Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Structure and Organization
Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Transcript
Dispositio The effective, orderly arrangement of ideas Elocutio Fluency, command of language Inventio The invention and discovery of arguments Memoria Memory and mnemonic devices Pronuntiato Delivery factors such as pitch, rate, voice quality Is it better to spell things out for the listener? The source may be perceived as more candid, forthright. There is less risk the listener will reach the wrong conclusion. Or is it better to let the listener figure things out him/her self? The source may seem less patronizing. There is less risk of psychological reactance (e.g., the perception the listener’s choice is being restricted) Implicit conclusions are generally the best option. Persuasion is more participatory. Self-generated conclusions are more palatable. Involved listeners can draw their own conclusions. There is less risk of psychological reactance. The message is more acceptable to a hostile audience. “So what I’m asking you to do is…” Explicit conclusions are better when: The listeners aren’t knowledgeable about the issue. The message is complex or difficult to understand. The conclusions could be easily misconstrued. Listeners have low involvement on the issue. “I hope I’ve given you all the information you need…” Is it better to emphasize potential gains? Gain-framed messages emphasize the positive. Or is it better to emphasize potential losses? Loss-framed messages emphasize the negative. Option A: You have developed a virulent, antibiotic resistant infection that may prove fatal. You can try an experimental drug, Zidol. If you do, there is a 68% chance of living for more than one year. Would you do it? Option B: You have developed a virulent, antibiotic resistant infection that may prove fatal. You can try an experimental drug, Xinar. If you do, there is a 32% chance of dying by year’s end. Would you do it? In a controlled study 75% of respondents chose option A (gain-framed). 58% of respondents chose option B (lossframed). The probability is the same for both scenarios. So why do more people choose A? People generally prefer loss aversion. Option A emphasizes potential gain. Option B emphasizes potential loss. When designing a persuasive message, tell your audience what it stands to lose. The role of receiver involvement in the ELM: For receivers with low involvement, it is the quantity of arguments that counts. For receivers with high involvement, it is the quality of arguments that matters. When receivers have low involvement, quantity counts. When receivers have high involvement, quality counts. Evidence usage almost always facilitates persuasion. Evidence can increase speaker credibility. High quality evidence may increase central processing. The quantity of evidence may serve as a peripheral cue. Evidence is most effective when receivers have high involvement. People generally prefer stories over statistics (Kida, 2006). People are, by nature, storytellers. But… Anecdotal evidence is subject to the “hasty generalization” fallacy. “Let me tell you about my own experience with…” People generally shy away from statistics. They don’t trust statistics “You can prove anything with statistics.” Yet… Quantifiable evidence is more testable, more generalizable. “In 70% of such cases we find that…” A meta-analysis found an advantage for statistical evidence (Allyn & Preiss, 1997). However… In laboratory studies, subjects are paying close attention (high involvement) When receivers pay close attention, statistics tend to be more effective. When receivers do not pay close attention, narratives tend to be more effective. Mere Exposure Effect Repeated exposure to a stimulus increases liking for the stimulus. Repetition can increase awareness, learning, retention. Wear-out can occur with overexposure. Anticlimax order Giving your best arguments first Pyramidal order Placing your best arguments in the middle Climax order Saving your best arguments for the end Research shows it is better to place your strongest arguments first or last. The worst approach is to put your best arguments in the middle. When there are opposing sides, is it better to speak first or last? 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. In campaign ads shown a week apart, appearing last would be an advantage. Bland topics A recency effect is more likely with uninvolving , noncontroversial material. Intriguing topics A primacy effect is more likely with involving, interesting material. Chunked information High involvement favors information that is clearly segmented (pro & con). Unchunked information Low involvement favors information that is uncategorized. Inoculation theory is based on a disease metaphor. A small does of the opposing position increases resistance to subsequent persuasion. Inoculation is especially applicable to “cultural truisms.” beliefs we take for granted Inoculation is less effective on controversial topics. we expect alternative views Threat is the motivational trigger. Threat increases the receiver’s perceived vulnerability. The listener then bolsters his/her defenses. Inoculation protects beyond the original arguments used. Inoculation increases immunity to new, novel arguments as well. two-sided messages are almost always more persuasive. A “refutational” approach is required. The persuader must directly refute, not merely acknowledge, opposing arguments. exceptions; when receivers already agree are easily confused are uneducated or unintelligent will not be exposed to the opposing side later on The persuasion hierarchy: (from most to least persuasive): 1. two-sided, refutational messages 20% more effective overall than one-sided messages 2. one-sided messages 20% more effective than two-sided, nonrefutational messages 3. two-sided, nonrefutational messages Forewarning increases resistance to influence attempts. receivers adopt a less receptive state of mind. receivers may prepare defenses and rehearse counter-arguments. Forewarning’s effectiveness depends upon motivation and ability to disagree. Forewarning versus inoculation: Forewarning merely warns a listener of an impending persuasive message (e.g. warning of persuasive intent). Inoculation includes actual examples of the opposing arguments.
