
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.