ENGL 354 English for Public Relations Week 3

1. ENGL 354English for Public RelationsWeek 3 Lecturer: Kathryn Davies

2. Today’s Topics Model of Communication – The need for persuasion • Who • Three C’s of an Effective Communicator • What – the message • To whom – the audience • To what effect

3. Definition of PR • “PR is about reputation – the result of what you do, with the aim of earning understanding and support and influencing opinion and behaviour. It is the planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics.” – Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and UK Chartered Institute of Public Relations • influencing opinion and behaviour. Ring a bell?

4. Persuasion per·suade [per-sweyd] Show IPA verb (used with object), per·suad·ed, per·suad·ing. 1. to prevail on (a person) to do something, as by advising or urging: We could not persuade him to wait. 2. to induce to believe by appealing to reason or understanding; convince: to persuade the judge of the prisoner's innocence. Source: dictionary.com

5. Propaganda  Persuasion Propaganda  very negative connotations… Persuasion  less negative connotations, but still somewhat negative. More modern models of PR (e.g. Grunig & Hunt, 1984) aim to stress the more positive aspects of PR. Some scholars (Jaksa & Pritchard, 1994; Andersen, 1978) do argue that persuasion isn’t necessarily bad, but it’s still side-stepped in PR textbooks. (Tench & Yeomans, 2006)  So to understand a little bit about persuasion, we have to turn to social psychology schools and the study of speech acts (rhetoric).

6. Models of Communication Aristotle Ethos  the character of the speaker Logos  the nature of the message Pathos  the attitude of the audience Lasswell (1948) “Who (1) says What (2) in which channel (3) to Whom (4), with What effect (5).”

7. Key elements by which audiences evaluate speakers as: Expertise – how competent the speaker is on this issue. Trustworthiness – confidence and likeability Similarity – Need to be like the audience  homophily Need to be dissimilar if experience or expertise is needed  heterophily Physical attractiveness – people trust attractive speakers. But, what about power? Other factors play a role. Source: Trench &Yeoman, 2006 WHO: Credibility Model Perloff (1993)

8. WHO: The 3 C’s of an Effective Communicator (Smith, 2011) Aristotle placed particular emphasis on the importance of the character. “[He] observed that reputation proceeds the speaker, setting the stage for the audience to accept or reject the speaker’s message. Even before the speaker presents a message the audience makes a judgement based on the speaker’s prestige and prominence.” (Smith, 2011) Credibility Charisma Control

9. Credibility • Expertise – they know what they’re talking about! • Status – audience’s deference to the social position or prestige of the message source. • Competence – ability to remain calm under pressure, and be clear and dynamic. • Honesty – the speaker is willing to provide full and accurate information without bias  worthy of trust.  Credibility is extremely important to persuasion! Being a good speaker or writer is sometimes more effective than good evidence. Highly credible sources can appeal to fear and use intense opinionated language that would be counterproductive coming from a less credible source.

10. Charisma The magnetic appeal or personal charm over an audience. • Familiarity – the extent to which the audience knows or thinks they know the message source. • Likeability – the extent to which the audience admires what it knows about the message source. • Similarity – the extent to which the source resembles the audience (or the way in which the audience would like to see themselves). May reflect demographics: age, gender, occupation, ethnicity, religion, culture, shared values. • Attractiveness – includes physical looks, demeanor, poise and presence, clothing worn, and setting. BUT! They cannot flaunt their looks or be overly too good-looking that it is a distraction.

11. Control The message source’s command over the audience and the perceived willingness to exercise that power. • Power – the raw and recognized ability to dominate, reward, or punish. • Authority – the right to rule over or direct the actions of another. The audience has more or less granted the right of control and will give obedience. • Scrutiny – the ability to examine and investigate you, which means they can give you blame.

12. Dumbest politician ever? Nope!

13. Sarah PalinFormer governor of Alaska

14. Blue = Democratic statesRed = Republican states

15. Democratliberal, left-wing Republicanconservative, right-wing Vice President candidates

16. Videos for Palin: • Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E • Skip to 4:35 • North Korea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oEylpSsOsQ • Founding fathers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZY188bNw4Y. • Joke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAPWD-PR_FA • SNL • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE-OCDexYrU • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N18dNxEuguA • Jokes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMPTrF5t18g (skip to 4:06)

17. Palin: Family: father was a science/sports teacher. Mother a secretary. University: Took 5 years, and 3 (4?) transfers to complete a bachelor’s degree in communications. University of Idaho. Political career: Mayor of small town in Alaska. Govenor of Alaska for 1-2 years. Ultimately didn’t finish her term. Bush: Family: came from political family. Father was president. University: attended some private schools and “prep” schools. B.A. in History from Yale University. Earned MBA from Harvard Business School. Political career: governor of Texas for 5 years. Personal wealth over 15 million USD. Background of Bush vs. Palin

18. Could anyone like her or vote for her? Yes! • Support for Palin: • Best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXKuDYvM6Wk • Proud to be a woman • Strong • Breath of fresh air • Stands for what America is • Freedom • Liberties • Right to speak • Epitome of conservativeness. • Realness • Fairness • Someone who can make a difference  • We need good people like her to speak up for reality. • 4:45  “We’re american, and she sticks up for the American people. Not for other people. We’re first, other people last.” • 7:34  Do you hope that she runs for president, even though you aren’t familiar with her foreign policy? Yes, I do. A lot of these interviews are intended to make fun of her fans. They ask them questions about her policies that they have no clue about. They simply LIKE HER!

19. Credibility: Expertise x Status √ Competence x Honesty √ Charisma: Familiarity √ Likeability √ Similarity √ Attractiveness √ So what Credibility does she have? Control: • Power x • Authority √ • Scrutiny x

20. Sarah Palin’s impact on McCain’s fortunes will no doubt be long debated, and the results of the exit polls are somewhat mixed. Fully 60% of Americans casting ballots said that Palin is not qualified to be president should it be necessary; 81% of these voters favored Obama. Yet those who cited Palin’s selection as a factor in their vote — 60% of all voters — favored McCain by 56% to 43%. – pewresearch.org

21. Fall from popularity… • “How Tina Fey destroyed Sarah Palin. And more surprising insights from the social sciences” – The Boston Globe • How Tina Fey destroyed the GOP “Can parodies of politicians affect those politicians’ popularity? You betcha! At least that seems to be what happened with Tina Fey’s impersonation of Sarah Palin on “Saturday Night Live” in the fall of 2008. Analysis of a nationwide survey of college students from the 2008 campaign reveals that approval of Palin right before the election was cut in half among students who had seen the impersonation compared to those who hadn’t. You might expect this to be the case among Democrats, but it turns out that the negative effect of the impersonation was only significant among self-identified Republicans and independents. As the authors point out, Democrats’ approval of Palin probably couldn’t go much lower, whereas the impersonation seems to have jolted right-leaning individuals.”

22. Fall from popularity

23. Summary Three C’s of effective communicators (Smith, 2011) • Credibility • Expertise, experience, status, communication competence, honesty, sincerity, lack of bias • Charisma • Likability, familiarity/similarity to the audience, physical attractiveness • Control • Power over audience

24. Model of Communication

25. WHAT? – The message • Which kinds of message are most convincing? • Fear or humour appeal? • It was thought that fear made a message more powerful, but Rogers (1983) suggested if a message is too frightening, receivers tend to block the message to protect themselves from being alarmed. • AIDS campaigns in 1980s ‘Don’t Die of Ignorance’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fErrB8NfARE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0xmSV6aq0g DEADLY, DANGEROUS, THREAT

26. What – the Message Elaboration likelihood model (Petty and Cacioppo 1986) looks at how messages are processed.

27. Routes of persuasion • Central route: involves processing (or elaborating) the arguments cotnained in a message, using reason and evaluation. • Peripheral route: reacting emotionally. Appeals to a range of responses: humour or feelings towards the person giving the message.  advertisers

28. Elaboration Likelihood Model

29. To WHOM? – Audience • Receivers can be grouped in many ways: • Demographics – age, geography, occupation, gender, marital status, race, etc. • Psychographics • Psychologists have tried to study why some people are more easily persuaded than others. • Self-esteem • Self monitor (Snyder and DeBono, 1985)

30. To Whom? • Self esteem: • Lower self esteem: more easily influenced by superficial aspects of a message.  Rely on peripheral cues (color, music, celebrity) do not internalise message – equally persuaded by next message. • Higher self esteem: engage relevant thinking on the issue before deciding whether to agree or disagree.  Perhaps avoid or deflect unwelcoming or challenging messages (e.g. smokers leaving the room when anti-smoking ads come on).  “ego defensive behavior”  Different tactics are needed for different audiences!

31. To Whom? • Self monitor (Snyder & DeBono, 1995): • High self-monitors: look outside themselves for clues about how to respond.  Influenced by the reactions of those around them, especially people they would like to be accepted by (referent group). • Low self-monitors: look inwards.  Consults their own values and beliefs before responding to messages.

32. To whom? • Bettinghaus and Cody (1994: 165) provide the following statements as tests for self-monitoring: • ‘I have considered being an entertainer.’ • ‘I’m not always the person I appear to be.’ • ‘I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them.’ • ‘I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain others.’ • ‘I can make impromptu speeches even on topics about which I have almost no information.’  People who agree with most of these statements are likely to be high self-monitors.

33. To Whom?

34. To Whom? • It is important to understand group dynamics to communicate a message. • “Just think about how hard it is to persuade people to stop drink driving if all their friends think it is a brillant thing to do.” • Messages that conflict with group beliefs, or norms, are most likely to be rejected by the group.  Palin example.

35. To what effect? • In order to understand whether or not persuasion has any effect, we need to understand what attitudes consist of and how they can be changed • Belief: “The function of mind, assembling thoughts to create a system of reference for understanding” (Tench and Yeomans, 2009: 263)

36. To what effect? Beliefs • I believe the sky is blue.  Descriptive – describes the world around us. • I believe this is a good university.  Evaluative – weighs up the consequences of actions. • I believe men and women should share housework.  Prescriptive – suggest how things ought to be.

37. To what effect? Beliefs • Central • Close to values and describe what we hold most important. (“I believe in equality and justice.”) • Peripheral (“I believe this shampoo will clean my hair.”) • Authority-derived beliefs • Adopt ideas proposed by those in authority.

38. To what effect? How can persuasion target beliefs? • Central  can’t change much. • Authority-based  Family values or childhood religion, change more slowly. • Peripheral  BINGO! Most easily changed (“I believe this shampoo is even better.”  This is a very blurred area: many definitions for beliefs overlap with opinions and values.

39. To what effect? Opinions, attitudes and values

40. To what effect?Attitudes • Attitudes: where our beliefs about what is right and wrong meet our feelings about right and wrong! • Attitudes: underpin our reactions to people and events, creating a filter or system against which we measure our responses to messages and events. (Allport 1935) • Provides a guide for communicators to understand their audiences

41. To what effect?Attitudes • More likely to affect behaviour if you are in a position to act on them.  individuated • Less likely to act out your attitudes if you are in a group whose members hold different views OR if you are in a formal situation.  de-individuated You might follow the mind-set that organic, locally grown produce is the best, but is it available and can you afford it?

42. To what effect?Attitudes • If people know something is bad for them, and they want to change, will they? • Not always! 50% of the time, people act against their intentions. • There is no correlation between our fear of contracting a disease (lung cancer) and our long-term actions (stopping smoking). • So how can you get across a persuasive campaign?

43. To what effect?Attitudes • Where do our attitudes come from? • Classic conditioning – physiological reactions to certain stimuli. (Dog salivating at the smell of food.) • Instrumental or operant conditioning – system of rewards or punishment. (Parents techniques for teaching table manners.) • Social learning theory – attitudes acquired by direct experience or acting out roles that mimic experience or models. (Learning how to react to betrayal, disappointment, etc. by watching character in soap operas.) • Genetic determinism.

44. To what effect?Attitudes • Social psychologists have a number of theories about how to change attitudes which are interesting to PR practitioners • The theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Azjen, 1980) • The theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957)

45. To what effect?Attitudes • The theory of reasoned action • The links between attitude and behaviour and the points where change might be possible. • Individuals conduct complicated evaluations of different influences (e.g. opinions of family, friends, teachers),  give them different weightings depending on how important their views are to the individual,  then compares these opinions to their own views and forms attitudes based on the results. • The process is important to PR to influence behaviour.

46. Cognitive dissonanceLeon Festinger, 1957 • Thoughts generate emotions: • Thoughts + feelings = consonance  • Thoughts + feelings = dissonance  • Cognitive dissonance describes how we rationalize internal conflicts to ourselves. • “We are usually reluctant to change our behavior and prefer to alter our thinking to make our behavior fit our ideas. Sound familiar?” (Trench & Yeoman, 2006)

47. Why is cognitive dissonance important to PR? • Creating cognitive dissonance in an audience can be a powerful tool for disrupting habits of thought and increases the chances of changing behavior.  Finding buttons to push! “If the tendency is to alter thoughts rather than behavior, but a campaign is intended to alter behavior, it is useful to know what pressure points to activate.”

49. Cognitive dissonance How can campaigns use Cognitive Dissonance? • Shock tactics • Must have realistic goals  must want to change behavior that CAN be changed. • Audiences must: • SEE or HEAR the message, • UNDERSTAND it, • REMEMBER it, • And undertake more actions before their behavior is likely altered.

50. Bringing it together… • McGuire’s input/output matrix (1989) – One of the pioneers in trying to understand how messages persuade people (or people are persuaded by mass media messages). • A matrix of inputs and outputs to persuasion • the inputs are the different aspects of the persuasion/communication attempt • outputs are the stages of persuasion