PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION

(PRA 110)
Asst. Prof. Dr. Zeynep Aksoy
LECTURE 6: INTERPERSONAL PERSUASION
Outline
ü Interpersonal communication

ü Persuasive tactics

üCompliance gaining strategies

 1 2 3

4 5 6
Understanding Interpersonal communication
ü All these examples involve communication
ü they involve people
ü But they are different experiences because of the different
processes.
üThe nature of the audience
üMedium or channel of communication
Understanding Interpersonal communication
Interpersonal Communication provides a framework for understanding how we
communicate with others in everyday situations.

ØCommunication from one individual to another

ØCommunication which is face to face (excludes “mediated” communication)

ØThe form and the content of the communication reflect the personal characteristics,
social roles and relationships of the individuals

ØTwo way communication

The study of Interpersonal Persuasion
üUnlike purely psychological approaches, it focuses on two-person unit
(persuader and persuadee).
üIn contrast to attitude based research, it centers on changing behavior (on
inducing people to comply with the persuader's requests).
üUnlike message-oriented persuasion research, it explores techniques people
employ to accomplish interpersonal objectives (how they "sell themselves" to
others).
üInterpersonal persuasion research examines the strategies that people use to
gain compliance.
Persuasive tactics
A variety of techniques
üFoot-in-the-door
üDoor-in-the-face
These persuasive tactics are known as sequential influence
techniques, in which persuasive communications follow one another
in a step-by-step fashion.
FOOT-IN-THE DOOR
o A classic persuasion strategy dates back to the days when salespeople
knocked on doors and applied tricks of the trade
o If they could just overcome initial resistance they could overcome other
resistance issues to the sales of the product.
o Going door to door is out of date, but starting small and moving to a
larger request is still valid.
o An individual is more likely to comply with a second, larger request if
s/he has agreed to perform a small initial request.
FOOT-IN-THE DOOR
Freedman and Fraser (1966) wanted
to show how to persuade
homeowners to put large signs in
their gardens.
FOOT-IN-THE DOOR
o First group was asked to put a small sign (8x8cm) “Be a safe driver” in their car.
Two weeks later, residents were asked if they would place a large, unattractive
“Drive Carefully” sign on their front lawns.

o Homeowners in a control condition were asked only the second request. 17%
accepted.

o After two weeks ,the first group was asked to put the bigger one. 76 % agreed
FOOT-IN-THE DOOR
Why does it work?
Ø Self-perception theory: Feeling helpful and cooperative.

Ø Consistency needs: Individuals find it dissonant to reject the

second request.
Ø Social norms: When asked to enact a small first request, people
become more aware of society’s norm of social responsibility.
FOOT-IN-THE DOOR
When does it work?
Ø Likely to work when the request concerns a pro-social issue
Ø When the second request is in a logical continuation

Ø When there is a reasonable time in between the requests.

DOOR-IN-THE-FACE
o A persuader makes a large request that is almost certain to be rejected.
o The persuader returns with a smaller request, which communicator had in
mind at the beginning.
DOOR-IN-THE-FACE
o A volunteer, asked students if they would
donate a unit of blood once, every 2 months for
a period of at least 3 years.
o Everyone declined
o The volunteer then if they would donate just
one unit of blood the next day. (49% accepted)
o 32% accepted in the control group.
DOOR-IN-THE-FACE
o A group was asked to to spend 2 hours answering
survey questions.
o After the request was declined, the experimenter asked
if individuals would mind taking 15 minutes to complete
a small portion of the survey.
o Control group participants were asked only the second
request.
o 44% of the first group agreed to participate in the
shorter survey.
o By contrast, only 25% of control group complied with
the second request.
DOOR-IN-THE-FACE
Why does it work?
Ø Guilt (emotional): Individuals feel guilty about turning down the first request.
To reduce guilt, an unpleasant feeling, they go along with the second request.
Ø Comprimise (social rule): The person is seen as having made a compromise.
halfway. This leads invoking the social rule that “you should make compromises
to those who make compromises to you”.
Ø Comparing (anchor point): the second request seems less costly and severe.
(the control groups did not have that anchor)
DOOR-IN-THE-FACE
When does it work?

Ø Works particularly well when the request concerns pro-social issues.

Ø When the same individual makes both requests

Ø If there is only a short delay between the first and second requests.
Compliance Gaining
Compliance Gaining
“Any interaction in which a message source attempts to persuade a target
individual to perform some desired behavior that the target otherwise might not
perform” (Wilson, 2002, p.2)
o The focus of compliance-gaining is on communication.
o The dyadic (one-on-one) conversation between individuals.
o Interpersonal communication scholars seek to understand how individuals try to
get others to go along with their requests in social situations.
o Compliance gaining strategies.
Compliance Gaining
Do you have a membership to a fitness club? (and do sports?)
Compliance Gaining
Thinking of Joining a Health Club. Health club’s sales representative might employ some
“friendly persuasion”.

Ø Promise (reward)
“If you begin your membership today, you’ll receive a bonus of three months
free.”

Ø Threat (punishment)

“If you do not join today, you will not have a chance to receive reduced fee”
Compliance Gaining
Ø Expertise
“Joining will guarantee that you’ll be in shape/maintain your health”
“If you do not join you’ll end up looking fat”
Ø Liking
“I think it’s great that you’ve decided to begin an exercise program. The staff is
here to help you reach your fitness goals.”
Ø Altruism
“I need to sign one more member this week.”
Compliance Gaining Strategies
Researchers divide strategies that individuals use to influence others:

üDirect vs indirect

üRational vs non-rational

üHard-sell vs soft-sell

üDominance vs non-dominance

üExternal vs internal
Direct - Indirect strategy
üDirect techniques include;

o assertion (voicing one's wishes loudly)

o persistence (repeating one's point)

üIndirect tactics include

o «emotion-target» (putting the other person in a good mood)

o thought manipulation (trying to get your way by making the other person feel it is his idea)
Rational - Nonrational strategy
üRational techniques include

o reason (arguing logically)

o exchange of favors (reciprocity)

üNonrational tactics include

o deceit (lying, fast talking)

o threat (telling her I will never speak to her again if she doesn't do what I want)
Hard sell – Soft-sell strategy
üHard-sell tactics include

o demanding, and verbal aggression (aggressive sales pitches and repeated calls
to action)

üSoft-sell techniques include

o kindness, flattery, and flirting

Dominance - Nondominance strategy
ü Dominance-oriented strategies emphasize

o the power the communicator has over the target

ü Non-dominance oriented strategies employ

o a more egalitarian approach

External - Internal strategy
üTactics can be externally focused: rewards (carrot) or punishments (stick).
o To motivate a child to study, a parent could use a carrot like promise ("I'll allow you go
outside and play) or a stick like aversive stimulation ("You're banned from watching TV
driving until you get good grades").

üTechniques can be internally focused: self-persuasion-type; designed to engage

the recipient.
o Positive self-feeling ("You'll feel good about yourself if you study a lot")

o Negative self-feeling ("You'll be disappointed with yourself in the long run if you don't study
more")
Contextual Influences
üImportant contextual influences on strategy selection. People choose different strategies in
different contexts.

Ø Intimacy

o Intimate associations between persuader and persuadee.

o Same individual can behave very differently depending on the closeness. (a stranger and a friend)

o Fitzpatrick and Winke (1979) found that married persons were especially likely to employ
emotional appeals or personal rejections ("withholding affection and acting cold until he or she
gives in") to resolve conflicts.
Contextual Influences
ØDependency

o People may use different strategies to gain compliance, depending on whether they are
dependent on the person they are trying to influence.

o People can be unwilling to use hard-sell tactics when the other has control over important
outcomes in their lives.

o To be more careful when trying to gain compliance from those who have control over
important outcomes in your life.

o When people lack power, they are more likely to employ rational and indirect tactics
Contextual Influences
ØRights

o People employ different tactics to get their way, depending on whether they believe they have
the right to pursue a particular option.

o If they do not feel they have the moral right to make a request, they may use soft tactics.

o If they believe they have the right to make a request, or if they feel they have been treated
unfairly, they are more apt to employ hard than soft techniques.
Individual differences
üPersonality and individual differences influence compliance-gaining.
Being direct, or shy.

Worry about hurting others' feelings; or not caring at all.

Respect social conventions; or disregarding them.

üScholars have focused on several individual difference factors: gender and self-
monitoring.
Individual differences
Gender
üLargely due to socialization, women are more likely than men to use polite
tactics and to employ powerless speech (Baxter, 1984; Timmerman, 2002).
Self-monitoring
üHigh self-monitors tend to adapt their strategy to fit the person they are trying
to influence (Caldwell & Burger, 1997).
üThey tend to develop elaborate strategic plans; concern with their image
management
üLow self-monitors are more apt to use the same technique with different
people.
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION