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.
