Page 421 - Between One and Many The Art and Science of Public Speaking

388 Part 4 Contexts for Public Speaking

situation in mind. The intensity of the language with which you construct your
persuasive message, for example, can either enhance or undermine your success.
If your initial credibility with an audience is well established, evocative words
and metaphors can actually enhance your persuasive effect. People who agree
with Bill Maher respond positively to Maher’s liberal use of words many fi nd
obscene. People who enjoy Rush Limbaugh respond the same when he pairs the
word feminist with the word Nazi to create the term “Feminazi.”
Speakers who have yet to establish their credibility with an audience, how-
ever, should avoid such intense language. The reason is simple. It violates the
expectancies of the audience. Thus the unexpected and probably unappreciated
language becomes the audience’s focus rather than the broader content of your
speech.

Speaking Strategically

Much of the preceding has dealt with the nuts-and-bolts of the process of persua-
sion. We have looked at the necessity of revisiting the rhetorical situation and
making sure our persuasive purpose is based on an accurate assessment of our
audience and the context in which we’ll speak. We’ve discussed the overriding
importance of audience perceptions and how we can manage them in the at-
tempt to realize our persuasive purpose. Finally, we’ve looked at the steps we
need to take in constructing our persuasive message, including its organization
and actual content.
Here we want to introduce two models that describe two different strate-
gies we can draw on to increase our chances of delivering a successful persua-
sive speech. Both models concern how audience members process persuasive
speeches and why they respond to persuasive messages as they do. The fi rst
13
is Richard Petty and John Cacioppo’s model of Elaboration Likelihood. The
second is Robert Cialdini’s model of infl uence, based on six principles we think
you’ll recognize from your own experience. 14

Elaboration Likelihood
logos
The proof a speaker
Aristotle used the Greek term logos in his discussion of the relationship be-
offers to an audience
tween words in a message and the process of persuasion. Aristotle believed that
through the words of his
logical proof in a speaker’s message was a necessary condition for persuasion be-
or her message.
cause audience members would think critically about the message. As we stated
earlier, it would be nice to think that audience members are always objective
and think critically about arguments and the evidence supporting them, but the
elaboration modern reality is that they do not.
likelihood model
In some persuasive transactions, the audience engages actively in thinking
A model of persuasion
critically about a complex topic, whereas in others the audience responds almost
designed to explain why
without thinking. To explain this phenomenon, Petty and Cacioppo developed
audience members will
the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.
use an elaborated think-
Consider, for example, a speech about doctor-assisted suicide. One possibility
ing process in some situ-
is that an audience is deeply concerned about the topic; perhaps members of the
ations and not in others.
audience know someone who is terminally ill. They want a thorough and de-