Communication- Argumentation and Persuasion
uthej19
COM470_Week5_Thursday_Fall2020.pptxCOM 470: Argumentation and Persuasion
Week 5, Thursday, 9/24
Agenda
Discuss anger, guilt and fear appeals
Reminder:
Saturday class on 9/26, 12:45pm via Zoom
Please read Chapter 6
Activity
In groups, locate a video advertisement on Youtube or another website and answer the following questions for class discussion.
Identify the following:
1. What was the attention-gaining device used?
2. Who is the target audience?
3. What emotional appeal(s) are being used? Are they the ad relevant to the product?
4. Evaluate the pros and cons of using an emotional appeal.
Anger Appeals
Use when situation is a violation of rights
Want to induce high levels of anger against the issue raised, and strong efficacy beliefs
Outcomes:
Focused attention on persuasion (differentiate between weak and strong arguments)
Can engage in behaviors that are difficult
Voting ads (?)
Guilt Appeals
Shows discrepancy between receiver’s standards and recommended action – especially if action could harm other people
Individuals with high orientation to group or family relationships more susceptible to guilt
High/moderate/low guilt differences
Possible that anger can join with guilt
ASPCA commercials (?)
Models to Explain Fear Appeals
6
Drive model
Motivation to alleviate unpleasant feeling
Parallel Process Model (PPM)
Suggested a cognitive and emotional aspect to fear appeals
Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)
Judgements we make in response to fear appeal: threat severity, threat susceptibility, response efficacy and self-efficacy
Extended Parallel Process Model**
Combines the PPM and PMT
Fear Appeals
Extended Parallel Process Model
Perceived threat must be seen as real person is susceptible and issue is severe
Perceived efficacy solution must be perceived to work and it is possible for us to accomplish
We appraise stimuli (message) and FIRST appraise the level of threat and SECOND appraise the efficacy
Depending on these appraisals, we follow one of two routes of processing: danger control or fear control
http://www.healthcommcapacity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Extended-Parallel-Processing-Model.pdf
7
EPPM
Theory since 1992, Krieger article part of a special issue on EPPM after 20 years
Theory is use a LOT in health campaigns – variables of efficacy and threat alone being used following this model, not previous models
1992 shows the propositions within the theory – not so much axiomatic, but the assumptions being made
Need to understand fear – focus on the emotion
I would argue, we still haven’t, and are still focused on the cognitive and the danger control process
Issue of focusing on threat and efficacy
--Krieger article would argue that susceptibility and severity (threat) needs to be re-examined
KEY from 1992: Perceived threat determines the DEGREE or INSTENSITY of the reaction to the message, while perceived efficacy determines the NATURE of the reaction
KEY from 1992: there is a critical point where we evaluate efficacy and threat– this has yet to be operationalized fully
KEY from 1996: EPPM allowing for the cognitive appraisal of fear, and this cognitive appraisal can increase perceptions of threat, which can increase message acceptance
8
How much fear?
Understanding audience’s existing fear levels
Some concerns that this only reflects personal levels of fear, not an aggregate fear level among a group or community
Perhaps then just rely on both efficacy and threat in one shot
Construct threat in a very narrow manner to show it can be overcome
Maybe segment audience
9
Designing messages
Belief Chart Framework
Mark appropriate levels of belief strength across the theoretical variables using Risk Behavior Diagnosis Scale (next slide)
Weak/Low, or Moderate, or Strong/High
Create several message types that can be tested among the audience
Consider the right topic, right health behavior, any competition to this behavior, and any contextual constraints
10
Risk Behavior Diagnosis Scale
https://www.msu.edu/~wittek/rbd.htm
Validation of scale: Witte et al., J Health Commun. 1996 Oct-Dec;1(4):317-41.
(∑ Perceived Efficacy) - (∑ Perceived Threat) = Discriminating Value
Discriminating Value – Discriminates between fear control and danger control
where ∑ = Sum (i.e., add up of all the items measuring perceived efficacy or perceived threat
11
Risk Behavior Diagnosis Scale
Negative Discriminating Value Scores
Indicate dominance of fear control process
Messages need to increase perceptions of self-efficacy and response efficacy toward the recommended response
Threat is high do not frighten further; avoid references to the threat or susceptibility to it
12
Risk Behavior Diagnosis Scale
Positive Discriminating Value Scores
Indicates dominance of the danger control processes
Already have sufficiently high perceptions of efficacy to counteract their threat perceptions
Messages should emphasize the severity of the threat and susceptibility to it to continue motivations
Continue with high efficacy components to make sure efficacy level > threat level
13
Risk Behavior Diagnosis Scale
Low Threat Perceptions (low scores for items 7 to 12)
Likely to have a danger control discriminating value score, even with low efficacy perceptions
Examine the threat portion of the scale to determine if audience lacks perceived susceptibility, perceived severity or both
Need to break through invulnerability barriers with this audience
14
EPPM examples
Let’s break down the EPPM with these examples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnyc6d90yic&list=PL3F063BF48F794C37&index=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfAxUpeVhCg&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0LCmStIw9E&list=PL3F063BF48F794C37&index=1
Questions:
Right behavior for fear appeal?
Threat appraisal?
Efficacy appraisal?
Danger or fear control process?
Balance of severity and susceptibility?
Strong sense of efficacy?
Other considerations?
Next time…
Class on Saturday, 9/26 at 12:45pm via Zoom
Receiver characteristics
Please read Ch. 6
