Persuasion in consumer communication for sustainability
Lecture 1: introduction
4th centurary BC Aristotle: three things to make communication persuasive
1. Logos:
Logical arguments: message
2. Pathos
Emotional appeals: audience
3. Ethos
Good character of the speaker: communicator
Mid 20th century Cialdini: six” weapons" of influence
Persuasion: a definition
“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” Perloff, 2020
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
Buckle up, it’s the law persuasion
Don’t be bananas! persuasion
Monsters were fake, no movies was good because good acting persuasion
Persuasion:
1. Friend’s attempt to influence another’s opinion of movies
2. Loves one’s antidrug appeal
3. Advertising
4. Health public service message
5. Political campaigns
6. Sales and telemarketing
Coercion:
1. Threatening messages
2. Employer’s directives
3. Interrogation
4. Communication on dangerously abusive relationships
5. Ban on smoking
6. Enforcement of seat belt laws
,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
“Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate
cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent
of the propagandist”
Perspectives on 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!
,Lecture 2: Rational deliberation
The problem
We learn to use communication in an instrumental way in different roles:
Systematic distortion of communication
Spaces for understanding and deliberation needed
How do we create spaces for rational deliberation?
Rational deliberation: Habermas
Some assumptions:
All people possess rationality
All people are free and equal
All people need to have a say in issues that affect them
All decisions 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, onconsistencies, or equivocations (using same words
with different meanings)
Presuppositions to agree on “validity”
o Sincerity (e.g. the speaker’s authenticity, seriousness, honest; non deceptive
intent)
o Truth (e.g. a fact, an objective finding)
o Rightness (e.g. moral rules and principles)
Types of discourses
What are different types of discourses that are used in deliberation
Explicative discourse
o Is it clear and understandable?
Theoretical discourse
o Is it true? Is it effective?
Practical discourse
o Is it relevant and justified?
Validity claims and controversies
What are different types of issues and claims that need to be clarified?
Physical clarity explicative discourse
o Is the communication accessible?
Syntactic clarity Explicative discourse
o Is the format understandable?
Semantic clarity Explicative discourse
o Is the content understandable
Relevance practical discourse
, o Is the content relevant?
Expressive validity
o Do we really mean what we say?
Empirical validity theoretical discourse
o Is it true/fact-based what we say?
Normative validity Practical discourse
o Is it appropriate to say it?
Instrumental rationality Theoretical discourse
o Do we say it efficiently?
Strategic rationality theoretical discourse
o Does what we say achieve effects?
Aesthetic rationality
o Is how we say it aesthetic?
Communicative rationality
o Can everyone with what we are saying?
It is a staircase for reflective practice, but it is not linear.
EX. Sustainability meta labeling deliberating what a more general sustainability label
should include
Physical clarity I think that the definitions of the criteria and the measurement
procedures should be publicly available!
Syntactic clarity Should a global sustainable label use metric or imperial
measurements?
Habermas rational deliberation:
Strengths
o Provides procedures and principles for rational deliberation
o Orientation towards consensus reflects/supports democratic processes
o Ensures equality, freedom and reasoned action
o Procedural, but not relativistic (norms need to be agreed on, e.g. what counts
as truth)
Limitations/critique
o Idealistic: conditions for ideal speech are rarely, if ever, met
o Assumes (in principle) informed, willing, and competent participants and
ignores human biases
o Western-/Eurocentric
Rhetorics
Aristotle:
Logos
Pathos
Ethos
Later (middle ages and during enlightenment), rhetoric focused on rigorous logical structure
and rational persuasion
Lecture 1: introduction
4th centurary BC Aristotle: three things to make communication persuasive
1. Logos:
Logical arguments: message
2. Pathos
Emotional appeals: audience
3. Ethos
Good character of the speaker: communicator
Mid 20th century Cialdini: six” weapons" of influence
Persuasion: a definition
“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” Perloff, 2020
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
Buckle up, it’s the law persuasion
Don’t be bananas! persuasion
Monsters were fake, no movies was good because good acting persuasion
Persuasion:
1. Friend’s attempt to influence another’s opinion of movies
2. Loves one’s antidrug appeal
3. Advertising
4. Health public service message
5. Political campaigns
6. Sales and telemarketing
Coercion:
1. Threatening messages
2. Employer’s directives
3. Interrogation
4. Communication on dangerously abusive relationships
5. Ban on smoking
6. Enforcement of seat belt laws
,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
“Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate
cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent
of the propagandist”
Perspectives on 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!
,Lecture 2: Rational deliberation
The problem
We learn to use communication in an instrumental way in different roles:
Systematic distortion of communication
Spaces for understanding and deliberation needed
How do we create spaces for rational deliberation?
Rational deliberation: Habermas
Some assumptions:
All people possess rationality
All people are free and equal
All people need to have a say in issues that affect them
All decisions 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, onconsistencies, or equivocations (using same words
with different meanings)
Presuppositions to agree on “validity”
o Sincerity (e.g. the speaker’s authenticity, seriousness, honest; non deceptive
intent)
o Truth (e.g. a fact, an objective finding)
o Rightness (e.g. moral rules and principles)
Types of discourses
What are different types of discourses that are used in deliberation
Explicative discourse
o Is it clear and understandable?
Theoretical discourse
o Is it true? Is it effective?
Practical discourse
o Is it relevant and justified?
Validity claims and controversies
What are different types of issues and claims that need to be clarified?
Physical clarity explicative discourse
o Is the communication accessible?
Syntactic clarity Explicative discourse
o Is the format understandable?
Semantic clarity Explicative discourse
o Is the content understandable
Relevance practical discourse
, o Is the content relevant?
Expressive validity
o Do we really mean what we say?
Empirical validity theoretical discourse
o Is it true/fact-based what we say?
Normative validity Practical discourse
o Is it appropriate to say it?
Instrumental rationality Theoretical discourse
o Do we say it efficiently?
Strategic rationality theoretical discourse
o Does what we say achieve effects?
Aesthetic rationality
o Is how we say it aesthetic?
Communicative rationality
o Can everyone with what we are saying?
It is a staircase for reflective practice, but it is not linear.
EX. Sustainability meta labeling deliberating what a more general sustainability label
should include
Physical clarity I think that the definitions of the criteria and the measurement
procedures should be publicly available!
Syntactic clarity Should a global sustainable label use metric or imperial
measurements?
Habermas rational deliberation:
Strengths
o Provides procedures and principles for rational deliberation
o Orientation towards consensus reflects/supports democratic processes
o Ensures equality, freedom and reasoned action
o Procedural, but not relativistic (norms need to be agreed on, e.g. what counts
as truth)
Limitations/critique
o Idealistic: conditions for ideal speech are rarely, if ever, met
o Assumes (in principle) informed, willing, and competent participants and
ignores human biases
o Western-/Eurocentric
Rhetorics
Aristotle:
Logos
Pathos
Ethos
Later (middle ages and during enlightenment), rhetoric focused on rigorous logical structure
and rational persuasion
