Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Psychology of Micro-Targeted Election Campaigns pp 23–58Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Approaching Persuasion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 535 Accesses

Abstract

The ability to change the beliefs of others is a foundational principle of deliberative democracies. People who can sway the hearts and minds of the electorate gain significant social advantages. Unsurprisingly, people have explored how persuasion works since Ancient Athenian democracies. This chapter explores the history of persuasion from qualitative and descriptive philosophical theories to twentieth century work that sought to test theories and assumptions empirically.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    While counterfactuals may sound complicated, we are constantly exposed to them in other areas such as sports (if Ronaldo had been entirely fit for the final, Brazil would have won the 1998 FIFA World Cup). They are so ubiquitous that we hardly notice when commentators make them.

  2. 2.

    On a broader point beyond the scope of the current book, the study of rhetoric and speeches is a fascinating and enriching topic. I hope that rhetorical theory might be rehabilitated in British universities in the future.

  3. 3.

    Due to Plato’s criticism, we still conflate sophists (and rhetoric) with empty speech. In later dialogues such as Phaedrus, Plato softened his criticism of rhetoric and rhetoricians (2009).

  4. 4.

    For example, will the stock market crash in a month? Will England win the 2022 World Championship in football? Will Donald Trump win re-election in 2020?

  5. 5.

    Hence, Aristotle’s famous opening remark in his treatise on rhetoric: “Rhetoric is the sister discipline to dialectics [logic]” (Aristotle, 1995a)—comparatively, Aristotle provided a treatise on dialectic theory in the 6-book series Organon (Aristotle, 1995b, 1995c, 1995d, 1995e, 1995f, 1995g).

  6. 6.

    All emphasis is mine. See Foss et al. (2002) for a presentation of influential rhetorical theorists of the twentieth century.

  7. 7.

    While this is a nice ideal, we shall explore a variety of reasons why this is not the case in practical deliberative democracies, as people may lie, be less-than rational, and bottom-up information flow may distort reasoning processes.

  8. 8.

    The persuasive function of the speaker’s credibility is explored in more detail in Chap. 4.

  9. 9.

    The subjective nature of belief revision is explored in more detail in Chap. 3.

  10. 10.

    While the book does not discuss the relationship between emotions and belief revision in detail, some comments are provided in Chap. 5.

  11. 11.

    Related to this classic insight, philosophers and linguistics argue that language is performative rather than just a function to transmit information, as it can perform acts and be a social signalling force as well as a vehicle for argumentation and information (see Austin, 1961; Carston, 2002, 2009; Grice, 1989; Searle, 1969; Sperber & Wilson, 1995).

  12. 12.

    The identification of rhetorical genre theory extends this field (Foss, 2004; Hart & Dillard, 2001; Jamieson & Campbell, 1982). While Aristotle noted three main genres: judicial, political, and epideictic, rhetoricians have explored multiple genres such as inaugural speeches and public apologies (Downey, 1993; Kramer & Olson, 2002; Simons, 2000; Villadsen, 2002; Ware & Linkugel, 1973).

  13. 13.

    The principle seems to discourage learning, as people may behave differently upon learning more about an issue or when experiencing the consequences of an action. Nonetheless, the desire to be seen as consistent can supersede this. In a deliberative democracy, it is especially ironic that politicians who change their minds are described as flip-floppers, when they might have been swayed by arguments or evidence contrary to their original position. However, such is life for a public persona.

  14. 14.

    Recently, Cialdini has suggested a seventh principle: unity (Cialdini, 2017). This argues that people are more likely to follow advice or beliefs if they identify with the speaker. This principle bears a striking resemblance to the rhetorical concept of identification (Burke, 1969a, 1969b; Herrick, 2012).

  15. 15.

    Most studies, models, and theories of persuasion are culturally biased, as they tend to be conducted in or focus on Western deliberative democracies. The problem reaches beyond persuasion studies, as most psychological and social scientific participants are from Western, Educated, Industrialised, and Rich Democracies (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Consequently, their universality is questionable. Cross-cultural studies are necessary to test the limits of the theories, models, and assumptions (see e.g. Hornikx, 2005 for studies on cultural differences in persuasion).

Bibliography

  • Aristotle. (1995a). Rhetoric. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle (Vol. 2, 6th ed., pp. 2152–2270). Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. (1995b). Categories. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle (Vol. 1, 6th ed., pp. 3–25). Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. (1995c). De Interpretatione. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle (Vol. 1, 6th ed., pp. 25–39). Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. (1995d). Prior Analytics. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle (Vol. 1, 6th ed., pp. 39–114). Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. (1995e). Posterior Analytics. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle (Vol. 1, 6th ed., pp. 114–167). Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. (1995f). Topics. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle (Vol. 1, 6th ed., pp. 167–278). Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. (1995g). Sophistical Refutation. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle (Vol. 1, 6th ed., pp. 278–315). Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. (1995h). Nichomachean Ethics. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle (Vol. 2, 6th ed., pp. 1729–1867). Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atran, S. (2011). Talking to the Enemy: Violent Extremism, Sacred Values, and What It Means to Be Human. Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. (1961). How to Do Things with Words. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Co-operation. Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baca-Motes, K., Brown, A., Gneezy, A., Keenan, E. A., & Nelson, L. D. (2012). Commitment and Behavior Change: Evidence from the Field. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 1070–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoit, W. L. (1994). The Genesis of Rhetorical Action. Southern Communication Journal, 59(4), 342–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitzer, L. F. (1998). The Rhetorical Situation. In J. L. Lucaites, C. M. Condit, & S. Caudill (Eds.), Contemporary Rhetorical Theory: A Reader (pp. 217–225). Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchette, I. (2006). The Effect of Emotion on Interpretation and Logic in a Conditional Reasoning Task. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 1112–1125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchette, I., & Richards, A. (2010). The Influence of Affect on Higher Level Cognition: A Review of Research on Interpretation, Judgement, Decision Making and Reasoning. Cognition & Emotion, 24(4), 561–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, K. (1969a). A Rhetoric of Motives. London: University of California Press Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, K. (1969b). A Grammar of Motives. London: University of California Press Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. (2009). The Explicit/Implicit Distinction in Pragmatics and the Limits of Explicit Communication. International Review of Pragmatics, 1, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catana, L. (1996). Vico og barokkens retorik. Museum Tusculanums Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic Processing Can Bias Systematic Processing: Effects of Source Credibility, Argument Ambiguity, and Task Importance on Attitude Judgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Channon, S., & Baker, J. (1994). Reasoning Strategies in Depression: Effects of Depressed Mood on a Syllogism Task. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 707–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. (2007). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Collins Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. (2017). Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade. Random House Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cicero, M. T. (2003). Retoriske skrifter I-II. Syddansk Universitetsforlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. M. (1990). Rhetoric in the European Tradition. London: The University of Chicago Press Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Consigny, S. (1974). Rhetoric and Its Situations. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 3, 175–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constans, J. I. (2001). Worry Propensity and the Perception of Risk. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 721–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damasio, A. (2006). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Putnam Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demosthenes. (2014). Selected Speeches (Oxford World Classics). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. W. (1998). Working-memory Capacity in High Trait-Anxious and Repressor Groups. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 697–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, R. (1996). Om metoden. Gyldendal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, R. (2002). Meditationer over den første filosofi. Det Lille Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, J., & Gergel, T. L. (2003). The Greek Sophists. London: Penguin Classics, Penguin Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downey, S. D. (1993). The Evolution of the Rhetorical Genre of Apologia. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 42–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehninger, D. (1968). On Systems of Rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1(3), 131–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and Performance: The Processing Efficiency Theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, M. W., Mogg, K., May, J., Richards, A., & Mathews, A. (1991). Bias in Interpretation of Ambiguous Sentences Related to Threat in Anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 144–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Pavesi, G., & Rizzolatti, G. (1995). Motor Facilitation During Action Observation: A Magnetic Stimulation Study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 73(6), 2608–2611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fafner, J. (1977). Retorik: Klassisk of moderne. København: Akademisk Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fafner, J. (1982). Tanke og tale: Den retoriske tradition is Vesteuropa. København: C. A. Reitzels Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, S. K. (2004). Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration & Practice (3rd ed.). Waveland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, S. K., Foss, K. A., & Robert, T. (2002). Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric (3rd ed.). Waveland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerstenberg, T., Goodman, N., Lagnado, D., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2014). From Counterfactual Simulation to Causal Judgment. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, R. P., & Dillard, C. L. (2001). Deliberative Genre. In T. O. Sloane (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Rhetoric (pp. 209–217). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Heine, S. T., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The Weirdest People in the World? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrick, J. A. (2012). The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction. New York: Allyn Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornikx, J. (2005). Cultural Differences in the Persuasiveness of Evidence Types in France and the Netherlands. PhD Thesis, University of Nijmegen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacoboni, M., & Dapretto, M. (2006). The Mirror Neuron System and the Consequences of Its Dysfunction. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 21, 191–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isokrates. (1986). Fire taler. Museum Tusculanums Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, K. H., & Campbell, K. K. (1982). Rhetorical Hybrids: Fusions of Generic Elements. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68, 146–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, C., & Villadsen, L. S. (2009). Retorik: Teori og praksis. Samfundslitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, G. A. (1980). Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitchen, P., Kerr, G., Schultz, D., McColl, R., & Pals, H. (2014). The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Review, Critique And Research Agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 48(11/12), 2033–2050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, E., Keysers, C., Umiltá, M. A., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (2002). Hearing Sounds, Understanding Actions: Actions Representation in Mirror Neurons. Science, 297, 846–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, M. R., & Olson, K. M. (2002). The Strategic Potential of Sequencing Apologia States: President Clinton’s Self-Defense in the Monica Lewinsky Scandal. Western Journal of Communication, 66(3), 347–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krosch, A. R., & Amodio, D. M. (2014). Economic Scarcity Alters the Perception of Race. Proceedings of The National Academy of Science, 111(25), 9079–9084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagnado, D., Gerstenberg, T., & Zultan, R. (2015). Causal Responsibility and Counterfactuals. Cognitive Science, 37(6), 1036–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lokhorst, A. M., Werner, C., Staats, H., Dijk, E. v., & Gale, J. L. (2013). Commitment and Behavior Change: A Meta-analysis and Crucial Review of Commitment-making Strategies in Environmental Research. Environment and Behavior, 45(1), 3–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lysias. (2002). Lysias’ taler. Museum Tusculanums Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, B. (1993). The Penguin Book of Twentieth-Century Speeches. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, B. (1996). The Penguin Book of Historic Speeches. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, J. K., Bailey, R. M., & Pilditch, T. (2018). Large Networks of Rational Agents Form Persistent Echo Chambers. Scientific Reports, 8, 12391, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martino, B. d., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, Biases, and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain. Science, 313, 684–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, J. D., Gaschke, Y. N., Braverman, D. L., & Evans, T. W. (1992). Mood-congruent Judgment Is a General Effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, K. J., Isenberg, N., & Haxby, J. V. (2007). Communicative Hand Gestures and Object-directed Hand Movements Activated the Mirror Neuron System. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2, 114–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukamel, R., Ekstrom, A. D., Kaplan, J., Iacobini, M., & Fried, I. (2010). Single-Neuron Responses in Humans During Execution and Observation of Actions. Current Biology, 20(8), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2014). Scarcity: The True Cost of Not Having Enough. Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, M. H. (1963). Rhetoric and Criticism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, D. J. (2008). Elaboration Likelihood Model. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The International Encyclopaedia of Communication (Vol. IV, pp. 1475–1480). Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oaksford, M., Morris, F., Grainger, B., & Williams, J. M. G. (1996). Mood, Reasoning, and Central Executive Processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 476–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C. (2005). Retorikkens rige. Copenhagen, Denmark: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). Source Factors and the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 668–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pilucik, D., & Madsen, J. K. (2017). The Effect of Economic Scarcity Priming on Perception of Race. In G. Gunzelmann, A. Howes, T. Tenbrink, & E. J. Davelaar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2902–2906). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato. (1996). The Sophist. Focus Philosophical Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato. (2000). The Republic (G. R. F. Ferrari, Ed.). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato. (2008). Gorgias, Menexenus, Protagoras (M. Schofield, Ed.). Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato. (2009). Phaedrus, Oxford World Classics. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramnani, N., & Miall, R. C. (2004). A System in the Human Brain for Predicting the Actions of Others. Nature Neuroscience, 15, 85–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezlescu, C., Duchaine, B., Olivola, C. Y., & Chater, N. (2012). Unfakeable Facial Configuration Affect Strategic Choice in Trust Games With or Without Information About Past Behaviour. PLoS One, 7(3), e34293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The Mirror-Neuron System. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodeheffer, C. D., Hill, S. E., & Lord, C. G. (2012). Does This Recession Make Me Look Black? The Effect of Resource Scarcity on the Categorization of Biracial Faces. Psychological Science, 23(12), 1476–1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, H. W. (2000). A Dilemma-Centered Analysis of Clinton’s August 17th Apologia: Implications for Rhetorical Theory and Method. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 86(4), 438–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, S. (2002). Gorgias og retorikken: Ordets magt. Klassikkerforeningens Kildehæfter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses of Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trope, Y., & Bassok, M. (1982). Confirmatory and Diagnosing Strategies in Social Information Gathering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology., American Psychological Association, 43(1), 22–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vatz, R. E. (1998). The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation. In J. L. Lucaites, C. M. Condit, & S. Caudill (Eds.), Contemporary Rhetorical Theory: A Reader (pp. 226–231). Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vico, G. (1997). Vor tids studiemetode. Museum Tusculanums Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vico, G. (1999). New Science. Penguin Classics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villadsen, L. S. (2002). Dyre ord, men hvad dækker de? Teori, metode og model i retorisk kritik. Rhetorica Scandinavica, 23, 6–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ware, B. L., & Linkugel, W. A. (1973). They Spoke in Defense of Themselves: On the Generic Criticism of Apologia. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westen, D., Blagov, P. S., Harenski, K., Kilts, C., & Hamann, S. (2006). Neural Bases of Motivated Reasoning: An fMRI Study of Emotional Constraints on Partisan Political Judgment in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(11), 1947–1958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zultan, R., Gerstenberg, T., & Lagnado, D. (2012). Finding Fault: Causality and Counterfactuals in Group Attributions. Cognition, 125, 429–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Non-academic References

  • Aristophanes. (1973). Lysistrata, The Archanians, The Clouds. Penguin Classics.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Jens Koed Madsen

Authors
  1. Jens Koed Madsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jens Koed Madsen .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Madsen, J.K. (2019). Approaching Persuasion. In: The Psychology of Micro-Targeted Election Campaigns. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22145-4_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation