Chapter 16: METHODS OF PERSUASION
BUILDING
CREDIBILITY
USING
EVIDENCE
REASONING
COMMON
FALLACIES
MOTIVATIONAL APPEALS
SPECIFIC METHODS of persuasion
When is an audience persuaded?
When...
...there is a perception of credibility
...they are won over by evidence
...they are convinced by reasoning
...their emotions are touched
BUILDING CREDIBILITY
USING EVIDENCE
REASONING
COMMON FALLACIES
MOTIVATIONAL APPEALS
BUILDING CREDIBILITY
COMPETENCE: influenced by perception of the speaker
including the speaker's:
* sociability, dynamism, physical appearance, competence, character
COMPETENCE: perception of knowledge, intelligence
CHARACTER: sincerity, trustworthiness, concern for audience
with these come 3 kinds of credibility:
INITIAL CREDIBILITY: before you begin speaking
* We saw you speak before and have opinions and expectations
DERIVED CREDIBILITY: produced during speech
* everything you say and do
* all the supporting material you present
* evidence, reasoning, emotional appeal
TERMINAL CREDIBILITY: what you have immediately after the speech
GENERAL NOTES ON CREDIBILITY
* credibility important to every facet of speaking
* fluctuates during your speech
* fluctuates during semester
INITIAL credibility: we saw you speak
DERIVED: how well you do; support, reasoning, appeals
TERMINAL: carries into next speech
Do all you can to enhance your credibility
* appear capable and trustworthy
* be organized
* use good supporting
evidence; sound reasoning
* use clear, vivid language
* use dynamic delivery
* advertise your competence
- connect with audience
- show you have common ground
- recognize their values
- acknowledge their objections
- speak with conviction
BUILDING CREDIBILITY
USING EVIDENCE
REASONING
COMMON FALLACIES
MOTIVATIONAL APPEALS
EXAMPLES:
illustrate and highlight the material; gets the audience involved
use many brief or extended examples
STATISTICS: numbers
to back up claims
* specific or cumulative
* enhances credibility
* explain statistics; interpret them; use comparison
TESTIMONY: the
words of someone we can believe in
* expert & peer
* quotes / paraphrasing
BUILDING CREDIBILITY
USING EVIDENCE
REASONING
COMMON FALLACIES
MOTIVATIONAL APPEALS
REASONING
* no matter how strong evidence., not persuasive if can't follow reasoning
* why did you use those examples, statistics, testimony?
* drawing conclusion based on evidence
Two major concerns:
* make sure reasoning is sound
* get listeners to agree
TYPES OF REASONING
- DEDUCTIVE
- reasoning from a general conclusion to specific supporting cases
- example: you believe your company should provide childcare
- general conclusion: providing childcare will improve employee satisfaction
- specific cases: cite several other companies that do provide childcare and
evidence of their employee satisfaction
- often phrased in this manner:
- major premise: people who crash diet instead of changing eating habits do not
retain weight loss.
- minor premise: you want to retain weight loss
- conclusion: avoid crash dieting
- often more appropriate for audiences likely to be sympathetic with the general
conclusion
- INDUCTIVE
- reasoning from specific cases to a general conclusion
- example: you believe your company should provide childcare
- specific cases: cite several other companies that do provide childcare and
evidence of their employee satisfaction
- conclusion: propose that providing childcare here will improve employee
satisfaction
- often more appropriate for audiences likely to be hostile with the conclusion
- ANALOGICAL
- reasoning by analogy
- used to explain and clarify
- used to show "practicality"
- does not provide absolute proof, because compared items may be alike but are not
identical.
- ask of your analogical reasoning:
- are objects of comparison essentially alike
- are they more alike than different?
- are differences significant?
- CAUSAL
- reasoning that implies a causal link between items
- if using this reasoning, be sure that:
- events occur together consistently
- cause consistently precedes effect
- cause sufficient to produce effect itself
- a third factor is not involved
FALLACIES TO AVOID
- HASTY GENERALIZATION
- Drawing conclusion on too small a sample.
- example: " A survey of students in an inner-city school found that 20% of
the students carry handguns. We must have a state-wide implementation of gun detectors at
all our state schools."
- example: arguing for the closure of a food chain because of an incident of
salmonella poisoning at one store.
- BEGGING THE QUESTION
- Asserts that something is because it is; restates the idea as the reason.
- example: "Mary is a good driver because she has never had an accident"
- example:
- SLIPPERY SLOPE
- assumes that once thing happens, it will invariable create a "cascade" effect
of events
- example: Domino theory to justify the Vietnam war. " If Vietnam falls to
communism, all of Southeast Asia will be lost."
- example: Feminism will lead to the destruction of the American Family
- example: smoking marijuana will lead to stronger drugs
- RED HERRING
- an argument where the speaker introduces unrelated misdirecting material that while it
might engage or enlist the audience, it really confuses the primary issue.
- example: "To persuade my audience that wearing helmets should be mandatory for motorcyclists"
- excerpt: " ...the real problem is not the lack of helmets; it's that bikers
don't ride well and too many drivers don't look out for them...
- If the issue is requiring helmets, how they drive is not directly related
- example: banning handguns: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people"
- Not only is this reasoning by slogan, it misdirects from banning handguns to murder,
violence and social issues.
- example: pro-choice advocates discrediting the anti-abortion movement by calling
proponents "terrorists."
- FALSE DIVISION or false dilemma or false dichotomy
- creating an either or division where there is none
- example: "the only way to reduce national debt is reduce spending or increase.
taxes"
- example: America, love it or leave it.
- example: you either are an environmentalist or a capitalist
- example: you are either poor-life or a murderer
- NON SEQUESTER
- with these, the conclusion does not directly relate to or directly follow from the
evidence.
- POST HOC, ergo propter hoc: saying one event caused another because it followed
it; coincidental events interpreted as cause/effect. Superstitions often do this:
- example: "nearly all heroine users started with using marijuana; clearly,
using marijuana leads to harder drugs."
- example: cracked a mirror, later twisted ankle, therefore breaking the mirror
caused the twisted ankle
- AD POPULUM
- an argument "to the people" often used as an evasion: an assertion that
popular opinion is a justification of the claim. Absolutes based on small sample where it
is asserted "everyone acts/feels certain way"
- example: "The drop in Clinton's popularity is proof that he is an
ineffective president."
- example: Bicyclists should not be required to wear helmets; 985 of cyclists
polled are against them.
- AD HOMINEM
- an argument "against the man" often used as an evasion: attacking the person
who raises an issue, not the issue itself.
- example: "Newt Gingrich can't ask Janet Reno to appoint a special counsel to
look into ethics violations because he has violated ethics guidelines himself!"
- example: Senator Jennings Randolph arguing against the ERA by calling the
advocates a "small band of bra-less bubbleheads."
- AD IGNORATIAM
- Asserting something is true because no one can prove it as false.
- example: "Since no one has disproved that UFO's exist, they must!"
- STATISTICAL FALLACIES
- myth of the mean (or illusion of the average) is where statistics hide the
reality; true lies.
- example: arguing that a community does not need aid because "the average
monthly income is well over $6,000" because high salaries skew the number and in
reality many families are far below the poverty line.
- LANGUAGE FALLACIES
- Weasel words: using misdirecting language to seem to say something more
appealing:
- example: "Spiffo removes virtually all food stains" is more
appealing than the more truthful "Spiffo removes many food stains"
- example:
- Parity statement: a kind of weasel word that appears to claim superiority but
actually means they are the same (or have parity)
- example: "No product removes food stains better than Spiffo!'
- example:
- Reasoning by slogan: Using a catchy phrase as proof.
- example: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
- APPEALS TO TRADITION
- Asserting that something must be done a certain way because that's the way its always
been done.
- example: a tobacco grower responding to Clinton's plan to curb teen age smoking
asserted that "...the government is trying to wreck to industry which is older than
the government itself!"
- ANALOGICAL FALLACY
- Asserting that something because things are similar that they are equal
- example: "because she is good at soccer, she must be good at football."
- before you use analogical reasoning to practicality, ask yourself if there is essential
similarity
BUILDING CREDIBILITY
USING EVIDENCE
REASONING
COMMON FALLACIES
MOTIVATIONAL APPEALS
MOTIVATIONAL APPEALS: appealing to emotions
Vance Packard, 1964: The Hidden Persuaders
-- Described eight compelling needs
(still very much used by advertisers)
We have compelling needs for
...EMOTIONAL SECURITY:
* we seek security in an unsafe world
-- use visualization of your solution
...REASSURANCE OF WORTH:
* hurried, impersonal world>> feelings of unimportance
-- reassure listeners of their
contribution to solution
...EGO GRATIFICATION:
* attention beyond recognition of worth
-- making audience feel special
...CREATIVE OUTLETS:
* desire to build and create; express individuality
-- help audience visualize creation of
solution and their contributions
...LOVE OBJECTS:
* outlets for our own loving feelings
-- stories and extended examples dealing
with real people who need it
...SENSE OF POWER:
* our society preaches it
-- how can audience's contribution be
empowering?
...need for ROOTS:
* audiences away from home
-- appeal to need for roots or traditional
family values
...need for IMMORTALITY:
* fear of dying
-- inspire audience to action in a way
they can make lasting contribution or legacy
Hugh Rank
1970's : National Council of Teachers of English hired him to find ways to teach
individuals to be more intelligent consumers of communication
Hugh noticed that persuaders used two strategies: they intensified messages by
playing them up: showing product strong points and competition's weaknesses
playing them down: downplayed own product's weak points and competitor's advantages
Tony Shwartz: The Responsive Cord (1973)
persuaders delivered messages through two methods: transportation and evoked recall
transportation: delivering message to receiver in traditional way we have studied
evoked recall: pulling the embedded response out of receiver
* evoking memories; emotions
-- he argued that experiential meanings
not stored as symbols
-- messages stored as feelings: ease or
unease
motivate, through drama
play out stored message in receiver's mind
-- with music, color, odors, sound
effects, tone of voice
TO BE PERSUASIVE: review
communicate information clearly: informative speaking and affecting audience
persuasive speaking more complex and ambitious
List from your book, appeal to:
...FEAR: war, illness, disaster
...COMPASSION: underprivileged, disadvantaged
...PRIDE: in country, school, family
...ANGER: "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!"
...SHAME: not getting involved, doing best: guilt-tripping
...REVERENCE: for deity, traditions and institutions
LANGUAGE OF APPEAL
-- use emotion-laden words
DISCOVERY: arouses curiosity
EASY: we've come to expect it
GUARANTEE: more likely to take action when sure of result
HEALTH: our most valued possession: keyed into fear of mortality
LOVE: we all need it
MONEY: we all want it
NEW: makes ideas attractive
PROVEN: security
RESULTS: will it work?
SAFETY: is the action safe, add to security
SAVE: conserving strength and resources
YOU: connect speech to audience; don't depersonalize
ETHICS REMINDER!
* important ethical implications with examples, statistics, testimony
* emotional appeals and language highly persuasive
* strong supporting evidence highly persuasive
what are responsibility of speaker?
8 basic guidelines:
1-be candid/ honest, enhances credibility
-- don't plagiarize
-- statistics can clarify, and can easily
mislead
2-don't make arguments you can't support with evidence
3-don't oversimplify complex issues
4-don't use emotional appeals that are insupportable
-- evidence/reasoning
5-dont't pretend to be sure when you're not
6-let audience make up their own minds
-- avoid manipulation (emotional
appeal)
-- avoid misleading (faulty reasoning)
7-sometimes: harmony more important than speaking mind
-- creating divisions is not
persuasion
| Fundamentals of Speech
| Chapter 15 | Chapter 1 |
BUILDING CREDIBILITY
USING EVIDENCE
REASONING
COMMON FALLACIES
MOTIVATIONAL APPEALS