CPT Lecture notes
Lecture 1
Persuasion: traditions
Aristotle
1. Logos (logical arguments: message)
2. Pathos (emotional appeals: audience)
3. Ethos (good character of the speaker: communicator)
→ Six weapons of influence – Cialdini (Lecture 6)
Persuasion
“Persuasion as a symbolic process in which communicators try to convince other people to change their own
attitudes or behaviors regarding an issue through the transmission of a message in an atmosphere of free choice.”
- Relies on symbols: words, signs, images
- Involves an attempt to influence: deliberative, intentional, conscious
- Entails self-persuasion: persuadee make the change
- Requires transmission of message: arguments, cues
- Assumes free choice: option to do not follow persuader
Persuasion vs. coercion
Deception: the action of deceiving (bedriegen) someone
Incentivization: attaching a reward to a given behavior, or threatening a penalty for failing to do that behavior
Coercion: the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Persuasion vs. propaganda/manipulation
- Persuasion differs from propaganda ‘in its aims, in the means it uses, in the pressure it exerts, and in the
range of people it affects’ – Mulholland, 2003
- Three common features of propaganda
o Control over the transmission of information
o Is directed towards masses of individuals
o And uses covert messages that disguise the true intent (=manipulation) – Perloff, 2020
- Propaganda: the deliberate systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct
behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist. – Jowett & O’Donnell,
2014
1
,Persuasion as transactional communication: an example
Perspectives in persuasion
- Persuasion is ubiquitous in contemporary life
- Self-persuasion is central: we convince and change ourselves in response to persuasion
- Two very different ways people frequently process persuasive information: one effortful, the other more
automatic (dual processing);
- Adopting an ethical approach to persuasion is crucial, particularly in an era of ever-subtle technological
tricks.
- Ideas and concepts shade into each other: grey zones!
2
,Lecture 2 Rational Deliberation
Rational deliberation in persuasion in consumer communication for sustainability
Part 1: what are conditions for rational discourse and how are claims and controversies deliberated?
Part 2: what makes a strong argument and how do debates change levels?
Learning objectives:
- Understand principles of (ideal) rational deliberation
- Describe how claims/controversies on different levels trigger different types of discourses
- Describe rhetorical …
Part 1
The problem
We learn to use communication in an instrumental way in different roles: systematic distortion of communication
Spaces for understanding and deliberation needed
Instrumental communication action examples: training a sports team, buy a car
How to create spaces for rational deliberation
Rational discourse: what are features, characteristics, requirements, …?
Juergen Habermas:
- All people possess rationality → everyone is able to argue in a rational way
- All people are free and equal → how to structure the debates
- All people need to have a say in issues that affect them → include people who are affected by decisions that are
made
- All decision can be made in a consensual and rational way
→ influential in research on ‘deliberative democracy’
Some features of ‘ideal speech situations’
- Goal: communicative action – reaching consensus
- Procedural rules: no coercion; equality, inclusiveness
- Logical rules: no contradictions, inconsistencies, or equivocations → using same words with different
meaning
- Presuppositions to agree on ‘validity’
o Sincerity → if a speaker is authenticity, seriousness about topic, speaking truth, not manipulative
o Truth → a fact, what we say should be based on facts, evidence-based arguments, others can validate
o Rightness → must be appropriate and legitimate to say something, moral rules and principles
How to work with these validity claims
Habermans is on the left side of the figure from post-reading lecture 1 (Bakir et al.)
Types of discourses (gesprekken)
3
, What are different types of discourses that are used in deliberation?
- Explicative discourse: is it clear and understandable → connection was out
- Practical discourse: is it relevant and justified → disclaimers slide
- Theoretical discourse: is it true and effective?
Validity claims and controversies
What are different types of issues and claims that need to be clarified? Staircase for reflective practice
Sustainability meta labelling → deliberating what more general sustainability label should include
1. Physical clarity = someone could say that the definition of criteria of the label should be publicly available
→ I think that the definitions of the criteria and the measurement procedures should be publicly available!
2. Syntactic clarity
→ should a global sustainability label use metric or imperial measurements?
3. Semantic clarity = define what labeling scheme means by indicator
→ What do you mean by “indicator”? An indicator that cannot be measured is not an indicator to me.
4. Relevance
→ I don’t think that diversity aspect of a company’s executive board should be a relevant criterion for product
sustainability
5. Expressive validity = speakers’ honesty
→ Regarding the communication of the label, I think it’s overstated to say that it actually IS a totally sustainable
product. Not buying it is still more sustainable, but we don’t want to communicate that!
6. Empirical validity = evidence based, reliability, measuring carbon footprint
→ Is a carbon footprint really a reliable way to infer that a product is “climate neutral”?
7. Normative validity = rightfulness, appropriateness, morally appropriate
→ Is what the label claims about “locally sources” actually in line with current law?Is it morally right to exit
trade contracts with Global South countries to source locally?
8. Instrumental rationality = simple questions if all discourses have been clarified
→ Is printing the label on products in color actually necessary?
9. Strategic rationality = thinking about the effects of a certain action
→ Shouldn’t we be printing the label on the front of products instead of the back to educate consumers and
change their behavior?
10. Aesthetic rationality = thinking about aesthetics of it
→ Is a sparsely leafed tree really the best representation of the type of rich flourishing we want to associate
with sustainability?
11. Communicative rationality = does anyone agree?
→ Does everyone agree with what we have achieved so far? Any further comments?
→ match the discourses to the validity issues! Not need to know exactly for the exam!
4
