PUBLIC SPEAKING & PERSUASION LECTURE

INTERNATIONAL DEBATE ACADEMY, SLOVENIA, 2005

Alfred C. Tuna Snider, University of Vermont, Alfred.snider@uvm.edu
This is a new approach to debate instruction. It is
based on empirical research on persuasion and
compliance gaining. Please notice that some of
these findings may be culturally based, but since
the studies are of English-speakers and
international parliamentary debate takes place in
English, there should be a considerable amount
of applicability.

Triggers for routes: shown by studies.

Central: personal relevance, new information.
Peripheral: source focus, use of accepted ideas,
associations, distraction, even confusion.
PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF PUBLIC SPEAKING
Most of these are peripheral route cues.

A MODEL OF PERSUASION
Mechanics of public speaking are important.
1. Variety of delivery.
2. Emphasis to serve content and interest.
3. Naturalness to avoid

Necessary to understand persuasion.

Elaboration likelihood model of persuasion (Petty
& Cacioppo, 1986) is accurate and useful.
Two routes:

Central route: evaluate the arguments

and evidence using critical skills, makes
a logical and reasonable decision.

Peripheral route: evaluates the source,

associations, mental shorthand, and
social norms.

Central: if highly motivated and

intelligent. Good critic full of energy.
Content-based critic. Matter. Subject is
of personal interest to the critic.

Peripheral: if not highly motivated. Tired

critic or not as interested. Presentationbased critic. Manner. Subject is not of
personal interest to the critic.

People utilize one route or the other,

they choose. The notion that we use
50% matter and 50% manner is not
proven. One criteria will always
predominate and guide our processing
of the other criteria. Example, once on
the central route source expertise just
becomes another argument, while on
the peripheral route good evidence just
becomes a signal of source knowledge.
You have to try and influence which
route the judge takes, and if you cant
do that, you need to use the route the
judge is already using.

Need to apply these to:

1. Voice: speed, volume, quality.
Managers who speak clearly and vary
their tone are more often liked by
employees (Hinkle). Speakers who
speak louder, faster, and more fluently
and varied their vocal frequency and
intensity are perceived as more
persuasive (Mehrabian and Williams).
HOWEVER, shouting at the audience is
counterproductive (Chebat and Chebat).
Speaking too quickly drives people to
the peripheral route.
2. Gestures: amount, variety, link to
content, not distracting. Do not tough
yourself.
3. Eye contact: scanning, connection, and
truth-telling. Beggars get more when
they have eye contact (Robinson, Seitar
& Acharya).
4. Face: consistency between message
and facial expression. 250,000 different
expressions (Birdwhistell).
5. Body movement: confidence, grace,
occupation and domination of space.
CREDIBILITY
A peripheral route cue, except as when credibility
becomes just another argument on the central
route (Petty & Cacioppo).

Benoit study (1987): He wanted to find out what

was most important, argument quality, source
expertise, or source attractiveness. He had
students read an essay about whether a
computer class should be mandatory. Argument
quality was the most important. Strong
arguments persuaded, but mediocre or weak
arguments did not, and source expertise and
attractiveness did not factor in. They were using
the central route. However, when the message
indicated that FUTURE students would take such
a class (not them), source expertise became the
most important factor.

Primary: expertise, trustworthiness, goodwill.

Secondary: extroversion, composure, sociability.
Low credibility speakers should do all they can to
increase personal relevance and interest in the
arguments (Gass & Seitar).
Strategies for enhancing credibility (Gass &
Seitar):
1. Be prepared and organized.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Use evidence and identify its source.

Cite your own experience and
qualification on the subject.
Communicate honesty and sincerity
(accurately depict the status of the
arguments).
Display goodwill; do not seem aloof or
indifferent.
Use language and delivery appropriate
for the audience and situation.
Avoid powerless style of communication
(later). Be assertive.
If you are low credibility, try and
increase topic relevance to the
audience.

Ultimate terms: God terms, devil terms,

charismatic terms (Weaver).
God terms: always good

Fact

Progress

Family

Critical thinking

Security
Devil terms: always bad

Nazi/Fascist

Racist

Terrorist

Gang member

Sweat shop

Sexual harassment

AUDIENCE ADAPTATION
What women want with Mel Gibson story. A
chauvinist advertising executive is able, through
a freak accident, to read womens minds. Thus,
he is able to pick up women but also design great
ads for women. If only it could be so easy. Spock
of Star Trek has the Vulcan mind-link, you do not.

Charismatic terms: applied to something that is

observable. They can demand sacrifice.

Freedom

Democracy

Empowerment

You need to appeal to the attitudes of your

audience, BUT, if you adapt too much you
appear insincere.

The right terms. Use of different words is very

important.
In the USA, here are some right and wrong
terms for politicians (Lemann):

Department of Defense not Pentagon.

Opportunity scholarship not school

voucher.

Tax relief not tax cuts.

Climate change not global warming.

Reform, accountability, responsibility are

all good.

Audience adaptation can determine how they will

process the message. It can guide the use of the
central or peripheral route.
Keys to audience adaptation (Gass & Seitar):
1. Pay attention to the situation.
2. Keep your audiences mind in mind.
Makes guesses about them. Utilize what
you believe are their values. Utilize your
perception of their needs. It is never
precise, but do your best.
3. Remember audience traits.
a. Anxious and nervous people
need to be reassured.
b. Socially insecure people need
to feel like they fit in and are
respected.
c. People ego involved with the
subject do not accept things
very different from their own
view.
d. Dogmatic or closed-minded
people respond well to
authority figure evidence.
e. Demographics: age, income,
culture, education. Use these
to establish personal relevance
for the central route.

Tricks of language use on the peripheral route:

1. Familiar phrases people accept and do
not question, often applied to different
situations. Can be culturally specific
aphorisms. In English: Money doesnt
grow on trees, Rome wasnt built in a
day, dont put all your eggs in one
basket (Howard). On the peripheral
route it works well, but not on the central
route. On peripheral route aphorisms
worked well as opposed to other
statements that are similar, such as
Money cant be found everywhere. But
on the central route, they had little or no
effect.
2. Labels: Can associate negative or more
positive characteristics. This illegal
aliens, illegal immigrants,
undocumented workers goes from bad
to better (Gass & Seitar).
3. Euphemisms and doublespeak: make
the bad appear better or the better
appear worse. Losing jobs = downsizing
or right sizing. Kentucky fried chicken
KFC. Customers = guests, garbage

LANGUAGE USE
Language is power. Especially on the peripheral
route.

collector sanitation engineers, civilian

casualties in war = collateral damage,
killing soldiers with own weapons =
friendly fire, assisted suicide = death
with dignity, transgender surgery =
gender reassignment. Pro-abortion =
pro choice, anti-abortion = pro life (no
one would say they are anti-life or antichoice (Gass & Seitar).

Meaningless questions: It would be a

problem to lose your job, dont you
think? This proposal would be better,
dont you agree?
Disclaimers: I know this is a really stupid
question, but

QUANTITY VS. QUALITY OF ARGUMENTS:

Central route: better developed, higher quality
arguments.
Peripheral route: Larger number of less
developed arguments.
(Petty & Cacioppo, 1984)

Language intensity and vividness:

1. Language that is very vivid can be
persuasive, but you can go too far. Vivid
language about starvation can be
effective, but if done too much becomes
repulsive and makes the audience
dislike you for exposing them to it. Vivid
yes, painting a repulsive picture with
words no.
2. Language intensity: language that
shows the degree to which the
speakers attitude differs from neutrality.
Cutting down trees becomes rape of the
forest.
a. Intensity can cause the
audience to reject it because it
reflects pain, or accept it
because it reflects pleasure
(Bradac, Bowers & Courtright).
b. Intensity can violate
expectations and thus be bad.
High credibility sources can
use more intense language.
Safety messages can have a
lot of language intensity.
However, a discussion of
banking issues would not use
such intense language
because of expectations
(Burgoon).
c. Intensity can make you seem
more extreme than the norm,
not a good thing. It can gain
attention, but can go too far
(Hamilton & Stewart).

HUMOR
Humor is used in 25% of prime time television
commercials (Weinsberger & Gulas). Because it
works to get attention and most advertising is
peripheral route.
Humor is something funny.
Do something funny, say something funny.
Pun, satire, irony, anecdote, or a joke.
Directed at yourself or at someone else.
Can be relevant to the issue or the situation or
irrelevant.
Goldstein and McGee, three kinds of humor:
1. Aggressive: insults, put downs, etc.
2. Sexual.
3. Nonsense.
An examination of studies attempting to discover
if humor increases persuasion: 5 yes, 15 no
results, 2 no (Weinberger & Gulas).
Jokes rarely persuade. They may capture
attention for the central route; they may cause
distraction for the peripheral route.
Humor that is related to the message is the most
persuasive (Kaplan & Pascoe).
Humor can increase credibility, but mostly if it is
directed at the self, not at others. They like
people who make good-hearted fun of
themselves, but do not want that person to make
fun of them. Low credibility speakers should not
use self-directed humor, as it might be construed
as true (Gruner, Hackman).

Powerless language:
Language that makes you look incompetent and
lacking in confidence. Avoid it! Studies show on
either persuasion route effectiveness declines
substantially with the use of powerless language.
Avoid these examples of powerless language
(Gass & Seitar):

Hesitations: um, ah, well, you know, too

many ladies and gentlemen.

Hedges: too much qualifation of ideas,

well, maybe it might be true that

Intensifiers: I really, really hope that you

agree with me very much

Too polite: Excuse me, if you dont mind

too much, please accept my argument
that

Advice on using humor (Gass & Seitar):

If you cant tell a joke outside of the

debate, dont do it inside the debate.

Be sure you have good material. Find

out if it works.

Self-disparaging humor can increase

credibility, but use it sparingly.

Integrate humor into the subject.

Make sure the humor is appropriate for

your audience and the situation.
Women must use more caution when
using humor because society is sexist
and doesnt consider it ladylike.
Humor is more effective on the
peripheral route.

Hinkle L, 2001, Perceptions of supervisor

nonverbal immediacy, vocalics and subordinate
liking, COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
REPORTS, 18, 128-136.
Howard, D, 1997, Familiar phrases as peripheral
persuasion cues, JOURNAL OF
EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 33,
231-243.

REFERENCES
These are not all the sources used for this
presentation, but they represent some useful
sources for further study, especially Petty &
Cacioppo and Gass & Seitar.

Kaplan R & Pascoe G, 1977, Humorous lectures

and humorous examples: Some effects upon
comprehension and retention, JOURNAL OF
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 69(1), 61-65.

Benoit, W., 1987, Argumentation appeals and

credibility appeals in persuasion, SOUTHERN
SPEECH COMMUNICATION JOURNAL, 52,
181-187.

Mehrabian A & Williams M, 1969, Nonverbal

concomitants of perceived and intended
persuasiveness, JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY
AND SOCIETY PSYCHOLOGY, 13, 37-58.

Birdwhistell, R, 1970, KINESICS AND

CONTEXT, Philadelphia, University of
Pennsylvania Press.

Robinson J, Seitar J & Acharya L, 1992,

February, I just put my head down and society
does the rest An examination of influence
strategies among beggars, paper presented at
the Western Speech Communication Association,
Boise, ID.

Bradac, J, Bowers J & Courtright L, 1979, Three

language variables in communication research:
Intensity, immediacy and diversity, HUMAN
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, 5, 257-269.

Petty, R & Cacioppo, J, 1984, The effects of

involvement on responses to argument quality
and quantity: Central and peripheral routes to
persuasion, JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND
SOCIETY PSYCHOLOGY, 46, 69-81.

Burgoon M, 1995, Language expectancy theory:

Elaboration, explication and extension, in CR
Berger & M Burgoon (eds.), COMMUNICATION
AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE PROCESSES (2951), East Lansing, Michigan State University
Press.

Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J., 1987,

COMMUNICATION AND PERSUASION:
CENTRAL AND PERIPHERAL ROUTES TO
ATTITUDE CHANGE. New York, SpringerVerlag.

Chebat C & Chebat J, 199, Impact of voice on

source credibility in advertising, NORTH
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 1(2),
323-342.

Weaver, R, 1953, THE ETHICS OF RHETORIC,

Chicago, Henry Regnery.

Gass R, & Seitar J, 2003, PERSUASION,

SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND COMPLIANCE
GAINING, Boston, Allyn & Bacon.

Weinberger M & Gulas C, 1992, The impact of

humor in advertising, JOURNAL OF
ADVERTISING, 21(4), 35-59.

Goldstein J & McGhee P, 1972, THE

PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMOR, New York, Guilford
Press.
Gruner C, 1967, Effect of humor on speaker
ethos and audience information gain, JOURNAL
OF COMMUNICATION, 17(3), 228-233.
Hackman, M, 1988, Reactions to the use of selfdisparaging humor by informative public
speakers, SOUTHERN SPEECH
COMMUNICATION JOURNAL, 53, 175-183.
Hamilton M & Stewart R, 1993, Extending an
information processing model of language
intensity effects, COMMUNICATION
QUARTERLY, 41(2), 231-246.