Preaching To The Converted

From: Immortalist (Reanimater_2000_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/25/04 

Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:52:00 -0700

The more well informed the members of the audience are, the less likely they are
to be persuaded by a one-sided argument and the more likely they are to be
persuaded by an argument that brings out the important opposing arguments and
then proceeds to refute them.

On the other hand, an uninformed person is less apt to know of the existence of
opposing arguments. If the counterargument is ignored, the less-informed members
of the audience are persuaded; if the counterargument is presented, they may get
confused.

(3) One-Sided vs Two-Sided Arguments:

Suppose you are about to make a speech attempting to persuade your audience
that capital punishment is necessary. Would you persuade more people if you
simply stated your view and ignored the arguments against capital
punishment, or would you be more persuasive if you discussed the opposing
arguments and attempted to refute them? Before trying to answer this
question, let us try to understand what is involved. If a communicator
mentions the opposition's arguments, it might indicate that he or she is an
objective, fair-minded person; this could enhance the speaker's
trustworthiness and thus increase his or her effectiveness. On the other
hand, if a communicator so much as mentions the arguments on the other side
of the issue, it might suggest to the audience that the issue is
controversial; this could confuse members of the audience, make them
vacillate, and ultimately reduce the persuasiveness of the communication.
With these possibilities in mind, it should not come as a surprise to the
reader that there is no simple relation between one-sided arguments and the
effectiveness of the communication. It depends to some extent upon how well
informed the audience is: The more well informed the members of the audience
are, the less likely they are to be persuaded by a one-sided argument and
the more likely they are to be persuaded by an argument that brings out the
important opposing arguments and then proceeds to refute them. This makes
sense: A well-informed person is more likely to know some of the
counterarguments. When the communicator avoids mentioning these, the
knowledgeable members of the audience are likely to conclude that the
communicator is either unfair or unable to refute such arguments. On the
other hand, an uninformed person is less apt to know of the existence of
opposing arguments. If the counterargument is ignored, the less-informed
members of the audience are persuaded; if the counterargument is presented,
they may get confused.

Another factor playing a vital role is the initial position of the audience.
As we might expect, if a member of the audience is already predisposed to
believe the communicator's argument, a onesided presentation has a greater
impact on his or her opinion than a two-sided presentation. If, however, a
member of the audience is leaning in the opposite direction, then a
two-sided refutational argument is more persuasive. Most politicians seem to
be well aware of this phenomenon; they tend to present vastly different
kinds of speeches, depending upon who constitutes the audience. When talking
to the party faithful, they almost invariably deliver a hell-raising set of
arguments favoring their own party platform and candidacy. If they do
mention the opposition, it is in a derisive, mocking tone. On the other
hand, when appearing on network television or when speaking to any audience
of mixed loyalties, they tend to take a more diplomatic position, giving the
opposing view a reasonably accurate airing before proceeding to demolish it.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vt49og3usfsbda%40corp.supernews.com

The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Converting Fundy Repug Preachers
    ... > The more well informed the members of the audience are, ... > persuaded by an argument that brings out the important opposing arguments ... > of the audience are persuaded; if the counterargument is presented, ... > Suppose you are about to make a speech attempting to persuade your ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Preaching To The Converted
    ... > The more well informed the members of the audience are, ... > opposing arguments. ... the less-informed members ... Would you persuade more people if you ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Preaching To The Converted
    ... > opposing arguments. ... the less-informed members ... > of the audience are persuaded; if the counterargument is presented, ... Would you persuade more people if you ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Preaching To The Converted
    ... >> The more well informed the members of the audience are, ... >> Suppose you are about to make a speech attempting to persuade your ... if a communicator so much as mentions the arguments on the other ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Preaching To The Converted
    ... Prior Experience of the Audience. ... mind the audience is in just prior to the communication. ... one way of decreasing their persuasibility is by forewarning ... them that an attempt is going to be made to persuade them. ...
    (sci.logic)