Persuasion and Argumentation

• From Latin (persuadere) and Greek (peíto): convincing, changing one’s mind, inducing, enticing, impressing, seducing

• Persuasive communication intends:

• (1) to change (adjust) audience’s values, beliefs, and attitudes and

• (2) to elicit action (a desired behavior).

The process of forwarding arguments is

called argumentation. • Argumentation is at once:

• advocacy of a particular belief, preference, or policy

• the inquiry of finding the best answers to a problem or a controversy.

• a debate: a battle, a struggle between opinions and positions.

Methods of Persuasion

• Logos: “the argument proper.” Proper reasoning and good evidence

• Ethos: the character of the speaker (credibility)

• Pathos: producing the right attitude in the hearer (emotional/motivational appeals)

• Also: Cognitive dissonance theory, reactance theory

Elaboration Likelihood Model

• What happens when a person receives a persuasive message?

• Distinct routes of processing:

• Central route (Elaboration occurs)

• Peripheral route (Nonelaboration)

Elaboration Likelihood Model

• Central route:

• The strength of the argument

• Peripheral:

• Credibility

• Liking

• Number of arguments

Conditioning

• Classical (association).• Operant (reinforcement)Positive reinforcement (favorable stimulus to

cause/increase behavior)Negative reinforcement (removal of aversive

stimulus to cause behavior)Positive punishment (aversive stimulus to decrease

behavior)Negative punishment (removal of favorable stimulus

to decrease behavior)

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

• Any two cognitive elements will have one of three kinds of relationships:

• Irrelevant (I like ice cream and I am aware of dangers of drunk driving)

• Consonant (I like ice cream and I know that dairy products are good for the body)

• Dissonant (I like ice cream and I am aware of the dangers of high cholesterol)

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

• Inconsistency between two cognitins gives rise to the uncomfortable psychological state of “cognitive dissonance”

• Because dissonance is so very uncomfortable to us, we will do almost anything to reduce the dissonance in order to achieve consonance

Three ways in which dissonance can be reduced

1. One might change one or more of the cognitive elements

(a) change the original behavior: stop eating ice cream or reduce frequency of eating ice cream

(b) or reject the new information: it is not true that cholesterol is bad for you

Three ways in which dissonance can be reduced

2. New elements might by added

Eating ice cream is extremely enjoyable

Ice cream alone is not that bad; there are worse things with cholesterol

3. One might come to see the elements as less important

The research on cholesterol is inconclusive.

Stereotyping

• Cognitive frameworks consisting of knowledge and beliefs about specific social groups (suggesting that all members of a group possess certain traits)

• Allow to make quick judgments

• Self-confirming role

• Prejudice, favoritism

Using Listeners Needs

• Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

• Physiological needs

• Safety

• Social

• Self-esteem

• Self-actualization

Understanding audiences

• Target Audiences

• General Public

War in Iraq: Favor or OpposeHow public opinion changes quickly….

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2003 2004 2005 2008

FavorOppose

Marijuana should be legal

• .

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

YESNO

Learning about the U.S. in context of other countries

Government has responsibility to reduce income differences

UK US NL NZ CAN

Definitely yes

43 18 39 35 28

Probably yes

38 28 40 30 33

Probably not

10 25 13 15 20

Definitely no

7 27 6 18 17

Sexual relations before marriage

UK US NL DK CAN

Always wrong

11 30 7 6 12

Almost always wrong

7 11 3 3 7

Some-times

14 20 20 9 15

Not wrong at all

66 38 70 83 65

Same sex relations

F US NL

Always wrong

38 62 16

Almost always wrong

9 6 5

Some-times

17 7 12

Not wrong at all

36 24 67

There is hell

UK US NL DK JAP

YES 13 55 13 8 6

Maybe

NO 34 12 48 60 21

Believe in God

UK US NL DK JAP

NO 41 18 48 55 55

Some-times

14 5 8 11 32

YES with doubts

23 15 18 20 9

YES without a doubt

26 63 26 14 4

Europe vs. U.S. on death penalty

• 1997: 75% of Americans supported death penalty

• 2011: 60% of Americans support death penalty.

• 2008: about 30% of Europeans support death penalty

Support for death penalty

Taiwan 80%

Russia 67%

The U.S. 63%

Japan 58%

UK 49%

France 41%

Mexico 38%

Germany 27%

Denmark 18%

Spain 17%

Norway 16%

Divorce by areas

Area % are or have been divorced

South 27%Midwest 27%West 26%Northeast 19%

Divorces by religion

Religion % have been divorced

Born-again Christians 27%Other Christians 24%Atheists, Agnostics 21%

Marriage

How the best- and least-educated Americans approach marriage and

child-rearing

Divorced in 10 years

College educated High school dropouts

Married in 1975-79 29% 38%Married in 1990-94 16% 46%

Out-of-wedlock children 4% 15%

A person has the right to suicide if he/she is tired of living

• .

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

YESNO

Types of propositions

Types of propositions

• Propositions of fact assert that something is or exists

• Propositions of value assert that something has a value (is good, right, correct, efficient, moral).

• Propositions of policy assert that something should be done (that an action needs to be taken, policy enacted, etc.)

Persuasive Speech on a Question of Fact

Specific Purpose: To persuade my audience that another major earthquake will

hit California by the year 2025.

Main Points:

I. Many geological signs indicate that a major earthquake may happen

soon.

II. Experts agree that a major earthquake could hit California any day.

Persuasive Speech on aQuestion of Value

Specific Purpose: To persuade my audience thatcapital punishment is morally andlegally wrong.

Main Points: I. Capital punishment is immoral

II. Capital punishment violates the constitutional ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Challenges in arguing values

• What are the criteria for the values?• Can you convince the audience that the

audience should accept your criteria?• For example: • What are the criteria for “cruel and

unusual?”• What are the criteria for “moral”?

Persuasive Speech on a Question of Policy

Specific Purpose: To persuade my audience thataction should be taken now tosolve the nation’s shortage of nurses.

Main Points: I. The shortage of nurses has become a serious national problem.

II. The problem can be solved by offering nurses better salaries and better working conditions.

Hierarchy of Propositions

• The policy proposition is the final element in a decision-making process.

• Proposition of fact: Person x engaged in a

sexual relationship with a minor.• Proposition of value: Person X is guilty of a

crime…• Proposition of policy: Person X should be

punished by a fine, jail term, etc.

Hierarchy of Propositions

• IF, Propositions of fact: oil is becoming more expensive and nuclear energy is cheaper and readily available in the United States.

• THUS• Proposition of value: Nuclear energy is superior

to other types of energy (coal, oil, etc.)• THEREFORE,

Proposition of policy: We should build more nuclear plants..

Steps in Developing a Speech on the Question of Policy

• 1. Identify the “problem” to be resolved• The first step in developing a policy is to show

that there is a need for taking an action

• 2. Identify the causes of the problem• The question of causation is a question of

culpability. Who is at fault? Whom or what should we blame?

The nature of the Problem

• The Magnitude (the problem is severe)

• The Extent (growing, widespread)

The origins of the problem

• What is the cause of the problem?

• Is this the real cause of the problem?

• Is the cause structural or attitudinal?

Identify (or invent) available policies and select the best one.

1. What is the mechanism of the policy?

How does it work?

2. Is the policy solving/minimizing the

problem?

3. Is the policy affordable?

4. Is the policy enforceable? 

What are you proposing to do?

• Are you addressing causes or symptoms of the problem?

• What ‘behaviors’ are to be enacted that are not presently being enacted?

Mechanism

• How it is going to work?

• Is the solution available and acceptable?

Financing

• How are you planning to pay for it?

• Is the solution affordable?

• Who will benefit from the policy? Who will pay the costs?

Enforcement

• What means are used to ensure compliance?

Expected results

• Does the policy eliminate the causes (or only symptoms) of the problem?

• Does the policy have unintended effects?

• Is the policy workable in the long run?

Opposing Policy Propositions

Refute the Reason for Change

Challenge the Problem Refute the Reason for Change

• The problem is not severe

• The problem is stable or declining

• The problem is of little importance for the audience

The problem is not severe

0

1020

3040

5060

7080

90100

1998

Welfare recipientsWelfare fraud

The problem is stableExample: suicides per 100,000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1970 1980 1990 1993

Suicide

Challenge “problem causation”

• What is the cause of the problem?

• Is this the real cause of the problem?

• Is the cause structural or attitudinal?

Refute the Solutions

• Identify Barriers

• Dispute Workability

• Present Disadvantages

Identify Barriers

• Policy is not available

E.g., technology is not available

• Policy is not acceptable

E.g., policy will not pass constitutional scrutiny

Dispute Workability

• The policy is not affordable

• The policy is difficult to implement

• The policy cannot be enforced

Present Disadvantages

• The policy has unintended effect

It makes things worse

It creates more problems

Refute evidence

• Inaccurate/False/Insufficient

• Incomplete

• Inconsistent

• Not recent enough

• Sources Biased

• Sources Unreliable

Identify logical fallacies

• Hasty Generalization

• Forcing a Dichotomy

(false dilemma)

• Ad Hominem

• Appeal to Authority/Tradition/People

• Circular reasoning