This is a Work in Progress!

SMCR
This Always Works!

The oldest and simplest empirical approach to the study of persuasion runs down Edison Avenue:  Take one variable and test it against everything else.  You start with a definition, maybe a conceptualization, but certainly an operationalization of that variable, and you throw it into the Matrix of Correlation Research.  You don’t really need a Big Persuasion Theory to test it.  With luck you’ll find that BPT at the end of the rainbow along with a pot of gold or at least a grant or two.  That’s the blessing and the curse – you’re off to the races with your construct and correlation matrix, but you don’t really know when you’ve crossed the finish line because you don’t have a theory.

The standard structure for organizing these one-at-a-time research programs (cruelly labeled as “Dustbowl Empiricism” with reference to the farming failure in the midwest during the Great Depression and the academic home of many practitioners) is the SMCR model of communication, our old friend with the cold nose from Foundations.  Hey, since persuasion uses words, it’s communication, and communication is Source Message Channel and Receiver so even if we don’t have a Big Persuasion Theory at least we’ve got a Framework (which is a nice way of saying someone is ugly, shallow, or vulgar).  But, it does produce a ton of data, kinda like global warming research or epidemiology, two of my favorite things along with nausea, ringing in the ears, and a fall down a flight of stairs.

Stated more dispassionately, I cheerfully abhor this style of work because it all too often produces “just so” stories much in the style of fairy tales where the porridge is neither too hot nor too cold, but just right.  I once worked with a researcher who loved these theory-free, massive data projects.  He’d correlate Anything with Everything Else, then look through a correlation matrix and by eyeballing the numbers, he’d find the truth.  Once when I was working with him on building the newest fairy tale, I observed that the correlation matrix he was holding was not actually the correlation matrix, but a variance matrix which is bit like looking out a window at an art museum and thinking you’re seeing a landscape painting.  He was quite near the end of the new fairy tale when I asked if this was actually a variance matrix and not a correlation matrix.  He looked over his nose at me, double checked my assertion, and confirmed its validity.  He then found the 40 X 40 correlation matrix and started a new fairy tale.  He published it, too.

With as much fairness as I can muster for my colleague, the point was you can’t build a theory without data.  Then armed with strong data, when you do develop a BPT, you can check the Theory against all that old SMCR knowledge and see if it fits.  Maybe all those Dustbowl Empiricists were right:  Edison Avenue can lead to truth!

In this chapter we will look at a variety of Source, Message, Channel, and Receiver variables that have received the greatest attention and provide the most useful tests for our BPT.  It’s no surprise that I consider the ELM as the undisputed heavyweight champ in the BPT series, so as we look at credibility, likeability, sidedness, fear appeals, modality, and intelligence, we’ll also see how well ELM tells the story.

Quickly now we recall the persuasion WAC from the ELM.  Any and all variables can function in one of three ways:  the WATTage dimmer switch, an Argument, or a Cue.  We easily realize as we look at SMCR how almost all of them could produce different effects depending upon how they are employed (proving once again just how dusty Dustbowl Empiricism is).

Let’s begin with the story teller or the Source of persuasion, the person who starts the fight.

Source Variables:  Troublemakers

When we look at other people who are talking to us, our dominant concerns revolve around two huge qualities:  Likeability and Credibility.  We observe other attributes of the Source, whether they are smart or dumb, open or close minded, neurotic or normal, for example.  But the big ones for persuasion are Likeability and Credibility.

In the CLARCCS chapter we looked at different ways that each quality lead to persuasion, but in this section we’ll look more deeply at what leads to perceptions of Likeability and Credibility rather than their effects on the Peripheral Route.

Credibility

Credibility is simple:  do you know the truth and do you speak the truth?  Competence and character drive perceptions of Credibility.  If you know the truth, you can cite the research chapter and verse, you can tear down a gun blindfolded and put it back together, you can cook a gourmet meal from a camp side tent.  You are a maven, a master, connoisseur, cognoscente, savant, a freak.

Such expertise is persuasive, yet not completely, for mavens may mislead.  The circle closes on credibility when you combine competence with character.  You speak the truth with iron reliability, tested mettle, and courage past the edge of doom.  Combine competence and character and you’ve got credibility.  In those instances where only one quality, competence or character, pushes through the doorway, we typically prefer character to walk into the room because we’ve learned that competence without character is a drunken pilot.

What makes for credibility.  Talk fast, smooth, and relaxed.  Use a vast and varied vocabulary.  Stand straight, speak fluently, and look ‘em in the eye.  Gesture with meaning and style.  Admit mistakes, but follow with solutions.

Power

Likeability and Affinity Seeking Communication

Sure, if we like the source, we do what they ask, but what makes a source likable?  It is surprisingly easy from a communication point of view.  Sure, it’s nice if you are physically beautiful.

Researchers have pursued this concept with “affinity seeking tactics” or what do you say and do to get others to like you.

Similarity between Source and Receiver

Majority/Minority

Number of Sources

Demographics (Sex, Age, Etc.)

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.

Relevance/Importance

Position/Discrepancy

Argument Quality

Framing with Gains and Losses

Humor

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

Visit almost popular press outlet 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.  Furthermore, most examples tend to feature human models in emotional relationships – the classic poster child for a killer disease.  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.  Good examples appear to be more likely to generate that long conversation in the head compared to statistics.

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 on scientific or technical issue.  But, even then, it still wouldn’t hurt to have a Poster Child example along with the statistics.

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.)

Fear Appeals

I’ll be more honest than usual here.  Fear appeals research makes me uncomfortable as does virtually all persuasion work with emotion and affect variables.  If you read this literature carefully you should be struck by the diversity, complexity, and ornery nature of it.  People do what I think of as the “same” experiment with an emotion and they’ll get wildly different results – positive, negative, or neutral; WATTage, argument or cue.  Emotion is still a field plagued with definitional and measurement challenges, so it is not as neat as a pin, tidy as a tube of pennies, or simple as Steve.  With my bias front and center, now let us proceed with fear.

A threat announces to you that something out there is bad and looking for you.  Threats elicit fear from most of us most of the time and motivates us to avoid, mitigate, or defeat the threat.  There’s a ton of common sense and For Me? behind threats and fear.  Hey, something mad, bad, and dangerous to know is waiting to give you a Consequence of Punishment; whatcha gonna do?  The jerky knee response is anything to avoid it.  Brush your teeth!  Always wear a condom!  Don’t buy what those gypsy girls sell you!

But, quickly, if the threat elicits huge fear, the action may veer into the wrong territory where people only drink food or never have sex or put gypsy girls out of business.

The fear appeals literature strongly demonstrates the persuasion WAC.  Sometimes fear is so intense that it kills Objective or Biased WATTage and leads Cue driven thinking of just get out of here.  Sometimes fear leads to Biased WATTage where people cut the threat to fit existing knowledge.  And, sometimes, when it is like Goldilocks and not too hot and not too cold, but just right, it produces Objective processing of Arguments.

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.

Channel or the Medium Is the Message

The five channels of human communication are:

You don’t remember do you?  I told you this in Foundations and you don’t remember it now.  I am an awful instructor.  A pitiful professor.  I engage each of your five senses

Wait.  I remember, Steve.

There are five channels of human communication that correspond to the five human sense of sight, sound, touch, taste, and feel.

Modality

Receiver or Anything I Need to Know about Them?

Before the world discovered dual process theories like the ELM, there was no special receiver attribute that was held to be any more meaningful or important than any other receiver attribute as indeed no single variable in the SMCR Framework could hold pride of place in perusasion.  ELM argues that WATTage is the First Cause, the Essence, the MacGuffin, the Thing You’d Better Know if you want to succeed.

Need for Cognition

Perceived Elaboration

Prior Knowledge/Schema

Attitude Accessibility

Distraction

Anticipated Future Interaction

Intelligence

Self Esteem

Demographics (Sex, Age, Etc. Again)

References And Recommended Readings

The SMCR literature is huge and if I referenced each study discussed in this chapter, the file would be ridiculously long.  I’ll point you to two excellent sources that contain the needed references and are great persuasion books or chapters in themselves.  (In other words, if you are cuckoo for credibility and all things persuasion, make sure you read this.)

O’Keefe, D. (1990). Persuasion: Theory and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Petty, R., & Wegener, D. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 323-390). New York: McGraw-Hill.