Stephen E. Lucas C H A P T E R McGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved. Methods of...
-
Upload
krista-yearsley -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of Stephen E. Lucas C H A P T E R McGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved. Methods of...
Stephen E. LucasStephen E. Lucas
C H A P T E RC H A P T E R
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Methods of PersuasionMethods of Persuasion
1616
Slide 2Slide 2
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Methods of PersuasionMethods of Persuasion
• Building credibility
• Using evidence
• Reasoning
• Appealing to emotions
• Building credibility
• Using evidence
• Reasoning
• Appealing to emotions
Slide 3Slide 3
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
CredibilityCredibility
The audience's perception of whether a speaker is qualified to speak on a given topic.
The audience's perception of whether a speaker is qualified to speak on a given topic.
Slide 4Slide 4
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
EthosEthos
The name used by Aristotle for what modern students of communication refer to as credibility.
The name used by Aristotle for what modern students of communication refer to as credibility.
Slide 5Slide 5
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Factors of CredibilityFactors of Credibility
• Competence
• Character
• Competence
• Character
Slide 6Slide 6
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
CompetenceCompetence
How an audience regards a speaker’s intelligence, expertise, and knowledge of the subject.
How an audience regards a speaker’s intelligence, expertise, and knowledge of the subject.
Slide 7Slide 7
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
CharacterCharacter
How an audience regards a speaker’s sincerity, trustworthiness, and concern for the well-being of the audience.
How an audience regards a speaker’s sincerity, trustworthiness, and concern for the well-being of the audience.
Slide 8Slide 8
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Types of CredibilityTypes of Credibility
• Initial
• Derived
• Terminal
• Initial
• Derived
• Terminal
Slide 9Slide 9
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Initial CredibilityInitial Credibility
The credibility of a speaker before she or he starts to speak.The credibility of a speaker before she or he starts to speak.
Slide 10Slide 10
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Derived CredibilityDerived Credibility
The credibility of a speaker produced by everything she or he says and does during the speech.
The credibility of a speaker produced by everything she or he says and does during the speech.
Slide 11Slide 11
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Terminal CredibilityTerminal Credibility
The credibility of a speaker at the end of the speech.The credibility of a speaker at the end of the speech.
Slide 12Slide 12
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Tips for Enhancing CredibilityTips for Enhancing Credibility
• Explain your competence
• Establish common ground with your audience
• Deliver your speeches fluently, expressively, and with conviction
• Explain your competence
• Establish common ground with your audience
• Deliver your speeches fluently, expressively, and with conviction
Slide 13Slide 13
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
LogosLogos
The name used by Aristotle for the logical appeal of a speaker. The two major elements of logos are evidence and reasoning.
The name used by Aristotle for the logical appeal of a speaker. The two major elements of logos are evidence and reasoning.
Slide 14Slide 14
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
EvidenceEvidence
Supporting materials used to prove or disprove something.Supporting materials used to prove or disprove something.
Slide 15Slide 15
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Tips for Using EvidenceTips for Using Evidence
• Use specific evidence
• Use novel evidence
• Use evidence from credible sources
• Make clear the point of your evidence
• Use specific evidence
• Use novel evidence
• Use evidence from credible sources
• Make clear the point of your evidence
Slide 16Slide 16
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
ReasoningReasoning
The process of drawing a conclusion on the basis of evidence.The process of drawing a conclusion on the basis of evidence.
Slide 17Slide 17
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Four Types of ReasoningFour Types of Reasoning
• Reasoning from specific instances
• Reasoning from principle
• Causal reasoning
• Analogical reasoning
• Reasoning from specific instances
• Reasoning from principle
• Causal reasoning
• Analogical reasoning
Slide 18Slide 18
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Reasoning from Specific Instances
Reasoning from Specific Instances
Reasoning that moves from particular facts to a general conclusion.Reasoning that moves from particular facts to a general conclusion.
Slide 19Slide 19
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Guidelines for Reasoning from Specific Instances
Guidelines for Reasoning from Specific Instances
• Avoid hasty generalizations• If your evidence does not justify a
sweeping conclusion, qualify your argument
• Reinforce your argument with statistics or testimony
• Avoid hasty generalizations• If your evidence does not justify a
sweeping conclusion, qualify your argument
• Reinforce your argument with statistics or testimony
Slide 20Slide 20
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Reasoning from PrincipleReasoning from Principle
Reasoning that moves from a general principle to a specific conclusion.Reasoning that moves from a general principle to a specific conclusion.
Slide 21Slide 21
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Guidelines for Reasoning from Principle
Guidelines for Reasoning from Principle
• Make sure listeners will accept your general principle
• Provide evidence to support your minor premise
• Make sure listeners will accept your general principle
• Provide evidence to support your minor premise
Slide 22Slide 22
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Causal ReasoningCausal Reasoning
Reasoning that seeks to establish the relationship between causes and effects.
Reasoning that seeks to establish the relationship between causes and effects.
Slide 23Slide 23
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Guidelines for Causal Reasoning
Guidelines for Causal Reasoning
• Avoid the fallacy of false cause
• Do not assume that events have only a single cause
• Avoid the fallacy of false cause
• Do not assume that events have only a single cause
Slide 24Slide 24
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Analogical ReasoningAnalogical Reasoning
Reasoning in which a speaker compares two similar cases and infers that what is true for the first case is also true for the second.
Reasoning in which a speaker compares two similar cases and infers that what is true for the first case is also true for the second.
Slide 25Slide 25
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Guidelines for Analogical Reasoning
Guidelines for Analogical Reasoning
Above all, make sure the two cases being compared are essentially alikeAbove all, make sure the two cases being compared are essentially alike
Slide 26Slide 26
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
FallacyFallacy
An error in reasoning.An error in reasoning.
Slide 27Slide 27
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
FallaciesFallacies
• Hasty generalization
• False cause
• Invalid analogy
• Red herring
• Hasty generalization
• False cause
• Invalid analogy
• Red herring
Slide 28Slide 28
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
FallaciesFallacies
• Ad hominem
• Either-or
• Bandwagon
• Slippery slope
• Ad hominem
• Either-or
• Bandwagon
• Slippery slope
Slide 29Slide 29
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Hasty GeneralizationHasty Generalization
A fallacy in which a speaker jumps to a general conclusion on the basis of insufficient evidence.
A fallacy in which a speaker jumps to a general conclusion on the basis of insufficient evidence.
Slide 30Slide 30
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Hasty GeneralizationHasty Generalization
“Last year alone three members of our state legislature were convicted of corruption. We can conclude, then, that all of our state's politicians are corrupt.”
“Last year alone three members of our state legislature were convicted of corruption. We can conclude, then, that all of our state's politicians are corrupt.”
Slide 31Slide 31
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
False CauseFalse Cause
A fallacy in which a speaker mistakenly assumes that because one event follows another, the first event is the cause of the second.
A fallacy in which a speaker mistakenly assumes that because one event follows another, the first event is the cause of the second.
Slide 32Slide 32
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
False CauseFalse Cause
“I'm sure the stock market will rise this year. It usually goes up when the American League wins the World Series.”
“I'm sure the stock market will rise this year. It usually goes up when the American League wins the World Series.”
Slide 33Slide 33
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Invalid AnalogyInvalid Analogy
An analogy in which the two cases being compared are not essentially alike.
An analogy in which the two cases being compared are not essentially alike.
Slide 34Slide 34
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Invalid AnalogyInvalid Analogy
“Of course Lisheng can prepare great Italian food; his Chinese cooking is fabulous.”
“Of course Lisheng can prepare great Italian food; his Chinese cooking is fabulous.”
Slide 35Slide 35
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Red HerringRed Herring
A fallacy that introduces an irrelevant issue to divert attention from the subject under discussion.
A fallacy that introduces an irrelevant issue to divert attention from the subject under discussion.
Slide 36Slide 36
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Red Herring Red Herring
“Why should we worry about endangered animal species when thousands of people are killed in automobile accidents each year?”
“Why should we worry about endangered animal species when thousands of people are killed in automobile accidents each year?”
Slide 37Slide 37
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Ad HominemAd Hominem
A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute.
A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute.
Slide 38Slide 38
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Ad Hominem Ad Hominem
“The governor has a number of interesting economic proposals, but let’s not forget that she comes from a very wealthy family.”
“The governor has a number of interesting economic proposals, but let’s not forget that she comes from a very wealthy family.”
Slide 39Slide 39
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Either-OrEither-Or
A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist.
A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist.
Slide 40Slide 40
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Either-Or Either-Or
“The government must either raise taxes or reduce services for the poor.”
“The government must either raise taxes or reduce services for the poor.”
Slide 41Slide 41
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
BandwagonBandwagon
A fallacy that assumes that because something is popular, it is therefore good, correct, or desirable.
A fallacy that assumes that because something is popular, it is therefore good, correct, or desirable.
Slide 42Slide 42
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Bandwagon Bandwagon
“The President must be correct in his approach to domestic policy; after all, polls show that 60 percent of the people support him.”
“The President must be correct in his approach to domestic policy; after all, polls show that 60 percent of the people support him.”
Slide 43Slide 43
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Slippery SlopeSlippery Slope
A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented.
A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented.
Slide 44Slide 44
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Slippery Slope Slippery Slope
“Passing federal laws to control the amount of violence on television is the first step in a process that will result in absolute government control of the media and total censorship over all forms of artistic expression.”
“Passing federal laws to control the amount of violence on television is the first step in a process that will result in absolute government control of the media and total censorship over all forms of artistic expression.”
Slide 45Slide 45
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Emotional AppealsEmotional Appeals
Appeals that are intended to make listeners feel sad, angry, guilty, afraid, happy, proud, sympathetic, reverent, or the like.
Appeals that are intended to make listeners feel sad, angry, guilty, afraid, happy, proud, sympathetic, reverent, or the like.
Slide 46Slide 46
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
PathosPathos
The name used by Aristotle for what modern students of communication refer to as emotional appeal.
The name used by Aristotle for what modern students of communication refer to as emotional appeal.
Slide 47Slide 47
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Tips for Generating Emotional Appeal
Tips for Generating Emotional Appeal
• Use emotional language
• Develop vivid examples
• Speak with sincerity and conviction
• Use emotional language
• Develop vivid examples
• Speak with sincerity and conviction
Slide 48Slide 48
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.
Using Emotional Appeal Ethically
Using Emotional Appeal Ethically
• Make sure emotional appeal is appropriate to the speech topic
• Do not substitute emotional appeal for evidence and reasoning
• Make sure emotional appeal is appropriate to the speech topic
• Do not substitute emotional appeal for evidence and reasoning
Slide 49Slide 49
McGraw-HillMcGraw-Hill © 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.© 2007 Stephen E. Lucas. All rights reserved.