Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
428
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • When the issue concerns a matter of taste or judgement (e.g. who was Italy's greatest football player of all time?), similar sources are accepted more readily than dissimilar sources. But when the issue concerns a matter of fact (e.g. at which Olympic Games did your country win its greatest number of gold medals?), dissimilar sources do better (Goethals 8c Nelson, 1973). We have already noted that no single
  • Arkes, Boehm and Xu (1991) that simple repetition of a statement makes it appear more true! Repeated exposure to an object clearly increases familiarity with that object. Repetition of a name can make that name seem famous (Jacoby, Kelly, Brown & Jasechko, 1989).
  • In a study by Freedman and Fraser (1966), people were first contacted in their home to answer a few simple questions about the kind of soap they used at home. Later, they were more willing to comply with the larger request of allowing six people to make a thorough inventory of all the household items present. Only 22 per cent complied when they received the larger request 'cold', but 53 per cent complied when they had been softened up by the initial questions about soap.
  • Cialdini et al. (1975) tested this tactic by approaching students with a huge request: 'Would you serve as a voluntary counsellor at a youth offenders' centre two hours a week for the next two years?' Virtually no one agreed. However, when the researchers then asked for a considerably smaller request, 'Would you chaperone a group of these offenders on a two-hour trip to the zoo?' 50 per cent agreed. When the second request was presented alone, less than 17 per cent complied. For the tactic to be effective, the researchers noted that the final request should come from the same person who made the initial request.

Transcript

  • 1. PERSUASION
  • 2. Persuasive Communication:
    Message intended to change an attitude and related behaviours of an audience
  • 3. Yale University
    • Published Communication and persuasion (Hovland, Janis & Kelley, 1953)
    • 4. Four Steps: attention,comprehension, acceptance and retention.
    • 5. Key to understandingwhy people attend to, understand,remember and accept a persuasivemessage is to study thecharacteristics of the presenter,the content of the message andthe characteristicsof the receiver.
    • 6. 3 general variables in persuasion:
    • 7. The communicator (who);
    • 8. The communication (what);
    • 9. The audience (whom)
  • WHO: Source Factors
    • Experts > non-experts
    • 10. Popular and attractive communicators > than unpopular or unattractive communicators
    • 11. People who speak rapidly > people who speak slowly.
    • 12. Similar > dissimilar sources
  • Experts are more persuasive than non-experts
  • 13. Popular and attractive communicators are more effective than unpopular or unattractive communicators
  • 14. WHAT (the message)
    We are more easily persuaded if we think the message is not deliberately intended to manipulate us.
    Intelligent audience = present both sides
    Less intelligent audience = present one side (Lumsdaine & Janis, 1953; McGinnies, 1966)
    Factors: repetition, fear, facts vs. feelings
  • 15. WHOM (audience)
    Low self-esteem > High self-esteem
    Distracted > full attention, at least when the message is simple
    Younger > middle adulthood < late adulthood
    Women/male orientated topic > women/female orientated
    Men/female orientated topic > Men/male orientated topic
  • 16. Compliance:
    a surface behavioural response to a request by another individual
  • 17. Tactics for enhancing compliance
    Jones and Pittman (1982) describe five strategies:
    Intimidation
    Exemplification
    Supplication
    Self promotion
    Ingratiation
  • 18. Intimidation
    an attempt to elicit fear by getting others to think you are dangerous
    NOT TO BE USED IN THE
    FUNDRAISING EXERCISE!!!!
  • 19. Exemplification
    an attempt to elicit guilt by getting others to regard you as a morally respectable individual
  • 20. Supplication
    is an attempt to elicit pity by getting others to believe you are helpless and needy
  • 21. Self-Promotion
    an attempt to elicit respect and confidence by persuading others that you are competent
  • 22. Ingratiation
    an attempt to get others to like you in order to secure compliance with a subsequent request
    a particularly common tactic
    First agree with influencer and getting them to like him/her before various requests are made
    You would be using ingratiation if you agreed with other people to appear similar to them or to make them feel good, made yourself look attractive, paid compliments,or physically touched them.
    ‘Ingratiator's dilemma’: the more obvious it is that an ingratiator will profit by impressing the target person, the less likely it is that the tactic will succeed
  • 23. Other techniques
    Reciprocity principle – If we do others a favour, they feel obliged to reciprocate.
    Multiple requests – Tactics for gaining compliance using a two-step procedure: the first request functions as a set-up for the second, real request.
  • 24. Multiple Request #1 – Foot-In-The-Door
    Small request large request.
    If the initial request appears too small or the second too large, the link between the multiple requests breaks down
    Psychological explanations:
    1) Self perception theory: By complying with a small request, people become committed to their behaviourand develop a picture of themselves as 'giving'. The subsequent large request compels them to appear consistent.
    2) Self-consistency: We try to manage our self-concept in such a way that if we are charitable on one occasion then we should be charitable again on the second occasion.
  • 25. Multiple Request #2 – Door-In-the-Face
    person is asked a large favour first and a small request second.
  • 26. Multiple Requests #3 – Low-Ball
    the influencer changes the rules halfway and manages to get away with it.
    inducing the customer to agree to a request before revealing certain hidden costs.
    Based on the principle that once people are committed to an action, they are more likely to accept a slight increase in the cost of that action.