comm exam 3

ethos

a receivers attitude toward a source at a particular time

character

a dimension of ethos

integrity

honesty

goodness

competence

a dimension of ethos

intelligence

knowledge

expertise

background

caring

a dimension of ethos

concern for others

empathy

consideration

initial ethos

credibility assigned before that is influenced by background, characteristics, and sponsorship

background

part of initial ethos

experience

education

reputation

characteristics

part of initial ethos

attractiveness

gender

race

sponsorship

part of initial ethos

support

endorsement from another

derived ethos

credibility assigned during that is influenced by rhetorical choices, humor, common ground, and fear

rhetorical choices

part of derived ethos

evidence

organization

delivery

humor

part of derived ethos

higher ethos with more of this

funny and likeable

common ground

part of derived ethos

similar attitudes, beliefs, and values

fear

part of derived ethos

depending on initial ethos high or low

if you do not like someone initially, you wont trust them

terminal ethos

high ethos loses impact overtime per research

out of ethos, logos, and pathos, LOGOS persuades the most

coercive

a power base

punishment

the source could give some sort of negative drawback

reward

a power base

benefits

the source can offer some sort of benefit

legitimate

a power base

position

the position of power someone has over you

expert

a power base

knowledge

the sources credibility

referent

a power base

relationship

positive between the source and the receiver

ethos and power

highest credibility to lowest

referent

reward

competence

legitimate

coercive

pathos

appealing to emotion

extended parallel process model

does not guarantee persuasive success


1. message (fear appeal)
2. threat appraisal (is it a threat)


1. disregard if not a threat
2. fear control high severity and high susceptibility (it appeals to you)
3. Fear control (defensive) address emotion and try to get rid of it because efficacy is low and can’t do anything about it
4. Danger control (constructive/accept recommendation) Efficacy is high and person feels they can do something about it

fear appeal

using fear by showing consequences

trying to incite fear or not

threat appraisal

how severe is the message

if severity and susceptibility are high, it goes to fear control, and if not it is disregarded

susceptibility

how likely would this be to happen to us

severity

how severe are the consequences

how likely are they severe

efficacy

confidence of if you can do something about it

danger control

if efficacy is high, and you can do something about it, the message goes here

fear control

efficacy is low it is severe and susceptible, but the person can not do anything about it

might not have access o it

trying to control the emotion of fear

disregard

it is not severe or susceptible, so it does not apply

guilt appeal

when using guilt,

be subtle

provide a situation to alleviate guilt

use a likeable source

anticipated guilt

“do this to avoid guilt in the future”

humor appeals

gain attention

create a memorable message

Elaboration likelihood model

1. persuasive message is presented
2. if motivated to process:


1. able to process allows,
2. central route processing
3. causes an enduring attitude change
3. If not motivated to process:


1. peripheral route processing


1. temporary attitude change

central route

process messages carefully

focus on argument/message

peripheral route

process messages lazily

use cognitive heuristics to save time and mental capacity

satisficing

being ok with an option (satisfied)

red shoes are the only ones available and I need shoes now so its fine

temporizing

being okay with an option… for now (satisfied temporarily)

need running shoes for training and I cant afford the good ones right now, but I will buy them before the race

affect

going with your gut without thinking it through

I like the way these shoes feel so I am getting them

stimulation

estimating the likelihood of an outcome (I am going to guess this is going to happen)

this political person is going to win if i vote or not so im not voting

availability

something seen everywhere so it must be true

everyone in morgantown has a cool truck for the hills I gotta get one

association

“it makes me think of that… so I will buy it”

connecting ideas based off memories- this truck reminds me of my parents old one so I want it

stereotyping

snap judgement about a group based on a limited experience

Im not a redneck and I dont want a truck so why is the salesperson only showing me that?

us vs. them

reducing options to only two and then rejecting the opposition

truck or sedan not suvs or motorcycles

power differential

accepting something bc it is proposed by a higher authority

the salesperson suggested it and they know more about it than me so Ill take it

anchoring with adjustment

taking an initial stance and adjusting with new evidence

want a cheaper phone but the new model has a better camera

illusion of control

overestimating the control we have over a situation

I play blackjack because I have more control than the slot machines

optimistic bias

causes someone to believe that they are themselves less likely to experience a negative event

its very rare to get an addiction from one hit of nic so I will try it

elimination by aspect

eliminating on option from consideration based on the lack of one desirable feature

those are addidas, I want nike

loss and risk aversion

avoiding loss/risk by maintaining status quo

buying a pink shirt for wednesdays to fit in

ELM questions

will the audience likely process centrally or peripherally?

do you need a short term or long-term attitude change

more cues or more arguments

ethical communication

the most persuasive problem in most discussions of ethics is whether we should judge things on the basis of the ends achieved or upon the basis of the means used to achieve those ends

ethics

moral principles that govern behavior that are socially constructed

to be ethical or unethical it requires consciousness. if a person is unaware then it is not unetical

intent

the way to gauge whether the source is ethical

why did they do it in the first place?

persuasion

ethically neutral

coercion

use of force or punishment

if everyone does not do the survey, everyone gets an F

amoral view

rhetorical communication has no ethical value

everyone should be trained in this

freedom of speech

moral view

rhetorical communication

HAS good ethical value

only good people should be allowed to speak and be trained

totalitarian

moral ethic

restricts communication often by coercion

censorship: restrict with laws and force

democratic

amoral ethic

systematically encourages free speech

censorship: restrict laws with social pressure

advocate system

speaking on behalf of someone else (lawyer)

ghostwriting

skilled communicator creates a message for another source to present

(political speech writers)

to speak

ethical obligation in a free society:

believe something? say it!

to speak well

ethical obligation in a free society:

use power to persuade for justice

not to speak

ethical obligation in a free society:

don’t know whats correct, dont speak

to listen

ethical obligation in a free society:

listen and learn from others

to speak

obstacles to ethical obligations:

most fear to do so (social pressure)

to speak well

obstacles to ethical obligations:

many not trained

fallacies

not to speak

obstacles to ethical obligations:

difficult not to speak mind

to listen

obstacles to ethical obligations:

some do not take in both sides or self-regulate