respond

1 Caitlyn

I believe that the cognitive dissonance theory explains how persuasion works the most clearly. It states that consistency theory is used the most in Cognitive dissonance theory leading this theory to be held a lot stronger and is used a lot in today’s persuasion applications. I think that this theory is very strong by how you can pursuance someone to stop drinking coke due to them having diabetes, but they might not think they need to. In this case you need to change it from being motivational to being a good cognitive dissonance in your message you are telling.  

2-Diana

I think all theories exist because they explain persuasion depending on the topic being discussed. However, I think the theory of persuasion that applies to most situations is the Heuristic-Systemic Theory. I believe that in any persuasion topic both logical, emotional and other types of peripheral processing take place. I think that for most people, no matter how logical an argument is, they can’t help but to have feelings and judgments about the argument. This is true especially of hard topics where little evidence can be given, and so people rely on an internal sense of “what seems right”, or a type of heuristic. I also think that our brains are continuously procession through many types of information, even if we are not aware of it. In the case of listening to a persuader, our human brains can’t help but pick up on the colors, the noises, the movements, and the smells we perceive from him/her.

3-Ryan

Of all the theories, I found the "Cognitive Dissonance Theory" more relatable, thus, making this method more agreeable on how persuasion works. The way I seen this theory was you tell someone that seems a bit bias or confrontational, the opposer may have some comments on what you said and still back up their beliefs on what they do and still never change their habits but responding by in a more reflective action. Take the "Smoking" scenario for an example, its started off on the essential problem that smoking is proven to develop cancer, the opposer then replies with a reflective negative remark with a bit of factional evidence on what smoking does to them physically and how it makes them feel emotional. With this psychological theory, they responded by saying "...dying with an oxygen machine and getting chime is not the best way to go", you then have the receiver over thinking about the situation thus leading to a long term decision based on whether they change or not. I'm sure we all know of someone who does this type of actions whether it be on the subject of smoking or not, have credible evidence and having high dissonance to elevate the motivation.