steve's primer of practical persuasion version 2.0
Message Variables: The Message is the Massage
In this section we will consider a variety of ways in which we can use message characteristics to influence. You might be surprised at the number of different aspects of a message that are presented here. And, I must admit, the list given here (of only eight items) is hardly exhaustive. Consider it, then, as a sampler of some of the most interesting and useful message strategies for the instructional context. Each characteristic will be briefly described and explained. At the end of the chapter, we will look at how to apply these ideas to teaching.
Revealing Persuasive Intent
Have you ever had students ask you to give them a higher grade on some project? If you are like me, the minute they tell you they want you to change the grade, you begin to mentally dig in. Hey, you've already graded that paper once and you did your best job on it. You don't give out grades capriciously and you do not tend to make major errors with your paperwork. Therefore, there cannot be a good enough reason to change the grade.
Thus, even before the student has even started the persuasive appeal, you are already dug in and ready to defend your position. Such a highly motivated and prepared person is very difficult to influence. This explains the main point with persuasive intent. When receivers believe that a source is trying to change them, they frequently respond defensively. Sources who "forewarn" of their intent persuade often put themselves at a major disadvantage precisely because of the maxim, "Forewarned is forearmed."
As a general rule, influence agents are more effective when they minimize forewarning. It is better to simply begin the persuasive appeal without making a big deal about it. Of course, there are important exceptions.
First, when you know that your receivers will probably agree with most of what you will suggest (you are seeking only small changes), then forewarning can be very effective. A forewarning stimulates the receivers to begin thinking about things you want them to think about. In essence a "self-persuasion" process can begin. When you start talking, your receivers will hear you say things they have already considered and will hence find your claims to be more familiar and acceptable.
Second, when your receivers already expect you to attempt persuasion, it is a good idea to "forewarn" them. Politicians often find themselves in this position. Everyone in the audience knows that politicians are trying to get people to vote for them. The situation is clearly a persuasive one. Therefore, a politician is smarter to stand up and declare the obvious, "I'm gonna be honest with you. I am here to persuade you to vote for me." A politician who tries to pretend that we're all here to listen to the band is probably less effective.
Organization
On one count, teachers should definitely be good persuaders. Well organized messages tend to be more persuasive than disorganized messages. Since teachers spend so much time structuring information and lessons, they naturally understand the value and effect of organization.
The importance of message organization is obvious. If your message is incoherent and confusing, then receivers will have difficulty merely understanding. The source may have good arguments, but the receivers will not comprehend them. Again, teachers know this lesson well. Most of us have had the experience of presenting information to our students in a way that was less than well organized. And we know what happens. The students get confused. They get worried and anxious because they do not understand. Some of them get angry at us. It is very bad medicine to confuse the class.
The question is, how well organized does the message have to be? Interestingly, most receivers most of the time are fairly flexible. Minor discrepancies apparently do not cause much trouble for comprehension and persuasion. Thus, if a source says, "There are three reasons we should do . . ." and then the source gives two reasons or four reasons, most receivers will still respond favorably. It appears that messages must be significantly disorganized before serious problems arise.
Examples Versus Statistics
Pick up almost any issue of “Reader's Digest” and read almost any article. It will go something like this.
"Mary Brown (not her real name), a thirty-two year old mother of two, was driving home from grocery shopping when a pickup truck ran a red light. The truck, driven by a drunken farmer trying to escape the police, struck Mary's car head-on. But tragedy was averted as the airbag in Mary's car inflated within 20 milliseconds, and Mary bounced off the gray cushion instead of being impaled on the steering column."
Now, if you were reading “Consumer Reports,” you would see a different approach to explaining the effectiveness of airbags. There would be charts and illustrations and statistical summaries and simply loads of data. Which message, example or statistic, would be more effective?
The research indicates that examples tend to be more powerful and persuasive than statistics. There are several reasons for this. First, examples are easy to comprehend and require less effort. From the chapter on the paths to persuasion, we know that most of the time most people prefer to minimize the amount of thinking they must do. Therefore, examples can function as effective persuasion cues.
Second, even in those situations where receivers are systematically and effortfully considering all the vital information in the situation, examples can be more effective than statistics because people will think more about them. With statistics, about all people do is learn them. They exist as statements that are either true or false. Examples, by contrast, make people think a bit more. They react more fully to examples as they recollect their own similar personal experiences.
Now, of course, examples will not always be preferred to statistics. If the audience is highly sophisticated and very well informed, statistics would be considerably more effective. In fact, overuse of examples could reduce the credibility of the speaker.
Message Sidedness
There are at least two sides on every issue. One sided messages discuss only one perspective. Two sided messages present information on both sides. Now, one and two sided messages still advocate only one position. The one sided message ardently defends a position and makes no mention of competing views. The two sided messages also defends a position, but it also "considers" the other side.
Generally speaking, a two sided message is more persuasive than a one sided message. To be most effective, a two sided message must do two things:
1) defend one side;
2) attack the other side.
When two sided messages merely mention that there are competing perspectives and there is no attack on the competition, two sided messages are no more effective than one sided messages. The question is, why are two sided messages better?
First, two sided messages may simply appear to be more fair and balanced. Thus, for receivers who are not thinking very carefully, two sided messages make sources more credible. Second, for receivers who are thinking carefully, the combination of defense and attack makes them think even more systematically about the issue and to start questioning the validity of the "other" side. Thus, two sided messages can provide a double-barreled strategy where the source gets more support because receivers like one side and dislike the other.
Repetition And Redundancy
If McDonald's run the same ad 100 times, that's repetition. If McDonald's runs 10 different ads 10 times each, that's redundancy. What impact does repetition have and does redundancy moderate its effect?
Interestingly, repetition has two different outcomes. First, a little repetition leads to a lot of persuasion. Second, a lot of repetition leads to frustration. There is a balance point with the lever of repetition. Using repetition up to that point is effective, but once you move past the balance point, you get diminishing returns.
In the first outcome a little repetition works for an obvious reason: Comprehension. As you repeat a message, over and over, more and more receivers understand the message. For example, advertisers know that if a hundred people are exposed to a TV commercial, most of them won't even remember it. But if you show that same over many different times, more and more people in the audience will finally begin to "see" it for the first time. And even if a particular receiver recognized that new ad the very first time, repeated viewings are still effective. They permit the receiver to learn more about the ad and consider it more carefully.
But, if this repetition is overused, the second outcome occurs. You've heard the expression, "Familiarity breds contempt." That is exactly what happens with messages that are repeated too much. The ad comes on the TV and you go, "Oh, no, not that again!" Instead of thinking about this wonderful new ad, you start getting angry or frustrated or bored with it. That is not good persuasion.
It is important to know what that balance point is. At present, there is no research which provides a good way to figure this out in advance. The typical rule is this. Use repetition until some receivers start to get annoyed. Then stop.
Now, redundancy (saying the same thing a different way) can permit repetition to work effectively for awhile. Redundant messages essentially fool the receivers into thinking that they are seeing something new. However, even with redundant messages, you will still reach that balance point eventually.
Rhetorical Questions
Rhetorical questions are persuasive, aren't they?
Let's make sure we know the terminology. A rhetorical question is an utterance that is really a statement, but looks like a question. Rhetoricals are polite ways of making claims without appearing to take a stand.
People who study longer get better grades, don't they?
Persuasion courses build character, don't they?
He's made his point, hasn't he?
The research with rhetoricals is interesting. It reveals one very strong conclusion: Using rhetoricals can change how people think. If receivers are not thinking very carefully about the persuasive appeal, a rhetorical question jerks their attention and makes them think. The reason for this is due to our social training. When somebody asks us a question, it is required that we respond to it. To respond correctly requires that we understand the question.
Okay, follow this. A rhetorical question is not a real question, it only looks and sounds like one. If you are really paying attention, when you hear a rhetorical question, you know that the source is not really asking you to do anything. By, if you are not paying close and careful attention, when you hear that rhetorical question, whoops, it grabs you because you think that the source has just asked you to do something and you must respond to be polite. Now, you start listening and really thinking about the rest of the persuasive message.
So, rhetoricals can be persuasive because they can make receivers think more carefully. There is also some evidence that rhetorical questions can be persuasion cues. That is, when receivers hear a source using rhetorical questions, they think the source and the message are more believable and correct.
The timing of the rhetorical appears to determine its effect. If a source uses rhetoricals very early in the appeal, then the rhetoricals will make the receivers pay more attention. If a source uses rhetoricals at the end of an appeal (when it is too late to pay attention), receivers will use that device as a persuasion cue.
Evidence
Recall earlier the section on examples and statistics. Both examples and statistics are part of a broader category called evidence. Let me paraphrase the definition of evidence from a noted scholar. It is any factual statement, object, or opinion not created by a source that is used by that source as support. Evidence, then, is something that somebody else created, that a source uses as a means of persuasion.
The research is surprisingly consistent on the effects of evidence. It works. Sources who use good evidence persuade their receivers much better than sources who do not use evidence or who use poor evidence. And the use of good evidence also leads to stronger perceptions of that source's credibility.
The effects of evidence are so robust and so strong that they should not be overlooked. There is no research that shows good evidence produces negative effects. There is only data which shows positive effects.
If you remember the chapter on the routes to persuasion you should realize that evidence works best with receivers who are systematically considering the most important aspects of the persuasive situation. These people truly want evidence and if it is good, they will think about it carefully, deeply, and effortfully. This will produce long lasting change.
And even if people are taking the other path to persuasion, evidence can still influence. The research demonstrates that when people are peripheral processors, they may not be willing or able to think about the evidence. But they can still count. And when a source uses several pieces of evidence, the peripheral thinker will simply cue off the amount of evidence (If there are that many things supporting the issue, it must be true.)
Real World Applications
This chapter has looked at seven message variables. They are intent, organization, examples versus statistics, sidedness, repetition and redundancy, rhetorical questions, and evidence. Skillful and appropriate use of each will produce greater influence. Now, how do these things work in the world? Most provide a very direct application. Whenever you are trying to influence people you can use any or all of these message variables to improve your effectiveness. Let's look at each.
1. Intent. Forewarned is forearmed. Therefore, simply present the persuasive message without warning.
2. Organization. Structure produces comprehension. Chaos produces confusion. Therefore, make the message clear and organized.
3. Examples versus statistics. Examples are easier to comprehend and generate greater thoughtfulness than statistics. Therefore, prove your points with examples your targets find compelling.
4. Sidedness. There are two sides to every issue. Messages which defend one side and attack the other are more effective. Therefore, support your position, but make sure you point out weaknesses in other views.
5. Repetition and redundancy. The frequency with which a message is given enhances influence to a balance point. Past that point repetition will annoy and frustrate receivers. Redundancy will delay reaching the balance point, but will not prevent it. Repetition works to improve comprehension. Therefore, expect to repeat your messages several times to make sure everyone gets the word and understands the word.
6. Rhetorical questions. Statements hidden as questions work well when given in advance of the main message. Rhetoricals serve to enhance attention and message processing. Therefore, use rhetoricals to get or regain attention before you make you major points.
7. Evidence. Something created by another person that you use is evidence. Evidence may be the most powerful message variable there is. It produces a simple equation: More good evidence, more influence. Therefore, always include the best evidence for your receivers.
References And Recommended Readings
Allen, M. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 390-404.
McCroskey, J. (1986). Introduction to rhetorical communication, (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). Communication and persuasion: The central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Reinhard, J. (1988). The empirical study of the persuasive effects of evidence: The statusafter fifty years of research. Human Communication Research, 15, 3-59.
