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 Oppose
How public opinion changes quickly….
80
70
60
50
Favor
Oppose
40
30
20
10
0
2003
2004
2005
2008
Marijuana should be legal
• .
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
YES
NO
Learning about the U.S. in context
of other countries
Government has responsibility to
reduce income differences
UK
US
NL
NZ
CAN
Definitely 43
yes
18
39
35
28
Probably
yes
38
28
40
30
33
Probably
not
10
25
13
15
20
27
6
18
17
Definitely 7
no
Sexual relations before marriage
UK
US
NL
DK
CAN
Always
wrong
11
30
7
6
12
Almost
always
wrong
7
11
3
3
7
Sometimes
14
20
20
9
15
Not wrong 66
at all
38
70
83
65
Same sex relations
F
US
NL
Always
wrong
38
62
16
Almost
always
wrong
9
6
5
Sometimes
17
7
12
24
67
Not wrong 36
at all
There is hell
YES
UK
US
NL
DK
JAP
13
55
13
8
6
34
12
48
60
21
Maybe
NO
Believe in God
UK
US
NL
DK
JAP
NO
41
18
48
55
55
Sometimes
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
South
Midwest
West
Northeast
% are or have been divorced
27%
27%
26%
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
Married in 1975-79
Married in 1990-94
Out-of-wedlock children
High school
dropouts
29%
16%
38%
46%
4%
15%
A person has the right to suicide if he/she is
tired of living
• .
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
YES
NO
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 a
Question of Value
Specific Purpose: To persuade my audience that
capital punishment is morally and
legally 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 that
action should be taken now to
solve 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
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Welfare recipients
Welfare fraud
1998
The problem is stable
Example: suicides per 100,000
14
12
10
8
Suicide
6
4
2
0
1970
1980
1990
1993
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