Structure of persuasive communication and elaboration likelihood model

The aim of the paper is to propose a framework for the structure of persuasive communica-tion based on the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) by Petty and Cacioppo, the Inference Anchoring Theory (IAT) by Budzynska and Reed and the Interpersonal (IP-) Argumentation Model by Budzynska. The ELM suggests that there are two routes to persuasion: central and peripheral. IAT assumes that com-munication acts generate their contents and inferences by means of illocutionary connections. The model of IP-argumentation provides the general representation of arguments in which the proponent refers to com-munication acts of some participant of communication. The paper discusses where exactly means of the central and peripheral routes operate in the structure of persuasive communication and argumentatio

Exploring Gendered Nonverbal Behavior in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Debates

The purpose of our paper is to explore the gendered double-bind in political communication. Research by argumentation scholars and others point to a double standard in media portrayals of nonverbal behavior by male and female politicians. Our analysis will rely on primarily strategic maneuvering to examine closely the ways in which gender stereotypes were enacted by U.S. Presidential candidates during televised debates in 2016

Background Nonverbal Disagreement during Televised Political Debates: A Strategic Maneuvering Approach

Since the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon presidential debates, interest in the impact of televised debates on political campaigns has grown steadily among scholars of argumentation and rhetorical communication. In addition to communicating policy positions of a candidate, televised debates provide the voting public one of the few opportunities to build or solidify impressions of candidates based on a (at least semi-) spontaneous social performance in which candidates meet face-to-face to discuss their differences. The strategies candidates use to communicate their policies and their desired image during a debate can influence the direction of public opinion toward them. We claim in this essay that arguments candidates make nonverbally in televised debates are significant in creating and sustaining their image as presidential candidates

Impression Management in Televised Debates: The Effect of Background Nonverbal Behavior on Audience Perceptions of Debaters' Likeability

This study examined whether a debater's background nonverbal behavior affected audience perceptions of her and her opponent's likeability. Students watched one of four versions of a televised debate. In each, while the speaking debater appeared on the main screen, subscreens displayed her opponent's background nonverbal behavior. In one version, the nonspeaking debater displayed a neutral expression, whereas in the others she displayed occasional disagreement, nearly constant disagreement, or both agreement and disagreement. After viewing the debates, students rated the debaters' likeability. Analysis indicated that background behavior influenced perceptions of the nonverbal communicator but not of the speaking debater

Audience Perceptions of Candidates’ Appropriateness as a Function of Nonverbal Behaviors Displayed During Televised Political Debates

Compared to televised debates using a single-screen format, such debates using a split screen presenting both debaters simultaneously show viewers the nonverbal reactions of each debater\u27s opponent. The authors examined how appropriate or inappropriate such nonverbal behaviors are perceived to be. Students watched one of four versions of a televised debate. One version used a single-screen format, showing only the speaker, whereas the other three versions used a split-screen format in which the speaker\u27s opponent displayed constant, occasional, or no nonverbal disagreement with the speaker. Students then rated the debaters\u27 appropriateness. Analysis indicated that the opponent was perceived to be less appropriate when he displayed any background disagreement compared to when he did not. The students perceived the speaker as most appropriate when his opponent displayed constant nonverbal disagreement

The Effect of Generalized Compliments, Sex of Server, and Size of Dining Party on Tipping Behavior in Restaurants

This study examined the effects of food servers\u27 sex, the use of generalized compliments, and the size of the dining party on tipping behavior in restaurants. Four food servers (2 males, 2 females) waited on 360 parties eating dinner, and either complimented or did not compliment the parties on their dinner selections. Results indicated that food servers received significantly higher tips when complimenting their parties than when not complimenting them, although as the size of the party increased, the effectiveness of compliments decreased. These results and their implications are discussed

An investigation of the moderating effect of cognitive dissonance on psychological reactance in the context of COVID vaccine mandates

This research examines the potential interaction between cognitive dissonance and psychological reactance in response to persuasive messaging. Using a fictional COVID-19 vaccine mandate at a university as a quasi-experimental context, a 2 (attitude position: Pro-policy, Anti-policy) x 3 (dissonance promoted: generic, self-directed, other-directed) design was used to assess the interplay between both motivational drivers. Our results indicate that cognitive dissonance moderated the relationship of induced threat on psychological reactance for individuals with existing anti-mandate attitudes and provide support for Dillard and Shen’s measurement of psychological reactance, as well as core tenets of the theory

Background Behavior in Live Debates: The Effects of the Implicit Ad Hominem Fallacy

This study examined the effects of background nonverbal behavior displayed with the purpose of undermining one\u27s opponent in live debates. Students participated as audience members in one of three versions of a live debate. In one version, the nonspeaking debater remained “stone faced” during her opponent\u27s speech, while in the other two she displayed either occasional or nearly constant nonverbal disagreement. After viewing the debates, students rated the debaters\u27 credibility, appropriateness, and debating skills, in addition to judging who won the debate. Analysis indicated that background nonverbal behavior influenced audience perceptions of some, but not all, dimensions of speaker credibility and only one dimension of debate skill. These results and their implications are discussed

Responses to an Opponent’s Nonverbal Behavior in a Televised Debate: Audience Perceptions of Credibility and Likeability

This study examined audience perceptions of a political candidate’s credibility and likeability as a function of varying the candidate’s responses to an opponent’s nonverbal disparagement during a televised debate. 412 participants watched a purported televised debate between candidates for mayor in a small city in Utah. In all six versions, one debater engaged in strong nonverbal disagreement during his opponent’s opening statement. His opponent responded to the nonverbal behavior with one of six decreasingly polite messages. Results indicated that more direct (i.e., less polite) messages increased audience perceptions of the speaker’s expertise and character compared to providing no response. The results also showed a significant interaction between response type and audience member’s level of trait verbal aggressiveness. The “indirect” and “on-record with redress” responses led to stronger perceptions of speaker composure and extroversion for members high in verbal aggression and the “off the record” strategy led to higher perceptions of extroversion and composure for members low in verbal aggression