On a daily basis everyone comes into contact with persuasive forces. Whether it is with friends, family members, or co-workers, elements of persuasion can be found in almost any social interaction. Although most people would argue that they are responsible for their attitudes and beliefs, social scientific theory and research has (1)(1. yielded 2. assumed 3. declared) a large body of evidence that does not support this notion. Within the United States and other developed nations, the media present powerful persuasive forces in the form of consumer advertising, political campaigning, and the dissemination of general news and information that, by and large, play a crucial role in the development of opinions, beliefs, and attitudes of individuals and groups.
Due to the widespread use of persuasive communication in advertising, marketing, politics, academics, and so on, social psychologists have, in recent years, studied the effects of persuasion and its ability to strengthen existing attitudes and beliefs or to change them completely.
Persuasion has often been defined as an act of human communication that has the specific goal of influencing the beliefs, opinions, and attitudes, and/or behavior of others. In many instances this definition does not describe the full range of conditions under which persuasion takes place. Specifically, when receiver factors are taken into account one message may be a clear example of persuasive communication to a specific audience or individual, while presented to another it may simply [2](1. devalue 2. impair 3. validate) existing beliefs and opinions and thus fail to present a clear distinction of persuasion. Furthermore, instances of coercion can be [3](1. misguided 2. misplaced 3. misconstrued) as acts of persuasion since there is a fine boundary between forced change and persuasive change. For practical purposes, we will focus on the more [4](1. salient 2. opaque 3. congenial) instances of persuasion and contrast them with examples that are not as distinct.
Within the large body of theory and research on persuasion the concept of attitude has received a great deal of attention since itis closely linked to the success of persuasive communication. The mental state of the receiver is an important part of persuasion and in many instances the ultimate goal of the persuader is to bring about some form of attitude change. Furthermore, in many cases attitudes are the [5] (1. precedents 2. precursors 3. premises) to behavior, and many theories of persuasion involve the concept of attitude.
Persuasion researchers have focused a great deal of attention on the communicators’ characteristics that play a role in how persuasively their messages are delivered. Although there are a number of different factors that make a given individual more persuasive, the communicator’s credibility and liking seem to be the two most important factors in persuasibility.
Credible communicators are looked upon as experts. That is, they display a degree of competence in their field and are commonly viewed as knowledgeable and experienced. Furthermore, receiver judgments of competence are significantly influenced by the communicator’s level of training, occupation, and experience. This value judgment made on the part of the receiver is important in whether the message is accepted or rejected. If the receiver believes the communicator has [6]( 1. disposed 2. displayed 3. dismissed) a high degree of competence, then it is much more likely that the message being conveyed will have an impact. In addition to this, a communicator’s degree of trustworthiness is also [7] (1. assessed 2. assured 3. accorded) by the receiver. If a communicator is viewed as being truthful then the message will seem much more reliable and acceptable. On the other hand, if a persuasive message is remembered but not its source, then the influence of a communicator of high credibility may have a diminishing effect over time. However, low credibility communicators may receive a beneficial gain in this situation which would result in having a more persuasive response to their message after a period of time has passed. This is a phenomenon known as the sleeper effect that occurs under circumstances in which the receiver remembers the message but not reasons that may [8](1. discount 2. support 3. discourage)it. For example, a receiver may remember factual information from a message but forget about the credibility of the communicator and other source factors which we normally rely upon to judge information. [9](1. Thus 2. On the contrary 3. In addition), practical issues that may influence the credibility of communicators include their rate of delivery and the degree of confidence in their tone. A communicator is viewed as more credible if his or her speech contains no hesitations and is delivered at a rapid pace.
A related source factor which is closely linked to credibility involves the receivers’ liking of the communicator. Although the effects of liking tend to be weaker than those of credibility factors, they still play a dominant role in persuasibility. There are two general rules to this source factor; one of these rules is that when a receiver is highly involved in an issue, influences such as liking are greatly reduced. In this case, receivers tend to actively process the message and pay less attention to peripheral cues such as liking. On the other hand, if a receiver is not highly involved inthe issue then he or she is more likely to rely on [10]( 1. simplistic 2. controversial 3. obnoxious) cues such as liking to develop opinions about the message. In some cases disliked communicators are more effective than liked communicators. This has been shown to occur when other characteristics of the communicator, such as credibility factors, produce a compensation effect. Furthermore, disliked communicators are more persuasive in cases where the receiver has paid more attention to the message content than to the communicator’s personal characteristics.
Along with factors involving the communicator’s own personal characteristics, structural components of the message contribute to effective persuasive communication also. There are a number of important questions to consider concerning the content of persuasive messages. For example, should the message arouse emotion or highlight well-reasoned examples to support your ideas? Should you use one or two-sided appeals? And lastly, how much discrepancy should the message contain in [11](1. sight 2. light 3. retrospect) of the audience’s own existing opinions and beliefs? These issues will be examined closely.
In cases where existing audiences are composed of well-educated people, messages that have objective and rational appeals tend to be much more persuasive than those containing fearful or emotional appeals. [12](1. Otherwise 2. Likewise 3. However), highly motivated and involved audiences are equally as responsive to rational appeals. On the other hand, audiences that may be less analytically oriented or not personally involved in the message content will be motivated more by the liking of the communicator than the content of the message.
Moreover, emotional appeals have been found to be quite effective, especially when they are incorporated with factual information. For example, the American Lung Association’s antismoking campaign and the driver education programs in high schools that show horrible traffic accidents both share a common element of fear with the [13](1. intention 2. pretension3. contention) to persuade. Research suggests that fearful and emotional appeals that are successful in producing greater fear will, in fact, strengthen the message’s effectiveness. The degree of fear appeals in a message and the amount of fear [14](1. established 2. erased 3. evoked) in an audience are prime determinants of successful persuasion. However, if a message contains an extremely high degree of fear it may persuade an audience but it might also [15](1. attract 2. detract from 3. diversify) the message content, producing an opposite effect.
It has been found that the amount of fear experienced in any given audience is variable and complex. Even in carefully controlled experimental designs the [16](1. infringement 2. deduction 3. inducement) of fear is variable across individuals. In general, research shows that fearful persuasive appeals may or may not be effective.
When presenting an argument one must consider whether opposing arguments should or should not be addressed. As a general rule, presenting two-sided arguments is more effective because the audience tends to believe that the communicator is offering objective and unbiased information. Moreover, well-informed and well-educated audiences are more [17](1. receptive 2. subordinate 3. liable) to two-sided appeals as opposed to one-sided arguments. Although there are instances in which recognizing opposing arguments may obscure the communicator’s message and fail to sway people’s opinions, the vantage point is still more robust with a two-sided appeal. However, in instances where the audience is in full agreement with the message of the communicator a one-sided appeal is more effective. Speculation [18](1. makes 2. has 3. leaves) it that factors which influence people’s persuasibility to one as opposed to two-sided arguments are dependent upon their educational level and their acquaintance with the issue.
Persuasive communicators commonly have an idea of how much they wish to modify a given audiences attitudes and opinions. Some communicators may defend a position strongly discrepant to that held by the audience, while others may possibly advocate a position which is only somewhat discrepant from the audiences initial opinion. Overall, research shows that with both excessive and [19](1. conservative 2. liberal 3. radical) usage of discrepancy a communicators effectiveness is diminished. The instance where discrepancy [20](1. sustains 2. affords 3. works) best is when the message of the communicator is only slightly different from the opinions held by the audience. As one would guess, moderate levels of discrepancy work best when the message is delivered by a credible communicator. In some cases, messages with extreme levels of discrepancy seem to have positive results when given by a credible communicator. Additionally, when a receiver maintains a high degree of involvement with a message the communicators range of discrepancy is greatly reduced. As may already be apparent, a receiver who has a personal acquaintance with an issue may become more intolerant of strongly discrepant points of view.
コメントを残す