Matt Baker

COM5405 Persuasion
Assignment One

Why is persuasion important in an open society? Persuasion is

important because it is a necessary tool to convince people to accept
concepts you present them in a world where they are trained to be skeptical
of actions and intentions done in order to benefit others at their expense. For
the persuader, there are several personal reasons to persuade others. The
persuader can try to influence others to gain support for their cause such as
presenting facts about animal cruelty case in order to get others to sign a
petition to eliminate the problems or provide donations to a political
candidates campaign fund. A persuader could attempt to use their powers
of persuasion to sell a product like a salesman at an electronics store trying
to convince you that the 60 television is much higher quality than the 37
television you were prepared to purchase. A persuader might also attempt
to sway someones opinion if they believe it to be in their best interest, in an
attempt to better themselves by improving others lives. Depending on the
persuaders moral compass, they could in fact be acting under the guise of
bettering others just to invoke them to join their cause.
On the other hand, understanding when you are the persuasee and
how the persuader is attempting to influence your decision is also important,
as people encounter persuasion with both positive and negative intent and

they need to be able to identify which influences align with their needs and
moral toolbox, and which do not. In an ever shrinking world, Social Network
Media (SNM) has introduced a new medium in which people are flooded with
people and organizations attempting to influence their decisions from all
over the world. This abundance of new information and a globe full of
influences requires the receiver to be even more vigilant in their study of the
persuasions they are addressed with. With the increase in social network
media, and all forms of media growing rapidly, the use of propaganda or
advocacy has also skyrocketed in recent decades. Websters Collegiate
Dictionary defines propaganda as ideas, facts or allegations spread
deliberately to further ones cause or to damage and opposing cause
(Larson, 2013, p6). Popular in the political and other cause-driven groups,
propaganda puts the receiver at risk of not identifying the information that is
intended to mislead them, so it is equally as important to have some
skepticism in an open society. Richard Petty and John Cacioppo (1986)
developed the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) in which they suggest that
persuasion is received one of two ways, the central information processing
route, or the peripheral route. In the central information processing route,
the receiver consciously and directly focuses on the persuasive
communication while mentally elaborating on the issues and actively seeking
more information and facts (Larson, 2013, p.20). The peripheral information
processing route can be completely unconscious, only requiring a fraction of
a second of attention to an issue. In the peripheral information processing

route, the receiver processes information instantaneously, in their mental

peripheral vision, without directly concentrating on the information being
given to them.
The SMCR model by Shannon and Weaver (1949) is one of the most
widely used model of communication. First, there must be a source (S) who
is the encoder of the message to be delivered. This code is delivered in one
of several different ways: verbally, visually, musically, or a combination of
these. Second is the message (M) that the source intends to convey, which is
encoded by the source whether intentionally cryptic or not. Third is the
channel (C), is the mode that the source uses to convey the message. The
channel might deliver the message in print, electronically, verbally, or
visually. Sometimes the channel is intentionally infused with distractions
intended to confuse or disorient the person receiving the message. Finally, a
receiver (R) receives and ultimately decodes the message. In decoding the
message, the receiver has to try and filter the channel noise out and
interpret the meaning of the message conveyed by the source, through the
channel and decipher the code along with the source and the sources choice
of channel to understand the complete communication (Larson, 2013, p.23).
The SMCR model is very simple and useful in analyzing persuasion, as it can
help simplify very complex situations. Once a persuadee can identify the
components of a persuasion using the SMCR model, they may be able to
determine why the source decided to use the channel they chose, and what
noise they added to cloud the receivers interpretation, possibly identifying

the sources actual message, decoded. Conversely, the SMCR lacks

feedback, the model suggests that persuasion is only linear with one way
communication. While this may work for mass media types of persuasion,
where an organization creates an ad shown on television and the viewers
simply watch and listen, interpersonal persuasions are more complex. In an
interpersonal persuasion, the source can perceive cues from the receiver like
body language or verbal responses and adapt their persuasion to best suit
the receiver, the SMCR model does not account for this phenomenon.
Inoculation promotes resistance to persuasion (Larson, 2013, P137).
Many politicians and court room lawyers make use of the inoculation theory
as a tactic to preemptively strike. In warning the receiver about possible
future information, the persuader attempts to plant doubt in their mind of
the accuracy or importance of the information that may negatively impact
their argument. Many persuaders use this method in hopes to convince the
receiver that they would be foolish to believe such information or to think
that it would diminish the main point they are trying to make. The theory
predicts that a persuader who delivers a warning about a future message
from a different source can inoculate an audience from that messages
persuasive effects (Woodward and Denton, 2014, p137). The phrase [the
opposition] will try to convince you . . . , or when a public figure attempts to
get out in front of an issue by being the first to announce it, they are most
likely employing the inoculation theory. The theory predicts that the first
warning of a problem will increase audience skepticism for a later message

that has already been labeled untrustworthy (Woodward and Denton, 2014,
p137). While the inoculation theory has profound dramatic effect on
television courtroom dramas, many receivers have become wary of such
tactics, particularly in politics and court room proceedings. Due to its over
use and the usually unknown morality of the source, the inoculation theory
only works if the receiver trusts the persuader, and if this is the case then
the receiver would most likely not need to be persuaded, but simply made
aware of the sources position. Often when a source attempts to use the
inoculation method to debunk what others say against their case in fact has
a boomerang effect, causing the receivers to think that the opposition might
be correct.
The boomerang effect is a theory of unintended consequences where
a persuasion attempt returns with the reverse of its intended effectit
undermines the goals of the original source. (Woodward and Denton, 2014,
p137). The boomerang effect occurs when the persuader submits a message
with an intended response, but the receiver reacts exactly opposite of the
intention. Boomerang messages occur for many reasons including ignoring
the needs of the receivers, insulting the receivers by the method they use to
deliver the message, or the source itself can negatively impact the reaction
of the receivers. Occasionally the message can boomerang unexpectedly by
repeatedly delivering one message, usually to avoid certain decisions, and
having the receivers make the opposite decision because the message
planted the possibility in their subconscious that may not have existed prior.

This is called norming the problem. Sometimes even a fear appeal will
boomerang if the delivery or the message is too strong for the receiver to
bear (Woodward and Denton, 2014, p146).
Ranks model of Persuasion is a model based on intensifying and
downplaying certain aspects of a persuasion. The intensification of an
aspect of a persuasion can include intensifying the persuaders good points,
or intensifying the oppositions bad points. Repetition is used to intensify
good or bad points about the persuasion, repeating them over and over
again to implant the idea in the receivers mind, solidifying the point in hopes
the receiver will align with them. The repetition method is used mostly in the
peripheral route of information processing, using jingles, slogans, or logos
that the receiver does not focus on and investigate, but simply allows their
senses to receive the messages and subconsciously process them.
Association is used to intensify the persuaders points by connecting their
side to something that the target audience already likes or dislikes. In this
method, the side of the persuader, whether it be a candidate, cause, or
product, adopts the predisposed positive or negative feelings the target
audience has towards the associated object. The final method of intensifying
a position is composition, where the persuader composition of the message
to emphasize their strengths or the oppositions weaknesses. This method is
usually visually represented and processed via the peripheral channel. While
intensifying your good points or the oppositions bad points can be a
powerful persuasion technique, audiences often tire of repetition and are too

aware of association for it to be completely effective. The persuader needs

to identify the audience as one that this method will be effective on, or else
suffer a boomerang effect where the audience views the persuader as losing
credibility for using clich tactics. (Larson, 2013, p31)
The other side of Ranks model of persuasion is downplaying.
Downplaying requires the persuader to prevent the audience from
discovering or focusing on negative aspects of the persuaders position, or
positive aspects of the opposition. For example, cell phone manufacturers
might not want customers to know that their phones cannot run all current
software, or that their competitors have twice as much battery life.
Downplaying can often soften the persuaders own weak points while
downplaying a competitors strong points (Larson, 2013, p31). The
persuader can downplay a negative aspect of their position through omission
where they omit crucial information to avoid showing their own weaknesses
or the oppositions strengths (Larson, 2013, p32). The persuader can also
create a diversion, shifting attention away from an opponents strengths or
ones own shortcomings this time not through omission, but by using
substitute issues to divert the receivers scrutiny (Larson, 2013, p33).
Finally, the persuader can use confusion to cloud the receivers mind by
using jargon that the receiver doesnt understand, using faulty logic, or by
creating a long, intricate argument that is difficult to follow and with no true
logic (Larson, 2013, p34). Downplaying can be useful when a persuader has
a glaring fault or issue in their position. Most politicians have events or

rumors in their past that, no matter how innocuous, they do not want
revealed for public interpretation. Many politicians do their best to maintain
discussions within topics they are comfortable with, and avoid these
skeletons in their closets. However, downplaying an issue can backfire for a
candidate, or any persuader, if the truth is revealed. If the persuader is
obviously trying to omit, divert, or confuse the audience from the issue and
they discover it, the persuader could lose all credibility and all future
persuasions would be fruitless.
How can emotions be used to persuade? According to Packard,
motivation researchers assume three things about people: They dont always
know what they want when making a purchase, you cant rely on what they
say they like or dislike, and they dont usually act logically when they buy,
vote, or join. The main point Packard makes in this assumption is that people
usually do not logically make decisions, which must mean that they make
decisions largely based on emotion. If a persuader can determine how to
influence their target audience emotionally, then they have a much greater
chance of persuading them than if they only attempted to sway them with
logical reasoning. Most effective persuaders use emotion to influence their
audience through fear, guilt, and anger or by appeals to emotions such as
happiness, joy, or pride. For example, Amherst Incorporated developed a
research instrument called the Motivation Attitude Profile (MAP) and used it
to market goods, services, and politicians. This tool is intended to find out

what peoples needs are and how the user of the tool can reflect those
needs, in hopes of persuading them.
Persuaders attempt to influence their persuadees decisions by
creating psychological dissonance in the persuadee. People naturally strive
for psychological consonance in their lives, and whenever this balance is
upset, they have a strong urge to return to psychological consonance. In
order to return, the persuader offers a solution (usually their product or
group) to eliminate the dissonance.
Packards theory of compelling needs identifies the persuadees
needs that can cause them to be emotionally involved with the decision. The
need for emotional security, reassurance of worth, ego gratification, creative
outlets, love objects, a sense of power, roots, and immortality are
compelling needs that many persuaders tap into in order to get an
emotionally driven response and favorable decisions.
By consistency we mean that our expectations about future vents, the
behaviors of other persons, and so on, ought to live up to or be consistent
with what we expect. When that is not the case, we feel what we earlier
called imbalance or psychic discomfort, and will tend to doubt the
expected relationship and evidence related to it (Larson, 2013, 218). The
consistency theory is based on the assumption that people can be made
uncomfortable with inconsistency and that they will do whatever is
necessary to return to comfortable, normal living and restore the balance.

Persuasion happens, according to consistency theories, when apparent

contradictions between two connected attitudes or behaviors force
realignment toward consistency or consonance (Larson, 2013, p140). When
a persuadee is presented with something that is not consistent with their
beliefs, they experience cognitive dissonance. Dissonance theory predicts
that when a strong cognitive dissonance is experienced, the persuadee will
modify or eliminate their original beliefs in order to regain cognitive balance.
Often this includes balancing prior beliefs against each other, such as an
admired athlete who is discovered doing drugs. The admirer may have less
admiration for the athlete and more acceptance of drug users, or the admirer
could have strong changes in one or the other belief. Continuing the
consistency theory, the theory of induced discrepant behavior postulates
that when an individual performs a behavior different than normal, this
difference creates a discrepancy, or dissonance that will drive them to adjust
their behavior to return to consonance. This adjustment leads to changing
behavior to regain the balance, and ultimately changes the individuals
reactions to such decisions.
In order to persuade someone else not to use social media, I could use
a two-fold approach. First, I would research negative effects on people
caused by social media including social disorders, shortened attention spans
and short term memory, and diminishing social skills. I would use this
research to present to that person, in hopes it would cause them some
cognitive dissonance where their beliefs that social media is purely good and

productive, but my research shows it has a down side as well. Second, I

would ask the person to help perform an experiment, where they do not use
social media for a pre-determined time such as 24 hours. I would gradually
increase the time to two days, three days, and eventually a full week. If the
person is cooperative and does not use social media for the allotted time, I
consistency theory suggests that the change in their behavior will create
dissonance, and possibly enact change in their decision making, where not
using social media becomes their normal, balanced life .