Persuasion Final Study Guide

one sided message

addresses 1 side of this issue (source's position) ex: the death penalty should be abolished b/c its cruel

how to restore freedom?

adopting an opposite position than the one advocated, or hold on to original beliefs more firmly --> not effective either way

bandwagonning

assuming something true because lots of people believe it

facial attractiveness

best when you have an average overall face, but overexaggerated eyes, lips etc -on average symmetrical faces are rated more attractive b/c its a familiar face

claim

conclusion of the argument, position a source is taking -3 types: fact, value, and policy -policy = what should be the case (ban alcohol) -value = object is good or bad -fact = statement that are objectively/factually/scientifically true ("the Earth is round") ("smoking causes lung cancer")

minimal groups paradigm (& sherif's robbers cave experiment)

defn: categorizing people into completely random groups can lead to ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation (ex: calling ppl into lab and give some people green shirts and others blue. those w the same shirts tended to favor each other even though it was completely random) **study: kids were put into different groups and were forced to compete with each other by doing different athletic tasks. pos distinctiveness occured b/c there was aggression (verbal & physical) toward outgroup members -->outward derogation *conflict arises when resources are scarce btw outgroup members

aristotelian persuasive appeals

ethos: credibility of a speaker (trustworthy, expert, reliable, honest, fair) pathos: use of emotion (positive or negative) logos: use of logic & reason (facts, evidence, stats, data, analogies, case studies) --> persuasive when args are sound & high quality **not always mutually exclusive --> can use all at once

Toulmin model: parts of an argument

evidence/data = support for a claim warrant = bridges claim and data backing = supports the warrant rebutal- denial of the warrant quaifier- modifies strength of claim (X makes sense if..)

transportation (narrative persuasion)

feeling completely absorbed in the story, traveling into the story world -strong emotions, mental imagery, disengaged from "real world" - less counterarguing, feels like "lived experience" which can shape attitudes, -allows persuasive attempt to fall into background b/c not focused on it

gain frames

focuses on advantages of doing X ex: "what will you gain when you lose?" --> eating special k

loss frames

focuses on disadvantages of not doing X -negativity bias --> we overwhelmingly focus on and are impacted by negative info ex: olympic opening ceremony of water covering countries --> could lose your country

inoculation & conditions

goal = to reinforce current attitude; prevent change (not be persuaded) -resist persuasive attempts -gives a small dose of opposition so we have power to fight against it (kind of like getting a shot) **conditions: 1) target audience already agrees with you 2) give them the type of message the opposition may give them later

source trustworthiness

how much one can trust the source is being honest or truthful (honest-dishonest on semantic scale) -more global and fairly stable overtime

group conformity

in groups, there is often pressure (real or perceived) to conform to group norms: values, beleifs, behaviors -learn norms through observation "norm talk" -adhering to norms --> acceptance (pos social identity) -not adhering to norms --> punishment, derogation, or alternation -may hold private attitudes that go against norms (could change behavior and not attitudes --> still be against what you are doing to fit in with group OR internalize norm/change attitude to fit group norm

warrant

justification for making claim, given the data -not always explicit (can be left unsaid)

celebrity

may or may not be seen as experts or trustworthy -celebrities could be more effective when attractive and/or likeable -only works if you know who they are -mostly relevant when processing heuristically

2 sided refutational

mentions opposing viewpoint & refutes them --> should raise legitimate objections

2 sided non refutal

mentions opposing viewpoints but does not refute them

post hoc

mistaking cause and effect -aka after the fact reasoning -wrongly ascribes an event that occurs first as the cause of an event that occured after it

similarity

mostly relevant when processing peripherally -infinite number of possible dimensions (mixed study findings) -similar others have preferences similar to you, which makes their recommendations more helpful and appropriate to me -linked to likeability and could help you stay more connected

guilt

negative emotion experienced when your actual behavior is at odds with your ideas about how you should have behaved --> personal/relational standards and/or social norms (law, not helping the unfortunate)

repetition

often used to introduce new products and remind us of familiar ones -can boost familiarity with product and salience of product (priming) -can boost liking of a product, but can result in a "wear out" -possible solution (for those processing peripherally): repetition with variation

framing

perspective through which an issue is presented -key: selection (choosing what to mention at all) and salience (choosing what to emphasize) -everything is framed, even when trying to be "objective" -defining problems (ex: cheese is high in cholesterol vs high protein) -interpreting issues (ex: homelessness in SB) --> episodic (due to individuals/focusing on 1 person's story) vs thematic (due to health care systems)

source expertise

source's level of knowledge of the topic/material (experienced/inexperienced) -can be measured using a semantic differential scale -topic specific --> based on education/experience -changes overtime (graduate and become a doctor but previously you weren't) -vocal fluency, citing specific sources

disassociation model for sleeper effect

strong argument with low credibility source leads to no attitude change at first, overtime the content and source become disassociated and message content begins to have influence. in the end, persuasive effects of the message from a high cred and low cred source are comparible

decoys

structures argument as comparison between alternatives --> one is inferior to others -adding in another option to make the original ones seem better

hasty generalization

sweeping statements about a whole group based on evidence from only a limited fraction of the group ex: UCSB students are surfers

bodily attractiveness

waist to hip ratio (WHR): ratio of waist circumference to hip circumference -"optimal" female WHR is .7 to .8 -why? b/c it indicates you're not pregnant and have gone through puberty (can have kids) -fat deposits in the hips contain fatty acids that help you build baby brains (Gaulin)

foot in the mouth (FITM)

"how are you doing today?" -admitting that you are ok/good predisposes you to being more agreeable later

Even a Penny Helps

-Cialdini & Schroeder penny study *researchers go door to door on behalf of ACS and either said "I'm collecting money for ACS...would you be willing to help by giving a donation (control) OR they would add in "a penny will help" RESULTS: 28% of control subjects donated & 50% penny subjects donated (almost twice as much) **donated same amount in both conditions (~$1)

evaluating evidence (text)

-Janis and Frick did a study that found when students made errors in reasoning, they tended to judge an invalid argument as valid if they agreed with the conclusion, and a valid argument as invalid if they disagreed with its conclusion -Bettinghaus found that highly dogmatic (trait that reflects the extent to which a person is close minded) people were more likely to judge an argument as valid if it came from a positive source rather than a negative one ***people tend to make systematic errors when they judge the validity of arguments & if message recipients are capable/motivated, messages containing quality arguments and strong evidence are an effective means of persuasion but there are many instances when ppl are unmotivated/unable to effectively scrutinize the content of persuasive messages

Green and Brock narrative study

-P's read "murder at the mall" story (sister stabbed by psychiatric patient) & was presented as fiction or nonfiction RESULTS: transportation was the same for fiction and nonfiction source --> highly transported S's said that violence was more likely in real life and psychiatric patient freedoms should be restricted (more absorbed = more persuasion) --> murderer should be punished! --> transportation fostered story --> consistent beliefs (?)

Loftus and Palmer car study

-P's watched a video of a car accident and they answered the Q: about how fast were the cars going when they smashed/bumped/collided into each other? -in the "smashed" condition they rated the cars going much faster than those who got different adjectives (they also perceived there was more shattered glass)

why does FITD work?

-Self Perception Theory: determine our attitudes by interpreting meaning of our own behavior **all about how we see ourselves --> I did X, so "im a good, helpful person/ have favorable attitude toward the request"

reactance

-a motivational state or trait that fluctuates over the lifespan **toddlers, really old people tend to be very reactant **also adolescents are reactant to what people are telling them to do --> associated with anger and wont listen to what people have to say

variables influencing digital (website) credibility

-accuracy, error-free, can verify info offline -authority: author of site, is contact info provided? credentials, affiliations etc -objectivity: is the info fact or opinion? commercial intent? --> funded to say a certain thing which would question credibility -currency: up to date info -coverage: comprehensiveness of info on the site (both sides of info rather than one)

2 sided message

-addresses opposing viewpoints and your own -cell phone company commercials --> even if they mention another company it is still considered 2 sided

door in the face & conditions

-ask for initial request so large that most reject (close the door on you) -follow up gigantic request with smaller, more moderate request **conditions: -pro-social request -2nd request must come shortly afterward (guilt dissipates quickly) -same requester both times

the sleeper effect

-attitude change in response to a message that emerges after a time delay & not immediately after message exposure. --> persuasion may boost later on

humor appeal

-attracts attention -increases positive affect -no consistent influence on valence of cognitive responses (can't tell if you will feel positively or negatively) -may detract from source credibility -increased ad and brand liking, increased behavioral intentions (humor should be linked to product/brand) -no advantage in recall or behavior (??) --> could change in future **problem: what counts as funny? do a pretest

factors influencing source trustworthiness & expertise

-audience: when they have strong opinions, expertise/trustworthiness are less influential -when the topic is highly personally relevant to audience, expertise/trustworthiness are less influential -when the audience is distracted, expertise/trustworthiness may be more influential **need both for credibility & are both baed on receiver perception

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)

-basis for many EE messages -key = social modeling &vicarious learning (not mimicry)

foot in the door & conditions

-begin with small request that most would do --> asking to get out of the rain, or may i come in? -follow up with larger (target) request **conditions 1) pro-social request (not for own benefit) 2) most ppl say yes to 1st request 3) people actually perform the first requested action (don't just think about doing it) 4) no other incentives to comply ($$, gifts for complying to 1st request) **could work if requester changes and/or if there is a time delay btwn request 1 & 2

likeability

-can enhance persuasion when used as a heuristic cue -associated w trustworthiness -interacts with audience's moods (happy people elaborate on messages when they think it'll maintain their good mood) -messages from a likeable source are seen as mood-maintaining, so happy students are more motivated to process -sad P's elaborate on messages from likeable and unlikeable sources, but happy people focus on the former -happy people use likeability as a heuristic when distracted and elaborate when not distracted

when can transitional characters in EE be influential?

-change should appear realistic (gradual process) -audience identifies with the pre-transformation character (promotes modeling among counter-attitudinal audience: first resistant to change, but then see the character can do it so you feel like you can too) --> if she can do it, i can do it --> identification can reduce counterarguing -social (behavioral) modeling most likely when character is rewarded for their behavior or attitude

Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM)

-combines elements from other 3 models -components leading to protective behavior (need both) 1) perceived threat: comprised of perceived severity & susceptibility 2) perceived efficacy: comprised of response & self-efficacy -2 parallel process *danger control --> control apparent danger of the threat through protective behavior (when perceived threat & efficacy are both high) *fear control --> control feelings of fear when perceived threat is high and efficacy is low (ex: smoking is dangerous but cant stop) --> could avoid thinking about threat or determine it isn't so severe **still mixed findings, but widely used

conclusion explicitness vs implicitness

-conclusion explicitness: whether or not the conclusion is explicitly stated -use an explicit conclusion when the message is hard to understand or the audience isn't motivated to process

hypocrisy paradigm

-connection btw guilt and hypocrisy -change behavior to feel less guilt

Behm-Morawtiz & Mastro teen movie study

-content analysis of teen movies : found female characters are more likely to be portrayed as socially aggressive -the more you've seen teen movies, more negative stereotypes about female friendships and gender roles -females are more likely to be rewarded for these behaviors (aggression) HOW? -if we constantly see it in the media and this behavior goes unpunished, then women will feel social aggression is the way to go/maybe there is social modeling going on

Kumkale meta-analysis on sleeper effect (stronger effects when..)

-discounting cue comes after message (oh, it was buzfeed) -message is repeated rather than presented once -topic is personally relevent -audience is motivated and able to process the message -when audience forgets about the discounting cue (key factor)

disrupt then reframe (Davis & Knowles Xmas Cards Sales Study)

-disrupt expectations --> "Xmas cards are 300 pennies" (interrupts resistance to door to door sales) because surprised they said it like that -reframe --> "It's a bargain!" (focus on supporting charity) **more people bought cards in disrupt then reframe condition as opposed to just saying they are $3

claim = she was driving drunk (parts of an argument break down)

-evidence = .17 breath analyzer -warrant = assumes breathalyzer is an accurate measure of BAC -backing = scientific research indicates its an accurate measure -rebuttal: reject idea that breathalyzer is accurate -qualifier: the majority of breathalyzers are not broken/majority of tests are accurate

evidence/data

-evidence supporting claim -factual statements or opinions not originating from speaker to support a speaker's claims ("on what grounds") -important for central processing, no peripheral -examples, stats, testimonials

question ordering (ch. 9)

-ex: percentage of americans supporting aid for the contras in nicaragua varied drastically depending on how the question was worded. If the question mentioned Reagan or the Contras specifically, or used labels to identify opposing forces aid was much higher. Aid was lower if Q mentioned dollar amount of aid or presented both sides of the issue -legitimate pollsters who seek accurate info will go to great lengths to avoid bias' in the wording of their questions -leading questions can influence judgement and memory (blue car vs not mentioning it at all) -question asking can be a powerful persuasion device because they direct our thoughts about the issues at hand and by implicitly specifying the range of possible answers

factors influencing trustworthiness

-expectations based on what the receiver knows about the source -knowledge bias: source's background or knowledge on a subject prevents objectivity --> biased training/you think you know it -reporting bias: situational pressures make the source unwilling to report accurate or full info on the topic --> leaving out negative stuff about a product

protection motivation model (PMM)

-fear itself takes a backseat to cognition -persuasive fear appeals need 3 things 1) perceived severity of threat --> how severe are the outcomes? 2) perceived susceptibility to threat --> can it actually happen to me? 3) perceived response efficacy --> the response you take on can actually fix the problem, will the response be effective?, self-efficacy added later **mixed evidence/findings for this model

drive model (fear appeal)

-fear: unpleasant, we seek to reduce/eliminate it -message should install fear and tell us what we can do to reduce it -fear levels should be moderate (not high or low) -curvilinear: too low = no drive, too high = ignore/deny threat (defensive avoidance) -little empirical evidence --> doesn't work

character identification

-feeling of connection with story characters -strong form: cognitive and emotional state in which audience feels as though he/she is actually a character in the story; loss of awareness -weak form: audience relates to, understands and empathizes with the character, can come from perceived similarity and liking **reduces counter-arguing and minimizes resistance by increasing issue relevance & efficacy

low ball technique

-gain compliance ("yes"), then increase the cost of performing the behavior (hidden strings attached) --> changing deal after agreement ex: want to help kids? sure! --> great, camp starts at 7 am!!

what is fear appeal?

-gruesome content? -what people actually perceive to be scary? -includes personally relevant threat to well-being and feasible suggestions to avoid it****

Flanagin & Metzger digital credibility study

-hired somebody to make a fake movie website -method: showed a screenshot in which the webpage varied by movie ratings, source of ratings (movie goers or expert movie critics), and number of ratings on site -results: those who saw MORE ratings from non expert sources saw the ratings more credible & were more confident in them. they experienced more congruence between own ratings and other people's ratings

FITD homeowner study

-homeowners approached by members of the "community committee for traffic safety" or "keep CA beautiful committee" -FITD condition: requester asked person to display a small sign in their window (be a safe driver) or sign a petition -control condition --> only got 2nd request **2 weeks later, new request (dif requester): install a large, ugly "Drive carefully" sign in front lawn -control group had 20% compliance, while FITD condition had over 55% compliance, regardless of initial action/topic

fear then relief & illegal parking study

-interpersonal compliance technique -anxiety --> relief --> request -more likely to give into interpersonal requests when relieved **induce anxiety and then relieve it illegal parking study: put notes on cars in places where illicit parking is a problem (poland). Ad for hair growth meds or blood donation was placed under windshield. Usually a piece of paper is a fine so thats what they thought it was --> induced anxiety *15 mins after reading the pamphlet, they had to complete an unrelated survey on traffic in town for student's Masters thesis (will help me, but not others) *Results: the fear then relief condition had higher percentages of complying *regardless of person/topic, you're more willing to help out somebody after if anxiety is induced then relieved

distraction

-jingles (song/dance) -unique layouts/design -time compression -lots of fast scene cuts, interesting camera angles, upbeat music, offbeat characters, yelling spokesperson -can be used when args are weak or when you want to reduce counterarguing

entertainment education (EE)

-media programs that entertain and persuade or teach -compelling to audiences not necessarily bc of persuasive content, but b/c its exciting/good drama (persuasion is incidental) -influential when audience identifies with characters and program stimulates communication about the issue **more specific version of narrative persuasion ex: Sesame street --> preschool education program

when does the sleeper effect arise?

-message has strong arguments -paired with discounting cue (a reason to question validity of the message) -message has no influence at first but then gains influence overtime (1-2 weeks) **assumes close processing but initial discounting occurs & remembers argument/message but forgets the source

physical attractiveness

-mixed study findings but doesn't matter much when processing centrally -beauty = good heuristic -in general we think that more attractive people support desirable positions, are intelligent, friendly/likeable, trustworthy/unselfish (usually not an expert) -maybe sources seem more credible for certain domains, like make up, or an athlete advertising shoes

sequential request strategies

-multiple requests, 1st request makes compliance to 2nd more likely -however, different psychological effects

why does DITF work?

-norm of reciprocity: do something nice for me when I do something nice for you --> feels like a negotiation in making the 2nd request more reasonable, so you reciprocate the favor by complying (why same person is crucial) -guilt: refusing 1st request --> violates personal standards of social responsibility. drives you to want to make amends (but drive fades overtime) which is why no time delay is key and pro social request is key

are narratives more persuasive than non narratives?

-not entirely clear -different persuasive mechanisms -narratives may better hold/attract audience attention -more emotional --> more memorable and more discussion -limits of SCT in media context (real world experience is often more powerful)

Thats not all!

-offer a product at a high price, dont let the customer respond, then sweeten the deal by 1) Adding a new product OR 2) Lowering the price **some argue it works because its seen as negotiating/norm of reciprocity (more power in IP than media context) **excitement may increase intent to buy? might think its a special deal just for you

social identity

-part of your self concept that comes from your group memberships ("who I am as a group member" rather than "who I am as a unique individual) -ex: gender, race, age, religion, skills/interest, beliefs/values **dodgers vs giants fans

when does reactance arise?

-peoples freedom to act or choose is restricted/eliminated -feel restriction is unjustified (why should i stop smoking? it makes me feel good) **stronger if: -the issue is important to them -no comparable behavioral alternatives (ex: smoke or die) --> doll vs truck --> young girl will experience reactance **reactance drives individual to restore freedom

narrative persuasion & Hinyard/Kreufer definition

-persuasion messages that tell a story, typically fictional or nonfictional in the entertainment industry -"a narrative is any cohesive and coherent story with an identifiable beginning, middle and end that provides info about characters, scene, and conflict raises unanswered questions to unresolved conflict and provides resolution"

how to promote character identification

-point of view from which the story is told (I vs she) -camera angles (move angle to look like you are experiencing it)

pre-message expectations of bias

-positive expectancy violations are a good thing for persuasion -if confirmed, less persuasion --> biased, just like i thought -if bias is not confirmed, more persuasion b/c you don't believe the source is biased and must be speaking truthfully. --> seen as more credible & trustworthy ex: salesperson NOT on commission flatters customer after sale (not before) --> violates expectations in a good way

syllogism

-premises followed by a conclusion -major premise = all men are mortal -minor premise = aristotle is a man

why does low ball technique work?

-psychological committment --> count on idea that you're committed to the outcome (ex: already imagining yourself in new car of your dreams)

self-affirmation

-reflecting on important personal values: protects self-integrity **so, less need to be defensive when threatened (promotes less biased, central route processing) --> because you have self-esteem

Cialdini DITF study (counseling program)

-rep for youth counseling program approaches students on college campus *DITF condition: request #1 --> volunteer for 2hrs/week for 2 years unpaid for juvenile detention center (0% compliance) THEN request #2: chaperone group for 2 hour zoo trip *control group only got 2nd request --> 17% compliance *DITF condition = 50% compliance

guilt appeal

-should make audience feel that they've violated a standard and show/tell them how to make up for it -action tendency: righting the wrong

inoculation study: direct mail

-subjects = potential voters in presidential campaign (Bush vs Dakakis) -experimenters learned subjects political preferences -inoculation conditions: sent inoculation through mail then message attacking their candidate -refutation condition: sent attack message and later refutation messages -control = attack messages only RESULTS: inoculation leaded to less influence (still liked initial candidate) -didn't matter if the inoculation was same or different -in inoculation condition, opposition candidate is liked even less -inoculation > refutation

types of inoculation messages

-support: support current attitudes (might enhance resistance) -inoculation same: attack message is the same as what you saw in inoculation message -inoculation different: attack message has different arguments than those seen in inoculation message (still effective) **inoculation messages lead to greater resistance than do supportive messages

emotional appeals & 4 components

-taking a discrete (vs continuous) emotion perspective; happiness is different than hope 1) cognitive: what you think about when you first see something 2) affective (feeling) 3) physiological --> sweaty palms 4) behavioral --> key for persuasion, usually comes after **each go with each emotion

refusal skills training

-teach audience how to refuse unwanted offers ex: D.A.R.E to resist drugs & violence -enhances audience's self-efficacy for refusing others -best programs allow for guided practice and feedback (role play --> practice saying "no") -commonly targeting substance use, but not very effective in reducing/preventing substance use **subjective norms are the most important in this context (why these programs may not work)

why does inoculation work?

-threat to belief motivates attention and counterarguing -> motivated to protect your attitudes (vulnerable and on the defensive) -provides people with arguments that can be used to counterattack (perhaps learning appropriate response) -allows ppl to see the opposition successfully countered (enhancing self-efficacy?) **bolsters resistance against attack messages that contain the same as well as different args **effect seen overtime (after exposure to opposition's message) **desired effect = no change in position

are guilt appeals effective?

-too much guilt hinders persuasion! makes audience feel angry and possibly manipulated -high guilt messages (relative to low/moderate) trigger more negative attitudes toward ad/product which lowers intent to buy -might work when others aren't explicitly trying to make us feel guilty

transgression-compliance paradigm

-transgress (ex: spill a drink/provide a negative evaluation) then do a favor for someone (give answers to a test) -transgressions (later helping behavior) reduce guilt! --> doing a good thing to make up for the bad Q: are the transgressions intentional or just a way we reduce guilt for ourselves after its already done?

transitional characters in EE

-transitional character: undergoes a transformation (ex: Biggest Loser) -begin in difficult life situation -realize change is needed -change their negative behaviors to more positive and desirable ones over the course of the story

forewarning

-warning that you'll be exposed to a persuasive attempt (or counter-attitudinal message) in the future -feeling that someone will try to manipulate you --> increases resistance/defensive stance -when we know the topic/position of upcoming message: have time and anticipate counter-arguing (can only counterargue if motivated and able)

social identity theory (SIT)

-we derive self-esteem from our membership in social groups, so we are motivated to identify with groups and to have a positive view of the groups to which we belong -we maintain a positive social identity by derogating the outgroup --> positive distinctiveness: my group is far better than yours. we exaggerate differences btw groups

self-affirmation breast cancer study

-young women who either drank heavily or not -wrote essay on an important personal value (self-affirmation) or non important value (control) -given pamphlet on excessive alcohol consumption leading to breast cancer RESULTS: -drank heavily + self-affirmation = greater perceived breast cancer risk --> more persuasion & could more easily imagine themselves with breast cancer. also, stronger intent to reduce drinking & lasting effects one month after study (evidence of central route)

4 processes SCT is guided by

1) Attention = relevance, need, etc 2) Retention = symbolically represent behavior 3) Production = doing the behavior appropriately and correcting errors, needs self-efficacy 4) Motivation = choice to enact behavior based on positive/negative reinforcement, model when behavior is rewarded or goes unpunished

strategies for avoiding reactance

1) allow audience to make own decision -implicit conclusion -restoration of freedom tagline (language of CHOICE) 2) direct reactance against opposite side --> make teens upset at tobacco brand rather than advertisers. ex: big tobacco is dishonest and manipulative!

dilemmas of EE

1) audience segmentation: characters cant represent everyone in audience; some left out 2) unintended effects: message could backfire 3) recognizing persuasive attempt: could prompt reactance 4) what counts as "prosocial"? (socially beneficial): we don't all agree

refutational inoculation

1) forewarning threat to current beliefs --> tell people beliefs are going to come under attack 2) counterargument --> give a small weekend dose of the oppositions argument (not too compelling) ex: there are people who will tell you X 3) Rebuttal: follow with rebuttal arguments explaining why counterargument is weak/non compelling. **no attitude change happens here..wait to get message from opposition **when future message attacks their beliefs, they are better able to defend against it

practical implications of sleeper effect

1. persuasive effects of source expertise and trustworthiness are short-lived 2. message arguments are more important than credibility in the long run

parallel response model

2 possible responses to fear 1) fear control --> same as drive model (motivated to reduce feelings of fear) --> avoid situation/denial (emotional/maladaptive) 2) danger control --> evaluating and selecting response to avoid the danger described in message --> attitude and/or behavior change (cognitive/more adaptive)

order of persuasiveness (1 vs 2 sided messages)

2 sided refutational > 1 sided > 2 sided nonrefutal -same order when ti comes to source credibility too -2 sided ref messages boost source cred and can contribute to more favorable thoughts about the message -for ads, 2 sided non ref = one sided in persuasiveness

Jason should be elected class president, because he is an honors student and honors students tend to be responsible & reliable. (claim, evidence, warrant?)

Claim = Jason should be elected class president Evidence = honors student warrant = honors students = responsible/reliable