can persuade the other person in that relationship
