Omitting an explicit message conclusion

Should a persuasive message draw or omit an explicit conclusion? Based on what is known about the effectiveness of self-generated persuasion, it would be reasonable to conclude that open-ended communications that let a target draw her or his conclusion would be most effective. Although there is some research consistent with this proposition (Linder & Worchel, 1970), many experiments find that it is better to state an explicit conclusion (cf. Fine, 1957; Hovland & Mandell, 1952). Sawyer & Howard (1991) provide a simple solution to account for these conflicting results. In two experiments, Sawyer and Howard found that omitting the conclusion of a message resulted in more persuasion when the target is motivated to process the message (for example, when it was personally relevant). For communications that are low in personal relevance (low involvement), an influence advantage can be gained by explicitly stating the main conclusion of the message.

 

Rhetorical questions

Don’t you think you should be using rhetorical questions in your communications? A rhetorical question is one that is asked for effect and for which an answer is not expected. In general, rhetorical questions motivate more intensive processing of message content (Burnkrant & Howard, 1984).This increased message attention results in an increase in persuasion when the message is strong, but a decrease in persuasion when the message is weak. (However, when message recipients are already highly motivated to process a message, rhetorical questions can disrupt thinking resulting in less persuasion for a strong message; Petty, Cacioppo, & Heesacker, 1981). Recently, Ahluwalia and Burnkrant (2004) developed a model of rhetorical question effects. In their model, rhetorical questions can also draw attention to the source of the message, resulting in an increase in persuasion for positive sources and a decrease for negative ones.

 

Pique technique

According to Santos, Leve, and Pratkanis (1994), the pique technique consists of the disruption of a mindless refusal script by making a strange or unusual request so that the target’s interest is piqued, the refusal script is disrupted, and the target is induced to think positively about compliance. To test this tactic, Santos et al. had panhandlers ask for money in either a strange (e.g., Can you spare 17 cents?)

or typical (e.g., Can you spare a quarter?) manner. Subjects receiving the strange request were almost 60% more likely to give money than those receiving the typical plea. Davis and Knowles (1999) have also found evidence that a strange request can promote compliance, but hypothesized such requests operate through a different process and gave the technique a different name (disrupt-then-reframe). According to Davis and Knowles, an odd request disrupts resistance and creates confusion that makes the target more susceptible to a reframe that leads to influence; this process is similar to the role of distraction in persuasion (see below). In contrast, Santos et al. argue that an odd request disrupts a refusal script and then induces the target to wonder why the strange request was made. Compliance is then dependent on the nature of cognitive responses (e.g. disruption of counterarguments and promotion of support arguments) that result from this attempt to understand the strange request; this process is similar to that invoked by rhetorical questions (see above). Cognitive responses can be internally generated (in the Santos et al. study the strange request prompted targets to like the panhandler) or supplied externally (as in the Davis and Knowles reframe). Santos et al. provide process data in support of their hypothesized mechanism. They find that the pique technique results in more question asking and that these questions are specifically addressed to understanding the nature of the strange request. More recently, Fennis, Das, and Pruyn (2004) have provided experimental data to understand the process involved when making a strange request. In three experiments, they find that odd requests increased compliance. In their third experiment, they coupled an odd request designed to promote a college fee increase with either a weak goal-incongruent or a strong goal-congruent message. Davis and Knowles would predict either that both messages would produce the same results or that the weak message would gain an advantage over the strong (as in distraction research). Santos et al. would predict the opposite. The results showed that the odd request produced significantly more compliance when paired with the strong as opposed to the weak argument, as predicted by Santos et al.

 

⇐ Предыдущая12345678910Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: