Persuasion

The word "persuasion" is so common, but I wonder if people really understand what it means. Basically, persuasion is any type of observable positive or negative change in attitude, opinion, or behavior that happens from exposure to a message or set of messages. If there were a 10 point scale measuring attitudes toward abortion, and even if someone's attitude only changed from a 1 to a 2 (or a 2 to a 1) after exposure to a message about abortion, they have been persuaded. Persuasion does not have to be radical change. In fact it is highly unlikely that people will radically change their opinions, attitudes, or behaviors.

Because persuasion is positive or negative change, persuasion is subject to erosion. In other words, change can be temporary or long lasting. It's kind of like when people diet. At first, they stick to the diet earnestly. As time goes by, they begin to cheat on their diet. And eventually, they are right back where they started from (or have gained even more weight because of the erratic eating behaviors). Persuasion works pretty much the same way. At first, people have changed. Over time, they revert (more or less) back to their original state (unless something happens that keeps them heading/changing in the same direction).

As with dieting, if people are exposed to multiple messages over time, then they are more likely to maintain the state of change (and perhaps continue changing in the same direction). Places like weight watchers give their followers positive feedback for extended periods of time in order to maintain positive change. Propaganda campaigns do the same thing. The key variables here are timing of the messages: 1) how often should people be exposed to a message (or set of messages), 2) when does exposure to a message (or set of messages) become subject to the law of diminishing returns, 3) how much information is necessary, 4) how strong should the message be, and 5) what types of message (information and packaging) is most effective.

The ELM (Elaboration Likelihood Model) suggests that persuasion is deeper as elaboration on a message increases. Elaboration is really the amount of involvement with the message (for example the internal dialog people have with themselves on the message's meaning). The more elaboration people have on a message, the deeper and long lasting the persuasion. The ELM also claims that there are two sets of information that people can elaborate on: 1) the information or meaning of the message itself (the arguments, claims, and evidence called the "central route" to persuasion) and 2) the peripheral information such as the speaker's appearance, speaking skills, credibility, credentials, and other things (often called the "peripheral route" to persuasion) not related to the message meaning that people will talk to themselves about. Of course, elaboration on the message's meaning (the central cues) is more likely to result in change and to resist erosion. Unfortunately the ELM offers little help in the way of designing messages that encourage central processing.

Consider the fact that you have been exposed to certain messages from birth. One of the most conclusive findings from mass communication research is that the media tell us not what to think, but what to think about. Mass media set the public agenda. And yet, as Mark Crispin Miller author of Loser Take All: Election Fraud and The Subversion of Democracy, 2000 - 2008, The Hidden Persuaders, and Propaganda pointed out when he visited campus last year, media are trivializing the important issues. For example, the media direct our attention to such events as "Hilary Clinton cried" rather than what Ms. Clinton actually said. I often wonder what people do think about.

Anyway, if you are interested in persuasion, I'd recommend obtaining a copy of The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice.