joel osteen - the persuasive genius (final conference version)

Joel Osteen: The Persuasive Genius


Abstract

Joel Osteen Ministries has grown into an evangelical Christian powerhouse during recent

years. The ministry enjoys tens of thousands of worshippers during its weekly services. This

paper analyzes ways in which Joel Osteen employs persuasive techniques to ensure the retention

of existing, and acquisition of new, congregants worldwide. Primarily discussed are Osteen’s

appeals to heuristics and his implementation of “God” and “Devil” terms to create a context for

identification and dis-identification. The essay examines processes through which Petty and

Cacioppo’s “Elaboration Likelihood Model” prove useful in explaining conclusions reached by

receivers of Osteen’s persuasive messages. Cialdini’s heuristic principles are discussed in terms

of their usefulness in influencing perceptions of Osteen, and how this directly determines the

success of his ministry. The discussion concludes that Osteen’s covert encouragement of

peripheral information processing and subtle appeals toward membership within his “in-group”

leave consumers vulnerable and likely to comply with his persuasive requests.

1


Purpose of Persuasive Analysis

The purpose of this analysis is to examine persuasive techniques used by Joel Osteen on

his religious ministry’s website. Osteen is the head pastor at Lakewood Church, located in

Houston, Texas. He is America’s leading televangelist, as his non-profit organization, Joel

Osteen Ministries, has grown from its origins in 1999 to an evangelical powerhouse around the

world—serving 47,000 worshippers each week at his live services at Lakewood Church alone—

this figure does not include his worldwide television audience (Miller and Carlin 2009:28).

Osteen extends his message using social media and televised live worship, which he and his wife

Victoria lead inside the 16,000 seat arena formerly known as the Compaq center (Osteen 2014).

Osteen’s ministry hasn’t grown into what it is today by accident—very careful “behind-

the-scenes” techniques have been employed by those with expert understandings of persuasion.

Osteen and his company have successfully implemented such techniques, and they have yielded

incredibly lucrative results. How is this possible? Joel Osteen strategically employs the use of

social proof, authority, and liking heuristics (also known as cognitive shorthands), and presents

the consumer with two options—identification or dis-identification—through his use of “God”

and “Devil” terms. Each of these concepts operate independently of one another (appeals to

heuristic use and the use of “God” and “Devil” terms), but they gain new strength when applied

in conjunction with one another: Osteen first incorporates “God” and “Devil” terms, and then he

relies upon their functionality in creating an audience more vulnerable to the lures of heuristic

deference than they might have been without first being predisposed to the idealized notion of

belonging to a desirable in-group. Taken together, then, heuristics and “God” and “Devil” terms

conjunctively aid Osteen’s overarching attempt to adapt Petty and Cacioppo’s “Elaboration

2


Likelihood Model” toward persuading consumers to invest in his mega church. First, it is

important to delineate the basic structure and function of the Joel Osteen Ministries website.

General Description of Persuasive Artifact

The persuasive artifact to be analyzed is Joel Osteen Ministries’ website,

www.joelosteen.com. The web page is full of bright color and interactive elements. The page

features quickly scrolling banners advertising Joel’s books, upcoming live events, and multiple

donation opportunities. The front page welcomes viewers by warning them, “Don’t Let Fear

Freeze You” (Osteen 2014). By clicking on the related link, visitors are invited to read an

anecdotal story told by Osteen about a man who allegedly froze to death in a train car he thought

to be refrigerated, but that was actually 61 degrees Fahrenheit. Because the man was locked in

the car and thought he would freeze to death, readers learn, he actually died due to freezing

temperatures. The story is disheartening, but only to the extent that Osteen can take advantage of

the opportunity it provides for him to remind consumers that there is a solution to be had: “Fear

blows things out of proportion. Fear makes problems much bigger than they really are.” Osteen

continues with his assumption that “Perhaps like [the frozen man], you feel trapped. Everything

tells you, ‘You’ll never get out. You’ll never get ahead. You’ll never get well . . . God is saying,

‘If you will stay in faith, I will deliver you. I will protect you. I will heal you. I will vindicate

you. I will restore you’” (Osteen 2014). Those who side with Osteen side with God, and therein

lies reprieve from all anguish. God presented as the ultimate answer to every problem is, at its

base, quite an extraordinary claim. Thus, it depends upon the extraordinary execution of

persuasive tactics if it is to prevail.

Following this emotionally appealing and arguably thrilling introduction, browsers may

opt to read about Osteen, his wife Victoria, and their ministry, or they can skip to a page full of

3


blog-like essays written by one or more of the Osteens. Running down the side of every page are

bright photo advertisements for Joel’s books, including hyperlinks to purchase them directly.

When clicking on the “Pray Together” section of the page, visitors are asked to sign in or to

create a new profile in order to let Joel and Victoria know how, and in what way, to pray for

them. Lastly, the website offers a subpage where current and potential worshippers can follow

Joel Osteen Ministries on social media and by email newsletter. This Internet artifact functions

through the selling of hope, but why do so many buy in? Surely the answer doesn’t reside solely

in Osteen’s use of online persuasive techniques, but there is no doubt that those techniques

highlighted next most certainly play an important role in luring people into the televangelist’s

marketing net.

Description of Theoretical Approach

This analysis will employ the perspectives of two distinct lenses: 1) Petty and Cacioppo’s

Elaboration Likelihood Model, or E.L.M., and 2) The use of “God” and “Devil” terms to

facilitate identification and dis-identification. Initial exploration of these concepts allows for a

closer inspection of the persuasive tactics undertaken by Osteen on his website.

The Elaboration Likelihood Model centers on the idea that “persuasion is a consequence

not just of external cues but also of the thoughts that the persuadee generates in response to

external communications” (Petty and Cacioppo as cited in Simons and Jones 2011:58).

Persuasion not only depends, then, on the persuader, but it is largely facilitated on the terms of

the persuadee. In generating responses to such external communications, receivers of persuasive

requests employ one of two routes to persuasion, and often a combination of both.

The two routes to persuasion as outlined by the Elaboration Likelihood Model are 1) the

central route, and 2) the peripheral route. The central route to persuasion entails high levels of

4


elaboration (defined as the extent to which one engages in issue-relevant thinking), and involves

critical thought and rational, reasonable consideration. In contrast, the peripheral route to

persuasion involves far less, if any, issue-relevant thinking. During peripheral processing, the

persuadee’s attention is focused on aspects of the interaction other than solely the message.

Additionally, peripheral processing oftentimes incorporates the use of cognitive shorthands, or

heuristics, by the persuadee (Waltman 2014).

Heuristics, as labeled by Cialdini (2009), are a collection of cognitive shorthands that

persuadees rely upon “when [they] haven’t the inclination or wherewithal to engage in more

mindful message processing” (Simons and Jones 2011:211). Cialdini (2009) describes these

shorthands as a set of seven principles: contrast, reciprocity, consistency, social proof, authority,

liking, and scarcity (Waltman 2014). The three heuristics to be analyzed in the context of Joel

Osteen are social proof, authority, and liking—each to be defined in sequence.

Social proof refers to the idea that people determine how they feel about a persuasive

request by considering how other people are reacting around them (Waltman 2014). Examples of

this would be the commercial message that “nine out of ten satisfied customers agree,” or that

“everyone is doing it!” The social proof heuristic can best be represented as the notion that “I

should comply with persuasive requests that are being accepted by others around me.”

Persuaders are well aware that people often elect simply to follow the opinion of the masses.

The authority heuristic can be seen when the receiver of a persuasive request defers

strictly to the authority of a given persuader instead of also considering other relevant elements

of the request (Simons and Jones 2011:217). Instances involving the authority heuristic generally

hinge on the assumed consensus that “Those in positions of authority know what is best for me.”

This can often be witnessed in situations involving doctors or clergy: both figures are viewed as

5


possessing authority, and patients often accept their advice based solely on such authority, rather

than first probing the persuasive request and asking critical questions about the substance of the

message.

The principle of liking involves the propensity for receivers of persuasive requests to

consider those from people whom they like in a more favorable light than of those whom they

dislike. The general idea is that “I should comply with persuasive requests made by likeable

people” (Waltman 2014). This is why the messages communicated by friends, family members,

and trusted others are usually more readily agreeable to us than those of strangers.

Each of the heuristic principles outlined above can play a critical role in determining

whether or not a person is likely to engage in issue-relevant thinking (central processing). What

makes the identification of heuristics difficult is that often they operate at a level largely beneath

our consciousness. For this reason, persuadees do not often know cognitive shorthands have

come into play until after a persuasive interaction has occurred—and sometimes they never

realize the influence of a heuristic. While heuristics serve as powerful tools for persuaders, there

exists a multitude of other variables that function to increase a person’s likelihood to comply

with a persuasive request, and another primary example to be considered in this analysis is the

use of “God” and “Devil” terms.

Persuaders employ “God” and “Devil” terms because they are antithetical to each other.

They are “symbols of approval or derision, of group identification or dis-identification”

(Waltman 2014). These terms operate by positioning receivers of persuasive messages to identify

themselves as falling onto one side of a choice or the other, and in a very rigid sense. This results

in a person’s being “in-grouped,” or “out-grouped” as a result of their compliance or non-

compliance with the request. Naturally, people tend to gravitate toward terms that indicate

6


identification with something deemed ideologically positive by society rather than with

something deemed ideologically negative. “God” and “Devil” terms are persuasive because they

obfuscate similarities that people share, and they provide a method of unsolicited simplification

in decision-making that restricts choices to terms of being societally “righteous” or “not,” when

issue-relevant thinking would reveal that there exists a more reasonable way of approaching the

persuasive request. Thus, “God” and “Devil” terms share a commonality with heuristic

implementation in that both techniques falsely dichotomize complex concepts and intensify a

persuadee’s likelihood of engaging in peripheral information processing. Having discussed the

two lenses through which this analysis will examine the persuasive artifact, it is now possible to

delve more deeply into the website itself, and to examine the ways in which Osteen attempts to

undermine potential and current customers’ ability to engage in issue-relevant thinking.

Analysis

Joel Osteen is presented with an audience he knows will likely show high motivation to

elaborate. Many who have sought out his website arrive in search of some form of fulfillment,

spiritual or otherwise. Therefore, Osteen’s audience can be expected to ascribe a high level of

personal relevance to his persuasive message. Secondly, it’s probable that web surfers have

already heard “the good news” from numerous sources in the past, as well as differing variations

of it. Lastly, Osteen’s audience will exhibit a high need for cognition based upon the inherent

nature of the guidance they are seeking. Consumers will want to know whether Osteen has

something unique to offer that others have lacked. Because motivation to elaborate can be

anticipated, it makes sense that Osteen instead focuses on interfering with the other relevant

aspect affecting a person’s degree of elaboration: their ability to do so. Osteen cannot control the

prior knowledge of his audience, but he can provide distractions. This is the point at which his

7


knowledge of heuristic principles and the anticipatory striving by consumers for positive “in-

group” identification becomes useful. First, the impact of heuristic principles is examined.

The heuristics of social proof, authority, and liking are tempting on Osteen’s website.

Visitors first encounter the social proof pitfall when they read the news that:

Millions are watching . . . we are reaching over 100 million homes in the U.S. and tens of

millions more in 100 nations … each week more than one million people are hearing God’s Word

by downloading our audio and video podcast, making our podcast consistently one of the top five

in the world. (Osteen 2014)

These numbers are mind-boggling and are presented without substantiation. This is not to say

that there isn’t truth to the claims, but Osteen is going to leave every bit of the issue-relevant

thinking up to consumers if they desire to conduct more in-depth research. Osteen’s ministry

appears insanely popular on the global stage, and this is an effective tool for gaining the favor of

a large number of customers who will probe the issue no further, and who will join the more than

one million who are purportedly already believers in Joel Osteen. Again, this is not to suggest

Osteen’s claims are untrue, but to emphasize that, in this context, they are unsupported claims

and nothing more. Readers are then informed that “most recently, Joel was named as one of

Barbara Walters' ‘10 Most Fascinating People of 2006’ and he was selected as the ‘Most

Influential Christian in 2006’ by the readers of Church Report Magazine” (Osteen 2014). Once

again browsers encounter examples of people in society—both everyday individuals and

celebrities—declaring their approval of Osteen. Why then, shouldn’t the average newcomer do

the same? If the social proof heuristic has its intended effect, this is exactly what will occur.

If successfully employed, viewers will conclude that their taking part in “the sharing [of] hope

with millions in new ways and in new places” (Osteen 2014) is far simpler and more desirous

8


than engaging in issue-relevant thinking—which may uncover legitimate reasons not to

participate.

A second heuristic appealed to on the website is the principle of authority. Osteen “has an

extended relationship with his audience wherein his integrity and credibility must be maintained

over time, and the interest of his audience must be captured repeatedly” (Diekema 1991:146).

Osteen has no formal theological training and dropped out of college before earning his

Bachelor’s degree (Miller and Carlin 2009:28); he must establish integrity and credibility by

implementing heuristic cognitive shorthands to entangle his audience. To accomplish this,

Osteen invokes the authority of God within his ministry, stating that “the power of God . . . is

being broadcast through [his] ministry” (Osteen 2014). For Christian worshippers, there is no

higher authority than that of God. If God is said to be working through, or extending his power

into Joel Osteen and/or other members of his ministry, then there is no alternative for believers

but to desire to be in his presence and to hear what they (and God, by extension) have to say.

This is problematic, of course, because there exists no empirical evidence that any such deity

exists. Let it be assumed, for argument’s sake, that empirical evidence for an omnipotent,

omniscient God does exist. Even still, no evidence is offered in support of the claim that such a

God is intervening or working through Joel Osteen or his ministry. However, Osteen’s success

enjoys independence from empirical truth; the only relevant measure of such lies in the extent to

which his audience accepts his claims—and congregant headcounts indicate that it increasingly

does. As central processing remains largely untapped, then, Osteen’s proclamations are

consequently unquestioned when his appeal to the authority heuristic is successful. The

televangelist doesn’t have any need to derive internal authority when he can endow himself with

9


the external authority of God. What was once a problem of establishing credibility now becomes

an opportunity to presume the highest authority a Christian worshipper comprehends.

The final heuristic to be analyzed in the context of Joel Osteen’s website is the principle

of liking. In televangelism, a persistent pattern of marketing includes “appeals to altruism [that]

are frequent and cover a wide range of activities from helping the poor and needy to supporting

the moral and political goals of the New Christian Right” (Diekema 1991:149). This is apparent

as Osteen gloats that his ministries are “the hands and feet of hope to those in need all around the

world,” and reminds potential supporters that his ministry is facilitating “vaccination programs,

abandoned baby centers and centers for young troubled teens looking for a new life and a fresh

start. We are helping feed the hungry, clothe the needy and provide hope to the hopeless”

(Osteen 2014). By pointing out his altruistic gestures around the world in one of the introductory

pages of his website, Osteen persuades his audience to perceive him as a selfless, benevolent

person—he arguably constructs himself as being Godlike, or, at very least, as embodying

congregants’ individual and collective visions of a loving, selfless God. Thus, while establishing

himself as an unquestionably likeable figure, Osteen simultaneously furthers his previously

discussed perceptibility as an authoritative source. For audience members who allow for the

liking heuristic to play its part, there is almost no avoiding feelings of fondness for Osteen—

which influences, often subconsciously, the extent to which they engage in elaboration when

evaluating his persuasive requests and deciding whether or not to comply with them.

The second primary concept to be examined is the using of “God” and “Devil” terms on

Osteen’s website. Joel Osteen inserts “God” and “Devil” terms far less abrasively than the

televangelists of times past might have preferred; instead, he uses subtler messages to remind

current or potential worshippers that they are either in, or they are out. Although he rarely speaks

10


of “sin” in the direct sense, Osteen uses imagery and prose geared toward “facilitat[ing] a ‘we

the righteous’ and ‘they the sinful’ mentality” (Diekema 1991:150). Osteen relies upon his

endorsement of other authors—in one particular instance that of his sister Lisa Osteen Comes—

who remind his website followers that “the Bible has much to say about the sinful life versus the

godly life . . . it clearly shows that it pays to live a godly, righteous life” (Osteen 2014). Such a

statement carries the implication that there exists an alternative, deleterious path by which those

who are ungodly and unrighteous will choose to live their existences. Consumers can choose to

identify with the safety and certainty of the expressed in-group—the godly life—or they can

move on and opt to remain part of the unknown, assumedly treacherous out-group—the sinful

life. Osteen places photos (advertisement links) of his books around the edges and on banners

that head his website. The titles of his books include “From Victim to Victor,” “You Can, You

Will,” Power Over the Enemy,” and “Your Best Life Now.” Each of these titles directly or

indirectly suggests a path leading from the defeated to the victorious, or from the satisfactory to

the perfected. The titles suggest that there exists a deficiency in the identities of audience

members as they currently are, and that it is through Osteen’s products that they can attain the

necessary fix. Such an approach embodies what will henceforth be called “Osteen’s Paradox:”

outwardly projected messages of love, acceptance, and altruism—but messages in which

effectiveness unequivocally depends upon the conscious or subconscious internalization of a

secondary, ominous message: “Comply with the request I am making, because you are in need of

all the help you can get.” Without the qualification provided by the latter premise, there exist no

grounds for the acceptance of, or compliance with, the first premise. Thus, Osteen’s

communicative goals are those of beneficence, but his underlying tactics can be seen as

necessitating malevolence if they are to find success. Banners reading “It’s time for you to win”

11


are draped over the book images, and links to purchase tickets for live events promise attendees

“A Night of Hope with Joel and Victoria” (Osteen 2014). Here the couple offers another

opportunity for inclusion—they offer worshippers the experience of being in their presence, and

vicariously through the Osteens, in God’s presence.

Conclusions

In fairness, this analysis should not be viewed as an indictment of Joel Osteen for

utilizing persuasive techniques that have been demonstrated as effective time and again.

Countless numbers of faith leaders have utilized these appeals, and to criticize Osteen alone for

doing so would be to misrepresent history. Furthermore, heuristic ploys and “God” and “Devil”

terms are implemented regularly by corporations, local organizations, and within interpersonal

interactions in everyday attempts to persuade. Therefore, the pertinent question becomes how

this analysis might translate into a practical tool for use against such complex persuasive

techniques. The hope is that receivers of persuasive requests might, as a result of this analysis,

find themselves better equipped to handle such messages, and become less likely to cease

elaboration. This is not to imply that persuasive messages shouldn’t warrant consideration, but

rather to emphasize the importance of approaching them with this supplied knowledge regarding

the dynamics at work underneath the surface of interpersonal and mass communication.

Marketers, whether selling a commercial product or, like in Joel Osteen’s case, the solution to

life’s problems, rely upon their audience’s deferment to peripheral processing and people’s

desire to identify as part of the established “in-group.” Having examined this case study,

potential customers can enter into Joel Osteen’s persuasive dialogue better prepared to engage in

issue-relevant thinking, and as a result, to make better-informed decisions prior to investing in

what is ultimately just another ingeniously disguised product in a capitalistic market.

12


References

Diekema, David A. 1991. “Televangelism and the Mediated Charismatic Relationship.” The

Social Science Journal 28(2):143–62.

Miller, Christine and Nathan Carlin. 2009. “Joel Osteen as Cultural Selfobject: Meeting the

Needs of the Group Self and Its Individual Members in and from the Largest Church in

America.” Pastoral Psychology 59(1):27–51. Retrieved October 27, 2014

(http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11089-009-0197-7).

Osteen, Joel. 2014. “Joel Osteen Ministries.” Retrieved October 27, 2014

(http://www.joelosteen.com/Pages/Home.aspx).

Simons, Herbert W. and Jean G. Jones. 2011. Persuasion in Society. 2nd ed. New York:

Routledge.

Waltman, Michael. 2014. “ELM and Heuristics Lecture.”

13

joel osteen - the persuasive genius (final conference version)

Documents