Persuasion and Message
Structure
ARRANGING AND ORGANIZING
PERSUASIVE MESSAGES
Cicero’s five canons of speech
 Inventio: the invention and




discovery of arguments
Elocutio: eloquence, fluency,
command of language, and
language style
Memoria: memory, mnemonic
devices
Pronuntiatio: delivery factors,
rate, pitch, voice quality, and
articulation
Dispositio: the effective and
orderly arrangement of ideas
explicit vs. implicit conclusions:
which should you use?
 Is it better to spell
things out for the
listener?
 The source might
be seen as more
frank, forthright
 Less risk the
listener would
reach the wrong
conclusion
 Or let the listener figure
it out for him or herself?
 Less condescending,
patronizing
 Less risk the message
would be perceived as
restricting the
listener’s free choice
So what I’m
asking you
to do is…
explicit vs. implicit conclusions: draw your
own conclusions
 Generally speaking, implicit
conclusions work best






more participatory, involving
greater conclusion comprehension
self-generated conclusions
less risk of psychological reactance
especially true for receivers with high
involvement (Cruz, 1998)
also better with hostile audiences or counterattitudinal messages
 Exceptions to the general rule:



difficult, complex messages
messages that could be easily misconstrued
listeners with little knowledge, low
involvement
quality vs. quantity of arguments
 the role of receiver “involvement” according to the ELM
model
 Petty & Cacioppo (1984):


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 counts.
More than 100 scientific
studies support the
conclusion that global
warming is a very real
phenomenon
quality vs. quantity of arguments
When receivers have low
involvement, quantity
counts.
When receivers have
high involvement, quality
counts.
message repetition: “You can say that again”
 Mere exposure effect: repeated exposure to an
unfamiliar stimulus increases liking for the
stimulus



messages “grow on us”
nonsense words, yearbook pictures, geometric
shapes
corporate logos, slogans, brand names
 repetition can facilitate attention, awareness,
learning, retention
 the “magic number” of exposures is three
 the problem of “wear out”: excessive repetition
can backfire
primacy versus recency effects
 the primacy effect in impression
formation (Asch, 1946)
 Zunin (1972) first impressions are
solidified within the first four minutes of
interaction with a stranger
 primacy vs. recency and the time interval
between interaction


primacy effect if two messages follow back
to back
recency effect if two messages are separated
by a time delay
message order (internal organization)
 climax order: saving the best for last
 anticlimax order: putting your best
material first
 pyramidal order: sandwiching the best
material in the middle
 conclusion:
 pyramidal scheme is the least
effective
 put your best ideas, arguments, and
information first or last, but not in
the middle
one-sided versus two-sided messages
 two-sided messages are almost always
more persuasive
(Allen et al, 19990) a “refutational” approach is
required, e.g., directly refuting, not merely
acknowledging, opposing arguments
 exceptions; when receivers





already agree
are easily confused
are uneducated or unintelligent
will not be exposed to the opposing side later on
more about one-sided vs. two-sided
messages
 (Allen, 1991) the persuasion hierarchy:
(from most to least persuasive)
 1. two-sided, refutational messages
 20% more effective overall than onesided messages
 2. one-sided messages
 20% more effective than two-sided,
nonrefutational messages
 3. two-sided, nonrefutational messages
My opponent claims
this plan is too costly,
but in fact, this plan will
save our company
money, and pay for
itself within 3 years.
inoculation theory
 McGuire’s inoculation theory
(1961, 1964) is based on a disease
metaphor
 The theory in a nutshell:

a small dose of the opposing position can
increase resistance to subsequent
influence attempts
 Especially applicable to “cultural
truisms”



cultural truisms are unquestioned beliefs
that we take for granted, “givens.”
analogous to a person being raised in a
germ-free environment—increased
susceptibility upon exposure
(O’Keefe, 1990) inoculation is less
effective on controversial topics
how inoculation works
 Threat is the motivational trigger



Threat motivates receivers to recognize the
vulnerability of their attitudes and beliefs to
potential challenges
Threat motivates people to bolster their attitudes
and beliefs
Inoculation affords protection beyond the original
arguments to new novel arguments
types of inoculation
 refutational “same” versus “different” conditions
It is the motivation to defend one’s beliefs, not the
specific information provided, that bolsters
resistance
 combining “supportive” and “refutative” approaches
works even better than refutation alone
 Pfau (2004)
 “All in all, research indicates that inoculation is
amazingly robust in conferring resistance to
influence”

Inoculation and comparative advertising
 1970’s: noncomparative ads, e.g., “brand X”
 1990’s: direct comparison advertising


Approximately ½ of all ads use comparison
advertising (Levy, 1987)
 Examples: pizza brands, rental car companies,
long distance providers, pain relievers, allergy
medicines
Inoculation via comparison ads appears to be more
effective for products with high involvement
(Pfau,1992)
forewarning: you better watch out...
 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
 forewarning increases resistance to
influence attempts


receivers adopt a less receptive state of
mind
receivers may prepare defenses and
rehearse counter-arguments
 a time interval is desirable (some say
essential) to allow for counter-arguing
to take place
 depends upon motivation and ability to
disagree
evidence: prove it to me
 Evidence use facilitates persuasion in a




variety of settings (advertising, political
campaigns, health messages)
“The use of evidence produces more
attitude change than no evidence”
(Reynolds &Reynolds, 2002)
Reinard (1991) “evidence appears to
produce general persuasive effects that
appear surprisingly stable”
Quantity of evidence—most effective for
receivers with low involvement
Quality of evidence—most effective for
receivers with high involvement
more about evidence
 Citing evidence sources can increase a
persuader’s credibility (O’Keefe, 1998)
 Evidence is more effective if the source is
identified, and the source is highly
qualified
 Statistical evidence is more effective if the
underlying methodology is explained (how
the numbers were gathered, how the study
was done)
 Statistical versus anecdotal evidence

Best to combine the two; begin with an
example or case study, then use statistics to
show the example is not atypical