Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
98
Chapter 16
FOUNDATIONS OF PERSUASION
In the 1950s the British writer, Dorothy Sayers, lamented that we were sending unprepared young
people into a world in which they’d be bombarded with massive amounts of information. Imagine
her concerns if she were writing today! The information explosion makes it even more imperative
that students think critically about the claims and counterclaims, the emotional appeals, and the
“character issues” that surround arguments today. This chapter explains reasoning strategies as
they've been described across millennia. It uses terminology from Aristotle's classic text on Rhetoric,
discusses fallacies using Latin terminology, and describes invitational rhetoric as proposed by
feminist scholars in the 1990s.
Chapter Goals
At the end of this chapter, your students should be able to:
•
Identify ways ethos, speaker credibility, functions as an element of reasoning
•
Explain the role of pathos, or emotional proofs, in reasoning
•
Explain how reasoning strategies vary across cultural groups
•
Explain four basic types of logos, or rational proofs, and know how to test each one
•
Recognize several kinds of fallacious reasoning
•
Identify elements of invitational rhetoric
Chapter Outline
I.
Rhetoric is the art of persuasion.
Persuasion is the symbolic process in which a communicator intentionally creates a message in an
attempt to convince others to change their attitudes or behaviors in an atmosphere of free choice.
Aristotle identified three modes of persuasion he called artistic proofs.
II.
Ethos, or speaker credibility, comes from your personal qualities, and is made up of four
components:
A.
Exhibit good character by choosing topics that matter to your and stick by your convictions,
even when unpopular.
B.
Express goodwill by developing identification through areas of common ground.
C.
Demonstrate good sense, made up of:
1.
Intelligence, by showing you have a broad understanding of your topic.
2.
Sound reasoning, by supporting your claim with trustworthy evidence and logical
connections.
3.
Composure, by maintaining poise in a stressful situation.
D.
Showing dynamism influences credibility and is linked to extroversion, energy, and
enthusiasm.
III.
Including pathos, or emotional proofs, shows the speaker understands the audience’s motivation
and needs.
A.
Appeal to positive emotions such love, peace, pride, approval, and hope, etc.
B.
Appealing to
negative emotions
can be risky, but
fear
,
anger
, and
guilt
can motivate us to
avoid real dangers.
C.
Appealing to
needs
primarily follows the work of Maslow, and includes:
99
1.
Basic needs.
2.
Security and safety needs.
3.
Love and belonging needs.
4.
Esteem needs.
5.
Self-actualization needs.
E.
Understanding needs, wants, emotions, and values overlap, but four factors are important
in emotional appeals:
1.
Sometimes you have to choose between two desirable goals or feelings.
2.
Motives vary according to our circumstances.
3.
Our responses often come out of mixed motives.
4.
Motivations are often group centered.
F.
Emotional appeals should be tested to be sure you are not playing on irrational fears.
1.
Ask yourself if guilt is reasonable or if anger is rational.
2.
Make sure emotion is used ethically.
IV.
Use logos or rational proofs, the verbal arguments that relate to the subject.
A.
Both figurative and literal analogies compare a less familiar item with one that's better
known.
1.
Figurative analogies (reasoning by metaphor) compare two generally different things
that share a recognizable similarity.
a.
Metaphors are fundamentally dialogical because listeners must actively make
connections.
b.
Metaphors guide actions and arouse emotions.
c.
Use of metaphors is fundamental and universal and related to our oral heritage.
d.
Metaphor use is typical of African and African-American speakers.
2.
Literal analogies or parallel case reasoning compares likeness between two similar
things and argues that what happened in one case is likely to happen in another one
that's similar.
3.
Use three tests for analogies.
a.
Ask if the metaphor clarifies and illuminates the concept.
b.
Ask if the parallel case is really alike.
c.
Ask if the case is alike in essential details.
B.
Inductive reasoning begins with specific instances or examples, then formulates a reasonable
generalization or conclusion.
1.
It is typical of ethic speakers and women who form conclusions out of experience.
a.
Absolute accuracy requires observation of 100 percent of a population, which is
usually impossible.
b.
Survey research takes a sample from a population and forms generalizations from
that sample.
2.
Test inductive reasoning in three ways.
a.
Ask if enough cases are represented.
b.
Ask if the cases are typical or representative of the population.
c.
Ask if the examples are up-to-date.
C.
Deductive reasoning applies a generalization (premise) to a specific instance.
1.
A syllogism has a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.
a.
A sure premise allows conclusions to be stated confidently.
b.
Most premises have a measure of uncertainty and speakers should qualify both their
premises and their conclusions.
2.
An enthymeme leaves some parts of the syllogism unstated, so listeners dialogically fill
in what's unsaid.
3.
Test deductive reasoning in two ways.
a.
Ask if the premise is true or highly probable.
100
b.
Ask if the conclusion logically follows the premise.
D.
Causal reasoning shows that an effect follows a particular condition as a matter of rule; the
second would not exist without the first.
1.
The belief in causation is typical of Euro-American thinking.
2.
Some links are well established; others are not as well proved.
3.
Test causal reasoning in three ways.
a.
Ask if there is a real connection between the conditions or if they just exist at the
same time.
b.
Ask if other, more important causes or factors contribute to the effect.
c.
Ask if the cause is strong enough for the effect.
E.
Recognize logical fallacies or failures in logical reasoning that lead to unsound, misleading
arguments.
1.
In an unsupported assertion, a claim is offered without evidence or grounds.
2.
The ad populum or bandwagon appeals to popular opinion; the majority can be wrong.
3.
Ad hominem or personal attack discounts or demeans the messenger, ignoring the
arguments.
4.
A false analogy compares two things that aren't similar enough to warrant the
conclusion drawn.
5.
Faulty generalization is an inductive fallacy which draws conclusions from too few
instances.
6.
Slippery slope is stating, without proof, that if one step is taken, a snowball or domino
effect will cause other negative results.
7.
Post hoc (ergo propter hoc) means "after this, therefore because of this”; it is a fallacy of
causation.
8.
False dichotomy sets up an either-or choice without presenting other reasonable
possibilities.
V.
Incorporate principles and forms of invitational rhetoric.
A.
Invitational rhetoric combines three principles.
1.
Equality recognizes the importance of the audience.
2.
Nonhierarchical value of all
means speakers respect listeners as equals.
3.
Self-determination emphasizes the principle of choice; the audience may not change.
B.
Invitational rhetoric includes two forms.
1.
Offering perspectives means speakers share their understandings and invite others to do likewise;
using re-sourcement, they creatively reframe an issue to be less divisive.
2.
Creating conditions uses absolute listening and reversibility of perspectives to make
audiences feel safe, valued, and free to offer perspectives.
Suggested Videos
MindTap and the instr
uctor’s
resource website
You will find student speeches you can use.
•
Review the chapter--finding a subject, making a claim, choosing a purpose, and organizing
the information.
•
Watch a speech of your choice.
•
Afterwards, ask why they think the speaker chose the topic. What is the major claim? What
type of claim is it? What type of emotional appeals are used? Are they valid? How effective
is the speech overall? How well does the speaker respond to listeners’ beliefs, actions,
values, and attitudes? (comprehension, application, synthesis, evaluation)
Televised Speeches Record speakers on C-SPAN or a news channel (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC).
•
Review the section on types of claims.
101
➢
Show the clips; have students identify the types of claims they hear.
➢
Debrief by having students share their observations. (application, analysis)
•
Review the section on narrowed purposes.
➢
Show the clips; have students identify the purpose. Who is the target audience? What
do those people believe? Do? Value? What attitudes do they have toward the topic?
➢
Discuss their observations.
•
Evaluate the effectiveness of the speaker in adapting to the target audience.
(comprehension, analysis, evaluation)
Discussion Topics
Evaluating Ethos As a class, watch and compare two TED speeches. Have students determine
which speaker they believe is more credible. Discuss the role of demonstrating good character,
goodwill, good sense, and dynamism. (analysis, application)
Ethics in Practice: Demagoguery (p. 221) Have students make a list of speakers they currently view as
demagogues. What do the speakers have in common? How do they use emotional appeals to prove
their arguments? (analysis, application).
Identifying Fallacies (pp. 226-227) Try this discussion topic as a class activity. Provide students with
examples of fallacies from a variety of sources, including personal, print, TV, radio, and internet
samples. Have students identify fallacies they themselves have fallen prey to.
Student Outlines with Commentary and Student Speech with Commentary
(pp. 232-233) Review
the anonymous speech on “The Benefits of Hunting.” How does the speaker use emotional
appeals to prove his/her point? Is their logic rational? What types of fallacies in logic does the
speaker introduce?
Critical Thinking Exercises
(See p. 231 of the textbook for Critical Thinking Exercises)
Application Exercises
(See p. 231 of the textbook for Application Exercises)
Internet Activities
You can access instructor’s resources at http://www.cengage.com/us/. You will need your instructor’s
access code. Students and instructors may also go to MindTap to find a broad range of resources that
will help students better understand the material in the chapter, complete assignments, and succeed
on tests. MindTap also features speech videos with critical viewing questions, speech outlines, and
transcripts.
102
Supplemental Resources
•
Research Note 16.1: Theories of Persuasion
Research Note 16.1: Theories of Persuasion
What makes audiences listen to speakers and become convinced of the truth of their arguments?
What moves them to act? Several theories attempt to explain the reasons why listeners are persuaded
to modify their beliefs, values, attitude systems, and actions.
Speaker Credibility. Some researchers focus on characteristics of the communicator that make the
speaker more persuasive. For example, Chapter 5 discusses prior, demonstrated, and terminal
credibility, and in this chapter we focus on ethos.
Audience Characteristics. Other researchers focus on characteristics of audiences that result in
persuasibility differences among individuals. Several factors seem to be significant:*
•
Age. Children are easy to influence until about the age of nine. Then their persuasibility
declines until adolescence when it levels off.
•
Gender. Women are more willing to change than men are. The essence of this theory is that
women tend to be better listeners; in most teaching situations they learn more than men. Men
don’t listen well enough to be changed by the arguments.
•
Intelligence. The situation determines the relationship of intelligence to persuasibility. Less
intelligent listeners may not understand a complex argument; consequently, they’ll be less
moved by it; their more intelligent counterparts may be influenced by novel arguments.
Moreover, less intelligent people may be persuaded by naive arguments that more intelligent
people can see through.
•
Personality characteristics. Dogmatic people are rigid, closed-minded, inflexible, and
authoritarian. Persons scoring high on dogmatism scales avoid being exposed to inconsistent
views. However, they have a low tolerance for dissonance, and when they are forced to
encounter inconsistency, they may be highly susceptible to change. On the other hand,
egalitarian (low-dogmatism) people are enterprising, calm, mature, forceful, and efficient.
They can more easily tolerate inconsistency and as a result may be less susceptible to change.
Social Judgment-Involvement Theory
by Carolyn Sherif, Muzafer Sherif, and Roger Nebergall.**
The social judgment aspect of the theory proposes that listeners have internal reference points called
“anchor points.” When making judgments, listeners first refer to the beliefs, attitudes, and values that
comprise their
anchor points
. Each person has a
latitude of acceptance
and a
latitude of rejection
for new
ideas.
•
Individuals tend to accept ideas that are close to their anchor points.
•
They consider ideas that are far from their anchor points too radical to accept, and they are
immune to such arguments.
•
There is also a latitude or range of non-commitment where the listener doesn’t feel strongly
either way. These individuals are open to persuasion in such areas.
The involvement aspect of the theory argues that the listener’s ego involvement with the issue
affects his or her persuasibility. Those with very strong feelings have incorporated the issue into their
103
self-identity. Some make a social or public commitment to an issue. For example, a person might say,
”I’m a card carrying liberal” or “I’m a born again Christian.”
•
Highly-involved people tend to affiliate socially with like-minded people.
•
Those who are highly involved take pro- or con- positions with little or no middle ground.
•
Individuals who are less involved are less polarized and can see both sides of an issue.
*
This research is summarized in R. M. W. Travers. (1982). Essentials of learning: The new cognitive
learning for students of education (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
** C. W. Sherif, M. Sherif, and R. W. Nebergall. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The social
judgment-involvement approach. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Let’s say a speaker tries to convince a listener that abortion (induced or spontaneous) of a first
pregnancy is statistically linked to development of breast cancer in later life and that the medical
establishment is suppressing studies that show this link.
The listener will refer to her anchor points: her knowledge of scientific tests, her understanding of
politics, her experiences with a friend who had an abortion, her beliefs and attitudes toward abortion
and so on. If she has committed herself to a strong position on abortion and is socially affiliated with
either a pro- or con- organization, this will affect her persuasiblity.
Two other factors influence the way people respond to new information:
•
Assimilation (acceptance). A person will minimize the differences between her anchors and
the new information.
•
Contrast effect (rejection). People compare and distort positions that diverge from their own.
They see a greater discrepancy than is really there.
