The Heuristic and systematic model of persuasion. The heuristic component of the Heuristic and Systematic model of persuasion proposes that persuasive content is processed through the superficial evaluation of extrinsic persuasive cues. These extrinsic cues include surface characteristics, communication characteristics and audience characteristics. These cues are processed through cognitive heuristics which include simple schemas or decision rules. Examples of this can include past experiences and previous observations. For instance, a contextual cue could be a consensus heuristic, in which a previous experience demonstrated that if everybody agrees on an issue that the argument must be correct (Chaiken, 1987). Previous studies have demonstrated …show more content…
how audience characteristics have influenced other’s perception of persuasive message (Chaiken, 1987). The heuristic model, proposes that cues in the persuasive context are processed to influence attitude formation. These evaluations can be reached by a variety of sources. These heuristic cues serve as mental shortcuts to simplify the processing of information. This process may influence how people perceive trolling comments following a persuasive message. The trolling comments are a negative audience characteristic that may serve as an extrinsic persuasive cue that influences how a readers perceives the content. Social influence.
Social influence refers to the influence that others have on the opinions, emotions and behaviors of others. Social influence is a dual motive scheme of informational influence and normative influence. Informational influence occurs when the information obtained through others is used as evidence about reality and normative influence involves conforming to the positive expectations of others. Social influence in public settings is believed to be influenced by the presence of a social audience and their surveillance over responses. However, social influence also occurs in private settings which could suggest a social motive to accommodate others indicating that social impact emerges regardless whether the presence is actual, imagined, or implied (Wood, 2000). An imagined or implied social influence may occur as a result of trolling comments. The negative consensus apparent in trolling comments may deter positive perceptions of the content. The informational influence, describes a form of influence that obtains information through others as evidence about reality. Comments reflecting negatively on a persuasive message may influence how the reader perceives the information at hand. The trolling comments may be perceived as evidence about the persuasive content, and interfere with the persuasive …show more content…
process. Audience reaction as heuristic cue. A large part of rational discussion involves reflecting on the opinions of others. Axson, Chaiken, & Yates (1987) investigated the possibility of audience effects as a heuristically mediated cue. Participants listened to a persuasive message followed by either an enthusiastic or unenthusiastic audience reaction. The participants were also exposed to either high or low levels of involvement based on the quality of the argument. Low-involvement participants were more responsive to the audience’s reactions. This research suggests audience reactions influenced viewer’s perception of a persuasive message. A similar study investigated processes that underlie evaluation of a persuasive message. Mercier & Strickland (2012) found that evaluation can occur through appraisal of audience reactions, motivation of audience and perceived expertise of the source, audience and third parties. This suggests that audience reactions influence how a message is perceived. Trolling comments are a form of audience reaction in an online context; therefore it is likely that the presence of trolling comments may influence the persuasive process. Internet Trolling Internet trolling has been a fairly neglected area of research. Most research has focused on defining the act of trolling and measuring the occurrence of this online phenomenon. Similar studies have focused on the effect of incivility in public discussions and how uncivil language influences political perception. Research has also explored the effect of uncivil comments on risk perception of emerging technology, focusing on how language in comments can influence how readers perceive risk of a low-familiar topic of nanotechnology. Other studies have demonstrated a relationship between audience reactions and viewer perception. The prevalence of trolling increases the need to explore the effects of its presence. Previous research has explored the effects of incivility throughout political conflict, but it is important to explore the influence of incivility among the general public. Audience reactions have been shown to influence how persuasive messages are processed; therefore it is plausible that the incivility of trolling comments will influence how readers perceive a persuasive message. The expansion of communication to the online community makes this topic extremely relevant. The use of computer-mediated communication is becoming a more dominant source for information, knowledge, and insight. Trolling behaviors could weaken trust within online communities, incite negative reactions, and implicate how a reader perceives online content. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the effects of trolling comments on reader’s perception of a persuasive message. Previous research has demonstrated the prevalence of uncivil comments throughout computer-mediated communication. In this study we will present readers with a persuasive message of low-familiarity. The low familiarity of the message will assist in examining the effects of trolling comments on the reader’s attitude formation. Readers will rely on the content at hand rather than prior opinions on the information. The presence of trolling comments may invoke mental shortcuts when evaluating the information at hand and influence the persuasive process. Hypothesis: Trolling comments following a persuasive message will influence the reader’s perception of the overall content. Method Participants Towson University undergraduate volunteers were recruited for the study using the psychology department research pool website. A total of XXX participants signed up for study under the heading “Investigating Perceptions of Nanotechnology.” Participants were instructed that the study would be assessing their perception of nanotechnology. The participants were made unaware of the true intention of the study in order to prevent them from feeling pressured to answer the questions is a specific way. Participants were asked to answer a few questions to determine their eligibility for the study. These questions were intended to find out if the participant had any prior knowledge of nanotechnology. Students that reported prior knowledge of nanotechnology were ineligible for the study. The sample included XX men and XX female participants, ages ranged from XX to XX (M=XX). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions; (1) Benefits of nanotechnology + trolling comments, (2) Risks of nanotechnology + trolling comments, (3) Benefits of nanotechnology + no comments, and (4) Risks of nanotechnology + no comments. Procedure Students signed up for the study through an online research pool, students that met the criteria for the study (reported no prior knowledge of nanotechnology) were eligible to participate. Volunteers arrived at the social psychology lab of the liberal arts building. Once seating in the lab, the participants reviewed and signed the consent form. After the consent form was signed, volunteers were asked to read a persuasive essay presented as a website article. The content was constructed to appear as a regular website that included an article on nanotechnology and comments that appeared to be made by previous viewers. The experiment was constructed to appear as a website to prevent users from becoming suspicious of the inclusion of the trolling comments following the essay. The persuasive essays that were used in this experiment were adapted from an article that reviewed the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is a relatively unfamiliar emerging technology, the low-familiarity of the topic assists in examining the effects of trolling comments on a reader’s attitude formation. Participants had to rely on the information at hand rather than a prior opinion on the topic. The participants were asked to read a persuasive essay that either emphasized the benefits associated with nanotechnology or an essay that emphasized the risks associated with nanotechnology.
Specifically, the essay contained information about the risks or benefits of nanotechnology that pertained to the environment and human health. Dependent on which condition the volunteer belonged to, the persuasive content was either positive towards nanotechnology or negative towards nanotechnology (risks vs. benefits) and they either had trolling comments following the persuasive content or no comments. The trolling comments contained in the experiment followed the operational definitions identified by Coe & Kenski (2014). The experiment incorporated their five key forms of incivility; Name-calling, Aspersion, Lying, Vulgarity, and Pejorative of speech. These five forms of incivility along with several neutral comments were included in two of the conditions to prevent suspicion of the
reader. After the participants finished reading the essay, they were asked to complete a series of questions. The questions probed the participant’s attitude toward the essay, nanotechnology and the comments. Upon completion of the session, the volunteers were informed that study was over and immediately debriefed. Measures In order to assess how persuaded the volunteers were by the persuasive content, we asked them to respond to a series of questions constructed to evaluate their attitude towards the persuasive essay, nanotechnology, and the trolling comments. Using a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from “I strong disagree” to “I strongly agree,” we asked each volunteers to rate their level of agreement to a series of statements. For example, participants were asked their level of agreement with the following statement, “the risks of nanotechnology outweigh the benefits.” There overall attitude towards nanotechnology was measured using this 5-point Likert scale. Volunteers were also asked to answer a series of questions regarding the comments. Volunteers were asked to answer questions that specifically related to the trolling comment to assess whether or no they had been read. This measure was constructed to determine whether volunteers were persuaded by the persuasive content and if the trolling comment following the persuasive message effected the reader’s perception of the overall content.
Summary – It can be very useful when things do not tend to fall your way by then switching things up on your opponent and using their most positive words in order to make it look negative. Every argument needs facts and if that does not work for you, you should probably redefine the issue being made. The importance and relevance of the argument should be taken into consideration. Remember that manipulating the definition of things in your favor is the way to go.
In persuasion, the Mere Exposure Theory, the Dissonance Theory, and the Social Judgment Theory are used. Each of these theories of persuasion explains why it works or does not work in any specific setting. Depending on the theory, certain means of applying these theories can be successful or unsuccessful. The Mere Exposure Theory of persuasion states that people will be persuaded simply by repeated exposure. (G.Magee,
The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) of persuasion is a theory of persuasion that focuses on how the audience interprets logic, evidence, reasoning, and other factors of the speaker or speech. Direct and indirect routes are both methods that contribute to the ELM approach. Direct persuasion route requires giving the audience arguments and evidence to make them think about how a product is a necessity to them, such as gas that can make a car go faster, food that can make a person meet his or her weight loss goals, or insurance that can give practical help to someone who needs it. Indirect persuasion is the usage of other tactics that appeal to the audience without them necessarily realizing it. The audience can use their intuition to be drawn in by a speaker’s charm, a catchy jingle, or a picture of a celebrity using the
Persuasion is a process by which the persuader, through communication, gains the approval or support for the topic (Let's Compare Motivate and Persuade, 2013). The arguments to motivate this change in thinking comes through careful use of rhetoric, but one must also be able to define the six principles of persuasion in social psychology: “Reciprocity, Scarcity, Authority, Commitment and Consistency, Consensus, and Liking” (McLean, 2010, p. 521) and be able to recognize them as they are taking place. Then, one must carefully apply these concepts in order to find the means to effectively facilitate persuasion (p. 518).
History of Persuasion Essay Rhetoric is something that has been studied and utilized since the days of Plato and Aristotle to even now in the coming presidential election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In order to become a successful “rhetor”, one must learn the art of being persuasive to the audience of choice. In the course of history there have been many successful figures who have used rhetoric to influence people to join their movement. One cannot deny though that over time rhetoric has had to evolve with enhanced technology and new public interactions, such as social media and the internet. This paper will highlight Aristotle and some of his theories, David Ewoldsen and a few studies he contributed to in regards to people being Aristotle builds a case that rhetoric is an art which goes against “Gorgias” written by Plato that states rhetoric is not an art since it is not related to a “definite subject” (Rapp, 2002).
According to Merriam Webster, the term “ethical” can be defined as “rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad.” Being able to differentiate between what is good, and what is bad is key when it comes to many things. One of these things includes persuasion. There are many concepts that can explain why certain principles of persuasion can be more ethical than others, and many that are critical to being an ethical communicator. Said concepts are explained in Rothwell’s text, In the Company of Others, Robert Cialdini and Steve Martins video, Science of Persuasion, and Stephen Carter’s text, Integrity.
In the most advantageous of cases this model suggests that a receiver “considers the content of the persuasive message carefully and has favorable thoughts about the content” (Enfante, Rancer & Avtgis, 2010, p. 172). When receivers engage in cognitive thinking, they participate in the type of persuasion the authors call the “central route” (Enfante, Rancer & Avtgis, 2010, p. 172). Under the central route, the receiver employs positive feelings towards whatever the source is saying and then in turn acts or forms attitudes based off of the positive thoughts. Thus they interact thoughtfully with the information the source is attempting to get across.
Persuasion is a commonly used communication technique that allows us to socially influence a certain topic positively or negatively. Its purpose is to help affirm or nullify an idea, belief or attitude. Sometimes the exact topic is very detectable in communication such as during debates but other times it displayed a little more subtly. Persuasion is more than just verbally speaking. Non-verbal communication such as body language, tone and pitch of the voice can also add to the affirmation of the topic. The setting and location also help encourage the acceptance of what is being persuaded.
Persuasion is the force exerted to influence behavior that includes a reflected change in attitude. Everyday we are bombarded with messagesfrom people who wish to influence our behavior and attitudes. Persuasion canbe used to accomplish good as well as bad, though, in my paper I willrefrain from making value judgements and only report the factual aspects. I will discuss the two basic routes to persuasion, the elements involved, andways to protect current attitudes and behaviors from change. When trying to persuade someone, there are two different methods from which to choose-the central and peripheral routes. The central route persuades by usingdirect arguments and pertinent information. The peripheral route persuadespeople by association with incidental cues
This essay concerns social influence in general. Aspects of social influence as such as majority influence and minority influence will be discussed in terms of their underlying psychological processes and how they differ. Majority influence or conformity refers to the desire to belong or to fit in within a particular group which involves adopting certain attributes, behaviour and attitudes of a particular group. As a result individuals consequently experience group pressure (in Baron, Branscombe & Byrne 2008). Minority influence on the other hand, refers to the influence that the minority exert over the majority in that the majority come to accept the beliefs and behaviours of a minority (in Baron et al. 2008).
According to the text , Social Psychology, “social psychology is the scientific study of how people think about, influence, and relate to one another”(pg. 4) this is viewed in a variety of social topics incorporating group behaviors, attitudes, conformity, obedience to authority, stereotypes and peer pressure. Outside factors can have a positive or negative affect our view of ourselves and each other. These outside factors are used to persuade and influence group behavior. Persuasion is defined as “the process by which a message induces change in beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors” (Myers, 2010, pg. 230). The principles of this process of persuasion according to researchers, Robert Cialdini and Thomas Davidson, are attractiveness and likeability, reciprocity, social proof, consistency, authority, and scarcity (Davidson, 2008)(Myers, 2010, pg. 237). These principles of persuasion impact our self-perception, our attitudes and behaviors, and our culture.
Every day in our life's we are persuaded to make choices. Persuasion is a very
Todorov, A., Chaiken, S., & Henderson, M. D. (2002). The heuristic-systematic model of social information processing. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: developments in theory and practice (pp. 195–211). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
The book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert B. Cialdini illustrates the implementation of reciprocation, commitment and consistency, social proof, liking, authority, and scarcity. The book identifies these six principles as weapons of influence in aiding with persuasion. The following explains and applies each principle.
Finally, the liking principle is one that will often be used in the art of persuasion. This can be used effectively, where a product can be seen as “likable” if for example it has been endorsed by someone perceived to be physically attractive or perhaps someone that demonstratives the behaviors of a friend, such as showing similar traits or someone that can be related to.