Visual And Esoteric Forms Of Persuasion
Application Paper:
For this paper, you will pick a mass-produced persuasive message (e.g., a print advertisement, a commercial, a political debate etc.) and analyze it through the lens of one or more of the theories and concepts discussed in class.
The paper should include three parts:
-(1) a brief description of the message (1 page max);
-(2) a description of the theories and concepts you think that are related to the message (2 pages max);
-(3) an application of the theories and concepts to the message (how do the theories explain the message? what's the implication for the field or the industry? 2-3 pages).
-Also remember to include the ad or the link to the video as appendix in your paper.
Persuasion Sequential Persuasion
Sequential Persuasion
A class of persuasive tactics that depend on requests and persuasive statements being carried out in a specific sequence
Sequential Persuasion
Tactics aimed at getting people to comply
A list of 64 compliance-gaining strategies. Kellermann, K. & Cole, T. (1994). Classifying compliance gaining messages: Taxonomic disorder and strategic confusion. Communication Theory, 1, 3-60.
Overview
Tactics aimed at getting people to comply
• Pregiving
• Foot-in-the-Door
• Door-in-the-Face
• That’s-Not-All
• Lowball
• Bait-and-Switch
• Disrupt-Then-Reframe
• Legitimizing paltry contributions
Pregiving
Getting someone to comply by doing favors for him/her in advance
• Favors and gifts create a sense of indebtedness and returning favors is
culturally universal
Why Does Pregiving Work?
The persuader
• Liking: the pregiver is perceived as a good, kind person
• Physical attractiveness: the pregiver is perceived to be more attractive
The persuadee
• Impression management: people do not want to be perceived as ungrateful
freeloaders
• Internalized social norm: returning a favor makes people feel good about
themselves
Why Does Pregiving Work?
The process
• Gratitude: pregiving leads to positive emotional states that motivates
favor return
• Perceived ulterior motives: pregiving is less effective when it is seen as a
tool of manipulation
The Foot-in-the-Door Tactic (FITD)
A person who agrees to a small, initial request is more likely to comply with a subsequent larger request
Why Does FITD Work?
Self-perception theory: people make self-attributions based on their own behavior
• You see yourself as an altruistic person when you agree to comply with a
small request, which then leads to consistency of compliance with the
second request
• Activating relevant attitudes is important (“you are so thoughtful.” “You are
so generous.”)
When Does FITD Work?
Requests
• Prosocial requests: the strategy works best with prosocial causes
• Social labeling: Positive labels help activate relevant attitudes
• No external incentives: there should be no external inducements such as
payment or rewards
• Size of the 1st request: must be small enough, but not so small as to appear
trivial
• Time delay: a time delay between the 1st and 2nd requests may help activate
relevant attitudes
When Does FITD Work?
The persuader
• The 1st and 2nd requests need not be made by the same requester
The persuadee
• People with a high need for consistency/high self-concept clarity are more
susceptible
The Door-in-the-Face Tactic (DITF)
A person is presented with an initial, large request which she/he is inclined to reject, the person thereby becomes more likely to comply with a second, more reasonable request
Why Does DITF Work?
The persuadee
• Self-presentation: the target doesn’t want to be perceived negatively by
others
• Guilt: the target feels guilty
The Request
• Perceptual contrast phenomenon: the 2nd request seems much more
reasonable by comparison
• Reciprocal concessions: the target perceives he/she is engaged in a
bargaining situation
When Does DITF Work?
The Request
• Prosocial requests: the tactic works best with prosocial causes
• Size of the initial request: the 1st request must be large enough to be
rejected, but not ludicrous
• Size of the follow-up request: the 2nd request must be unambiguously
smaller than the 1st
• Time delay: the 2nd request should follow right after the 1st
When Does DITF Work?
The persuader
• The 1st and 2nd requests must be made by the same requester
The persuadee
• DITF works best with “exchange-oriented” people
The That’s-Not-All Tactic
Free extras sweeten the deal and add perceived value to an offer
• “The first 20 callers will also receive…”
• “The original price is xxx but you will received a discount of xxx”
• Contrast: the revised deal may seem much better than it actually is
• Reciprocity: people may feel obligated to return the favor
That’s-Not-All vs. Door-in-the-Face
That’s-Not-All
• The product or service is the same, but at a reduced price
• The that’s-not-all operates before the target makes a decision
Door-in-the-Face
• The product or service in the second offer is different and at a reduced price
• The door-in-the-face operates after the first request was declined
The Lowball Tactic
Increasing price of adding conditions to an offer that is “too good to be true” in the last minute
• There may be outright deception: “there was a mistake in the ad, the wine is
$19.99 per bottle, not $1.99”
• There may “hidden strings” attached: the advertised price for a cruise
doesn’t include tips, shore excursions, alternative dining, onboard activities,
internet, etc.
• Once people are psychologically committed, it is hard to back out
• People who initially agreed feel obligated to keep their promise
The Bait-and-Switch Tactic
Advertising an offer that is “too good to be true” but offering something else later
• When the consumer tries to buy the low-priced item, the item is no longer
available, and the consumer is persuaded to purchase a more expensive item
instead
• “Sorry, we’re out of your size, but…”
Lowball vs. Bait-and-Switch
Lowball
• The product or service is the same, but at a higher price
• The low ball operates after the target becomes psychologically committed
Bait-and-switch
• The product or service is different and at a higher price
• The bait lures the target in before she/he is psychologically committed
The Disrupt-then-Reframe Tactic (DTR)
A quirky statement disrupts cognitive processing
• “My soccer team’s candy is $5. That’s only 500 pennies.”
• The disruption inhibits counterarguing
Legitimizing Paltry Contributions
Pre-empts potential objections
• “Even a penny will help!”, “No donation is too small.”
• The tactic induces guilt if the target declines
• Produces a large quantity of smaller donations
• More effective when combined with other tactics like social proofing (i.e.,
descriptive norm influence) or when used face-to-face
• Less effective for requests to donate time, rather than money