speech persuasive theory

17.5 Theories of Persuasive Communication

Click below to play an audio file of this section of the chapter sponsored by the Women for OSU Partnering to Impact grant.

A young woman crosses her arms while holding a large piece of sidewalk chalk with a chalk drawing of Pistol Pete's face on the concrete behind her in front of Edmon Low Library and the fountain.

There are many theories of persuasion in communication studies. Three of the main theories that are often associated with persuasion are the social judgment theory, cognitive dissonance theory, and the elaboration likelihood model.

Social Judgment Theory

Muzafer Sherif and Carl Hovland created social judgment theory in an attempt to determine what types of communicative messages and under what conditions communicated messages will lead to a change in someone’s behavior (Sherif & Hovland, 1961). In essence, Sherif and Hovland found that people’s perceptions of attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors exist on a continuum including latitude of rejection, latitude of noncommitment, and latitude of acceptance.

Latitudes of Judgments

Imagine that you are planning to persuade your peers to major in a foreign language in college. Some of the students in your class may disagree with you right off the bat, representing the latitude of rejection. Other students may think majoring in a foreign language is a great idea, representing the latitude of acceptance. Still others are really going to have no opinion either way, representing the latitude of noncommitment. Within each of these different latitudes there is a range of possibilities. For example, one of your listeners may be perfectly willing to accept the idea of minoring in a foreign language, but when asked to major or even double major in a foreign language, he or she may end up in the latitude of noncommitment or even rejection.

Not surprisingly, Sherif and Hovland found that persuasive messages are the most likely to succeed when they fall into an individual’s latitude of acceptance. For example, if you are giving your speech on majoring in a foreign language, people who are in favor of majoring in a foreign language are more likely to positively evaluate your message, assimilate your advice into their own ideas, and engage in desired behavior. On the other hand, people who reject your message are more likely to negatively evaluate your message, not assimilate your advice, and not engage in desired behavior.

In an ideal world, we would always be persuading people who agree with our opinions, but that is not reality. Instead, we often find ourselves in situations where we are trying to persuade others to accept attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors with which they may not agree. To help us persuade others, what we need to think about is the range of possible attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors that exist. For example, in our foreign language case, we may see the following possible opinions from our audience members:

Complete agreement. All of us should major in foreign languages.
Strong agreement. I will not major in a foreign language, but I will double major in a foreign language.
Agreement in part. I will not major in a foreign language, but I will minor in a foreign language.
Neutral. While I think studying a foreign language can be worthwhile, I also think a college education can be complete without it. I really do not feel strongly one way or the other.
Disagreement in part. I will only take the foreign language classes required by my major.
Strong disagreement. I do not think I should have to take any foreign language classes.
Complete disagreement. Majoring in a foreign language is a complete waste of a college education.

These seven possible opinions on the subject do not represent the full spectrum of choices, but give us various degrees of agreement with the general topic. Sherif and Hovland theorized that persuasion is a matter of knowing how great the discrepancy or difference is between the speaker’s viewpoint and that of the audience. If the speaker’s point of view is similar to that of audience members, then persuasion is more likely. If the discrepancy between the idea proposed by the speaker and the audience’s viewpoint is too great, then the likelihood of persuasion decreases dramatically.

Discrepancy and Attitude Change

Furthermore, Sherif and Hovland (1961) predicted that there was a threshold for most people where attitude change was not possible and people slipped from the latitude of acceptance into the latitude of noncommitment or rejection. Figure 17.2 “Discrepancy and Attitude Change” represents this process. All the area covered by the left side of the curve represents options a person would agree with, even if there is an initial discrepancy between the speaker and audience member at the start of the speech. However, there comes a point where the discrepancy between the speaker and audience member becomes too large, which moves into the options that will be automatically rejected by the audience member. In essence, it becomes essential for you to know which options you can realistically persuade your audience to and which options will never happen. Maybe there is no way for you to persuade your audience to major or double major in a foreign language, but perhaps you can get them to minor in a foreign language.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

In 1957, Leon Festinger proposed another theory for understanding how persuasion functions: cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957). Cognitive dissonance is an aversive motivational state that occurs when an individual entertains two or more contradictory attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors simultaneously. For example, maybe you know you should be working on your speech, but you really want to go to a movie with a friend. In this case, practicing your speech and going to the movie are two cognitions that are inconsistent with one another. The goal of persuasion is to induce enough dissonance in listeners that they will change their attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors.

Frymier and Nadler (2007) noted that for cognitive dissonance to work effectively there are three necessary conditions: aversive consequences, freedom of choice, and insufficient external justification. First, for cognitive dissonance to work, there needs to be a strong enough aversive consequence, or punishment, for not changing one’s attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors. For example, maybe you are giving a speech on why people need to eat more apples. If your aversive consequence for not eating apples is that your audience will not get enough fiber, most people will simply not be persuaded, because the punishment is not severe enough. Instead, for cognitive dissonance to work, the punishment associated with not eating apples needs to be significant enough to change behaviors. If you convince your audience that without enough fiber in their diets they are at higher risk for heart disease or colon cancer, they might fear the aversive consequences enough to change their behavior.

The second condition necessary for cognitive dissonance to work is that people must have a freedom of choice. If listeners feel they are being coerced into doing something, then dissonance will not be aroused. They may alter their behavior in the short term, but as soon as the coercion is gone, the original behavior will reemerge. It is like the person who drives more slowly when a police officer is nearby but ignores speed limits once officers are no longer present. As a speaker, if you want to increase cognitive dissonance, you need to make sure that your audience does not feel coerced or manipulated, but rather that they can clearly see that they have a choice of whether to be persuaded.

Elaboration Likelihood Model

The elaboration likelihood model created by Petty and Cacioppo (1986) has a continuum from high elaboration or thought to low elaboration or thought. For the purposes of Petty and Cacioppo’s model, the term elaboration refers to the amount of thought or cognitive energy someone uses for analyzing the content of a message. High elaboration uses the central route and is designed for analyzing the content of a message. As such, when people truly analyze a message, they use cognitive energy to examine the arguments set forth within the message. In an ideal world, everyone would process information through this central route and actually analyze arguments presented to them. Unfortunately, many people often use the peripheral route for attending to persuasive messages, which results in low elaboration or thought. Low elaboration occurs when people attend to messages but do not analyze the message or use cognitive energy to ascertain the arguments set forth in a message.

For researchers of persuasion, the question then becomes: how do people select one route or the other when attending to persuasive messages? Petty and Cacioppo noted that there are two basic factors for determining whether someone centrally processes a persuasive message: ability and motivation. First, audience members must be able to process the persuasive message. If the language or message is too complicated, then people will not highly elaborate on it because they will not understand the persuasive message. Motivation, on the other hand, refers to whether the audience member chooses to elaborate on the message. Frymier and Nadler discussed five basic factors that can lead to high elaboration: personal relevance and personal involvement, accountability, personal responsibility, incongruent information, and need for cognition (Frymier & Nadler, 2007).

Personal Relevance and Personal Involvement

The first reason people are motivated to take the central route or use high elaboration when listening to a persuasive message involves personal relevance and involvement. Personal relevance refers to whether the audience member feels that he or she is actually directly affected by the speech topic. For example, if someone is listening to a speech on why cigarette smoking is harmful, and that listener has never smoked cigarettes, he or she may think the speech topic simply is not relevant. Obviously, as a speaker you should always think about how your topic is relevant to your listeners and make sure to drive this home throughout your speech. Personal involvement, on the other hand, asks whether the individual is actively engaged with the issue at hand: sends letters of support, gives speeches on the topic, has a bumper sticker, and so forth. If an audience member is an advocate who is constantly denouncing tobacco companies for the harm they do to society, then he or she would be highly involved (i.e., would engage in high elaboration) in a speech that attempts to persuade listeners that smoking is harmful.

Accountability

The second condition under which people are likely to process information using the central route is when they feel that they will be held accountable for the information after the fact. With accountability, there is the perception that someone, or a group of people, will be watching to see if the receiver remembers the information later on. We have all witnessed this phenomenon when one student asks the question “will this be on the test?” If the teacher says “no,” you can almost immediately see the glazed eyes in the classroom as students tune out the information. As a speaker, it is often hard to hold your audience accountable for the information given within a speech.

Personal Responsibility

When people feel that they are going to be held responsible, without a clear external accounting, for the evaluation of a message or the outcome of a message, they are more likely to critically think through the message using the central route. For example, maybe you are asked to evaluate fellow students in your public speaking class. Research has shown that if only one or two students are asked to evaluate any one speaker at a time, the quality of the evaluations for that speaker will be better than if everyone in the class is asked to evaluate every speaker. When people feel that their evaluation is important, they take more responsibility and, therefore, are more critical of the message delivered.

Incongruent Information

Some people are motivated to centrally process information when it does not adhere to their own ideas. Maybe you are a highly progressive liberal, and one of your peers delivers a speech on the importance of the Tea Party movement in American politics. The information presented during the speech will most likely be in direct contrast to your personal ideology, which causes incongruence because the Tea Party ideology is opposed to a progressive liberal ideology. As such, you are more likely to pay attention to the speech, specifically looking for flaws in the speaker’s argument.

Need for Cognition

The final reason some people centrally process information is because they have a personality characteristic called need for cognition. Need for cognition refers to a personality trait characterized by an internal drive or need to engage in critical thinking and information processing. People who are high in need for cognition simply enjoy thinking about complex ideas and issues. Even if the idea or issue being presented has no personal relevance, high need for cognition people are more likely to process information using the central route.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row, Peterson, & Company.

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203–210.

Frymier, A. B., & Nadler, M. K. (2007). Persuasion: Integrating theory, research, and practice . Kendall/Hunt.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.

Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Yale University Press.

This resource is available at no cost at https://open.library.okstate.edu/speech2713/

Introduction to Speech Communication Copyright © 2021 by Individual authors retain copyright of their work. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

17.1 Persuasion: An Overview

Learning objectives.

Define and explain persuasion.
Explain the three theories of persuasion discussed in the text: social judgment theory, cognitive dissonance theory, and the elaboration likelihood model.

NBS NewsHour – Podium – CC BY-NC 2.0.

In his text The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the 21st Century , Richard Perloff noted that the study of persuasion today is extremely important for five basic reasons:

The sheer number of persuasive communications has grown exponentially.
Persuasive messages travel faster than ever before.
Persuasion has become institutionalized.
Persuasive communication has become more subtle and devious.
Persuasive communication is more complex than ever before (Perloff, 2003).

In essence, the nature of persuasion has changed over the last fifty years as a result of the influx of various types of technology. People are bombarded by persuasive messages in today’s world, so thinking about how to create persuasive messages effectively is very important for modern public speakers. A century (or even half a century) ago, public speakers had to contend only with the words printed on paper for attracting and holding an audience’s attention. Today, public speakers must contend with laptops, netbooks, iPads, smartphones, billboards, television sets, and many other tools that can send a range of persuasive messages immediately to a target audience. Thankfully, scholars who study persuasion have kept up with the changing times and have found a number of persuasive strategies that help speakers be more persuasive.

What Is Persuasion?

We defined persuasion earlier in this text as an attempt to get a person to behave in a manner, or embrace a point of view related to values, attitudes, and beliefs, that he or she would not have done otherwise.

Change Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs

The first type of persuasive public speaking involves a change in someone’s attitudes, values, and beliefs. An attitude is defined as an individual’s general predisposition toward something as being good or bad, right or wrong, or negative or positive. Maybe you believe that local curfew laws for people under twenty-one are a bad idea, so you want to persuade others to adopt a negative attitude toward such laws.

You can also attempt to persuade an individual to change her or his value toward something. Value refers to an individual’s perception of the usefulness, importance, or worth of something. We can value a college education or technology or freedom. Values, as a general concept, are fairly ambiguous and tend to be very lofty ideas. Ultimately, what we value in life actually motivates us to engage in a range of behaviors. For example, if you value technology, you are more likely to seek out new technology or software on your own. On the contrary, if you do not value technology, you are less likely to seek out new technology or software unless someone, or some circumstance, requires you to.

Lastly, you can attempt to get people to change their personal beliefs. Beliefs are propositions or positions that an individual holds as true or false without positive knowledge or proof. Typically, beliefs are divided into two basic categories: core and dispositional. Core beliefs are beliefs that people have actively engaged in and created over the course of their lives (e.g., belief in a higher power, belief in extraterrestrial life forms). Dispositional beliefs , on the other hand, are beliefs that people have not actively engaged in but rather judgments that they make, based on their knowledge of related subjects, when they encounter a proposition. For example, imagine that you were asked the question, “Can stock cars reach speeds of one thousand miles per hour on a one-mile oval track?” Even though you may never have attended a stock car race or even seen one on television, you can make split-second judgments about your understanding of automobile speeds and say with a fair degree of certainty that you believe stock cars cannot travel at one thousand miles per hour on a one-mile track. We sometimes refer to dispositional beliefs as virtual beliefs (Frankish, 1998).

As we explained in Chapter 6 “Finding a Purpose and Selecting a Topic” , when it comes to persuading people to alter core and dispositional beliefs, persuading audiences to change core beliefs is more difficult than persuading audiences to change dispositional beliefs. For this reason, you are very unlikely to persuade people to change their deeply held core beliefs about a topic in a five- to ten-minute speech. However, if you give a persuasive speech on a topic related to an audience’s dispositional beliefs, you may have a better chance of success. While core beliefs may seem to be exciting and interesting, persuasive topics related to dispositional beliefs are generally better for novice speakers with limited time allotments.

Change Behavior

The second type of persuasive speech is one in which the speaker attempts to persuade an audience to change their behavior. Behaviors come in a wide range of forms, so finding one you think people should start, increase, or decrease shouldn’t be difficult at all. Speeches encouraging audiences to vote for a candidate, sign a petition opposing a tuition increase, or drink tap water instead of bottled water are all behavior-oriented persuasive speeches. In all these cases, the goal is to change the behavior of individual listeners.

Why Persuasion Matters

Frymier and Nadler enumerate three reasons why people should study persuasion (Frymier & Nadler, 2007). First, when you study and understand persuasion, you will be more successful at persuading others. If you want to be a persuasive public speaker, then you need to have a working understanding of how persuasion functions.

Second, when people understand persuasion, they will be better consumers of information. As previously mentioned, we live in a society where numerous message sources are constantly fighting for our attention. Unfortunately, most people just let messages wash over them like a wave, making little effort to understand or analyze them. As a result, they are more likely to fall for half-truths, illogical arguments, and lies. When you start to understand persuasion, you will have the skill set to actually pick apart the messages being sent to you and see why some of them are good and others are simply not.

Lastly, when we understand how persuasion functions, we’ll have a better grasp of what happens around us in the world. We’ll be able to analyze why certain speakers are effective persuaders and others are not. We’ll be able to understand why some public speakers can get an audience eating out of their hands, while others flop.

Furthermore, we believe it is an ethical imperative in the twenty-first century to be persuasively literate. We believe that persuasive messages that aim to manipulate, coerce, and intimidate people are unethical, as are messages that distort information. As ethical listeners, we have a responsibility to analyze messages that manipulate, coerce, and/or intimidate people or distort information. We also then have the responsibility to combat these messages with the truth, which will ultimately rely on our own skills and knowledge as effective persuaders.

Theories of Persuasion

Understanding how people are persuaded is very important to the discussion of public speaking. Thankfully, a number of researchers have created theories that help explain why people are persuaded. While there are numerous theories that help to explain persuasion, we are only going to examine three here: social judgment theory, cognitive dissonance theory, and the elaboration likelihood model.

Social Judgment Theory

Muzafer Sherif and Carl Hovland created social judgment theory in an attempt to determine what types of communicative messages and under what conditions communicated messages will lead to a change in someone’s behavior (Sherif & Hovland, 1961). In essence, Sherif and Hovland found that people’s perceptions of attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors exist on a continuum including latitude of rejection , latitude of noncommitment , and latitude of acceptance ( Figure 17.1 “Latitudes of Judgments” ).

Figure 17.1 Latitudes of Judgments

Imagine that you’re planning to persuade your peers to major in a foreign language in college. Some of the students in your class are going to disagree with you right off the bat (latitude of rejection, part (a) of Figure 17.1 “Latitudes of Judgments” ). Other students are going to think majoring in a foreign language is a great idea (latitude of acceptance, part (c) of Figure 17.1 “Latitudes of Judgments” ). Still others are really going to have no opinion either way (latitude of noncommitment, part (b) of Figure 17.1 “Latitudes of Judgments” ). Now in each of these different latitudes there is a range of possibilities. For example, one of your listeners may be perfectly willing to accept the idea of minoring in a foreign language, but when asked to major or even double major in a foreign language, he or she may end up in the latitude of noncommitment or even rejection.

Not surprisingly, Sherif and Hovland found that persuasive messages were the most likely to succeed when they fell into an individual’s latitude of acceptance. For example, if you are giving your speech on majoring in a foreign language, people who are in favor of majoring in a foreign language are more likely to positively evaluate your message, assimilate your advice into their own ideas, and engage in desired behavior. On the other hand, people who reject your message are more likely to negatively evaluate your message, not assimilate your advice, and not engage in desired behavior.

In an ideal world, we’d always be persuading people who agree with our opinions, but that’s not reality. Instead, we often find ourselves in situations where we are trying to persuade others to attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors with which they may not agree. To help us persuade others, what we need to think about is the range of possible attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors that exist. For example, in our foreign language case, we may see the following possible opinions from our audience members:

Complete agreement. Let’s all major in foreign languages.
Strong agreement. I won’t major in a foreign language, but I will double major in a foreign language.
Agreement in part. I won’t major in a foreign language, but I will minor in a foreign language.
Neutral. While I think studying a foreign language can be worthwhile, I also think a college education can be complete without it. I really don’t feel strongly one way or the other.
Disagreement in part. I will only take the foreign language classes required by my major.
Strong disagreement. I don’t think I should have to take any foreign language classes.
Complete disagreement. Majoring in a foreign language is a complete waste of a college education.

These seven possible opinions on the subject do not represent the full spectrum of choices, but give us various degrees of agreement with the general topic. So what does this have to do with persuasion? Well, we’re glad you asked. Sherif and Hovland theorized that persuasion was a matter of knowing how great the discrepancy or difference was between the speaker’s viewpoint and that of the audience. If the speaker’s point of view was similar to that of audience members, then persuasion was more likely. If the discrepancy between the idea proposed by the speaker and the audience’s viewpoint is too great, then the likelihood of persuasion decreases dramatically.

Figure 17.2 Discrepancy and Attitude Change

Furthermore, Sherif and Hovland predicted that there was a threshold for most people where attitude change wasn’t possible and people slipped from the latitude of acceptance into the latitude of noncommitment or rejection. Figure 17.2 “Discrepancy and Attitude Change” represents this process. All the area covered by the left side of the curve represents options a person would agree with, even if there is an initial discrepancy between the speaker and audience member at the start of the speech. However, there comes a point where the discrepancy between the speaker and audience member becomes too large, which move into the options that will be automatically rejected by the audience member. In essence, it becomes essential for you to know which options you can realistically persuade your audience to and which options will never happen. Maybe there is no way for you to persuade your audience to major or double major in a foreign language, but perhaps you can get them to minor in a foreign language. While you may not be achieving your complete end goal, it’s better than getting nowhere at all.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Frymier and Nadler noted that for cognitive dissonance to work effectively there are three necessary conditions: aversive consequences, freedom of choice, and insufficient external justification (Frymier & Nadler, 2007). First, for cognitive dissonance to work, there needs to be a strong enough aversive consequence, or punishment, for not changing one’s attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors. For example, maybe you’re giving a speech on why people need to eat more apples. If your aversive consequence for not eating apples is that your audience will not get enough fiber, most people will simply not be persuaded, because the punishment isn’t severe enough. Instead, for cognitive dissonance to work, the punishment associated with not eating apples needs to be significant enough to change behaviors. If you convince your audience that without enough fiber in their diets they are at higher risk for heart disease or colon cancer, they might fear the aversive consequences enough to change their behavior.

The second condition necessary for cognitive dissonance to work is that people must have a freedom of choice. If listeners feel they are being coerced into doing something, then dissonance will not be aroused. They may alter their behavior in the short term, but as soon as the coercion is gone, the original behavior will reemerge. It’s like the person who drives more slowly when a police officer is nearby but ignores speed limits once officers are no longer present. As a speaker, if you want to increase cognitive dissonance, you need to make sure that your audience doesn’t feel coerced or manipulated, but rather that they can clearly see that they have a choice of whether to be persuaded.

The final condition necessary for cognitive dissonance to work has to do with external and internal justifications. External justification refers to the process of identifying reasons outside of one’s own control to support one’s behavior, beliefs, and attitudes. Internal justification occurs when someone voluntarily changes a behavior, belief, or attitude to reduce cognitive dissonance. When it comes to creating change through persuasion, external justifications are less likely to result in change than internal justifications (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). Imagine that you’re giving a speech with the specific purpose of persuading college students to use condoms whenever they engage in sexual intercourse. Your audience analysis, in the form of an anonymous survey, indicates that a large percentage of your listeners do not consistently use condoms. Which would be the more persuasive argument: (a) “Failure to use condoms inevitably results in unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including AIDS”—or (b) “If you think of yourself as a responsible adult, you’ll use condoms to protect yourself and your partner”? With the first argument, you have provided external justification for using condoms (i.e., terrible things will happen if you don’t use condoms). Listeners who reject this external justification (e.g., who don’t believe these dire consequences are inevitable) are unlikely to change their behavior. With the second argument, however, if your listeners think of themselves as responsible adults and they don’t consistently use condoms, the conflict between their self-image and their behavior will elicit cognitive dissonance. In order to reduce this cognitive dissonance, they are likely to seek internal justification for the view of themselves as responsible adults by changing their behavior (i.e., using condoms more consistently). In this case, according to cognitive dissonance theory, the second persuasive argument would be the one more likely to lead to a change in behavior.

Elaboration Likelihood Model

The last of the three theories of persuasion discussed here is the elaboration likelihood model created by Petty and Cacioppo (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The basic model has a continuum from high elaboration or thought or low elaboration or thought. For the purposes of Petty and Cacioppo’s model, the term elaboration refers to the amount of thought or cognitive energy someone uses for analyzing the content of a message. High elaboration uses the central route and is designed for analyzing the content of a message. As such, when people truly analyze a message, they use cognitive energy to examine the arguments set forth within the message. In an ideal world, everyone would process information through this central route and actually analyze arguments presented to them. Unfortunately, many people often use the peripheral route for attending to persuasive messages, which results in low elaboration or thought. Low elaboration occurs when people attend to messages but do not analyze the message or use cognitive energy to ascertain the arguments set forth in a message.

Personal Relevance and Personal Involvement

The first reason people are motivated to take the central route or use high elaboration when listening to a persuasive message involves personal relevance and involvement. Personal relevance refers to whether the audience member feels that he or she is actually directly affected by the speech topic. For example, if someone is listening to a speech on why cigarette smoking is harmful, and that listener has never smoked cigarettes, he or she may think the speech topic simply isn’t relevant. Obviously, as a speaker you should always think about how your topic is relevant to your listeners and make sure to drive this home throughout your speech. Personal involvement, on the other hand, asks whether the individual is actively engaged with the issue at hand: sends letters of support, gives speeches on the topic, has a bumper sticker, and so forth. If an audience member is an advocate who is constantly denouncing tobacco companies for the harm they do to society, then he or she would be highly involved (i.e., would engage in high elaboration) in a speech that attempts to persuade listeners that smoking is harmful.

Accountability

The second condition under which people are likely to process information using the central route is when they feel that they will be held accountable for the information after the fact. With accountability, there is the perception that someone, or a group of people, will be watching to see if the receiver remembers the information later on. We’ve all witnessed this phenomenon when one student asks the question “will this be on the test?” If the teacher says “no,” you can almost immediately see the glazed eyes in the classroom as students tune out the information. As a speaker, it’s often hard to hold your audience accountable for the information given within a speech.

Personal Responsibility

When people feel that they are going to be held responsible, without a clear external accounting, for the evaluation of a message or the outcome of a message, they are more likely to critically think through the message using the central route. For example, maybe you’re asked to evaluate fellow students in your public speaking class. Research has shown that if only one or two students are asked to evaluate any one speaker at a time, the quality of the evaluations for that speaker will be better than if everyone in the class is asked to evaluate every speaker. When people feel that their evaluation is important, they take more responsibility and therefore are more critical of the message delivered.

Incongruent Information

Some people are motivated to centrally process information when it does not adhere to their own ideas. Maybe you’re a highly progressive liberal, and one of your peers delivers a speech on the importance of the Tea Party movement in American politics. The information presented during the speech will most likely be in direct contrast to your personal ideology, which causes incongruence because the Tea Party ideology is opposed to a progressive liberal ideology. As such, you are more likely to pay attention to the speech, specifically looking for flaws in the speaker’s argument.

Need for Cognition

Key Takeaways

Persuasion is the use of verbal and nonverbal messages to get a person to behave in a manner or embrace a point of view related to values, attitudes, and beliefs that he or she would not have done otherwise. Studying persuasion is important today because it helps us become more persuasive individuals, become more observant of others’ persuasive attempts, and have a more complete understanding of the world around us.
Social judgment theory says that persuaders need to be aware of an audience’s latitudes of acceptance, noncommitment, and rejection in order to effectively persuade an audience. Second, cognitive dissonance theory reasons that people do not like holding to ideas in their heads that are contrary and will do what is necessary to get rid of the dissonance caused by the two contrary ideas. Lastly, the elaboration likelihood model posits that persuaders should attempt to get receivers to think about the arguments being made (going through the central route) rather than having receivers pay attention to nonargument related aspects of the speech.
Imagine you’re giving a speech to a group of college fraternity and sorority members about why hazing shouldn’t be tolerated. Explain the persuasive process using each of the three theories of persuasion discussed in this chapter.
Make a list of strategies that you could employ to ensure that your audience analyzes your message using the central route and not the peripheral route. According to Petty and Cacioppo’s (1986) elaboration likelihood model, which of these strategies are most likely to be effective? Why?

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance . Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, & Company.

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58 , 203–210.

Frankish, K. (1998). Virtual belief. In P. Carruthers & J. Boucher (Eds.), Language and thought (pp. 249–269). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Frymier, A. B., & Nadler, M. K. (2007). Persuasion: Integrating theory, research, and practice . Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Perloff, R. M. (2003). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st Century (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 5–6.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19 , 123–205.

Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Share This Book

35 Introduction to Persuasive Speaking

Learning objectives.

Define and explain persuasion.
Explain the three theories of persuasion discussed in the text: social judgment theory, cognitive dissonance theory, and the elaboration likelihood model.

People are bombarded by persuasive messages in today’s world, so thinking about how to create persuasive messages effectively is very important for modern public speakers. A century (or even half a century) ago, public speakers had to contend only with the words printed on paper for attracting and holding an audience’s attention. Today, public speakers must contend with laptops, netbooks, iPads, smartphones, billboards, television sets, and many other tools that can send a range of persuasive messages immediately to a target audience.

What Is Persuasion?

We made it to the part in the class that most students are excited about. The persuasive speech! There are similarities and important differences between the informative and persuasive speaking styles. This reading will highlight our purpose of persuasive speaking.

To begin though, we need to define persuasion. You are used to experiencing persuasion in many forms, and may have an easy time identifying examples of persuasion, but can you explain how persuasion works? Osborn and Osborn define persuasion this way: “the art of convincing others to give favorable attention to our point of view.” [1] There are two components that make this definition a useful one. First, it acknowledges the artfulness, or skill, required to persuade others. Persuasion does not normally just happen. Rather it is planned and executed in a thoughtful manner. Second, this definition delineates the end goal of persuasion—to convince others to think favorably of our point of view. Persuasion “encompasses a wide range of communication activities, including advertising, marketing, sales, political campaigns, and interpersonal relations.” [2] Because of its widespread utility, persuasion is a pervasive part of our everyday lives.

Persuasive versus Informative Speaking

Informative (or informational) and persuasive speaking are related, but distinct, types of speeches. The difference between the two lies in the speaker’s end goal and what the speaker wants the audience to leave with.

Informative speeches are probably the most prevalent variety of speech. The goal is always to supply information and facts to the audience. This information can come in the form of statistics, facts, or other forms of evidence. Informational speeches do not tell people what to do with the information; their goal is for the audience to have and understand the information. Academic lectures are often informational speeches because the professor is attempting to present facts so the students can understand them.

Like informational speeches, persuasive speeches use information. However, persuasive speeches are designed for the audience to not only hear and understand the information but to use it to be convinced of a viewpoint. The end goal of a persuasive speech is not for the audience to have information, but rather for them to have a certain view or do something specific with the information provided. Persuasive speeches may use some of the same techniques as informational speeches but also will use persuasive strategies to convince and motivate the audience. A sales pitch is one example of a persuasive speech.

Goals of Persuasive Speaking

We typically use persuasive speaking to change or reinforce someone’s attitudes, values, beliefs, and/or behaviors.

Attitude: What do you like or dislike? Attitudes encompass our thoughts and emotions. For instance, if I think running is fun and I feel good when I do it, I am more likely to do it. Attitudes will uncover an individual’s general predisposition toward something as being good or bad, right or wrong, or negative or positive.

Beliefs: What convictions (or assumptions) do you hold? Beliefs are ideas we hold to be true. They may be positions that an individual holds as true or false without positive knowledge or proof. Beliefs can be spiritual, moral, political, or social, just to name a few. You may believe that lying is bad and therefore you refrain from it or feel bad when you do it. While beliefs may not be based on “proof,” they are typically deeply held and influence our attitudes and behaviors in powerful ways.

Value: What drives you? Values are an individual’s judgment of what is important in life. This may include the usefulness or with of something. You may value courage or respect or kindness. We can value a college education or technology or freedom. Values, as a general concept, are fairly ambiguous and tend to be very lofty ideas.

Behaviors: Behaviors, the ways in which someone acts, come in a wide range of forms. Speeches encouraging audiences to vote for a candidate, sign a petition opposing a tuition increase, or adopt a puppy are behavior-oriented persuasive speeches.

Ultimately, our attitudes, beliefs, and values motivate us to engage in a range of behaviors. For example, if you value technology, you are more likely to seek out new technology or software on your own. On the contrary, if you do not value technology, you are less likely to seek out new technology or software unless someone, or some circumstance, requires you to.

Why Persuasion Matters

When you study and understand persuasion, you will be more successful at persuading others. Do you want to persuade your boss you deserve a raise? Do you want to convince your client to purchase a service? Do you want to change the social landscape of a community? If you want to be a persuasive public speaker, then you need to have a working understanding of how persuasion functions.

When people understand persuasion, they will be better consumers of information. We live in a society where numerous message sources are constantly fighting for our attention and many of those messages are purposeful false. Unfortunately, most people just let messages wash over them like a wave, making little effort to understand or analyze them. As a result, they are more likely to fall for half-truths, illogical arguments, and lies. When you start to understand persuasion, you will have the skill set to actually pick apart the messages being sent to you and see why some of them are good and others are simply not.

Psychology of Persuasion

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Cognitive dissonance is an aversive motivational state that occurs when an individual entertains two or more contradictory attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors simultaneously. For example, maybe you know you should be working on your speech, but you really want to go to a movie with a friend. In this case, practicing your speech and going to the movie are two cognitions that are inconsistent with one another. These cognitions may cause anxiety or discomfort. The goal of persuasion is to induce enough dissonance in listeners that they will want to change their attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors.

Anxiety or discomfort caused by dissonance is typically resolved in one of three ways:

Change: The listener can change beliefs or behaviors to align with one another. The smoker may quit smoking or they may decide that smoking is not harmful and continue to smoke. Either way, they have relieves the anxiety of contradictory beliefs and behaviors.

Acquiring new information: If the listener acquires new information that confirms or contradicts a belief, the anxiety may be reduced. For instance, if the smoker reads a study that indicates that smoking is not harmful, they can continue to smoke and not feel disturbed by it.

Perception shift: Typically anxiety can be reduced by rationalizing our decisions. If the smoker decides that living in the moment and experiencing the pleasure of smoking is worth a potential far-off event, they may continue to smoke rationalizing that life is short and they should enjoy it.

When considering cognitive dissonance as a speaker, you must first create dissonance in your listeners. You want to make them uncomfortable with their beliefs or behaviors. Beware of making them too uncomfortable though. Listeners will tune you out if you make them too anxious. Once you have created dissonance, you can then offer new information to change perceptions and encourage behaviors changes in the direction you are seeking.

Elaboration Likelihood Model

When I was in graduate school, my computer got attacked with the Michelangelo virus. In short, when I turned on my computer on Michelangelo’s birthday, it wiped out everything on my computer. At least that’s what they told me at the computer repair store. I had spent a month of my life researching and writing my persuasion paper and it was gone in an instant. In a moment of what can best be described as a graduate school freak out, I went to the store to buy a new computer. I looked at the salesperson and said, “Quick, show me which computer to buy.” He pointed at one, I bought it, and went home and started writing.

Was I persuaded to buy a computer by the salesperson? I bought one so clearly, I was persuaded, right? Which persuasion technique did he use? Could this even count as an act of persuasion? Sometimes, we just want to decide without putting too much thought into it. You could argue that I didn’t put any thought into it. I didn’t have time to research; I didn’t have the mental capacity to think about which computer was best for me. I trusted the decision to the person in the computer store–he was the one in the red shirt after all. He worked there so he must know about computers.

The next time I bought a computer, I wasn’t in such a stressful situation. I took my time and shopped around. I talked to multiple salespeople, and I read reviews. I even made a spreadsheet of the features and the prices. I put a lot of thought into picking the right computer. Was I any more or less persuaded to buy? After all, in both cases, I bought a computer.

Petty and Cacioppo developed the Elaboration Likelihood Model as a way to explain how persuasion works in different scenarios–particularly, how sometimes we think a lot about our decisions and how sometimes we look for other ways to be persuaded. They said we go on different persuasion routes. When we are thinking (cognitive elaboration) about our decision, they would say, we are taking the central route. We take this thinking route when there is personal involvement and personal relevance. When we are not thinking–because of the situation, our mood, our inability to understand, or the fact that it is not a big decision for us– they would say we are taking the peripheral route. The peripheral route can be thought of as deciding based on anything other than deep thought. In my case, my decision was made based on the authority of the person.

Which of the computers do you think I would likely suggest to a friend–the one bought fast because it was recommended or the one bought after much research? Which computer did I think was the best computer? If you guessed the one that I shopped around for, you would be right. That is the computer I would most likely believe was the best one and that is the one I would most likely recommend to a friend. It makes sense. When we think about our decisions, persuasion is more long-lasting, we are more committed to the decision, and we are more likely to tell others.

What does any of this have to do with you writing a persuasion speech? Knowing that people are persuaded differently can help you design your persuasive arguments. Deciding whether you are going for thoughtful or peripheral persuasion is key.

I used to work for a non-profit and did a lot of fundraising speeches. If I wanted people to be persuaded to give money and have a long-term emotional and financial commitment to the organization, it made sense to persuade them via the central (thinking) route. That meant, I had to tell them what we did and give them facts and details about our organization. I had to build trust and I had to help them believe in the cause.

By contrast, my son was in marching band so there was always a fundraiser where we sold overpriced candy to our friends to support his upcoming trip. The persuasion I used was usually some version of, “My son is selling candy bars for his upcoming band trip, would you help support him.” There was not a lot of thinking when people were buying these candy bars. They were buying because they liked my son, they knew me, or because I bought cookies from their daughter for her fundraiser. This was peripheral persuasion one candy bar at a time.

Elaboration Likelihood Model–What’s the Big Idea?

A picture showing how someond looking at a care via the central route thinks about cost and fuel efficiency and someone via the peripheral route notices the color and sex appeal.

If you want your persuasion to be long-lasting, persuade them via the central route. Offer facts, data, and solid information
If you want a quick persuasion where they don’t put much thought into it or if your audience is not very knowledgeable, tired, or unmotivated, persuade them by the peripheral route.

Social Judgment Theory

I have a colleague that travels around the country speaking on college campuses and at farmer’s markets telling people why they should not eat meat. He finds the eating of meat completely unethical.

I’ve noticed that when it comes to meat-eating, people have strong opinions on either side. Think about it, would you eat a horse? dog? goat? rabbit? Some of you have grown up eating meat all your lives and consider it a tasty and healthy way to eat. For others of you, the very thought of eating any animal product seems cruel. Most reading this will fall somewhere in between. Look at the chart below and decide, which of the category best describes you.

As you looked at the list there were some categories you found acceptable, and some you did not. In all honesty, most of you did not think that I was going to suggest eating dogs and horses. When you saw that on the list, most of you didn’t think of those as tasty options. Social Judgement Theory proposed by Sherif, Sherif, and Nebergall suggests that on any topic from diet to abortion and gun control to movie choices, we have an idea of what we like and are willing to accept and what is out of the question. The researchers studied human judgment to understand when persuasive messages are likely to succeed, and it comes down to how we fit into the ranges and how closely that message is to what we already believe. Each of us has a favorite position on any given topic, they call that the anchor position. As you looked on the chart and picked the category that best describes you, you found your anchor position. On the list, you likely found several categories that you would be willing to accept and maybe several categories you reject entirely.

Let’s go back to a colleague of mine, remember, the one who speaks on campuses about veganism. When he looks at this chart, the only position he is willing to accept is to eat no animal products at all. The researchers would say that he is ego-involved because he has a large group of ideas he rejects. How hard would it be to get him to try eating a dog? a goat? an egg? As you can imagine, if I suggest that he tries eating goat, he will think that position is too extreme and that as individuals we are far apart in what we believe. On the other hand, I might be able to nudge him up the continuum a little. Maybe, I could convince him to try honey. After all, no bees were harmed from making honey and it does not contain any meat. People with extreme views can be moved, but only in small increments. If I want the persuasion to work, I might be able to persuade him to try honey.

Now, think of a friend you might know who hunts, and fishes, and eats deer, rabbit, and squirrel. This friend of yours likes trying different types of jerky-like elk and moose. How hard would it be to convince him to try eating a dog? How about a goat? Since your friend has a large range of ideas he already accepts, adding one more animal to the list of things he eats might not be that hard. He would be much more likely to try a dog than would my vegan friend. It doesn’t matter how good we are at persuading as much as how close that persuasion is to what they already believe.

In any audience, you will have people all up and down the spectrum of beliefs. It is your responsibility to try to find out as much as you can about your audience before your speech, so you will know generally where they are. You will have more luck persuading people if you try to move them a little as opposed to move them a lot. Every semester, a vegan group comes to the University of Arkansas campus and passes out flyers promoting a vegan lifestyle. I’ve noticed their messages have slowly changed from meat is murder and you should never eat meat because production is hard on the environment to a more palatable message to try eliminating meat one day a week. Maybe these vegans learned about Social Judgement Theory or maybe they learned by trial and error that moving someone from one extreme to the next is an unlikely feat.

Alexander Edwards Coppock did his dissertation looking at small changes in political opinions, he found the following:

When confronted with persuasive messages, individuals update their views in the direction of information. This means, if you give them good information, they are likely to be persuaded by it.
People change their minds about political issues in small increments. Like mentioned before, they are more likely to move in small increments.
Persuasion in the direction of information occurs regardless of background characteristics, initial beliefs, or ideological position. Translation, good information can be very persuasive regardless of what they believed before.
These changes in political attitudes, in most cases, lasted at least 10 days. In other words, good facts help people to change their attitudes and that information can stick.

In summary, if you provide people information and attempt to persuade them in small increments regardless of their prior beliefs, they can change their political attitude and that change will stick.

Social Judgement Theory–What’s the Big Idea?

Neo sign that says "eat what makes you happy"

People have preexisting beliefs on topics. Some people have many variations they are willing to accept, and other people are very set in their ways and will only tolerate a narrow set of beliefs.
It is nearly impossible to get people to move from one extreme to the next. It is better to get them to move their position a little.
If you try to move people with narrow views, they will likely reject your ideas and think you are too extreme.
People who have a wide variance of beliefs are more open-minded to change as long as you don’t try to move them too far from their anchor position.

Michael Austin Believes We Should Encourage Open Discussion

Small acts of persuasion matter, because there is much less distance between people’s beliefs than we often suppose. We easily confuse the distance between people’s political positions with the intensity of their convictions about them. It is entirely possible for people to become sharply divided, even hostile, over relatively minor disagreements. Americans have fought epic political battles over things like baking wedding cakes and kneeling during the national anthem. And we once fought a shooting war over a whiskey tax of ten cents per gallon. The ferocity of these battles has nothing to do with the actual distance between different positions, which, when compared to the entire range of opinions possible in the world, is almost negligible.

None of this means that we can persuade our opponents easily. Persuading people to change their minds is excruciatingly difficult. It doesn’t always work, and it rarely works the way we think it will. But it does work, and the fact that it works makes it possible for us to have a democracy. ― Michael Austin, We Must Not Be Enemies: Restoring America’s Civic

Is it personal?

The first reason people are motivated to take the central route or use high elaboration when listening to a persuasive message involves personal relevance and involvement. Personal relevance refers to whether the audience member feels that he or she is actually directly affected by the speech topic. For example, if someone is listening to a speech on why cigarette smoking is harmful, and that listener has never smoked cigarettes, he or she may think the speech topic simply isn’t relevant. Obviously, as a speaker, you should always think about how your topic is relevant to your listeners and make sure to drive this home throughout your speech. Personal involvement, on the other hand, asks whether the individual is actively engaged with the issue at hand: sends letters of support, gives speeches on the topic, has a bumper sticker, and so forth. If an audience member is an advocate who is constantly denouncing tobacco companies for the harm they do to society, then he or she would be highly involved (i.e., would engage in high elaboration) in a speech that attempts to persuade listeners that smoking is harmful.

Am I accountable?

The second condition under which people are likely to process information using the central route is when they feel that they will be held accountable for the information after the fact. With accountability, there is the perception that someone, or a group of people, will be watching to see if the receiver remembers the information later on. Think about what you do as a student when an instructor says “This will be on the test.” You immediately begin to centrally process the message.

Personal Responsibility

When people feel that they are going to be held responsible, without a clear external accounting, for the evaluation of a message or the outcome of a message, they are more likely to critically think through the message using the central route. For example, maybe you’re asked to evaluate fellow students in your public speaking class. Research has shown that if only one or two students are asked to evaluate any one speaker at a time, the quality of the evaluations for that speaker will be better than if everyone in the class is asked to evaluate every speaker. When people feel that their evaluation is important, they take more responsibility and therefore are more critical of the message delivered.

Incongruent Information

While there are many theories of persuasion that can shed light on why people are persuaded, these two give us a solid foundation to understand what we are up against as speakers. We must understand where our audience is, where we want them to be, and what will motivate them to get there.

Key Takeaways

Persuasion is the use of verbal and nonverbal messages to get a person to behave in a manner or embrace a point of view related to values, attitudes, and beliefs that he or she would not have done otherwise. Studying persuasion is important today because it helps us become more persuasive individuals, become more observant of others’ persuasive attempts, and have a more complete understanding of the world around us.
The Elaboration Likelihood Model assumes that people are persuaded via a thinking (central) or nonthinking (peripheral) route.
Social judgment theory says that persuaders need to be aware of an audience’s latitudes of acceptance, noncommitment, and rejection in order to effectively persuade an audience. Second, cognitive dissonance theory reasons that people do not like holding to ideas in their heads that are contrary and will do what is necessary to get rid of the dissonance caused by the two contrary ideas. Lastly, the elaboration likelihood model posits that persuaders should attempt to get receivers to think about the arguments being made (going through the central route) rather than having receivers pay attention to nonargument related aspects of the speech.

Coppock, A. E. (2016). Positive, small, homogeneous, and durable: Political persuasion in response to information. [Doctoral Dissertation, Columbian University]. Proquest https://doi.org/10.7916/D8J966CS Available https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8J966CS

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance . Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, & Company.

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58 , 203–210.

Frankish, K. (1998). Virtual belief. In P. Carruthers & J. Boucher (Eds.), Language and thought (pp. 249–269). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Frymier, A. B., & Nadler, M. K. (2007). Persuasion: Integrating theory, research, and practice . Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Perloff, R. M. (2003). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st Century (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 5–6.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19 , 123–205.

Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Sherif, C. W. & Sherif, M. (1976). Attitude as the individuals’ own categories: The social judgment-involvement approach to attitude and attitude change. Attitude, ego-involvement, and change. Greenwood Press.

Public Speaking Copyright © by Dr. Layne Goodman; Amber Green, M.A.; and Various is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

10 Chapter 10: Persuasive Speaking

Amy Fara Edwards and Marcia Fulkerson, Oxnard College

Victoria Leonard, Lauren Rome, and Tammera Stokes Rice, College of the Canyons

Adapted by Jamie C. Votraw, Professor of Communication Studies, Florida SouthWestern State College

Figure 10.1: Abubaccar Tambadou 1

Introduction

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) was founded on April 10, 1866. You may be familiar with their television commercials. They start with images of neglected and lonely-looking cats and dogs while the screen text says: “Every hour… an animal is beaten or abused. They suffer… alone and terrified…” Cue the sad song and the request for donations on the screen. This commercial causes audiences to run for the television remote because they can’t bear to see those images! Yet it is a very persuasive commercial and has proven to be very successful for this organization. According to the ASPCA website, they have raised $30 million since 2006, and their membership has grown to over 1.2 million people. The audience’s reaction to this commercial showcases how persuasion works! In this chapter, we will define persuasive speaking and examine the strategies used to create powerful persuasive speeches.

Figure 10.2: Caged Dogs 2

Defining Persuasive Speaking

Persuasion is the process of creating, reinforcing, or changing people’s beliefs or actions. It is not manipulation, however! The speaker’s intention should be clear to the audience in an ethical way and accomplished through the ethical use of methods of persuasion. When speaking to persuade, the speaker works as an advocate. In contrast to informative speaking, persuasive speakers argue in support of a position and work to convince the audience to support or do something.

As you learned in chapter five on audience analysis, you must continue to consider the psychological characteristics of the audience. You will discover in this chapter the attitudes, beliefs, and values of the audience become particularly relevant in the persuasive speechmaking process. A key element of persuasion is the speaker’s intent. You must intend to create, reinforce, and/or change people’s beliefs or actions in an ethical way.

Types of Persuasive Speeches

There are three types of persuasive speech propositions. A proposition , or speech claim , is a statement you want your audience to support. To gain the support of our audience, we use evidence and reasoning to support our claims. Persuasive speech propositions fall into one of three categories, including questions of fact, questions of value, and questions of policy. Determining the type of persuasive propositions your speech deals with will help you determine what forms of argument and reasoning are necessary to effectively advocate for your position.

Questions of Fact

A question of fact determines whether something is true or untrue, does or does not exist, or did or did not happen. Questions of fact are based on research, and you may find research that supports competing sides of an argument! You may even find that you change your mind about a subject when researching. Ultimately, you will take a stance and rely on credible evidence to support your position, ethically.

Today there are many hotly contested propositions of fact: humans have walked on the moon, the Earth is flat, Earth’s climate is changing due to human action, we have encountered sentient alien life forms, life exists on Mars, and so on.

Here is an example of a question of fact:

Recreational marijuana does not lead to hard drug use.

Recreational marijuana does lead to hard drug use.

Questions of Value

A question of value determines whether something is good or bad, moral or immoral, just or unjust, fair or unfair. You will have to take a definitive stance on which side you’re arguing. For this proposition, your opinion alone is not enough; you must have evidence and reasoning. An ethical speaker will acknowledge all sides of the argument, and to better argue their point, the speaker will convince the audience why their position is the “best” position.

Here is an example of a question of value:

Recreational marijuana use is immoral .

Recreational marijuana use is moral .

Questions of Policy

A question of policy advances a specific course of action based on facts and values. You are telling the audience what you believe should be done and/or you are asking your audience to act in a particular way to make a change. Whether it is stated or implied, all policy speeches focus on values. To be the most persuasive and get your audience to act, you must determine their beliefs, which will help you organize and argue your proposition.

Persuasive speeches on questions of policy must address three elements: need, plan, and practicality . First, the speaker must demonstrate there is a need for change (i.e., there is a problem). Next, the speaker offers the audience a plan (i.e., the policy solution) to address the problem. Lastly, the speaker shows the audience that the solution is practical . This requires that the speaker demonstrate how their proposed plan will address the identified problem without creating new problems.

Consider the topic of car accidents. A persuasive speech on a question of policy might focus on reducing the number of car accidents on a Florida highway. First, the speaker could use evidence from their research to demonstrate there is a need for change (e.g., statistics showing a higher-than-average rate of accidents). Then, the speaker would offer their plan to address the problem. Imagine their proposed plan was to permanently shut down all Florida highways. Would this plan solve the problem and reduce the number of accidents on Florida highways? Well, yes. But is it practical? No. Will it create new problems? Yes – side roads will be congested, people will miss work, kids will miss school, emergency response teams will be slowed, and tourism will decrease. The speaker could not offer such a plan and demonstrate that it is practical. Alternatively, maybe the speaker advocates for a speed reduction in a particularly problematic stretch of highway or convinces the audience to support increasing the number of highway patrol cars.

Here is an example of a question of policy:

Recreational marijuana use should be legal in all 50 states.

Recreational marijuana use should not be legal in all 50 states.

Persuasive Speech Organizational Patterns

There are several methods of organizing persuasive speeches. Remember, you must use an organizational pattern to outline your speech (think back to chapter eight). Some professors will specify a specific pattern to use for your assignment. Otherwise, the organizational pattern you select should be based on your speech content. What pattern is most logical based on your main points and the goal of your speech? This section will explain five common formats of persuasive outlines: Problem-Solution, Problem-Cause-Solution, Comparative Advantages, Monroe’s Motivated Sequence, and Claim to Proof.

Problem-Solution Pattern

Sometimes it is necessary to share a problem and a solution with an audience. In cases like these, the problem-solution organizational pattern is an appropriate way to arrange the main points of a speech. It’s important to reflect on what is of interest to you, but also what is critical to engage your audience. This pattern is used intentionally because, for most problems in society, the audience is unaware of their severity. Problems can exist at a local, state, national, or global level.

For example, the nation has recently become much more aware of the problem of human sex trafficking. Although the US has been aware of this global issue for some time, many communities are finally learning this problem is occurring in their own backyards. Colleges and universities have become engaged in the fight. Student clubs and organizations are getting involved and bringing awareness to this problem. Everyday citizens are using social media to warn friends and followers of sex-trafficking tricks to look out for.

Let’s look at how you might organize a problem-solution speech centered on this topic. In the body of this speech, there would be two main points; a problem and a solution. This pattern is used for speeches on questions of policy.

Topic: Human Sex Trafficking

General Purpose: To persuade

Specific Purpose: To persuade the audience to support increased legal penalties for sex traffickers.

Thesis (Central Idea): Human sex trafficking is a global challenge with local implications, but it can be addressed through multi-pronged efforts from governments and non-profits.

Preview of Main Points: First, I will define and explain the extent of the problem of sex trafficking within our community while examining the effects this has on the victims. Then, I will offer possible solutions to take the predators off the streets and allow the victims to reclaim their lives and autonomy.

The problem of human sex trafficking is best understood by looking at the severity of the problem, the methods by which traffickers kidnap or lure their victims, and its impact on the victim.
The problem of human sex trafficking can be solved by working with local law enforcement, changing the laws currently in place for prosecuting the traffickers and pimps, and raising funds to help agencies rescue and restore victims.

Problem-Cause-Solution Pattern

To review the problem-solution pattern, recall that the main points do not explain the cause of the problem, and in some cases, the cause is not necessary to explain. For example, in discussing the problem of teenage pregnancy, most audiences will not need to be informed about what causes someone to get pregnant. However, there are topics where discussing the cause is imperative to understanding the solution. The Problem-Cause-Solution organizational pattern adds a main point between the problem and solution by discussing the cause of the problem. In the body of the speech, there will be three main points: the problem, the cause, and finally, the solution. This pattern is also used for speeches dealing with questions of policy. One of the reasons you might consider this pattern is when an audience is not familiar with the cause. For example, if gang activity is on the rise in the community you live in, you might need to explain what causes an individual to join a gang in the first place. By explaining the causes of a problem, an audience might be more likely to accept the solution(s) you’ve proposed. Let’s look at an example of a speech on gangs.

Topic: The Rise of Gangs in Miami-Dade County

Specific Purpose: To persuade the audience to urge their school boards to include gang education in the curriculum.

Thesis (Central Idea): The uptick in gang affiliation and gang violence in Miami-Dade County is problematic, but if we explore the causes of the problem, we can make headway toward solutions.

Preview of Main Points: First, I will explain the growing problem of gang affiliation and violence in Miami-Dade County. Then, I will discuss what causes an individual to join a gang. Finally, I will offer possible solutions to curtail this problem and get gangs off the streets of our community.

The problem of gang affiliation and violence is growing rapidly, leading to tragic consequences for both gang members and their families.
The causes of the proliferation of gangs can be best explained by feeling disconnected from others, a need to fit in, and a lack of supervision after school hours.
The problem of the rise in gangs can be solved, or minimized, by offering after-school programs for youth, education about the consequences of joining a gang, and parent education programs offered at all secondary education levels.

Let’s revisit the human sex trafficking topic from above. Instead of using only a problem-solution pattern, the example that follows adds “cause” to their main points.

Preview of Main Points: First, I will define and explain the extent of the problem of sex trafficking within our community while examining the effects this has on the victims. Second, I will discuss the main causes of the problem. Finally, I will offer possible solutions to take the predators off the streets and allow the victims to reclaim their lives.

The cause of the problem can be recognized by the monetary value of sex slavery.
The problem of human sex trafficking can be solved by working with local law enforcement, changing the current laws for prosecuting traffickers, and raising funds to help agencies rescue and restore victims.

Comparative Advantages

Sometimes your speech will showcase a problem, but there are multiple potential solutions for the audience to consider. In cases like these, the comparative advantages organizational pattern is an appropriate way to structure the speech. This pattern is commonly used when there is a problem, but the audience (or the public) cannot agree on the best solution. When your goal is to convince the audience that your solution is the best among the options, this organizational pattern should be used.

Consider the hot topic of student loan debt cancellation. There is a rather large divide among the public about whether or not student loans should be canceled or forgiven by the federal government. Once again, audience factors come into play as attitudes and values on the topic vary greatly across various political ideologies, age demographics, socioeconomic statuses, educational levels, and more.

Let’s look at how you might organize a speech on this topic. In the body of this speech, one main point is the problem, and the other main points will depend on the number of possible solutions.

Topic: Federal Student Loan Debt Cancellation

Specific Purpose: To persuade the audience to support the government cancellation of $10,000 in federal student loan debt.

Thesis (Central Idea): Student loans are the largest financial hurdle faced by multiple generations, and debt cancellation could provide needed relief to struggling individuals and families.

Preview of Main Points: First, I will define and explain the extent of the student loan debt problem in the United States. Then, I will offer possible solutions and convince you that the best solution is a debt cancellation of $10,000.

Student loan debt is the second greatest source of financial debt in the United States and several solutions have been proposed to address the problem created by unusually high levels of educational debt.
The first proposed solution is no debt cancellation. This policy solution would not address the problem.
The second proposed solution is $10,000 of debt cancellation. This is a moderate cancellation that would alleviate some of the financial burden faced by low-income and middle-class citizens without creating vast government setbacks.
The third proposed solution is full debt cancellation. While this would help many individuals, the financial setback for the nation would be too grave.
As you can see, there are many options for addressing the student loan debt problem. However, the best solution is the cancellation of $10,000.

Monroe’s Motivated Sequence Format

Alan H. Monroe, a Purdue University professor, used the psychology of persuasion to develop an outline for making speeches that will deliver results and wrote about it in his book Monroe’s Principles of Speech (1951). It is now known as Monroe’s Motivated Sequence . This is a well-used and time-proven method to organize persuasive speeches for maximum impact. It is most often used for speeches dealing with questions of policy. You can use it for various situations to create and arrange the components of any persuasive message. The five steps are explained below and should be followed explicitly and in order to have the greatest impact on the audience.

Step One: Attention

In this step, you must get the attention of the audience. The speaker brings attention to the importance of the topic as well as their own credibility and connection to the topic. This step of the sequence should be completed in your introduction like in other speeches you have delivered in class. Review chapter 9 for some commonly used attention-grabber strategies.

Step Two: Need

In this step, you will establish the need; you must define the problem and build a case for its importance. Later in this chapter, you will find that audiences seek logic in their arguments, so the speaker should address the underlying causes and the external effects of a problem. It is important to make the audience see the severity of the problem, and how it affects them, their families, and/or their community. The harm , or problem that needs changing, can be physical, financial, psychological, legal, emotional, educational, social, or a combination thereof. It must be supported by evidence. Ultimately, in this step, you outline and showcase that there is a true problem that needs the audience’s immediate attention. For example, it is not enough to say “pollution is a problem in Florida,” you must demonstrate it with evidence that showcases that pollution is a problem. For example, agricultural runoff is said to cause dangerous algal blooms on Florida’s beaches. You could show this to your audience with research reports, pictures, expert testimony, etc.

Step Three: Satisfaction

In this step, the need must be “satisfied” with a solution. As the speaker, this is when you present the solution and describe it, but you must also defend that it works and will address the causes and symptoms of the problem. Do you recall “need, plan, and practicality”? This step involves the plan and practicality elements. This is not the section where you provide specific steps for the audience to follow. Rather, this is the section where you describe “the business” of the solution. For example, you might want to change the voting age in the United States. You would not explain how to do it here; you would explain the plan – what the new law would be – and its practicality – how that new law satisfies the problem of people not voting. Satisfy the need!

Step Four: Visualization

In this step, your arguments must look to the future either positively or negatively, or both. If positive, the benefits of enacting or choosing your proposed solution are explained. If negative, the disadvantages of not doing anything to solve the problem are explained. The purpose of visualization is to motivate the audience by revealing future benefits or using possible fear appeals by showing future harms if no changes are enacted. Ultimately, the audience must visualize a world where your solution solves the problem. What does this new world look like? If you can help the audience picture their role in this new world, you should be able to get them to act. Describe a future where they fail to act, and the problem persists or is exacerbated. Or, help them visualize a world where their adherence to the steps you outlined in your speech remediates the problem.

Step Five: Action

In the final step of Monroe’s Motivated Sequence, we tell the audience exactly what needs to be done by them . Not a general “we should lower the voting age” statement, but rather, the exact steps for the people sitting in front of you to take. If you really want to move the audience to action, this step should be a full main point within the body of the speech and should outline exactly what you need them to do. It isn’t enough to say “now, go vote!” You need to tell them where to click, who to write, how much to donate, and how to share the information with others in their orbit. In the action step, the goal is to give specific steps for the audience to take, as soon as possible, to move toward solving the problem. So, while the satisfaction step explains the solution overall, the action section gives concrete ways to begin making the solution happen. The more straightforward and concrete you can make the action step, the better. People are more likely to act if they know how accessible the action can be. For example, if you want your audience to be vaccinated against the hepatitis B virus (HBV), you can give them directions to a clinic where vaccinations are offered and the hours of that location. Do not leave anything to chance. Tell them what to do. If you have effectively convinced them of the need/problem, you will get them to act, which is your overall goal.

Claim-to-Proof Pattern

A claim-to-proof pattern provides the audience with reasons to accept your speech proposition (Mudd & Sillars, 1962). State your claim (your thesis) and then prove your point with reasons (main points). The proposition is presented at the beginning of the speech, and in the preview, tells the audience how many reasons will be provided for the claim. Do not reveal too much information until you get to that point in your speech. We all hear stories on the news about someone killed by a handgun, but it is not every day that it affects us directly, or that we know someone who is affected by it. One student told a story of a cousin who was killed in a drive-by shooting, and he was not even a member of a gang.

Here is how the setup for this speech would look:

Thesis and Policy Claim: Handgun ownership in America continues to be a controversial subject, and I believe that private ownership of handguns should have limitations.

Preview: I will provide three reasons why handgun ownership should be limited.

When presenting the reasons for accepting the claim, it is important to consider the use of primacy-recency . If the audience is against your claim, put your most important argument first. For this example, the audience believes in no background checks for gun ownership. As a result, this is how the main points may be written to try and capture the audience who disagrees with your position. We want to get their attention quickly and hold it throughout the speech. You will also need to support these main points. Here is an example:

The first reason background checks should be mandatory is that when firearms are too easily accessed by criminals, more gun violence occurs.
A second reason why background checks should be mandatory is that they would lower firearm trafficking.

Moving forward, the speaker would select one or two other reasons to bring into the speech and support them with evidence. The decision on how many main points to have will depend on how much time you have for this speech, and how much research you can find on the topic. If this is a pattern your instructor allows, speak with them about sample outlines. This pattern can be used for fact, value, or policy speeches.

Methods of Persuasion

The three methods of persuasion were first identified by Aristotle, a Greek philosopher in the time of Ancient Greece. In his teachings and book, Rhetoric, he advised that a speaker could persuade their audience using three different methods: Ethos (persuasion through credibility), Pathos (persuasion through emotion), and Logos (persuasion through logic). In fact, he said these are the three methods of persuasion a speaker must rely on.

Figure 10.3: Aristotle 3

By definition, ethos is the influence of a speaker’s credibility, which includes character, competence, and charisma. Remember in earlier chapters when we learned about credibility? Well, it plays a role here, too. The more credible or believable you are, the stronger your ethos. If you can make an audience see you believe in what you say and have knowledge about what you say, they are more likely to believe you and, therefore, be more persuaded by you. If your arguments are made based on credibility and expertise, then you may be able to change someone’s mind or move them to action. Let’s look at some examples.

If you are considering joining the U.S. Air Force, do you think someone in a military uniform would be more persuasive than someone who was not in uniform? Do you think a firefighter in uniform could get you to make your house more fire-safe than someone who was not in uniform? Their uniform contributes to their ethos. Remember, credibility comes from audience perceptions – how they perceive you as the speaker. You may automatically know they understand fire safety without even opening their mouths to speak. If their arguments are as strong as the uniform, you may have already started putting your fire emergency kit together! Ultimately, we tend to believe in people in powerful positions. We often obey authority figures because that’s what we have been taught to do. In this case, it works to help us persuade an audience.

Advertising campaigns also use ethos well. Think about how many celebrities sell you products. Whose faces do you regularly see? Taylor Swift, Kerry Washington, Kylie Jenner, Jennifer Aniston? Do they pick better cosmetics than the average woman, or are they using their celebrity influence to persuade you to buy? If you walk into a store to purchase makeup and remember which ones are Kylie Jenner’s favorite makeup, are you more likely to purchase it? Pop culture has power, which is why you see so many celebrities selling products on social media. Now, Kylie may not want to join you in class for your speech (sorry!), so you will have to be creative with ethos and incorporate experts through your research and evidence. For example, you need to cite sources if you want people to get a flu shot, using a doctor’s opinion or a nurse’s opinion is critical to get people to make an appointment to get the shot. You might notice that even your doctor shares data from research when discussing your healthcare. Similarly, y ou have to be credible. You need to become an authority on your topic, show them the evidence, and persuade them using your character and charisma.

Finally, ethos also relates to ethics. The audience needs to trust you and your speech needs to be truthful. Most importantly, this means ethical persuasion occurs through ethical methods – you should not trick your audience into agreeing with you. It also means your own personal involvement is important and the topic should be something you are either personally connected to or passionate about. For example, if you ask the audience to adopt a puppy from a rescue, will your ethos be strong if you bought your puppy from a pet store or breeder? How about asking your audience to donate to a charity; have you supported them yourself? Will the audience want to donate if you haven’t ever donated? How will you prove your support? Think about your own role in the speech while you are also thinking about the evidence you provide.

The second appeal you should include in your speech is pathos , an emotional appeal . By definition, pathos appeals evoke strong feelings or emotions like anger, joy, desire, and love. The goal of pathos is to get people to feel something and, therefore, be moved to change their minds or to act. You want your arguments to arouse empathy, sympathy, and/or compassion. So, for persuasive speeches, you can use emotional visual aids or thoughtful stories to get the audience’s attention and hook them in. If you want someone to donate to a local women’s shelter organization to help the women further their education at the local community college, you might share a real story of a woman you met who stayed at the local shelter before earning her degree with the help of the organization. We see a lot of advertisement campaigns rely on this. They show injured military veterans to get you to donate to the Wounded Warriors Project , or they show you injured animals to get you to donate to animal shelters. Are you thinking about how your own topic is emotional yet? We hope so!

In addition, we all know that emotions are complex. So, you can’t just tell a sad story or yell out a bad word to shock them and think they will be persuaded. You must ensure the emotions you engage relate directly to the speech and the audience. Be aware that negative emotions can backfire, so make sure you understand the audience, so you will know what will work best. Don’t just yell at people that they need to brush their teeth for two minutes or show a picture of gross teeth; make them see the benefits of brushing for two minutes by showing beautiful teeth too.

Emotional appeals also need to be ethical and incorporated responsibly. Consider a persuasive speech on distracted driving. If your audience is high school or college students, they may be mature enough to see an emotional video or photo depicting the devastating consequences of distracted driving. If you’re teaching an elementary school class about car safety (e.g., keeping your seatbelt on, not throwing toys, etc.), it would be highly inappropriate to scare them into compliance by showing a devastating video of a car accident. As an ethical public speaker, it is your job to use emotional appeals responsibly.

One way to do this is to connect to the theory by Abraham Maslow, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, which states that our actions are motivated by basic (physiological and safety), psychological (belongingness, love, and esteem), and self-fulfillment needs (self-actualization). To persuade, we have to connect what we say to the audience’s real lives. Here is a visual of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Pyramid:

Figure 10.4: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs 4

Notice the pyramid is largest at the base because our basic needs are the first that must be met. Ever been so hungry you can’t think of anything except when and what you will eat? (Hangry anyone?) Well, you can’t easily persuade people if they are only thinking about food. It doesn’t mean you need to bring snacks to your speech class on the day of your speech (albeit, this might be relevant to a food demonstration speech). Can you think about other ways pathos connects to this pyramid? How about safety and security needs, the second level on the hierarchy? Maybe your speech is about persuading people to purchase more car insurance. You might argue they need more insurance so they can feel safer on the road. Or maybe your family should put in a camera doorbell to make sure the home is safe. Are you seeing how we can use arguments that connect to emotions and needs simultaneously?

The third level in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, love and belongingness, is about the need to feel connected to others. This need level is related to the groups of people we spend time with like friends and family. This also relates to the feeling of being “left out” or isolated from others. If we can use arguments that connect us to other humans, emotionally or physically, we will appeal to more of the audience. If your topic is about becoming more involved in the church or temple, you might highlight the social groups one may join if they connect to the church or temple. If your topic is on trying to persuade people to do a walk for charity, you might showcase how doing the event with your friends and family becomes a way of raising money for the charity and carving out time with, or supporting, the people you love. For this need, your pathos will be focused on connection. You want your audience to feel like they belong in order for them to be persuaded. People are more likely to follow through on their commitments if their friends and family do it. We know that if our friends go to the party, we are more likely to go, so we don’t have FOMO (fear of missing out). The same is true for donating money; if your friends have donated to a charity, you might want to be “in” the group, so you would donate also.

Finally, we will end this pathos section with an example that connects Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to pathos. Maybe your speech is to convince people to remove the Instagram app from their phones, so they are less distracted from their life. You could argue staying away from social media means you won’t be threatened online (safety), you will spend more real-time with your friends (belongingness), and you will devote more time to writing your speech outlines (esteem and achievement). Therefore, you can use Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs as a roadmap for finding key needs that relate to your proposition which helps you incorporate emotional appeals.

The third and final appeal Aristotle described is logos , which, by definition, is the use of logical and organized arguments that stem from credible evidence supporting your proposition. When the arguments in your speech are based on logic, you are utilizing logos. You need experts in your corner to persuade; you need to provide true, raw evidence for someone to be convinced. You can’t just tell them something is good or bad for them, you have to show it through logic. You might like to buy that product, but how much does it cost? When you provide the dollar amount, you provide some logos for someone to decide if they can and want to purchase that product. How much should I donate to that charity? Provide a dollar amount reasonable for the given audience, and you will more likely persuade them. If you asked a room full of students to donate $500.00 to a charity, it isn’t logical. If you asked them to donate $10.00 instead of buying lattes for two days, you might actually persuade them.

So, it is obvious that sources are a part of logos, but so is your own honest involvement with the topics. If you want people to vote, you need to prove voting matters and make logical appeals to vote. We all know many people say, “my vote doesn’t count.” Your speech needs to logically prove that all votes count, and you need to showcase that you always vote in the local and national elections. In this example, we bring together your ethos and your pathos to sell us on the logos. All three appeals together help you make your case. Audiences are not only persuaded by experts, or by emotions, they want it all to make sense! Don’t make up a story to “make it fit”. Instead, find a real story that is truthful, emotional, and one your audience can relate to make your speech logical from beginning to end and, therefore, persuasive.

Reasoning and Fallacies in Your Speech

In this chapter, we have provided you with several important concepts in the persuasive speech process, including patterns of organization and methods of persuasion. Now, we want to make sure your speech content is clear and includes strong and appropriate arguments. You have done extensive research to support the claims you will make in your speech, but we want to help you ensure that your arguments aren’t flawed. Thus, we will now look at different forms of reasoning and fallacies (or errors) to avoid in your logic.

Thus far, you have read how Aristotle’s proofs can and should be used in a persuasive speech. But, you might wonder how that influences the approach you take in writing your speech outline. You already know your research needs to be credible, and one way to do this is through research. Let’s now put this all together by explaining how reasoning is used in a speech, as well as the fallacies, or errors in reasoning, that often occur when speechwriting.

You may have seen graduation requirements include the category of critical thinking, which is the ability to think about what information you are given and make sense of it to draw conclusions. Today, colleges, universities, and employers are seeking individuals who have these critical thinking skills. Critical thinking can include abilities like problem-solving or decision-making. How did you decide on which college to start your higher educational journey? Was it a decision based on finances, being close to home, or work? This decision involved critical thinking. Even if you had an emotional investment in this decision (pathos), you still needed to use logic, or logos, in your thought process. Reasoning is the process of constructing arguments in a logical way. The use of evidence, also known as data , is what we use to prove our claims. We have two basic and important approaches for how we come to believe something is true. These are known as induction and deduction. Let us explain.

Inductive Reasoning

You have probably used inductive reasoning in your life without even knowing it! Inductive reasoning is a type of reasoning in which examples or specific instances are used to provide strong evidence for (though not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion (Garcia, 2022). In other words, you are led to a conclusion through your “proof”. With inductive reasoning, we are exposed to several different examples of a situation, and from those examples, we conclude a general truth because there is no theory to test. Think of it this way: you first make an observation, then, observe a pattern, and finally, develop a theory or general conclusion.

For instance, you visit your local grocery store daily to pick up necessary items. You notice that on Sunday, two weeks ago, all the clerks in the store were wearing football jerseys. Again, last Sunday, the clerks wore their football jerseys. Today, also a Sunday, they’re wearing them again. From just these three observations, you may conclude that on Sundays, these supermarket employees wear football jerseys to support their favorite teams. Can you conclude that this pattern holds indefinitely? Perhaps not; the phenomenon may only take place during football season. Hypotheses typically need much testing before confirmation. However, it seems likely that if you return next Sunday wearing a football jersey, you will fit right in.

In another example, imagine you ate an avocado, and soon afterward, the inside of your mouth swelled. Now imagine a few weeks later you ate another avocado and again the inside of your mouth swelled. The following month, you ate yet another avocado, and you had the same reaction as the last two times. You are aware that swelling on the inside of your mouth can be a sign of an allergy to avocados. Using induction, you conclude, more likely than not, you are allergic to avocados.

Data (evidence): After I ate an avocado, the inside of my mouth was swollen (1st time).

Data (evidence): After I ate an avocado, the inside of my mouth was swollen (2nd time).

Data (evidence): I ate an avocado, and the inside of my mouth was swollen (3rd time).

Additional Information: Swollen lips can be a sign of a food allergy.

Conclusion: Likely, I am allergic to avocados.

Inductive reasoning can never lead to absolute certainty. Instead, induction allows you to say, given the examples provided for support, the conclusion is most likely true. Because of the limitations of inductive reasoning, a conclusion will be more credible if multiple lines of reasoning are presented in its support. This is how inductive reasoning works. Now, let’s examine four common methods of inductive reasoning to help you think critically about your persuasive speech.

An analogy allows you to draw conclusions about an object or phenomenon based on similarities to something else (Garcia, 2022). Sometimes the easiest way to understand reasoning is to start with a simple analogy. An avid DIY enthusiast may love to paint -walls, furniture, and objects. To paint well, you need to think about what materials you will need, a knowledge of the specific steps to paint, and the knowledge of how to use an approach to painting so that your paint doesn’t run and your project comes out perfectly! Let’s examine how this example works as an analogy.

Analogies can be figurative or literal. A figurative analogy compares two things that share a common feature, but are still different in many ways. For example, we could say that painting is like baking; they both involve making sure that you have the correct supplies and follow a specific procedure. There are similarities in these features, but there are profound differences. However, a literal analogy is where the two things under comparison have sufficient or significant similarities to be compared fairly (Garcia, 2022). A literal analogy might compare different modalities at the school where your authors teach. If we claim that you should choose Florida SouthWestern State College’s face-to-face courses rather than enrolling in online courses , we could make literal comparisons of the courses offered, available student services, or the classroom atmosphere, for instance.

If we use the more literal analogy of where you choose to go to college, we are using an analogy of two similar “things,” and hopefully, this makes your analogy carry more weight. What this form of reasoning does is lead your audience to a conclusion. When we address fallacies later in this chapter, you will see that comparing two things that are not similar enough could lead you might make an error, or what we call a false analogy fallacy.

Generalization

Another effective form of reasoning is through the use of generalizations. Generalization is a form of inductive reasoning that draws conclusions based on recurring patterns or repeated observations (Garcia, 2022), observing multiple examples and looking for commonalities in those examples to make a broad statement about them. For example, if I tried four different types of keto bread (the new craze), and found that each of them tasted like Styrofoam , I could generalize and say all keto bread is NOT tasty! Or, if in your college experience, you had two professors that you perceived as “bad professors,” you might take a big leap and say that all professors at your campus are “bad.” As you will see later in the discussion on fallacies, this type of reasoning can get us into trouble if we draw a conclusion without sufficient evidence, also known as a hasty generalization. Have you ever drawn a conclusion about a person or group of people after only one or two experiences with them? Have you ever decided you disliked a pizza place because you didn’t like the pizza the first time you tried it? Sometimes, we even do this in our real lives.

Causal Reasoning

Causal reasoning is a form of inductive reasoning that seeks to make cause-effect connections (Garcia, 2022). We don’t typically give this a lot of thought. In the city where one of your authors lives, there are periodic street closures with cones up or signs to redirect drivers. The past several times this has happened, it has been because there was a community 5K run. It is easy to understand why each time I see cones I assume there is a 5K event. However, there could be a completely different cause that I didn’t even think about. The cones could be there due to a major accident or road work.

Reasoning from Sign

Reasoning from sign is a form of inductive reasoning in which conclusions are drawn about phenomena based on events that precede or co-exist with (but do not cause) a subsequent event (Garcia, 2022). In Southern California, a part of the country with some of the worst droughts, one may successfully predict when summer is coming. The lawn begins to die, and the beautiful gardens go limp. All of this occurs before the temperature reaches 113 degrees and before the calendar changes from spring to summer. Based on this observation, there are signs that summer has arrived.

Like many forms of reasoning, it is easy to confuse “reasoning from sign” with “causal reasoning.” Remember, that for this form of reasoning, we looked at an event that preceded another, or co-existed, not an event that occurred later. IF the weather turned to 113 degrees, and then the grass and flowers began to die, then it could be causal.

Deductive Reasoning

The second type of reasoning is known as deductive reasoning , or deduction, which is a conclusion based on the combination of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true (Garcia, 2022). Whereas with inductive reasoning, we were led to a conclusion, deductive reasoning starts with the overall statement and then identifies examples that support it to reach the conclusion.

Deductive reasoning is built on two statements whose logical relationship should lead to a third statement that is an unquestionably correct conclusion, as in the following example:

Grocery store employees wear football jerseys on Sundays.

Today is Sunday.

Grocery store employees will be wearing football jerseys today.

Suppose the first statement is true (Grocery store employees wear football jerseys on Sundays) and the second statement is true (Today is Sunday). In that case, the conclusion (Grocery store employees will be wearing football jerseys today) is reasonably expected. If a group must have a certain quality, and an individual is a member of that group, then the individual must have that quality.

Unlike inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning allows for certainty as long as certain rules are followed.

Fallacies in Reasoning

As you might recall from our discussion, we alluded to several fallacies. Fallacies are errors in reasoning logic or making a mistake when constructing an inductive or deductive argument. There are dozens of fallacies we could discuss here, but we will highlight those we find to be the most common. Our goal is to help you think through the process of writing your persuasive speech so that it is based on sound reasoning with no fallacies in your arguments.

Table 10.1 describes fifteen fallacies that can be avoided once you understand how to identify them.

Table 10.1: Fallacies


	Criticizing the person (such as their character or some other attribute) rather than the issue, assumption, or point of view.	“I could never vote for Donald Trump. His hair looks ridiculous.” “I could never vote for Joe Biden. He’s in his 70’s.”
	This occurs when we assert that something is superior because it is new.	“The latest iPhone update is better than any other because it now allows face recognition while wearing a mask.”
	When we try to legitimize a position based on tradition alone; it’s always been done this way.	“Public speaking is only proper when a student is at a lectern in a classroom.”
	Asserting that an argument should be accepted because it is popular and done by others.	“You should buy stock in because the stock prices have soared since the pandemic, and everyone is jumping in!”
	Assuming a conclusion in a premise (saying the same thing twice as both the premise and the conclusion). The argument begins with a claim the speaker is trying to conclude with.	“Of course the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports should be illegal! After all, it’s against the law!”
	Provides only two alternatives when more exist.	“We better eliminate the Social Security system in the United States or our country will go broke.”
	States that since an argument has one thing in common, they will have everything in common.	“As a student, I should be able to look at my notes when I take exams. After all, my doctor looks at his notes about me every time I go into the office. He isn’t expected to memorize my chart!”
	A fallacy that mistakenly assumes that one event causes another, when in fact there are many possible causes.	“I went out of the house for a walk on my street and didn’t wear my mask, so I contracted COVID-19.” (Maybe you contracted COVID-19 from exposure at a birthday party last week).
	Appealing to a rather small sample or unrepresentative number of cases to prove a larger issue.	“So far, I’ve met three British people in England, and they all were nice to me, so all people in the U.K. are nice.”
	Occurs when a conclusion does not follow logically from a premise.	“It’s time to get my nails done. I wonder if my hairstylist is available next week.” “My washing machine is making noise. I better take my car to the shop soon.”
	Introduces irrelevant material into a discussion so that attention is diverted from the real issue; changing the subject or giving an irrelevant response to distract.	Mom: “You got home really late last night.” You: “Did I tell you I’m getting an A in math?” “How can I support the President’s sanctions against Russia if I don’t like his healthcare policy?”
	Assumes consequences for which there is no evidence they will follow an earlier (harmful) act.	“All types of killing, like premeditated murder, or manslaughter, will become legal if we legalize physician-assisted suicide in all states.” “If we decrease the school budget, all the teachers will quit and our kids won’t be able to go to school.”
	Misrepresents a position so that it can more easily be attacked; distorts the opponent’s argument so that no one could agree with it.	“People who are not in favor of eliminating aerosol sprays think it’s okay to destroy the environment.”
	Assuming that a generalization about a class of things/people necessarily applies to everything/person as if there are no exceptions (like stereotyping).	“Oh, you’re a student. You just want to party all the time and don’t want to work hard.” “I heard you were a football player. Football players never try hard in school.”
	Argues that it is okay to do something wrong if someone else did something wrong first.	Julia defends the lie she told her school by saying, “Well, you lied last month when you said you were home with the flu.”

In this chapter, you can feel confident that you have learned what you need to know to complete an effective persuasive speech. We have defined persuasion, explained speech propositions and patterns, and offered strategies to persuade, including ways to use logic. We also helped you learn more about inductive and deductive reasoning, and all of the various ways these methods help you construct your speeches. Finally, we provided you with the most common fallacies that could trip you up if you aren’t careful. The goal is to be clear, logical, and persuasive! Motivate your audience. Hey, have you been persuaded to start your speech outline yet? We hope so!

Reflection Questions

What is the difference between propositions of fact, value, and policy?
How will you determine which pattern of organization to use for your persuasive speech?
How might you use ethos, pathos, and logos effectively in your speech? How can you write these three proofs into your content?
What form(s) of reasoning will you use in your speech? How can you ensure you are not using any fallacies?

Appeal to Novelty

Appeal to Tradition

Circular Reasoning

Claim-to-Proof

Critical Thinking

Emotional Appeal

False Analogy

False Cause

Figurative Analogy

Hasty Generalization

Literal Analogy

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Monroe’s Motivated Sequence

Non-Sequitur

Primacy-recency

Problem-Cause-Solution

Problem-Solution

Proposition

Question of Fact

Question of Policy

Question of Value

Red Herring

Slippery Slope

Sweeping Generalization

Two Wrongs Make a Right

Garcia, A. R. (2022). Inductive and Deductive Reasoning. Retrieved May 5, 2022, from https://englishcomposition.org/advanced-writing/inductive-and-deductive-reasoning/.

Monroe, A. H. (1949). Principles and types of speech . Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Mudd, C. S. & Sillars, M.O. (1962), Speech; content and communication. San Francisco, CA: Chandler Publishing Company.

Introduction to Public Speaking Copyright © by Jamie C. Votraw, M.A.; Katharine O'Connor, Ph.D.; and William F. Kelvin, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Persuasion: Definition, Approaches, Contexts

First Online: 11 December 2020

Cite this chapter

Olga Dontcheva-Navratilova 6

Part of the book series: Postdisciplinary Studies in Discourse ((PSDS))

653 Accesses

1 Citations

Dontcheva-Navratilova presents the intercultural approach to the study of persuasion in specialised discourse adopted in this book. Drawing on previous conceptualisations of this phenomenon, she defines persuasion as an essentially context-sensitive process emerging in complex social interaction and reflecting discourse- and culture-dependent meanings. As well as presenting the corpus used in the investigation, this chapter identifies contextual factors shaping persuasive interaction in specialised discourse. While outlining the analytical framework rooted in functional linguistics and intercultural rhetoric, Dontcheva-Navratilova previews strategies pertaining to the ethical, logical and pathetic persuasive appeals which are scrutinised in the volume and relates them to linguistics resources employed for their realisation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Genre as a Context for Persuasion: The Construction of Identities in Different Forms of Institutionalised Discourse. A Case Study

Rhetoric and Pragmatics: Suggestions for a Fruitful Dialogue

The art of rhetoric: persuasive strategies in Biden’s inauguration speech: a critical discourse analysis

Askehave, I., & Swales, J. (2001). Genre identification and communicative purpose: A problem and a possible solution. Applied Linguistics, 2 (22), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.2.195

Article Google Scholar

Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: Why contrastive rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3 (4), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.002

Bach, K. (2005). The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. In B. J. Birner & G. Ward (Eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (pp. 21–30). https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.80.03bac

Chapter Google Scholar

Bell, A. (1997). Language style as audience design. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: A reader and coursebook (pp. 240–250). New York: St Martin’s. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25582-5

Bennett, K. (2009). English academic style manuals: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8 , 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.12.003

Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1994). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication . London/New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315538747

Book Google Scholar

Bhatia, V. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings . London: Longman. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100013668

Bhatia, V. (2002). Applied genre analysis: A multi-perspective model. Iberica, 4 , 3–19.

Google Scholar

Bhatia, V., & Bremner, S. (2017). The Routledge handbook of language and professional communication . London/New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315851686

Bhatia, V., Sanchez Hernandez, P., & Peréz-Peredes, P. (2011). Researching specialized languages . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.47

Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358

Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Zhang, M. (2018). Lexis and grammar as complementary discourse systems for expressing stance and evaluation. In M. de los Ángeles Gómez González & J. Lachan Machenzie (Eds.), The construction of discourse as verbal interaction (pp. 201–226). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.296

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English . Harlow, UK: Pearson.

Biber, D., & Zhang, M. (2018). Expressing evaluation without grammatical stance: Informational persuasion on the web. Corpora, 13 (1), 97–123. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2018.0137

Bloch, J., & Chi, L. (1995). A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 231–274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Candlin, C., & Gotti, M. (Eds.). (2007). Intercultural aspects of specialized communication . Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.

Chamonikolasová, J. (2005). Comparing the structures of academic texts written in English and Czech. In M. Huttová (Ed.), Slovak studies in English 1 (pp. 77–84). Bratislava, Slovakia: Univerzita Komenského.

Cheung, M. (2008). ‘Click here’: The impact of new media on the encoding of persuasive messages in direct marketing. Discourse Studies, 10 (2), 161–189. https://doi.org/10.1177//1461445607087007

Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse . London/New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218

Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural difference in the organisation of academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 11 (2), 211–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90196-2

Čmejrková, S. (1996). Academic writing in Czech and in English. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing (pp. 137–152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.41.11cme

Čmejrková, S., & Daneš, F. (1997). Academic writing and cultural identity: The case of Czech academic writing. In A. Duzsak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 40–62). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821048.41

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524599

Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3 , 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.003

Connor, U. (2008). Mapping multidimensional aspects of research: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 299–316). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169

Connor, U., & Moreno, A. (2005). Tertium comparationis: A vital component in contrastive rhetoric research. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. Eggington, W. Grabe, & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in applied linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan. Multilingual matters (pp. 153–164). England, UK: Clevedon.

Connor, U., & Upton, T. (Eds.). (2004). Discourse in the professions . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.16

Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2018). Persuasion in earnings calls: A diachronic pragmalinguistic analysis. International Journal of Business Communication, 55 (3), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488417735644

Dillard, J. P., & Pfau, M. (Eds.). (2002). The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976046

Dillard, J. P., & Seo, K. (2013). Affect and persuasion. In The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 150–166). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218410.n10

Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2013). The Sage handbook of persuasion . London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218410

Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2013). Authorial presence in academic discourse: Functions of author-reference pronouns. Linguistica Pragensia, 23 (1), 9–30.

Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2014). The changing face of Czech academic discourse. In K. Bennett (Ed.), The semiperiphery of academic writing (pp. 39–61). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137351197

Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2018). A contrastive (English, Czech English, Czech) study of rhetorical functions of citations in linguistics research articles. In P. Mur-Dueñas & J. Šinkūnienė (Eds.), Intercultural perspectives on research writing (pp. 15–37). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.18

Duffy, M., & Thorson, E. (2016). Persuasion ethics today . London/New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315651309

Duranti, A. (1985). Sociocultural Dimensions of Discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis , Vol. 1. (pp. 193–230). London: Academic Press.

Duranti, A. (2006). Narrating the political self in a campaign for U.S. congress. Language in Society, 35 , 467–497. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060222

Duszak, A. (1997). Cross-cultural academic communication: A discourse community view. In A. Duzsak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 11–39). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821048.11

Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). On distinctions between classical and modern rhetoric. In R. J. Connors, L. S. Ede, & A. A. Lunsford (Eds.), Essays on classical rhetoric and modern discourse (pp. 37–49). Carbondale/Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power . London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis . London: Longman.

Fetzer, A. (2004). Recontextualizing context: Grammaticality meets appropriateness . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.121

Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., & Kinn, T. (2006). Academic voices: Across languages and disciplines . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.148

Flowerdew, L. (2004). The argument for using English specialized corpora to understand academic and professional language. In U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 11–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.16

Flowerdew, L. (2012). Grammar and the research article. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics . Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0473

Fowler, R. (1986). Linguistic criticism . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Gil-Salom, L., & Soler-Monreal, C. (Eds.). (2014). Dialogicity in written specialised genres . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.23

Goering, E., Connor, U., Nagelhout, E., & Steinberg, R. (2008). Persuasion in fundraising letters: An interdisciplinary study. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40 (2), 228–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009339216

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior . Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk . Oxford, UK: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8400300204

Gotti, M. (2008). Investigating specialized discourse (2nd ed.). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0214-7

Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, volume 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.

Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action. Vol. II. Reason and the rationalization of society . Boston: Beacon Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar . London: Edward Arnold.

Halmari, H., & Virtanen, T. (Eds.). (2005). Persuasion across genres . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.130

Harwood, N. (2005). ‘We do not seem to have a theory … the theory I present here attempts to fill this gap’: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26 , 343–375. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami012

Hasan, R. (1989). The texture of a text. In M. A. K. Halliday & R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (2nd ed., pp. 70–96). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Higgins, C., & Walker, R. (2012). Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports. Accounting Forum, 36 , 194–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2012.02.003

Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analyses of L2 text (pp. 141–152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hogan, J. M. (2013). Persuasion in the rhetorical tradition. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The Sage book of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 2–19). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218410.n1

Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20 (2), 237–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.2.237

Huber, A., & Pable, J. (2019). Aristotelian appeals and the role of candidate-generated videos in talent assessment. International Journal of Arts and Design Education, 38 (1), 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12176

Hunston, S. (1999). Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 176–207). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hunston, S. (2007). Using corpus to investigate stance quantitatively and qualitatively. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse (pp. 27–48). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164

Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (1999). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30 , 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5

Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18 , 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0

Hyland, K. (2002a). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34 , 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8

Hyland, K. (2002b). Directives: Arguments and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23 (2), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.2.215

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7 (2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365

Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. IJES, 8 (2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.8.2.49151

Hyland, K., & Guinda, C. S. (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres . Basingstoke, UK/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156

Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.5

Jaklová, A. (2002). Persvaze a její prostředky v současných žurnalistických textech. [Persuasion and means for expressing it in contemporary journalistic texts]. Naše řeč, 85 (4), 169–176.

Jakobson, R. (1990[1960]). On language . London, UK/Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jucker, A. (1997). Persuasion by inference: Analysis of a party political broadcast. Political Linguistics, Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 11 , 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.11.07juc

Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x

Kilgarriff, A., Rychly, P., Smrz, P., & Tugwell, D. (2004). The sketch engine. In G. Williams & S. Vessier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX international congress (pp. 105–116). Lorient: Université de Bretagne-Sud.

Killingsworth, J. (2005). Appeals in modern rhetoric: An ordinary language approach . Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Kinneavy, J. L. (1971). A theory of discourse: The aims of discourse . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice.

Kissine, M. (2016). Non-assertion speech acts. In S. Goldberg & E. Borg (Eds.), Oxford handbook of philosophy online . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.013.5

Kristeva, J. (1969). Sémiotique. Recherches pour une sémanalyse . Paris: Seuil.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics . London/New York: Longman.

Li, X. (2008). From contrastive rhetoric to intercultural rhetoric: A search for collective identity. In W. V. Rozycki, E. Nagelhout, & U. Connor (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 13–41). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169

Lorés-Sanz, R. (2011). The construction of the author’s voice in academic writing: The interplay of cultural and disciplinary factors. Text and Talk, 31 , 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2011.008

Lunsford, A., Wilson, K. H., & Eberly, R. A. (Eds.). (2009). The Sage handbook of rhetorical studies . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412982795

Martin, J. R. (1985). Process and text: Two aspects of human semiosis. In J. Benson & W. Graves (Eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse (Vol. 1, pp. 248–274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English . London: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910

Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12 , 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-I

McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31 (3), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.11.002

McIntosh, K., Connor, U., & Gokpinar-Shelton, E. (2017). What intercultural rhetoric can bring to EAP/ESP writing studies in an English as a lingua franca world. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 29 , 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.09.001

Miller, G. R. (Ed.). (1980). Persuasion: New directions in theory and research . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Miller, G. R. (2013). On being persuaded: Some basic distinctions. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 70–82). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976046.n1

Moreno, A., & Suárez, L. (2008). A study of critical attitude across English and Spanish academic book reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8 (1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.009

Mulholland, J. (1994). A handbook of persuasive tactics: A practical language guide . London/New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203420768

Mur-Dueñas, P. (2007). I/we focus on…: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6 , 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.05.002

Mur-Dueñas, P. (2009). Citation in business management research articles: A contrastive (English-Spanish) corpus-based analysis. In E. Suomela-Salmi & F. Dervin (Eds.), Cross-cultural linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives on academic discourse (pp. 49–60). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.193

O’Keefe, D. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research . Thousand Oaks, CA/London/Delhi, India: Sage.

Orts Llopis, M. A., Breeze, R., & Gotti, M. (2017). Power, persuasion and manipulation in specialised genres: Providing keys to the rhetoric of professional communities . Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/b11481

Östman, J.-O. (2005). Persuasion as implicit anchoring: The case of collocations. In H. Halmari & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach (pp. 183–212). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.130

Palmer, F. (1986). Mood and modality . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pelclová, J., & Lu, W.-L. (Eds.). (2018). Persuasion in public discourse . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.79

Perelman, C. (1982). The realm of rhetoric . Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Perloff, R. (2010). The dynamics of persuasion. Communication and attitudes in the 21st century (4th ed.). New York/London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315657714

Savolainen, R. (2014). The use of rhetorical strategies in Q & A discussions. Journal of Documentation, 70 (1), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-11-2012-0152

Scotto di Carlo, G. (2015). Ethos in TED talks: The role of credibility in popularized texts. Linguistics and Literature, 81 (91), 81–91.

Searle, J. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, mind and knowledge (pp. 344–369). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Shaw, P. (2003). Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2 , 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00050-X

Shaw, P. (2009). The lexis and grammar of explicit evaluation in academic book reviews, 1913 and 1993. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 217–235). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244290_13

Sheldon, E. (2009). From one I to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 28 (4), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.001

Simons, H., & Jones, J. (2011). Persuasion in society . London/New York: Routledge.

Šinkūnienė, J. (2017). Citations in research writing. The interplay of discipline, culture and expertise. In T. Egan & H. Dirdal (Eds.), Cross-linguistic correspondences: From lexis to genre (pp. 253–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.191

Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., et al. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25 , 359–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x

Strawson, P. F. (1964). Intention and convention in speech acts. Philosophical Review, 73 , 439–460. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183301

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. English in academic and research settings . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011773

Swales, J. (2004). Research genres . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827

Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58

Trosborg, A. (1997). Rhetorical strategies in legal language: Discourse analysis of statutes and contracts . Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Trosborg, A. (Ed.). (2000). Analysing professional genres . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.74

van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17 (3), 359–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250

van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power . Basingstoke, UK/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

van Emeren, H. (Ed.). (1986). Argumentation: Perspectives and approaches . Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. In C.-R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 32–70). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.184.55lee

van De Mieroop, D. (2007). The complementarity of two identities and two approaches: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of institutional and professional identity. Journal of Pragmatics, 39 , 1120–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.01.009

Vassileva, I. (1998). Who am I/who are we in academic writing? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8 (2), 163–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1998.tb00128.x

Virtanen, T., & Halmari, H. (2005). Persuasion across genres: Emerging perspectives. In H. Halmari & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Persuasion across Genres (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.130.03vir

Vold, E. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and crossdisciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16 (1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00106.x

Walton, D. (1997). Appeal to expert opinion . University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Walton, D. (2008). Informal logic: A pragmatic approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808630

Warchał, K. (2015). Certainty and doubt in academic discourse: Epistemic modality markers . Katowice, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.

Watts, R. (2003). Politeness . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184

Wodak, R., & Krzyzanowski, M. (Eds.). (2008). Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences . Basingstoke, UK/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Yakhontova, T. (2006). Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5 , 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.03.002

Yzer, M. (2013). Reasoned action theory: Persuasion as belief-based behaviour change. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of persuasion (pp. 120–136). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218410.n8

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of English Language and Literature, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

Olga Dontcheva-Navratilova

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olga Dontcheva-Navratilova .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2020). Persuasion: Definition, Approaches, Contexts. In: Persuasion in Specialised Discourses. Postdisciplinary Studies in Discourse. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58163-3_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58163-3_1

Published : 11 December 2020

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-58162-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-58163-3

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Communication-Specific Persuasion Theories

Elaboration Likelihood Model

This theory, abbreviated as ELM, attempts to describe why certain methods of persuasion work, even though mysterious, and why others fail. Known as a dual-process model, ELM describes a central route to persuasion and a peripheral route to persuasion. According to communication theory expert, Em Griffin ( 2014 ) :

Message elaboration is the central route of persuasion that produces major positive attitude change. It occurs when unbiased listeners are motivated and able to scrutinize arguments that they consider strong. Message-irrelevant factors hold sway on the peripheral path, a more common route that produces fragile shifts in attitude.

Illustration outlining the elaboration likelihood model.

Social Judgment Theory

This theory, developed by Muzafer Sherif , attempts to explain how people evaluate and rationalize various ideas and positions. According to SJT, every new idea individuals hear from a persuasive message gets weighted and evaluated against their current points of view before being placed on an attitude scale. SJT explains how people subconsciously sort out ideas as they occur at the instant they perceive them. Em Griffin ( 2014 ) explains SJT as follows:

The larger the discrepancy between a speaker’s position and a listener’s point of view, the greater the change in attitude—as long as the message is within the hearer’s latitude of acceptance. High ego-involvement usually indicates a wide latitude of rejection. Messages that fall there may have a boomerang effect.

As people assess the feasibility of new ideas, they place those ideas within one of three zones, or latitudes:

The latitude of acceptance (agreement with the idea)
The latitude of noncommitment (no opinion)
The latitude of rejection (opposition to the idea)

When individuals have a high level of interest or involvement with the idea, their scale reduces to two, as the latitude of noncommitment shrinks with more rigidly held opinions. If the idea falls within the latitude of acceptance, they will adjust their attitude or behavior to match the idea, but if the idea falls inside their latitude of rejection, they will adjust themselves away from the idea.

Em Griffin (2014) suggested that persuaders wishing to achieve the greatest level of influence should choose a message on the edge of the audience’s latitude of acceptance or noncommitment.

Note to Self

Griffin also noted that persuasion often occurs at a slow and gradual process that most often consists of small movements.

Messages that Matter: Public Speaking in the Information Age - Third Edition Copyright © 2023 by North Idaho College is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

, , , , .

IMAGES

Persuasive Speech Theory
Aristotle's pillars of persuasion
Monroe's Motivated Sequence / Example Persuasive Speech
PPT
Persuasive speech outline: Monroe's Motivated Sequence in action
500 Powerful Persuasive Speech Topics [2021 Update]

VIDEO

Persuasive speech peer review
Persuasive speech: why you should vote
Persuasive speech on why Social Media creates toxicity
persuasive speech: why should you read about philosophy
Persuasive Speech- CST 100
Persuasive Speech- The Reason Mental Health is So Important

COMMENTS

17.5 Theories of Persuasive Communication – Introduction to ...
There are many theories of persuasion in communication studies. Three of the main theories that are often associated with persuasion are the social judgment theory, cognitive dissonance theory, and the elaboration likelihood model.
Explaining Theories of Persuasion - SAGE Publications Inc
highlight the varied ways to conceive persuasive messages. The four theories we discuss in this chapter include social judgment theory, the elaboration likelihood model (ELM), cognitive dissonance, and the narrative paradigm. SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY Consider your personal and professional network. It is likely easy for
17.1 Persuasion: An Overview – Stand up, Speak out
Thankfully, a number of researchers have created theories that help explain why people are persuaded. While there are numerous theories that help to explain persuasion, we are only going to examine three here: social judgment theory, cognitive dissonance theory, and the elaboration likelihood model.
11.5 Theories of Persuasion – Introduction to Public ...
11.5 Theories of Persuasion. Understanding how people are persuaded is very important to the discussion of public speaking. Thankfully, a number of researchers have created theories that help explain why people are persuaded.
Introduction to Persuasive Speaking – Public Speaking
Learning Objectives. Define and explain persuasion. Explain the three theories of persuasion discussed in the text: social judgment theory, cognitive dissonance theory, and the elaboration likelihood model.
Chapter 10: Persuasive Speaking – Introduction to Public Speaking
LEARNING OBJECTIVES. After reading this chapter, you should be able to: define and explain types of persuasive speeches. complete a persuasive speech outline in a persuasive organizational pattern. enhance persuasiveness and credibility by using ethos, pathos, and logos. define and explain inductive and deductive reasoning.
Persuasion: Definition, Approaches, Contexts | SpringerLink
Dontcheva-Navratilova presents the intercultural approach to the study of persuasion in specialised discourse adopted in this book. Drawing on previous conceptualisations of this phenomenon, she defines persuasion as an essentially context-sensitive process emerging...
Communication-Specific Persuasion Theories – Messages that ...
While many theories surrounding effective persuasion exist, several of them apply specifically to the field of communication studies. This chapter will conclude by discussing two of those theories: the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and Social Judgment Theory (Sherif, 1963).
The Theoretical Bases of Persuasion: A Critical Introduction
Suggesting the need to integrate contemporary persuasion theory into the business communication literature, the author synthesizes a wide range of persuasion theories and relevant research using four theoretical approaches: learning theory, consistency theory, perceptual theory, and functional theory.
Rhetoric 101: The art of persuasive speech - TED-Ed Blog
Rhetoric, according to Aristotle, is the art of seeing the available means of persuasion. Today we apply it to any form of communication. Aristotle focused on oration, though, and he described three types of persuasive speech. Forensic, or judicial, rhetoric establishes facts and judgments about the past, similar to detectives at a crime scene.

17.5 Theories of Persuasive Communication

Social Judgment Theory

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Elaboration Likelihood Model

This resource is available at no cost at https://open.library.okstate.edu/speech2713/

Share This Book

17.1 Persuasion: An Overview

What Is Persuasion?

Change Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs

Change Behavior

Why Persuasion Matters

Theories of Persuasion

Social Judgment Theory

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Elaboration Likelihood Model

Personal Relevance and Personal Involvement

Accountability

Personal Responsibility

Incongruent Information

Need for Cognition

Key Takeaways

Share This Book

35 Introduction to Persuasive Speaking

What Is Persuasion?

Persuasive versus Informative Speaking

Goals of Persuasive Speaking

Why Persuasion Matters

Psychology of Persuasion

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Elaboration Likelihood Model

Social Judgment Theory

Is it personal?

Am I accountable?

Key Takeaways

Share This Book

10 Chapter 10: Persuasive Speaking

Introduction

Defining Persuasive Speaking

Types of Persuasive Speeches

Questions of Fact

Questions of Value

Questions of Policy

Persuasive Speech Organizational Patterns

Problem-Solution Pattern

Problem-Cause-Solution Pattern

Monroe’s Motivated Sequence Format

Step One: Attention

Step Two: Need

Step Three: Satisfaction

Step Four: Visualization

Step Five: Action

Claim-to-Proof Pattern

Methods of Persuasion

Reasoning and Fallacies in Your Speech

Fallacies in Reasoning

Reflection Questions

Share This Book

Persuasion: Definition, Approaches, Contexts

Cite this chapter

Access this chapter

Similar content being viewed by others

Genre as a Context for Persuasion: The Construction of Identities in Different Forms of Institutionalised Discourse. A Case Study

Rhetoric and Pragmatics: Suggestions for a Fruitful Dialogue

The art of rhetoric: persuasive strategies in Biden’s inauguration speech: a critical discourse analysis

Author information

Corresponding author

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Communication-Specific Persuasion Theories

Elaboration Likelihood Model

Social Judgment Theory

Share This Book

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS