Análisis transversal de correlación entre el PNV, las DAP, y los programas de vivienda

The question of how a text becomes persuasive has an extremely long tradition since Aristotle’s times (see for example Ars Rhetorica), and yet it is still unanswered to a great extent. Aristotle established three types of persuasive appeals to the audience: ethos, or appeal to the credibility and reliability of the communicator; pathos, or appeal to emotions; and logos, or appeal to rationality. They are still relevant and taken into account in modern studies on persuasion (Halmari and Virtanen 2005; Hyland 2005; Bamford 2007; Scotto di Carlo 2014). However, modern research points at the need for a more flexible and dynamic concept of persuasion. Instead of trying to find a magic recipe for a persuasive text, good speakers need to adapt their ideas to the situational context and in particular to the audience they are addressing. What is persuasive in one situation may not work in a different context or with a different audience (O’Keefe 2002; Perloff 2003; Hyland 2005). Because of this intrinsic dynamic aspect of persuasion, and because persuasive techniques may have different effects on different audiences, modern research on persuasion has focused on the intention of the communicator, so that a text could be considered persuasive if the speaker is trying to persuade (Jucker 1997; O’Keefe 2002). This is the trend I adopt in my study, and for this reason I focus on the the use of persuasive strategies by the speakers. The following pages will review previous research on persuasion to highlight some of the most salient aspects of persuasive texts.

56 Lakoff (1982) defines persuasion as an attempt to make the addressee change their mind or course of action by communicative means. He points out how these means can be either linguistic or non-linguistic (e.g. gestures, images, etc.). Perloff (2003) adds other features to the concept of persuasion: it necessarily constitutes a conscious attempt to influence and it occurs in an atmosphere of free choice (this is what differentiates persuasion from coercion). That is, it is ultimately the recipient and not the persuader who decides to accept the persuasive influence and alter their behaviour. From this it follows that the recipient plays a more active role in persuasion than it has generally being acknowledged. At the core of persuasion, therefore, there is a process of change. The object of this change is what most researchers agree to call attitude. Attitude is defined as a “learned global evaluation of an object (person, place or issue) that influences thought and action” (Perloff 2003: 39).

Therefore, one of the crucial questions persuasion research has tried to answer is how to craft a message that can trigger this attitude change. Early research suggested that attitude change was mediated through learning. Once the speaker has the attention of the recipient, the message will persuade if recipients understand it, accept it as true and make it part of their knowledge (Hovland, Janis and Kelley 1953). More recent approaches, however, argue in favour of a more active role of the recipient in the persuasive process. What is more important in persuasion is not understanding and recalling the message itself, but the way the recipient reacts to it, and the thoughts it stirs (Perloff and Brock 1980; Perloff 2003). One of the models that research on persuasion has produced to account for different ways in which addressees react to a persuasive message is the Elaboration Likelihood Model (hereafter ELM) (Petty and Cacioppo 1986; Petty and Wegener 1999; Perlof 2003). ELM claims that under certain circumstances, for example when the topic is important to us or when we are knowledgeable about it, we are more likely to process a message in detail, considering each argument, example, evidence, etc. This is called elaboration based persuasion or central route. In other situations, for example when we are not concerned or we do not have sufficient knowledge, we tend to rely on peripheral cues such as the speaker’s appearance. This is called heuristic- based persuasion or peripheral route. Consequently, under conditions that prompt high elaboration, powerful arguments are important, while in the case of heuristic-based persuasion other aspects become more relevant. Among these aspects are the credibility and likability of the speaker. A speaker gains credibility as he is perceived as expert and trustworthy (i.e. able and willing to say and share the truth). To this aim speakers often resort to evidence, reliable

57 sources and credentials. A high speed of speech and a powerful speech, avoiding hesitations or hedges, can also enhance credibility (Perloff 2003). Humour, on the other hand, makes the speaker sound more trustworthy. Likability can also enhance heuristic-based persuasion (for this reason models or successful sportsmen usually appear in advertisements). It prompts positive feelings that can then be transferred to a product being promoted (Perloff 2003). In fact, emotions considerably affect persuasion, either by actual arousal or invocation (O’Keefe 2002). References to how good a product can make you feel are frequent in all genres that promote a product, and are sometimes more effective than factual objective information.

Petty et al. (2002) draw on ELM to develop their self-validation hypothesis. Their research focuses on how the way individuals reflect on the thoughts provoked by a message (and in particular their confidence in them) can affect persuasion. They conclude that if a message prompts positive thoughts, people who have confidence in these thoughts are more likely to be persuaded than people with low confidence. The opposite happens with negative thoughts: low confidence will result in persuasion while high confidence will not prompt persuasion. This effect is greater under high elaboration conditions. This means that when individuals under high elaboration conditions have doubts about the thoughts that the message has stirred in them, the quality of arguments loses efficacy.

Taking a more sociological approach, Cialdini (1984, 2001, 2006) has postulated that persuasion works by appealing to a limited set of human drives and needs. According to him persuasion is governed by six basic principles that can be summarized as follows:

i) Reciprocity: we feel an obligation to repay favours;

ii) Consistency and commitment: we feel a need for personal alignment, so we like to be consistent;

iii) Social proof: we look for support in what others do;

iv) Liking: we are more positive to the opinions and requests of people we like; v) Authority: we tend to believe in the opinions of experts;

vi) Scarcity: something exclusive is more attractive.

Although I do not adopt a psychological or cognitive approach to persuasion, I do believe that these human drives and needs lie behind many rhetorical decisions that speakers make in their presentations.

Moving away from the figures of the persuader and persuadee, there are features of the message itself that have received considerable attention in the literature about persuasion.

58 Following ELM, they are expected to work particularly well under high elaboration conditions (i.e. when the addressee is carefully considering the message), although they occasionally contribute in a more heuristic way (i.e. promoting credibility, or making arguments more salient). Among these we can mention:

i) Evaluation: Evaluation can be very persuasive, because when speakers evaluate something they are implicitly inviting the listener to accept their point of view (Bamford 2007), therefore, evaluation is a frequent device in persuasive discourse. Bhatia (2005) also points out how positive evaluations are used in advertising genres to differentiate the product they advertise. Pomerantz (1986) notes how extreme case formulations are frequently used to legitimise claims when speakers expect possible counterclaims. Interestingly enough, these claims are commonly accompanied by head shakes, which seem to deny in advance a potential counter-argument (Kendon 2002). Extreme case formulations also provide credibility. For example something that happens “every time” cannot be easily disregarded, and something “everybody does” simply seems the right thing to do and is not easily questioned. On the other hand, evaluation can be especially effective when its source is hidden or attributed to people in general. The information is thus presented as common ground, and not as the particular opinion of an individual with whom the addressee may disagree. This positions both the addressee and the persuader within the same opinion group, creating consensus. In fact, evaluation can depend on shared background knowledge and become very implicit (Hunston 2000).

ii) Framing or orientation (Goffman 1979; Pomerantz 1986; Levin, Schneider and Gaerth 1998) is a powerful persuasive device, and it refers to the way information is presented so as to guide a particular interpretation of the content. This accounts for the different effects created by “30% mortality rate” vs. “70% survival rate” or “provide benefits” vs. “prevent losses”. Perloff (2003) claims that positively framed messages are more effective when preventive actions are promoted (because they highlight the benefit of the preventive action), but negatively framed messages work better in other circumstances, particularly when the threat is perceived as real and likely and when the preventive action is perceived as feasible (because they highlight what addressees will lose if they do not change their mind).

iii) Examples vs. statistics: A similar difference can be spotted in the use of examples vs. statistical data. Lischinski (2008) points out that the use of examples can contribute to the credibility of the speaker, showing that some practical knowledge is shared with the addressee, and that the speaker is knowledgeable enough so as to apply theories to real

59 situations. When examples are provided instead of raw data, the information is perceived as more likely, desirable or important (Zillman, Perkins and Sundar 1992). Even when examples contradict data, the addressee tends to rely on the example and disregard abstract data, because the latter are more complex to process and attract less attention. On the other hand, generalizing from an example is an easier process. Even if statistics represent a larger number of cases, examples representing a single case are more persuasive (Brosius and Bathelt 1994). In addition, it is perceived as a neutral and active process of opinion-building on the part of the addressee, who does not feel any type of imposition (Goffman 1979). Adding several examples together also achieves a sense of normality or typicality (Brosius and Bathelt 1994, Lischinski 2008), which may not in fact be supported by statistics. Due to their apparent reliability and neutral footing (Goffman 1979), examples are a very powerful persuasive device.

iv) Language intensity: the use of metaphors, strong, vivid language and emotionally charged words can also contribute to a persuasive message. They raise interest, and make arguments stand out (Sopory and Dillard 2002; Perloff 2003). As Perloff (2003) points out, intense language can work particularly well when the speaker enjoys credibility or when the audience does not have well developed attitudes towards the topic dealt with.

v) Stylistic devices such as three-part lists, symmetric structures, contrasting pairs or lexical creativity (Lakoff 1982, Bowring et. al 2013) can help make the text more memorable and in turn more persuasive.

vi) The use of vocabulary from the semantic field of novelty can also highlight the innovative character of what is presented in order to boost persuasion (Lakoff 1982, Bamford 2007, 2008).

vii) Direct addresses to the audience (Bamford 2007) can also become persuasive when they are used to prompt a particular response. This is usually the case with rhetorical questions and question tags, which anticipate and assume a preferred response from the audience. On the other hand, direct addresses to the audience contribute to rapport, which is also beneficial for persuasion.

As O’Keefe (2002) and Perloff (2003) note, one of the challenges in persuasion research is the fact that it is extremely complicated to isolate variables and assign a particular effect to them. It is not always easy to attribute the final effect on the addressee to a specific variable. For example a text may be persuasive due to its framing of information or its use of

60 positive evaluation, but the addressee may also be influenced by the perceived credibility of the speaker, and it is difficult to tell which of the variables is more influential. On the other hand, one variable can have different functions. The same variable under certain circumstances can act as a peripheral cue, while in other circumstances it may influence high elaboration processing. This is the case for example of speaker’s credibility or the use of evidence. Because of this, persuasion needs to remain flexible, and good persuaders need to learn to adapt to the communicative situation.

The ELM approach to persuasion outlined above, therefore, is far from being applicable as a magic recipe for a persuasive text. Nonetheless, it explains why certain persuasive techniques are usually effective in certain circumstances and with certain audiences. For example it can explain why persuasion becomes more effective the more unexpected and subtle it is. Forewarning is a persuasion killer, because it activates the recipients mind and stirs potential counterarguments in advance (Petty and Cacciopo 1977, Perloff 2003), or in other words, activates elaboration-based persuasion. For the same reason, distractions are sometimes used in persuasion as an inhibition of counterarguments: they prevent the recipient from reflecting on the message and prompt a heuristic-based persuasion. This idea is shared by Cook (2001: 229), who in his study of advertising discourse claims that “if an ad departs from expectation, it will attract attention and / or convince (…) On the other hand, ads do not need to explicitly identify themselves as such or reveal their persuasive intention, because this is normally inferred, mainly by their position within other discourse in which they appear ".

Halmari and Virtanen (2005) also argue that persuasion is more effective when it is implicit. This accounts for the tendency to innovation which many inherently persuasive genres show. Advertisements are constantly striving to surprise the audience, and oral presentations also tend to become increasingly innovative. New technologies have greatly contributed to this, opening a wide range of possibilities. This tendency to novelty can be realised through a flouting of Grice conversational maxims (see Section 1.1.2 in Chapter 1). Faced with an unusual message, the addressee’s attention is deeply engaged as they are prompted to find a suitable interpretation, and this process leaves a longer lasting impression (Lakoff 1982).

The role of culture in persuasion has been considered by Fitch (2003). According to her, studies on persuasion can be divided into three main trends: social sciences, with special emphasis on the influence on attitude as a process; rhetoric, with focus on the audience and

61 how to adapt messages to them; and finally mass media, with a particular interest on understanding the effects of messages on audiences. Neither of them, she claims, considers that persuasion is a culturally-determined phenomenon. It is generally assumed that whenever there is choice there is room for persuasion (when there is no choice, we are talking about coercion). However, culture narrows down the scope, delimiting what you can be persuaded of (i.e. persuadables) and how much persuasive effort is required. For example, you cannot be convinced to do something your culture generally approves of, or of something you are expected to do anyway (i.e. taken for granted), because these are non-persuadables. Likewise, your culture determines how much effort is required to convince you of other aspects that do constitute persuadables. The relevance of this for a persuasive presentation is that speakers need to take into account potential cultural differences with their audiences as they design their message.

Turning now to non-verbal realisations of persuasion, the fact that persuasive techniques can also be non-linguistic has long been acknowledged (Woodall and Burgeon 1981; Lakoff 1982; Morrison and Vogel 1988; Messaris 1997; Perloff 2003; Bamford 2007). Several studies focus on the effect of different modes on persuasion. Chaiken and Eagly (1976) studied the effect of mode on message comprehension and persuasive effect. They concluded that difficult messages are better understood and have greater persuasive effects when they are written. In the case of easy messages comprehension was not affected by mode, but persuasion was greater in videotaped messages. Chaiken and Eagly (1983) focus on the effect of mode on the perception of the speaker and final persuasive effect. They found out that likable speakers were more persuasive in audio and video tape, while unlikable communicators were more persuasive in writing, and concluded that the mode used can foreground the figure of the speaker making it more salient and influencing the final persuasive result. Sparks, Areni and Cox (1998) also studied the effect of mode on persuasion, concluding that writing prompts a central route to persuasion, while audio and audio-visual modes seem to encourage a more peripheral, heuristic-based processing. In addition, they found out that the influence of language style (powerful vs. powerless) on persuasion was affected by mode: in audio messages the effect of language style was greater. It follows from this discussion that speakers need to be particularly conscious of the different effects that audio-visual modes (e.g. intonation, gestures and head movements) can have on their audiences, because they are particularly salient in oral genres such as presentations.

62 Among these audio-visual modes, the role of visuals has received particular attention. Morrison and Vogel (1988) have shown how the use of visuals in presentations improves comprehension and retention, which would be helpful in central routes to persuasion, and at the same time improves the perception of the presenter, which in turn results in higher attention and yielding (peripheral route to persuasion). Messaris (1997) studies the role of images in advertising. He points out three main characteristics of persuasive images:

i) Iconicity: they can simulate the visual appearance of reality and elicit emotions and attitudes to real people, places and objects;

ii) Indexicality: they can be used as evidence supporting claims, especially photographs, which are generally considered trustworthy and reliable;

iii) Lack of propositional syntax: the link between images is implicit. There is no explicit and well-established way of expressing analogy, contrast, causality, etc. as there is with language. Because they are more implicit as a semiotic system, advertisers use them to convey messages that they are reluctant to overtly express with words.

Although in this study I do not focus on visuals as a mode, I acknowledge their importance and interconnectedness with other modes, especially in the case of pointing to projections of visual materials. This is a practice that can be used with a clear persuasive intent, as I will discuss in chapters 6 and 7.

The role of intonation and gestures in persuasion has also been acknowledged. Woodall and Burgeon (1981) showed that kinesic cues synchronised with the verbal message resulted in a higher recall and more effective persuasion, demonstrating how non-verbal synchrony affects processing and acceptance of a message. Burgoon, Birk and Pfau (1990) also examined the effect of non-verbal behaviour on credibility and persuasion. They found out that aspects such as facial expressiveness, kinesic and proxemic immediacy, relaxed posture, fluency and pitch variety contributed to the perception of the speaker as a competent and sociable person and resulted in increased persuasiveness. Chebat, Chebat and Vaninsky (1996) investigated the effect of intonation and intensity of voice in persuasion, concluding that both affect the credibility of the speaker, but in different ways. The effect of voice