What Makes A Source Persuasive? The Quick Answer To That Que

What Makes A Source Persuasivethe Quick Answer To That Question Is C

What makes a source persuasive? The quick answer to that question is ​Credibility​. All the research unanimously agrees that the more credible a source is, the more persuasive that source will be. But what exactly is credibility? Credibility is a judgment made by a perceiver about the believability of a communicator ​(O’Keefe, 1990).

The interesting part about this definition of credibility is that if you look at the definition closely, you will notice that credibility is a receiver-based construct​. What I mean by that is, it is the receiver of the persuasive message who decides whether the speaker is credible. You can think you're credible all you want, but if the receiver of your message doesn't believe you are credible, then the effect of credibility on persuasion will not occur. A quick history lesson... Credibility is a fundamental concept to all persuasion theory and research.

The idea dates back to 384 BCE when Aristotle wrote about his concept of ethos--the character of the source. Similar to logos and pathos, ethos was one of Aristotle's artistic proofs. He believed that the speaker must fully develop ​his​ character with ​his​ audience in order to be persuasive. Please note that I fully understand that the use of "his" in this case is sexist. Unfortunately, in Aristotle's day, it was only the men who were speaking persuasively in public.

In the social sciences, the concept of credibility was first studied in the early 1950s in the work of Hovland, Janis, and Kelly. If you recall from our "history of persuasion" lecture at the beginning of the semester, Hovland, Janis, and Kelly were the social psychologists at Yale University who started the variable analytic approach to persuasion research. Specifically, they attempted to study persuasion by looking at variables related to the following questions: â— Who? â— Says What? â— To Whom? â— Through What Channel? â— To What Effect? Notice that the first question Hovland, Janis, and Kelly attempted to answer was "Who?". They wanted to know what characteristics of the source of the message made that source more or less persuasive.

Although the study of credibility from a social scientific perspective started in the 1950s, probably the most well known of all the research studies conducted on the effect of credibility on persuasion was conducted in 1966 by two social psychologists by the name of Bochner & Insko. Their study was affectionately referred to as the "sleep study" because the topic they used in their experiment was "the average number of hours of sleep an average young adult should get." Below is a relatively short lecture on the Bochner and Insko study. As you listen to the lecture, pay particular attention to why the study is so important to the study of persuasion. (Links to an external site.) Who has credibility?

Below is a chart based on the information you sent me. I only included those responses that were uploaded by Friday morning, so it is not an exhaustive list of our class, but we do have enough responses to see some general patterns. What does this chart tell you about our perceptions with regard to who is credible? Is one sex perceived as more credible than the other sex? Why do you think that is? Are any jobs or positions perceived as more credible than others? Do you notice any categories that are blank, or have very few numbers in them? Why do you think that is? Now let's look at ​why​ you think these people are credible. Click here (​who do I think is credible.docx ) for a complete list of people mentioned and a general list of why you thought your person was credible.

What does the chart, and our class list of reasons, tell us about credibility? What do we know about credibility? There are several things we know about credibility from the research and from our own experiences. The first one we already covered. We know that it's a ​receiver-based construct​. In order for credibility to have an effect on persuasion, the receiver of the message has to believe the source is credible. But... you can see from the chart (and the list) that there are definitely patterns to who we think is credible. For example, we had slightly more men mentioned than women. Additionally, many of the women mentioned were family members, friends, or teachers (a traditionally feminine field). Although there were certainly male family members mentioned too, many of the males mentioned worked in the public sphere (e.g., experts in their respective fields, politicians, military leaders, humanitarians, etc.).

Our "results" are somewhat consistent with what the research has found (Carli, 2004). Traditionally, men have been perceived as more credible than women due to receivers' perceptions of their competence. Similarly, women have been expected to be more nurturing and warmer than males, which is probably why we find so many female family members and friends credible (Carli, 2004). A second thing we know about credibility is that it is ​contextual​. What I mean by that is we might have credibility in one setting or context, but not in another.

For example, in the context of school, and on the topic of persuasion you may find me credible, but when I go home, no one ever listens to me (i.e., in the family context I have zippo credibility!). One of your classmates also mentioned the contextual nature of credibility by explaining that his dad is very credible on many topics, but he is not very mechanically inclined. Because of that, this individual would not go to his dad for help with his car! A third thing we know about credibility is that credibility is ​dynamic​. That means ​who​ we find credible at one point in time, may not be the same person we find credible at another point in time.

I think a good example of this is journalists. Fifty years ago, journalists were perceived as very credible. People like Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters were sure to have made your list of credible people. In fact, Walter Cronkite was once known as ​"the most trustworthy man in America."​ But times change, priorities change, and perceptions of credibility change. In an era of "fake news" and journalists sometimes sharing opinions rather than facts, very few of my students ever mention journalists.

In fact, up until this semester, my journalist column was always empty. This semester, however, two journalists made the list! That is likely due to the fact that during the COVID-19 crisis, we are dependent on them for information. Similarly, doctors and scientists have always made my list (Bill Nye is always a favorite!), but the specific doctors and scientists tend to change over time. For example, up until this semester, no one ever mentioned ​Dr. Anthony Fauci. This semester, however, two people mentioned Dr. Fauci. Of course, this is reflective of our current situation, but it is also a good example of the dynamic nature of credibility. In addition to who we find credible changing over time, a single person's credibility can change from the beginning of a message to the end of that message.

Have you ever listened to someone speak and you thought they were credible, but then they said something offensive or inaccurate? Just like that, they lost credibility in your eyes! Probably the most important thing we know about credibility, however, is that it is a multi-dimensional construct.​ We know that from the research, and we know that from the "activity" we did in class. Credibility is not one thing. It's a lot of different things.

Just look at the length of our list! Below is a short lecture on the primary and secondary dimensions of credibility. Please listen to the lecture and compare our class list of "reasons" to it. Did our list include all of the primary and secondary dimensions of credibility? I think it did... (Links to an external site.) Now that you know what the primary and secondary dimensions of credibility are, I'd like you to apply your knowledge to a speech that was given by President Barack Obama at the University of Maryland College Park in 2009.

In this speech, he was trying to garner support for his health care reform plan. Please listen to his speech and then complete your ​Discussion Question​ on it (​Primary and Secondary Dimensions of Credibility). (Links to an external site.) The Sleeper Effect I just spent the majority of this lecture emphasizing the point that credibility enhances persuasion. Highly credible sources are more persuasive than low or moderately credible sources. The effect of credibility on persuasion diminishes over time, however. That is because ​credibility is a peripheral cue to persuasion​. When the cue is present (i.e., the credible source is standing in front of us), it affects persuasion, but when the credible source is no longer there, the credibility of the source ceases to influence us. What that means is that in general, credibility has a direct linear effect on persuasion, but this effect is fleeting (i.e., it goes away over time). There is a case, however, when a low credibility source can actually be more persuasive over time. This case is called the ​Sleeper Effect​. Simply stated, the ​Sleeper Effect​ is a phenomenon in which a message from a low credibility source actually gains in persuasiveness over time.

This is because low credibility initially acts as a "discounting cue"​. Because the source of the message is not credible, we initially "discount" the message. We don't listen to it fully or we don't believe it. BUT... If that low credibility source has good arguments, then as time wears on, we may forget who said the message, but we remember what the message said. If the arguments in the message are strong, and we think about them at a later date, we can actually be persuaded by a low credibility source long after the message was delivered. What is the lesson to be learned by the Sleeper Effect? The lesson is, yes, it's important to establish your credibility with your audience, but it is equally, if not more, important to have good, strong arguments. When all else fails, have strong arguments! Enhancing Credibility In conclusion, credibility is a very strong predictor of persuasion. Credibility is a receiver-based construct, however, so it must be established with your audience. If you don't have any special training or knowledge to make you credible to speak, there are still things you can do to enhance your level of credibility with your audience. Some of these things include: â— Be prepared to speak â— Provide evidence for your arguments â— Tell your audience why you are qualified to speak â— Build trust â— Display goodwill â— Be likable and sociable â— Be a dynamic communicator in both language and delivery â— Establish similarity with your audience (Why? Because the research shows that we like people who are similar to us) â— Get the audience involved in what you are talking about â— For this assignment, use your Fundamentals of Advanced Accounting text to complete the following: · Problem 24 on page 194. This problem tests your ability to address several valuation and income determination questions for a business combination involving a noncontrolling interest. On January 1, Patterson Corporation acquired 80 percent of the 100,000 outstanding voting shares of Soriano, Inc., in exchange for $31.25 per share cash. The remaining 20 percent of Soriano’s shares continued to trade for $30 both before and after Patterson’s acquisition. At January 1, Soriano’s book and fair values were as follows: In addition, Patterson assigned a $600,000 value to certain unpatented technologies recently developed by Soriano. These technologies were estimated to have a three-year remaining life.

During the year, Soriano declared a $30,000 dividend for its shareholders. The companies reported the following revenues and expenses from their separate operations for the year ending December 31. Patterson Soriano Revenues $3,000,000 $1,400,000 Expenses 1,750,,000 a.What amount should Patterson recognize as the total value of the acquisition in its January 1 consolidated balance sheet? b.What valuation principle should Patterson use to report each of Soriano’s identifiable assets and liabilities in its January 1 consolidated balance sheet? c.For years subsequent to acquisition, how will Soriano’s identifiable assets and liabilities be valued in Patterson’s consolidated financial statements? d.How much goodwill resulted from Patterson’s acquisition of Soriano? e.What is the consolidated net income for the year and what amounts are allocated to the controlling and noncontrolling interests? f.What is the noncontrolling interest amount reported in the December 31 consolidated balance sheet? g.Assume instead that, based on its share prices, Soriano’s January 1 total fair value was assessed at $2,250,000. How would the reported amounts for Soriano’s net assets change on Patterson’s acquisition-date consolidated balance sheet? For this assignment, use your Fundamentals of Advanced Accounting text and the Excel spreadsheet provided on the companion website (linked in Resources) to complete the following: · Problem 39 on page 203. This problem tests your ability to carry out the consolidation of account balances for a business combination using the acquisition method. In the spreadsheet, use tab P04-39 for your answers. Padre, Inc., buys 80 percent of the outstanding common stock of Sierra Corporation on January 1, 2018, for $802,720 cash. At the acquisition date, Sierra’s total fair value, including the noncontrolling interest, was assessed at $1,003,400 although Sierra’s book value was only $690,000. Also, several individual items on Sierra’s financial records had fair values that differed from their book values as follows: Book Value Fair Value Land $ 65,000   $ 290,000   Buildings and equipment (10-year remaining life) 287,000   263,000   122,000   216,000   Notes payable (due in 8 years) (176,,600) For internal reporting purposes, Padre, Inc., employs the equity method to account for this investment. The following account balances are for the year ending December 31, 2018, for both companies. Padre Sierra Revenues $(1,394,980) $  (684,900) Cost of goods sold 774,000   432,000   Depreciation expense 274,000   11,600   Amortization expense 0   6,100   Interest expense 52,100   9,200   Equity in income of Sierra    (177,120)          –0–    Net income $   (472,000) $   (226,000) $(1,275,000) $   (530,000) Net income (472,,000) Dividends declared     260,000         65,000    Retained earnings, 12/31/18 $(1,487,000) $  (691,000) Current assets $    856,160   $€ 764,700   Investment in Sierra 927,840   –0–   Land 360,000   65,000   Buildings and equipment (net) 909,000   275,400             –0–        115,900    Total assets $ 3,053,000   $ 1,221,000   Accounts payable $   (275,000) $   (194,000) Notes payable (541,,000) Common stock (300,,000) Additional paid-in capital (450,,000) Retained earnings (above)  (1,487,000)    (691,000) Total liabilities and equities $(3,053,000) $(1,221,000) At year-end, there were no intra-entity receivables or payables. Prepare a worksheet to consolidate the financial statements of these two companies.

Paper For Above instruction

Credibility stands as the cornerstone of persuasive communication. Its essence lies in the receiver’s perception of the source’s believability, directly influencing the effectiveness of persuasion. This paper explores the multifaceted nature of credibility, its historical roots, dimensions, and applications within the context of persuasive strategies, supported by key scholarly references.

Introduction

In the realm of persuasion, the credibility of a source fundamentally determines its persuasive power. As the adage suggests, "trust is the foundation of influence," and in communication theory, credibility is regarded as the critical factor that enhances or diminishes the impact of the message. Understanding what makes a source persuasive requires examining the nature of credibility—its definitions, dimensions, determinants, and the dynamics that influence perceptions over time.

Historical Roots and Theoretical Foundations

The concept of credibility dates back to Aristotle, who introduced "ethos" as one of his three artistic proofs—alongside "logos" and "pathos" (Aristotle, trans. 1984). Aristotle emphasized that the character or reputation of the speaker is pivotal to persuasion, underscoring the importance of ethos in establishing trustworthiness and authority with the audience. This foundational idea underscores that the perception of a speaker’s credibility is central to persuasive effectiveness. Aristotle’s ethos set the stage for centuries of persuasion research.

Modern scientific inquiry into credibility began in the 1950s with social psychologists Hovland, Janis, and Kelly at Yale University. Their variable analytic approach sought to identify specific characteristics of sources that influence persuasion. They posed essential questions about "who" the source was, aiming to understand how source traits