Visual and Esoteric forms of persuasion

Persuasion Structuring and Ordering Persuasive Messages

Overview

 Structuring and ordering persuasive messages

• Implicit vs. explicit conclusion

• Gain- vs. loss- frame

• Types of evidence

• Argument quantity vs. quality

• Ordering effects, primacy vs. recency effects

• Mere exposure

• Inoculation theory, one-sided vs. two-sided messages

Implicit vs. Explicit Conclusions

 A hard-sell or a soft-sell strategy?

• Explicit conclusions: any claim in a message that is directly stated by the

person sending the message

• Implicit conclusions: more subtle, allowing audience to reach their own

conclusions without being told what to do

• Source may be perceived as more candid/less risk the listener will reach the

wrong conclusion vs. the source may seem less patronizing/less risk of

restricting the listener’s choice

• Explicit messages are more persuasive in general

Implicit vs. Explicit Conclusions

 A hard-sell or a soft-sell strategy?

Explicit  Implicit 

All other circumstances

Personally relevant

Knowledgeable on the product

High in need for cognition

Suspicious of persuasive intent

A:

B:

Gain- vs. Loss-Frame

 The brighter side or the darker side?

• Gain frame: focus on gains if people follow the message

• Loss frame: focus on losses of people do not follow the message

• Earlier research regarded the loss frame as more effective because people

are generally risk averse

• But latest research showed there is no definite conclusion on if one is

better than the other

Gain- vs. Loss-Frame

 The brighter side or the darker side?

Gain Frame  Loss Frame 

Good moods

Present-minded people

Low sensation seekers High sensation seekers

Disease-preventing behaviors Disease-detecting behaviors

Type of Evidence

 Types of evidence: statistics, graphs and charts, narratives, personal anecdotes, testimonials, etc.

• Narrative proof: by nature, people are drawn to stories, but anecdotal

evidence is subject to the “hasty generalization” fallacy

• Statistical proof: people can distrust statistics, yet quantifiable evidence is

more generalizable

• Statistical proof works slightly better than narrative proof (in lab settings),

but as long as the evidence is relevant to the claim, it facilitates persuasion

Type of Evidence

 Types of evidence: statistics, graphs and charts, narratives, personal anecdotes, testimonials, etc.

• Start with a narrative example and follow up with statistics to show the

example is not atypical

Statistical proof  Narrative proof 

High topic involvement Low topic involvement

Not suspicious of persuasive intent Suspicious of persuasive intent

A lot of evidence Vivid narratives

Quantity vs. Quality of Arguments

 An all-you-can-eat buffet or a fine dining restaurant?

• Quantity of arguments: throwing in every available arguments

• Quality of arguments: “gourmet” arguments

Quantity vs. Quality of Arguments

 An all-you-can-eat buffet or a fine dining restaurant?

Quantity  Quality 

Low topic involvement High topic involvement

cat apple ball tree square

head house door box car

king hammer milk fish book

tape arrow flower key shoe

Word Recall Test

Word Recall Test

Ordering Effects

 If you want to highlight a piece of strong argument, where do you want to put it?

• A climax order: when strong arguments come last

• An anticlimax order: when strong arguments come first

• A pyramidal order: when strong arguments come in the middle

• Putting your strongest argument either first or last is the best strategy

• It also depends on the medium: an anticlimax order is the best for auditory

messages

VS:

Primacy vs. Recency Effects

 Who goes first and who goes last?

• Primacy effect: the first candidate/arguments presented have an advantage

• Recency effect: the later candidate/arguments presented have an

advantage

Primacy vs. Recency Effects

 Who goes first and who goes last?

Primacy vs. Recency Effects

 Who goes first and who goes last?

Primacy Effect  Recency Effect 

Salient, controversial, interesting, familiar content

Unsalient, noncontroversial, uninteresting, unfamiliar content

Information product Desirable experiential product

Undesirable experiential product

Mere Exposure

 Can repeating your messages make you more persuasive?

• Mere exposure effect: things can really “grow on us”, repeated exposure to

songs, people, languages, and posters may increase likability

• A political candidate’s exposure has a strong effect on the number of votes

they receive, not the popularity of their policies

• Repetition of long or complex messages is effective up to a point (about 3

times)

Mere Exposure

 Can repeating your messages make you more persuasive?

Repetition  Only Once 

Personally relevant Not personally relevant

Inoculation Theory

 Vaccination or post-treatment?

• Vaccines are made of dead or weakened

antigens so the immune system is able to

produce and memorize antibodies

• Attacking messages and negative campaigning

• A small dose of the opposing position (i.e.,

antigens) increases resistance to subsequent

persuasion

Inoculation Theory

 Vaccination or post-treatment?

• A supportive strategy (“drink eight glasses of water a day is good for your

health”) is less effective than an inoculation strategy (“they said/will say

too much water neutralizes acids that you need for proper digestion but it’s

wrong for …”)

• Threat as the motivational trigger of counterarguing but the inoculation

message has to be selected carefully

Forewarning

 Inoculation beforehand or afterwards?

• “They will say …” vs. “they said …”

• Studies on presidential campaigns found forewarning were more effective

than refutation afterwards

• Forewarning may or may not mention the topic area that will be attacked

Forewarning

 Inoculation beforehand or afterwards?

• Depletion of self-control: the marshmallow test

• Forewarning is particularly effective for audience who are mentally

depleted: mental fatigue reduces one’s willpower to resist persuasion and

forewarning conserves mental resources

• Forewarning may elicit psychological reactance

One-Sided vs. Two-Sided Messages

 Combining supportive and inoculation strategies

• One-sided message: presenting arguments in favor of a single

proposition

• Two-sided message: presenting arguments in favor of one proposition

and addressing opposing arguments

• “They will say too much water neutralizes acids that you need for proper

digestion but it’s wrong for … for your health, drink eight glasses of

water a day.”

One-Sided vs. Two-Sided Messages

 Combining supportive and inoculation strategies

• The persuader must directly refute, not merely

acknowledge, opposing arguments

• Two-sided, refutational > one-sided > two-sided,

non-refutational

One-Sided vs. Two-Sided Messages

 Combining supportive and inoculation strategies

Two-Sided, Refutational  One-Sided 

All other circumstances

Strong pre-attitude

Easily confused

Uneducated or unintelligent

Will not be exposed to the opposite side