Persuasive Writing Sample-Animal Welfare

Animal Welfare          

            Wheeler Wilcox, poet, caller herself, “the voice of the voiceless.”  She said, “through me, the dumb shall speak; Till the deaf world’s ear be made to hear the cry of the wordless weak.  From street, from cage, and from kennel, from jungle and stall, the wail of my tortured kin proclaims the sin of the mighty against the frail” (Hoffman, 2010).  Is it not the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak? 

            When you think of cruelty to animals, what comes to mind?  Do you think of football star Michael Vick and his dog fighting case, the stigma attached to Pitt Bulls, or do you think of the commercials that show pictures of abused and neglected animals with the caption below the pictures that reads, “What did I do wrong?”  When you think of animal welfare, what comes to mind then?  Do you think about the animal rescue and adoptions following Hurricane Katrina, your local Humane Society’s Adoption drives, or the most recent celebrity to pose nude for PETA in their “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur” campaign?  These issues need to be understood, not for the sake of another vegetarian celebrity, and not for the sake of media interest.  The issue is animal cruelty and animal welfare and the problem is people.  It is how we think about animals that allows for cruelty to happen, and it is our lack of interest or care in the subject that allows it to continue every day.  With the right information and the right mindset, we can make choices that will facilitate change and that change will not only benefit animals, but it will benefit human kind. 

            Animal cruelty happens on a larger scale than we might feel comfortable recognizing.  The span of this problem reaches from each corner of the globe in the communities human kind has developed, cleverly masked by the brands, and labels we blindly know and trust.  These injustices can be seen in commercial pet stores, in factories, on our grocers shelves, in our medicine cabinets, our make up bags, on the cover of our magazines, in the drive thru, on the coat or handbag of a passer-by, from our oceans to the forests, and even in our neighbors home.  If you could see the pain on the faces of the animals who suffered to produce the brands you use everyday, and the choice was just that, a simple choice, would you make the decision to change? 

            The problem exists because the whole of people do not see intrinsic value in the lives of animals, although we keep some as pets and some companions.  The problem I will discuss is the unnecessary suffering of animals, what we have done to police the issue, where we see animal cruelty happening, and what it means to society to allow it to continue.  Some problems seem so out of reach or they don’t seem to directly effect us daily, making it easy to turn our heads away from it.  We can see some effort made in the history of animal welfare when the first minimum standard was put into place by Congress.

            The Animal Welfare Act came into existence on August 24^th, of 1966.  What it does, is “it authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate transport, sale, and handling of dogs, cats, nonhuman primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits intended to be used in research or ’for other purposes.’  It requires licensing and inspection of dog and cat dealers and humane handling at auction sales” (AWIC, 2009).   This law set a standard for animal treatment, unfortunately, the scope of this law provides little protection for a great number of animal who fall victim today.  With the coming of the Internet, there has been an increased threat to domestic animals.  The Internet has fostered the growth of puppy mills, expanding the reach of puppy mill sales to the public.  The sale prospects of direct-sale breeders, or puppy mills are greater than ever before.  It is only the “whole sale” breeders that are regulated by the USDA, even when the direct-sale breeders or puppy mill sales are equal to a wholesale breeder.  This leaves a loophole for brokers.  Brokers buy dogs from puppy mills and sell them to the pet stores.  The brokers may be investigated, but they don’t do the actual breeding so the investigation stops there, leaving pet stores unaccountable for whether or not their pets come from a responsible source.  This loophole enables puppy mills to thrive and go unthreatened by the very laws that were meant to protect animals.  After that it is left up to the state to regulate breeding.  According to the Humane Society of the United States, at the federal level the Animal Welfare Act is lacking with regard to the protection of the animals that are within its legal realm to protect, the ones kept and/or sold by licensed breeders:

                         “Under the AWA… Inspection records obtained by the HSUS show that many USDA-licensed breeders get away with repeated violations of the Animal Welfare Act.  These violators are rarely fined and their licenses are rarely suspended. Facilities with long histories of repeated violations for basic care conditions are often allowed to renew their license again and again.” (“American Humane Association,” 2010).

There are a limited number of states that even bother to regulate breeders at a state level, licenses are not required in all states, licenses are inexpensive compared to the profit being made, and are those licensed are regulated poorly.  To find out how puppy mills are regulated in your state you may visit the following link: http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/legislation/state_puppy_mill_laws.pdf (“American Humane Association,” 2010).

            Another area that requires more stringent monitoring is food production.  What we don’t see everyday are the animals who suffer confined to tight, caged-quarters awaiting their inevitable doom for food production.  These animals spend their three or four years of life barely able to move inside the confines of an animal production farm.  That pork chop or slice of morning bacon doesn’t taste quite as sweet when you know that an animal endured an extended amount of pain and unnecessary suffering to get to your plate.  Thanks in part to the Animal Legal Defense Fund and other organizations against animal cruelty, there has been an effort to put legislation into place that seeks to prohibit inhumane practice in animal farming.  One specific effort was to eliminate the use of these housing crates in animal farming production, although these laws are not enacted expeditiously without community support and some of these laws only have minimum standards that apply to the transportation of animals.  It is up to the public to demand more humane practices in the food production industry as well as in other animal-related dealings.

            Puppy mills and animals as food seem to be commonly recognized debates with regard to animal welfare, but what other questions do we, as people, have the responsibility to seek out, what can we regulate and/or take action on to protect animals?  Have you ever heard of “canned hunting,” aka “shooting preserves,” or “crush videos?”  Neither paint a pretty picture.  In one case, animals are exploited for the purpose of the “sport” of hunting and the other, exploited for sex and murdered for the benefit of sexual arousal.  When a hunter shoots an animal in a preserved area, it is not a sport.  There is no justice for an animal killed to be a mere trophy.  This business should be shut down.  As for the crush videos that are sold online, where women stomp on small animals for the purpose of arousing certain sick individuals, they should be subject to animal cruelty laws.  Unfortunately, when tried against the law, crush videos were deemed legal because a ruling against them would violate Free Speech laws.  The court reasoned that if crush videos were outlawed, then hunting films would be outlawed as well.  Santich (2010) reports the CEO of the American Humane Association as saying, “Deliberately killing animals for entertainment has nothing to do with freedom of speech.  Americans are within their right to keep blatant animal torture and killing our of the marketplace, and the Supreme Court should have made that the priority over the supposed protections of those who take sick pleasure in this material.”  How is the law, in this case, not interpreted in a manner fitting the moral standard of society, or is it?  The answer then must be that people are simply unaware of the extent of animal cruelty that occurs every day.  Knowing the law is lacking in regulating inhumane and neglectful breeders, and knowing that it allows for trophy killings and animal slaughter for the purpose of sexual arousal, are we not obligated to do something about it?  It is possible we have limited knowledge on the subject so let us look further into what we may have assumed to be more justified uses for animal life, such as medical testing?  

            Simply because some medical testing is used to help save human life does not make all testing humane, necessary or justifiable.  It is easy to say, “it’s just an animal” and justify testing for the benefit of human beings suffering or dying from disease.  What if I told you, it is okay to support animal testing to an extent, but our responsibility to regulate the testing as our obligation to animal life.  An animal gives us the ability to live longer, healthier lives, but the bottom line is, it is still a life.  This thought puts human beings in a difficult predicament.  It is impossible to ask someone if they would watch a loved one die or allow an animal to undergo testing to produce the medicine necessary to save that loved one, but that isn’t the right question to ask at all.  We need to ask “are all possible tests done in vitro prior to being administered to the test animal, is the animal a proper test subject for the drug or vaccine being administered, and finally, what is the sole purpose of testing on animals in each specific case (is it to save money or to save a life)?”  Not all animals are fitting subjects for testing because they are not biologically comparable to the human body’s chemistry.   It is our duty, to nature, to limit the use of testing and to weigh the benefits of testing, or not testing, for all animals involved.  It does not need to be a question of one life over another, it is a question of when it is necessary and whether it is humane.   

            Seeing only the benefits over the tragedy has its consequences and they should be as obvious as a disappearing species.  Our efforts to protect wildlife are for the purpose of protecting ourselves from economical, medicinal and aesthetic losses, and are not for the sake of the animals themselves.  We restrict and prohibit trade but we do not prohibit the killing of or unnecessary suffering of animals in the way that a humane society should.  If we cannot see beyond our own benefits, then let us consider how by allowing animal cruelty to take place we make ourselves vulnerable to violence and suffering. 

            This problem, when left unanswered to, extends further, beyond the damage and suffering to animals.  Experts in psychology say that a human being with the capacity to harm or kill an animal has the capacity to harm or kill another human being.  “Animal cruelty problems are people problems.  When animals are abused, people are at risk” (Arkow, 1994).  We can see this with regard to domestic abuse, child abuse, and other violent behavior that includes murder.  According to the Humane Society of the United States, “13% of intentional animal abuse cases involve domestic violence” (American Humane Association, 2010).  The abuser uses the animal or pet against the victim.  Loar (1999) explains how “abusers kill, harm, or threaten children’s pets to coerce them into sexual abuse or to force them to remain silent about abuse,” and Ascione (2005) informs us that “disturbed children kill or harm animals to emulate their parents’ conduct, to prevent the abuser from killing the pet, or to take out their aggressions on another victim” (American Humane Association, 2010).  These are children.  When we allow children to bear witness to the abuse of animals we only perpetuate this vicious cycle.  Without an effort to stop all inhumane behavior against animals, we as a society, are not doing what is fully within our power and obligation to society to respect and protect one another.

            It is our ethical and moral obligation to the society we live in to change the way we regard animals and more humanely regulate what we subject them to.  If we do not respect nature and life than why try so hard to protect it?  We can’t have it both ways.  We need to demand more of ourselves and of humanity.  Gandhi once said, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” (Frans, 2008).  In order to make a difference, we can refrain from using products that are tested on animals, you can write these companies to tell them how you feel, we can choose to not wear fur or leather, adopt family pets or buy from a responsible breeder, report suspected neglect and abuse, eat less meat, or only buy “humane food” (uses cruelty free methods).  These are only a few of the things we can do to prevent animal cruelty.  For a list of cruelty free products, visit the following weblink: http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/1410669, and for a list of alternatives to some of the common household product brands that do test on animals visit PETA site: http://living.peta.org/2009/instead-of-this-buy-this.

            The purpose of educating the public is to understand that the benefits of respecting animal life outweigh what we stand to lose from the unnecessary suffering we allow.  If we understand that it takes minimal effort to make choices that might help protect animal life from such injustices, we are working for the greater good and protecting human life as well as respecting the living creatures we benefit so significantly from.  As Robert Garner says in his book, The political theory of animal rights, “Animals cannot campaign for their own liberation, and it requires an unprecedented level of altruism from members of a species who stand to lose from the protection of animals, to fulfill this objective on behalf of them” (p. 42).  Make conscious decisions to protect life.  Through awareness and by making simple choices, we can have such a tremendous impact on this issue.  The bottom line, is we do not do enough to regulate the issue.  It is not about outlawing animals as a food source or as domestic pets and it is more than a respect for the lives of animals, it is about the respect we have for ourselves, life, decency and humanity.   

References

American humane association. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/newsroom/fact-sheets/animal-abuse-domestic-violence.html#sources-domestic-violence.html#sources

American Humane Association; American Humane Association: Cruelty to Animals Is NOT Free Speech or Entertainment. (2010, May). Pediatrics Week, 198.   Retrieved April 30, 2010, from ProQuest Health and Medical Complete. (Document ID: 2021237421). 

(AWIC) Animal welfare information center. United States department of agriculture. (2009, July 27). Retrieved from    http://awic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=3&tax_level=4&tax_subject=182&topic_id=1118&level3_id=6735&level4_id=11092&level5_id=0&placement_default=0_subject=182&topic_id=1118&level3_id=6735&level4_id=11092&level5_id=0&placement_default=0

Arkow, P. (1994). Animal abuse and domestic violence: Intake statistics tell a sad story.  Latham Letter 15(2), 17.

Awabbey, . (Photographer). (2009). Hello stiletto club kick-off event. [Web]. Retrieved       from http://atlanta.skirt.com/events/hello-stiletto-club-kick-event

Frans, R. (2008). Awareness day. Retrieved from http://www.awarenessday.org/index.html

Garner, R. (2005). The Political theory of animal rights. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

Hoffman, F. (2010, February 21). Working for a peaceful world for humans, animals and the environment. Retrieved from http://www.all-creatures.org/poetry/voiceofthevoiceless2.html-creatures.org/poetry/voiceofthevoiceless2.html.

Humane Society of the United States, . (Photographer). (2009). Captive hunt. [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.hsus.org/wildlife_abuse/campaigns/canned/captive_hunt_fact_sheet.htmlml.

Irishelysia, . (Photographer). (2007). Animal testing. [Web]. Retrieved from             http://irishelysia.deviantart.com/art/Animal-Testing-66985923

Kate Santich. (12 October). Pet lovers crusade against domestic abuse.  McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 1877363891).

McAdams, M. (2009, April 29). Dogs suffer abuse at puppy mills, says animal rescue group. The Communitarian Delaware County Community College.

Nothoney, . (Photographer). (2008). This Wont hurt a bit. [Web]. Retrieved from             http://nothoney.com/2008/12/15/usa-today-replace-animal-experiments/

Plainfield, T.H. (Photographer). (2009). Digging though dirt. [Web]. Retrieved from             http://diggingthroughthedirt.blogspot.com/2009/11/pig-video-too-disturbing-for-fox-news.html-fox-news.html

RSPCA, Initials. (Photographer). (2010). We Help deal with all kinds of animals. [Web]. Retrieved from (picture courtesy of RSPCA, 2010, http://www.rspca.org.uk/home)

Humor and Persuasion

            Humor can be an effective tool in persuasion.  Although its effects do not seem to be conclusive, as there is some doubt to its power, there are certainly some positive effects created by the use of humor in persuasion.  These positive effects do not come without some risks.  The use of humor in persuasion should be applied appropriately and prudently, as there are consequences to using humor without considering the variables involved as it is more than simply having witty intentions.  Lyttle (2001) concludes that “the effects produced by humor may be too small to compensate for any weaknesses in the persuasive message itself” (p. 214).  In other words, humor is a tool that can enhance a well-crafted persuasive message, but is not a substitute for a poorly crafted one.

            When used appropriately humor can produce a positive result.  Freedman, Sears, and Carl smith (1978) determined that, “According to persuasion theory, people who are in a good mood are less likely to disagree with a persuasive message…” (Lyttle, 2001, p. 207).  It is as if with humor, a message sender can create a “halo effect,” which Seiter and Gass (2004) tell us is when “one positive quality in a person causes us to assume that the individual has many positive qualities” (p. 172).  The “halo effect” is usually used to explain the increased credibility of someone who is attractive in appearance, but this effect seems to extend to other qualities as well, such as humor.   

            Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) also suggests that people are influenced by those who speak at the same rate as they do” (Seiter, & Gass, 2004, p. 175).  Although humor is seemingly unrelated to the speaking pace or rate of how a message is delivered and its connection to the effort needed for a receiver to perceive a message I would attribute the same connection to humor and message processing.  If a person processes a message more quickly and pleasantly due to the use of humor than the effect is similar to that of what is illustrated by the Communication Accommodation Theory.   

            This effect continues to be seen in the conclusions of Lyttle’s (2001) research which go on to say that humor may “increase liking for the source” (p. 207).  When a source shares the target’s humoristic style it may, according to Meyer (1997), “hint at a similar set of underlying values” (Lyttle, 2001, p. 207).  A shared sense of humor can be a powerful connection.  One of the compliance tactics described by Seiter and Gass (2004), referred to as “similarity and liking” suggests that by simple mention of a shared similarity to the target may increase likeability of the message sender and therefore increase the influence of the message sender (p. 209).  Similarities can be shared across a range of characteristics, including humor.

            Another example of where we can see humor effectively contributing to the credibility of a message source during persuasion is when the message sender uses humor that is humbling or humor that causes the message sender to appear modest.    Lyttle (2001) expects “that the use of self-effacing humor by a source would increase the effectiveness of a persuasive message” (p. 208).   This may be true since a message sender who is able and willing to laugh at him or herself tends to give off the impression that they are more believable and/or trustworthy.

            In addition to creating positive attributes for the source of the persuasive message, Osterhouse and Brock (1970) suggest that humor may be able to alter how a message receiver processes a persuasive message which is detailed by the Elaboration Likelihood Model.  What humor may be capable of is “block[ing] systematic/central processing by distracting receivers from constructing counterarguments” (Lyttle, 2001, p. 207).  Blocking the type of processing that enables the construction of counterarguments, according to Lyttle (2001), is better-facilitated with humor that requires greater processing, such as irony.  Irony is used to make humor based on the opposite of a literal meaning so, in this case, the message recipient not only has to process the message, but he or she also needs to decipher or make sense of the meaning behind the irony as well.  Humor, in many cases, appears to be an effective tool in persuasion.  On the other hand, humor is not always effective and can be a precarious method of persuasion when not used appropriately.

            The proper use of humor is situational.  It depends on the strength of the argument and its consistency, the method of introduction of the humor, the probability of message-relevant processing, the extent to which the humor is connected to the central argument of the message, the level of involvement the target has in the subject, and the overall setting in which the humor takes place (Cline, & Kellaris, 1999, p. 69).  Cline, and Kellaris (1999) use the Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM) to analyze how humor effects the processing of the persuasive message.  They say, “when capacity to process is high, the central features of a communication (e.g., argument strength) should have a  greater impact on persuasion” (Cline, & Kellaris, 1999, p. 69).  This leaves room for error.  If the humor does not properly initiate the correct route of processing, either systematic or heuristic, the message may suffer.  This is seen in the conclusion of the research by Cline, and Kellaris (1999), which states that “a humorous print ad for a low-risk convenience good can be more persuasive without strong arguments, and strong arguments can be better off without humor.  On their own, humor and strong ad arguments may be persuasive, but when combined may be less effective” (p. 69).  Simply, humor is not always appropriate.  If not done properly, humor can be disruptive in the sense that it distracts from the message.  The improper application of humor can jeopardize credibility in some cases and this, once again, emphasizes the always important, respect of ones audience.

            There are strengths and weaknesses to using humor in persuasion.  It can be an effective communication tool when aiming to persuade.  However, due to the many variables involved in the potential outcomes and reactions to the use of humor, it should be crafted with concern for ones audience, and applied with careful thought.   

References

Cline, T.W., & Kellaris, J.J. (1999). The Joint impact of humor and argument strength in a print advertising context: a case for weaker arguments. Psychology &   Marketing, 16(1), 69.

Lyttle, J. (2001). The Effectiveness of humor in persuasion: the case of business ethics training. The Journal of General Psychology, 128(2), 206-216.

Seiter, J. S., & Gass, R. H. (2004). Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and

            compliance gaining. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.

The Importance of Ethical Behavior and Its Impact on Persuasion

          Ethical behavior is important to human kind, significant to the process of persuasion, and impacts persuasion by evolving the process of persuasion, and expanding who is responsible for it.  It begins with ethics and develops into how one must communicate to persuade successfully and responsibly and ends with who must take accountability in a persuasive exchange.  This ethical view of persuasion, the new persuasion, is more sophisticated, refined, and civilized.

            The importance of ethical behavior is seen at the roots of human kind.  It is the foundation of a civilization.  We as people are guided by our ethical norms in the societies we create.      Ethics is defined by Larson (2009) as the

“characteristics of human nature that distinguish us from so-called lower    forms of life, characteristics we can then use as standards for judging the ethics of persuasion.  Among them are the capacity to reason, to create and use symbols, to achieve mutual appreciative understanding, and to make value judgments” (p. 49). 

These ethical norms guide our behavior so that peaceful communities may exist.  We may not be able to live by the theory of absolutism, which according to Messina (2007) states that “it would be wrong to lie in any case, despite the consequences” (p. 39).  We know this is asking to much of human kind, but it is necessary to have a standard by which behavior is measured.  Without rules, whether implicit or explicit, we have little protection from ourselves.  Ethical standards differ across the world which makes them very important with regard to business practices. 

            An example of one of these ethical norms or standards is offered by Mathis and Jackson (2007) and is as follows: “the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prohibits U.S. firms from engaging in bribery and other practices in foreign countries that would be illegal in the United States” (p. 22).  This seeks to hold a certain ethical standard even while doing business with other countries, regardless of whether those countries require the upholding of such standards or practices.  Even though this can create barriers or make for unfair advantages for other countries, it is a code of ethics that seeks to ensure that business done in the U.S. or by the U.S. is done ethically.             

            Another example of where we see these ethical standards put into place is in the organizational cultures of our business.  We know that the best way to teach is to lead by example and this statement holds true within our businesses.  When a company is seen as doing something of questionable ethicality it can be irreversibly damaging.  According to Ferrel, Fraedrich and Ferrell (2009) “Efforts to deter unethical behavior are important for companies’ long-term relationships with their employees, customers, and community” (p. 223).  When damage is done it can effect a wide range of stakeholders in a company from the ground up.  The important message in looking at ethical behavior from a business standpoint is that when unethical behavior occurs, it doesn’t just jeopardize one relationship, it can jeopardize a reputation which can destroy the hard work that has been put into building relationships and rapport in a community.  It is more difficult to rebuild a reputation than to maintain one.  Convincing someone of a reform after making a mistake takes much more effort.  This makes ethical behavior very significant to persuasion.

            Ethical behavior is significant to persuasion because public communication has a responsibility to be crafted ethically.  Ethics changes the vision of yesterday’s persuasion, or as Reardon (1991) says, “Persuasion is viewed not as something one does to another, but with another (Perloff, 2003, p.32).  Persuasion is a process.  For all parts of that process to be successful it must be ethical.  There is an wealth of variables to consider in persuasion.  It is more than a sender crafting a message, it is more than the intentions they have in sending that message and more it is more than their ability to send it.  According to Messina (2007), “…the last end of ethical persuasion should be respect for people as autonomous, rational, worthy and capable of informed choices” (p.42).  To persuade responsibly the message sender must ensure that their audience is aware of the message sender’s intentions, and that they are able to seek out information to challenge the position of the message sender.  A conglomerate of media outlets could be seen as unethical means of communications if the masses they reach have less than adequate access to other opinions or messages.  The defense then is often times a utilitarian one, which according to Messina (2007) is “a kind of ‘happiness quotient’ for society -the greatest good for the greatest number” (p. 39).  People do have a wide array of outlets to seek out news in today’s world, but questions still remain to the ethics of mass message sending and if it does in fact do the “greatest good for greatest number” (Messina, 2007, p.39).  That is what researchers are still working on.  What we do know is that public communication has a responsibility to be crafted ethically. 

            We need ethics because persuasion includes not only the motivation and ability of the receiver to process the message and form judgment, but also their responsibility for seeking out information that proves or refutes what is offered to them in a persuasive message.  If both parties are not held accountable for persuasion, then no persuasion is successful.  Thinking of persuasion from an ethical standpoint changes how we see the process, and how we persuade.  It redefines the old persuasion into one that suggests that if we wish to persuade or change others through communication, we must be held accountable and do it on a more level playing field.  If deceit and corruption are allowed to enter the playing field then persuasion becomes something that would demolish the ethical foundation for which civilizations are built.  Accountability on both sides is the new face of persuasion.  This is why I believe persuasion as a positive, everyday occurrence is such a tough pill to swallow.  We have to be responsible and accountable. 

            Ethics allow us to communicate properly, honestly, and respectfully.  Persuasion is a necessary tool of communication and with ethical principles it can be used justly.  Ethics are the foundation of a civilized society, ethical behavior is important to persuasion because it allows for communication to take place in a humane manner, and its significance is marked by the evolution of a communication process that has been practiced and studied for centuries. 

Persuasion, Manipulation, Seduction and Human Communication

Human communication according to Codoban (2006) “means influencing other minds through language” (p. 152).  For many there is some discomfort in thinking of communication as influence, but it in fact is.  We are influenced by what we see and hear every day.  What we process or take in becomes a part of the framework with which we negotiate our perceptions, attitudes, and behavior.  The information we process can reinforce, or alter what is already stored in our personal vaults.  For the purpose of this paper we will compare three specific types of influence (persuasion, manipulation, and seduction) as they relate to human communication.  We will then examine modern day examples of the varying types of persuasive devices and conclude with a description of which types of audiences respond best to which types of techniques.   

            First, persuasion can be defined as “the process by which a person’s attitudes or behaviors are, without duress, influenced by other people through communication” (Codoban, 2006, p. 151).  To put it another way, persuasion is communication beyond words that attempts to influence or alter the framework of another, sometimes leading to a change in behavior.  As emphasized by Seiter and Gass (2004), it is how the receiver of a message perceives the message that ultimately determines whether influence or persuasion takes place (p. 92).  The message must be processed.  In either interpretation persuasion is described to be a conscious and intentional act where the person being targeted by the information is aware of the intended influence of the persuasive message he or she is intended to receive.  Like persuasion, manipulation is also intentional.         

            However, manipulation is different from persuasion in that it is a technique fueled by methods that would seek to not only influence, but to deceive.  Manipulation, unlike persuasion, conceals its intentions.  According to Saussure and Schultz (2005), authors of Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century: discourse, language, mind,

“A message is manipulative if it twists the vision of the world in the mind of the addressee, so that he/she is prevented from having a healthy attitude towards decision, and pursues the manipulator’s goal in the illusion of pursuing her/his own goal” (p.68). 

Like the person being manipulated, the victim of seduction is uninformed of the intentions of the message sender.  Seduction, Codoban (2006) says, is “closer to persuasion than manipulation” (p. 155).  This is because seduction is more subtle than manipulation; in seduction, coercion is not the method by which the seduction is accomplished.  Like persuasion, seduction makes an offer that has appeal and the focus is on the subject, but the difference is that in the case of seduction, the promises are empty ones.

            Modern day persuasive devices are all around us and not all as obvious as we like to think they are, they can be very subtle.  There are many ways in which people work to persuade.  Experts in communication work from an almost endless list of techniques, some new and some old.  From emotional appeal to humor and fear, “snob appeal” to the “just plain folks” approach, from “bandwagon” and “card-stacking” to name calling, from one-sided to two-sided messages, and from color, design and graphics to metaphors, irony, and story telling, there is an arsenal of weaponry arming persuasion (Sprague, Stuart, & Bodery, 2008, p. 45-46).  You can see these devices at work in political debates, broadcast and print media, our courtrooms, streaming 24/7 from the world-wide web, in the classrooms of our universities, in business, on the sales floor, in public relations and in their most recognizable form, advertising. 

In advertising, commercials, magazines, movies, and in political campaigns often times we see more empty promises, which classifies much of what we see in those arenas as seduction.  On the other hand, some of what we see in politics and marketing are closer to manipulations than seduction.  Examples of manipulative devices given by Codoban (2006) were as follows: reciprocity, the consistency mechanism and social proof principle (p. 153-154).  In the cases of marketing in politics, the angle or approach manipulation takes focuses on giving a little or asking for a little in order to get a lot.  The person doing the manipulating benefits the most out of the communication exchange.  We see persuasion in some of the aforementioned arenas as well, and the hierarchy of the relationship in the communication process is an obvious one, such as commercials that promote health issues, and charities.  The communication is directed from the authority of the speaker to the audience.  The true challenge in crafting a persuasive message is deciding when to use which approach with what audience.   

            Different types of audiences respond more effectively to different types of techniques depending on a number of factors.  Beyond the characteristics of age, gender, political views, religious beliefs, race, sexual orientation, education level, and economic status there are many individual and environmental factors to consider.  Attitude, mood, motivation and ability will significantly effect how an audience will process and/or receive a message.  Determining how a message recipient will receive and process message or how they perform judgment (if they do at all) is where technique and strategy come in to play; it is not something to leave to chance.  Some individuals and/or audiences favor accuracy in assessing a message, product or brand where others may only allocate a minute amount of focus toward a given message.    Beyond researching the framework of ones audience, research now gives us some cues on conditions that foster message processing.  A particular audience may utilize what Meyers-Levy and Malaviya (2009) call a “heuristic processing strategy,” “experiential processing strategy,” or a “systematic processing strategy” which may lead to what the authors call “judgment formation” or the “judgment correction process” (p. 54-55).  An effort made to persuade an audience based on the perceived conditions necessary for message processing and judgment formation is a more focused and effective endeavor. 

For example, Meyers-Levy and Malaviya (2009) suggest the following:

If “conditions foster systematic processing, people will tend to form highly favorable judgments, provide they engage in ample or adequate item specific and relational message processing that enables them to identify a product’s specific features, compare these features to appropriate referents, and, on the basis of this comparison, identify the actual uniqueness of the product features” (Meyers-Levy, & Malaviya, 2009, p. 55). 

Meyers-Levy and Malaviya (1999) say that “item specific elaboration require less cognitive resources, engender faster judgments, and result in more extreme judgments” (p. 55).  If we, the message sender, can create these favorable conditions for our targeted audience based on which process we expect them to use, we may find ourselves more successful than we would have otherwise.   

One might argue that influence by means of persuasion can seem like a crapshoot with all of the factors that contribute to successfully sending a persuasive message, but given the extreme challenge of penetrating the barriers between the message sender and the individual it is wiser to remember the cardinal rule that Aristotle stated years before the age of rapid technology, which was to respect ones audience.  That is exactly what Aristotle’s rhetorical model emphasized: the relationship between the message and the audience (Codoban, 2006, p. 156).  Despite advances in persuasion research, the basics of human communication have not lost their value, even with the depth of knowledge we have with respect to audience and message processing today.  Persuasion, manipulation, and seduction all have their defined positions within the playing field of influence and persuasive devices will always equip society in the games it plays as it negotiates the rules of community and social organization.  Therefore, how the persuader chooses his persuasive devices will always be important to communicating a message to the diverse audiences our messages serve. 

References

Codoban, A. (2006). From Persuasion to manipulation and seduction. (a very short

            history of global communication). JSRI, 14, 151-158.

Meyers-Levy, J., & Malaviya, P. (1999). Consumers’ Processing of Persuasive

Advertisements: An Integrative Framework of Persuasion Theories. Journal of

 Marketing. Volume 63.

Saussure, L., & Schulz, P. (2005). Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century:

discourse, language, mind. The Netherlands: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.

Seiter, J. S., & Gass, R. H. (2004). Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and

            compliance gaining. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Sprague, J., Stuart, D., & Bodary, D. (2008). The Speaker's handbook. Farmington Hills,

MI: Cengage Learning.