persuasion techniques research paper

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

An inclusive, real-world investigation of persuasion in language and verbal behavior

Vivian p. ta.

1 Department of Psychology, Lake Forest College, 555 N. Sheridan Road, Lake Forest, IL 60045 USA

Ryan L. Boyd

2 Department of Psychology, Data Science Institute, Security Lancaster, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

Sarah Seraj

3 Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX USA

Anne Keller

Caroline griffith.

4 Department of Counselor Education and Human Services, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH USA

Alexia Loggarakis

5 School of Social Work, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL USA

Lael Medema

Linguistic features of a message necessarily shape its persuasive appeal. However, studies have largely examined the effect of linguistic features on persuasion in isolation and do not incorporate properties of language that are often involved in real-world persuasion. As such, little is known about the key verbal dimensions of persuasion or the relative impact of linguistic features on a message’s persuasive appeal in real-world social interactions. We collected large-scale data of online social interactions from a social media website in which users engage in debates in an attempt to change each other’s views on any topic. Messages that successfully changed a user’s views are explicitly marked by the user themselves. We simultaneously examined linguistic features that have been previously linked with message persuasiveness between persuasive and non-persuasive messages. Linguistic features that drive persuasion fell along three central dimensions: structural complexity, negative emotionality, and positive emotionality. Word count, lexical diversity, reading difficulty, analytical language, and self-references emerged as most essential to a message’s persuasive appeal: messages that were longer, more analytic, less anecdotal, more difficult to read, and less lexically varied had significantly greater odds of being persuasive. These results provide a more parsimonious understanding of the social psychological pathways to persuasion as it operates in the real world through verbal behavior. Our results inform theories that address the role of language in persuasion, and provide insight into effective persuasion in digital environments.

Introduction

Understanding persuasion —how people can fundamentally alter the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of others—is a cornerstone of social psychology. Historically, social influence has been outstandingly difficult to study in the real-world, requiring researchers to piece together society-level puzzles either in the abstract [ 1 ] or through carefully-crafted field studies [ 2 ]. In recent years, technology has driven interest in studying social influence as digital traces make it possible to study how the behaviors of one individual or group cascade to change others’ behaviors [ 3 , 4 ]. Nevertheless, most social processes are complex, to the point where they are very difficult to study as they operate outside of the lab. However, the availability of digital data and computational techniques provide a ripe opportunity to begin understanding the precise mechanisms by which people influence the thoughts and feelings of others.

Today, persuasion is often transacted—partially or wholly—through verbal interactions that take place on the internet [ 5 ]: a message is transmitted from one person to another through the use of language, altering the recipient’s attitude. As such, researchers have sought to identify linguistic features 1 that are linked to a message’s persuasive appeal. A relatively sizable number of linguistic features that are important in message persuasiveness have emerged from this body of research and include features that indicate what a message conveys as well as how it was conveyed (Table ​ (Table1). 1 ). Models of persuasion, such as the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) [ 6 ], have been used to identify these linguistic features and explain how they affect message persuasiveness.

Summary of linguistic features and predictions

Despite the impressive corpus of studies to date, the existing literature has several limitations. Studies have largely examined the effect of linguistic features on persuasion in isolation by only focusing on a small number of linguistic features (i.e., one or two) at a time. While this body of literature has collectively identified a relatively sizable number of linguistic features that are linked to message persuasiveness, it remains unclear how these links, taken together, inform the social aspects of verbal behavior in persuasion. In other words, what do the linguistic features connected with message persuasiveness reveal about the key verbal behaviors involved in persuasion? As language provides “a rich stream of ongoing social processes” [ 7 ], synthesizing these findings can provide a more complete understanding of the social psychological pathways to persuasion.

In the same vein, real-world messages are constructed using a varied combination of linguistic features to transmit complex thoughts, emotions, and information to others. Nevertheless, studies tend to examine how a single linguistic feature (or a small set of features) correlate with persuasion without taking into account other potentially important linguistic features within a given message [ 8 , 9 ]. The meaning of a given word or feature in any text is dependent on the context by which it was used which can be inferred by the words and features that surround it [ 10 , 11 ]. As such, the effect of any particular linguistic feature on message persuasiveness can be attenuated by the presence of other features in the message. As they are typically studied in isolation, little is known about the relative impact of linguistic features on a message’s persuasive appeal.

Furthermore, studies that examine the effect of linguistic features on persuasion tend to focus on persuasion in terms of engaging in specific behaviors [ 3 , 12 – 14 ] rather than changing attitudes in general. Persuading people to engage in a specific behavior is conceptually distinct from changing people’s attitude on a topic. Although changes in behavior can facilitate changes in attitude, changes in behavior can also be dependent on attitude change (e.g., an individual may not engage in behavior change unless they believe that the behavior will result in a desirable outcome). Although changes in behavior can facilitate changes in attitude, changes in behavior does not always indicate that attitude change has occurred (e.g., an individual may decide to ultimately receive the COVID-19 vaccine because their employer requires it and not because their views regarding vaccines have changed) [ 15 ].

Finally, many studies that investigate the effect of linguistic features on persuasion are conducted in controlled lab settings [ 16 , 17 ] due to the sheer difficulty of studying persuasion as it unfolds in the real-world. Given that persuasion often takes place through online social interactions [ 5 ], there is a need to study persuasion in this setting. Doing so also enables researchers to better understand how digital environments influence the process of persuasion, especially as digital environments are now progressively constructed to persuade the attitudes and behaviors of users [ 18 ] and there is “little consensus on how to persuade effectively within the digital realm” [ 19 ].

We sought to address these limitations in the current study. Specifically, we collected large-scale data from r/ChangeMyView , an online public forum on the social media website Reddit where users engage in debates in an attempt to change each other’s views on any topic. Most importantly, messages that successfully changed a user’s views are explicitly marked by the user themselves. That is, individuals are exposed to several messages and explicitly identified the message(s) that actually changed their views. We simultaneously examined linguistic features that have been previously linked with message persuasiveness (Table ​ (Table1) 1 ) between persuasive and non-persuasive messages to test the following research questions:

• What are the key linguistic dimensions of persuasion? Given that a relatively sizable number of linguistic features have been linked with persuasion, we first sought to determine whether these features could be meaningfully reduced to a smaller number of dimensions representing the key verbal processes of persuasion. We then assessed whether these dimensions were uniquely predictive of persuasion when controlling for the effects of the remaining dimensions.
• Which individual linguistic features, when assessed simultaneously, are the most essential and relevant to a message’s persuasive appeal? We then simultaneously assessed all linguistic features that have been linked with message persuasiveness in a single model to examine the relative impact of the features on a message’s persuasive appeal to identify features that were most crucial to message persuasiveness.

While theory-driven predictions can be made regarding how each linguistic feature relates to persuasion, there has been a considerable amount of variability across studies in terms of which features positively or negatively relate to persuasion, as well as studies that show mixed or inconclusive results pertaining to the effect of a given linguistic feature on persuasion (see Table ​ Table1). 1 ). Given that our primary goal was to obtain a more unified understanding of the social psychological pathways to persuasion via language, the current study is guided by a jointly data-driven and exploratory approach, with results informing our understanding of the directional relationship between the linguistic features and message persuasiveness. Overall, assessing the interplay between important linguistic features on persuasion using large-scale, real-world data help inform theories, such as ELM, that address how linguistic features influence persuasion to provide a parsimonious and ecologically-valid understanding of the social psychological processes that shape persuasion.

Although some previous studies have used r/ChangeMyView data to investigate the effect of linguistic features on persuasion, they differ from the current investigation in important ways. The types and combinations of linguistic features that have been examined vary across studies and typically feature a mix of linguistic features that have and have not been linked to persuasion. For example, Tan et al. [ 21 ] examined how some persuasion-linked linguistic features (including arousal, valence, reading difficulty, and hedges), some non-persuasion-linked features (e.g., formatting features such as use of italics and boldface), and interaction dynamics (e.g., the time a replier enters a debate) were associated with successful persuasion. Wei et al. [ 22 ] investigated how surface text features (e.g., reply length, punctuation), social interaction features (e.g., the number of replies stemming from a root comment), and argumentation-related features (e.g., argument relevance and originality) related to persuasion. Musi et al. [ 23 ] assessed the distribution of argumentative concessions in persuasive versus non-persuasive comments, and Priniski and Horne [ 24 ] examined persuasion through the presentation of evidence only in sociomoral topics. Moreover, studies tend to have greater emphasis on model building to accurately detect persuasive content online rather than interpretability and a more unified understanding of the social psychological pathways to persuasion via language. For instance, Khazaei et al. [ 20 ] assessed how all LIWC-based features varied across persuasive and non-persuasive replies and used this information to train a machine learning model to identify persuasive responses.

Data collection

We used data from the Reddit sub-community (i.e., “subreddit”) r/ChangeMyView , a forum in which users post their own views (referred to as “original posters”, or “OPs”) on any topic and invite others to debate them. Those who debate the OP (referred to as “repliers”) reply to the OP’s post in an attempt to change the OP’s view. The OP will award a delta (∆) to particular replies that changed their original views.

Using data from r/ChangeMyView presents several advantages. All replies in r/ChangeMyView are written with the purpose of persuasion. The replies that successfully change an OP’s view are explicitly marked by the OP themselves, allowing for a sample of persuasive and non-persuasive replies. All OPs and repliers must adhere to the official policies 2 of r/ChangeMyView . For instance, OPs are required to explain at a reasonable length (using 500 characters or more) why they hold their views and to interact with repliers within a reasonable time frame. Replies must be substantial, adequate, and on-topic. Because these policies are enforced by moderators, the resulting interactions are high in quality [ 21 ] and are conducted under similar conditions with similar expectations. OPs can also post their view on any topic, allowing for an examination of persuasion across a wide variety of topics.

All top-level replies (direct replies to the OP’s original statement of views) posted between January 2013 and October 2018 were initially collected from the Pushshift database [ 25 ]. We focused only on the top-level replies and omitted any additional replies that were in response to a direct reply (i.e., a direct reply’s “children”). This ensured that replies that were deemed persuasive were due to its contents and not due to any resulting “back-and-forth” interactions given that deltas can also be awarded to downstream replies. We also omitted any top-level replies that were made by a post’s OP and any replies that received a delta in which the delta was not awarded by the OP. Because the data contained a substantially greater number of non-persuasive replies (99.39%) than persuasive ones, analyses were conducted on a balanced subsample that included all top-level replies that were awarded a delta and a random subsample of top-level replies that were not awarded a delta that came from the original posts in which at least one delta was awarded. This allowed us to compare the persuasive and non-persuasive replies from the same original post while bypassing issues associated with class imbalances [ 26 ].

As an example, consider a parent post that garnered two top-level replies that were awarded a delta, and three top-level replies that were not awarded a delta. In this case, the two top-level replies that were awarded a delta were included in the subsample and two out of the three top-level replies that were not awarded a delta would be randomly selected for inclusion in the subsample. Using the random number generator in Microsoft Excel, the 3 top-level replies that were not awarded a delta were assigned a random number between 1 and 100. Replies with the lowest two values were then selected for inclusion in the subsample. Parent posts almost always contained a greater number of top-level replies that were not awarded a delta than top-level replies that were awarded a delta. However, for the very few instances in which a parent post contained a greater number of top-level replies that were awarded a delta than top-level replies that were not awarded a delta, we included all top-level replies in the subsample ( N  = 9020 top-level replies; n  = 4515 top-level replies that were awarded a delta; n  = 4505 top-level replies that were not awarded a delta). Example persuasive and non-persuasive replies can be found in Table ​ Table2 2 .

Example replies

Note : All example replies were derived from different parent posts

To gain an initial understanding of the types of topics that were raised for debate in the subreddit, we randomly selected 100 replies from the final dataset and manually coded their content. Six overarching topics emerged: legal and politics; race, culture, and gender; business and work; science and technology; behavior, attitudes, and relationships; and recreation. More information regarding debated topics can be found in the supplementary materials. 3 .

Linguistic features

Prior to extracting linguistic features from our data, we conducted a cursory search of the psychological literature to identify prominent linguistic features reported to have a significant relationship with message persuasiveness in at least one published study. These linguistic features are listed in Table ​ Table1. 1 . Each reply in the r/ChangeMyView dataset was analyzed separately using Language Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) [ 27 ] which calculates the percentage-use of words belonging to psychologically or linguistically meaningful categories. We used LIWC to quantify word count, analytic thinking (analytical thinking formula = articles + prepositions—personal pronouns—impersonal pronouns—auxiliary verbs—conjunctions—adverbs—negations; relative frequencies are normalized within LIWC2015 to a 0-to-100 scale, with higher scores reflecting more analytical language and lower scores reflecting more informal and narrative-like language), the percentage-use of self-references (i.e., first-person singular pronouns, or “i-words”), and the percentage-use of certainty terms in each reply within our corpus. Dictionaries of terms that have been rated on emotionality 4 (i.e., valence, arousal, and dominance) from [ 28 ] were imported into LIWC to measure the percentage-use of language that scored high and low on valence, arousal, and dominance. A dictionary of hedges from [ 29 ] was also imported into LIWC to measure the percentage-use of hedges. Following [ 21 ], the use of examples was measured by occurrences of “for example”, “for instance”, and “e.g.”. Language abstraction/concreteness was measured using the linguistic category model, with higher scores indicating higher levels of language abstraction and lower scores indicating lower levels of language abstraction (i.e., greater language concreteness; formula for calculation = [(Descriptive Action Verbs × 1) + (Interpretative Action Verb × 2) + (State Verb × 3) + (Adjectives × 4)]/(Descriptive Action Verbs + Interpretative Action Verbs + State Verbs + Adjectives)) [ 30 ]. Type-token ratio, the ratio between the number of unique words in a message and the total number of words in the given message [ 31 ], was used to measure lexical diversity with higher scores indicating greater lexical diversity (type-token ratio formula = number of unique lexical terms/total number of words). Last, reading difficulty was measured via the SMOG Index which estimates the years of education the average person needs to completely comprehend a piece of text (SMOG Index formula = 1.0430 [√number of polysyllables × (30/number of sentences)] + 3.1291). Because a higher SMOG score indicates that higher education is needed to comprehend a piece of text, higher reading difficulty scores represent text that is more difficult to read and lower scores represent text that is easier to read [ 32 ]. More information about these linguistic features and example replies that scored high and low on each linguistic feature are reported in the supplementary.

Given that a relatively sizable number of linguistic features have been linked with persuasion, we first determined whether these features could be meaningfully reduced to a smaller number of dimensions representing the key verbal processes of persuasion. Second, we determined whether these dimensions were each uniquely predictive of persuasion when controlling for the effects of the remaining dimensions. Third, we simultaneously assessed all linguistic features that have been linked with message persuasiveness in a single model to understand how linguistic features interact with one another to influence a message’s persuasive appeal and identify features most crucial to message persuasiveness. All data and analytic code can be found in the supplementary. Descriptive statistics, zero-order correlations between all variables, and complete analytic outputs for all analyses are presented in the supplementary.

To identify the key linguistic dimensions of persuasion (RQ 1), we submitted all linguistic features into a principal components analysis (PCA) with a varimax rotation. Bartlett’s Sphericity Test ( p  < 0.001) and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin metric (KMO = 0.55) suggested that our data were suitable for analysis. Features with factor loadings greater than the absolute value of 0.50 were retained and used to quantify principal components. Three principal components were extracted that collectively accounted for 36.28% of the total variance: structural complexity, negative emotionality, and positive emotionality (see Table ​ Table3). 3 ). Structural complexity had high loadings in the direction of lower lexical diversity, higher word count, and greater reading difficulty. Negative emotionality had high loadings in the direction of greater percentage-use of terms that scored low on valence and low on dominance. Positive emotionality had high loadings in the direction of greater percentage-use of terms that scored high on dominance, high on valence, and hedges.

Results of PCA with Varimax Rotation

To assess if all three dimensions were uniquely important to message persuasiveness, we entered each component into a multilevel logistic regression analysis using lme4 [ 33 ]. This procedure corrects for non-independence of replies (i.e., replies to the same parent post) on the dependent variable: persuasion (delta awarded = 1, no delta awarded = 0). We include random intercepts for replies nested within parent posts and replies nested within repliers (i.e., some repliers provided replies to multiple original posts). All three components emerged as significant predictors of persuasion. For a one-unit increase in structural complexity, the odds of receiving a delta increase by a factor of 2.25, 95% CI [2.11, 2.39]. For a one-unit increase in negative emotionality, the odds of receiving a delta decrease by a factor of 0.89, 95% CI [0.85, 0.94]. For a one-unit increase in positive emotionality, the odds of receiving a delta also decrease by a factor of 0.92, 95% CI [0.88, 0.97]. Post-hoc power analyses conducted using the simr package in R (Version 1.0.5) [ 34 ] revealed that we had at least 96% power to detect a small effect (i.e., 0.15) for each of these factors on persuasion.

Next, the individual linguistic features were assessed simultaneously to identify those that were the most essential and relevant to a message’s persuasive appeal (RQ 2). A logistic least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was performed using glmmLasso [ 35 ]. A LASSO regression is a penalized regression analysis that performs variable selection to prevent overfitting by adding a penalty ( λ ) to the cost function (i.e., the sum of squared errors) equal to the sum of the absolute value of the coefficients. This penalty results in sparse models with few coefficients. In other words, this method selects a parsimonious set of variables that best predict the outcome variable and has many advantages over other feature selection methods [ 36 ]. All linguistic features were entered into the LASSO regression model. A grid search was performed to identify the most optimal shrinkage parameter based on BIC. Five features emerged with nonzero coefficients: word count, lexical diversity, reading difficulty, analytical thinking, and self-references (Table ​ (Table4 4 ).

Results of LASSO regression

*** p  < 0.001; ** p  < 0.01; λ = 62

These variables were subsequently entered into a multilevel logistic regression. Again, persuasion was entered as the dependent variable and we included random intercepts for replies nested within parent posts and replies nested within repliers. All five predictors emerged as significant predictors of persuasion. Specifically, for a one-unit increase in word count, the odds of receiving a delta increase by a factor of 1.23, 95% CI [1.13, 1.35]. For a one-unit increase in reading difficulty scores (i.e., greater difficulty in reading comprehension), the odds of receiving a delta increase by a factor of 1.10, 95% CI [1.04, 1.16]. For a one-unit increase in analytical thinking, the odds of receiving a delta increase by a factor of 1.10, 95% CI [1.05, 1.17]. For a one-unit increase in self-references, the odds of receiving a delta decrease by a factor of 0.92, 95% CI [0.87, 0.98]. Last, for a one-unit increase in lexical diversity, the odds of receiving a delta decrease by a factor of 0.54, 95% CI [0.50, 0.59]. Post-hoc power analyses conducted using the simr [ 34 ] revealed that we had at least 96% power to detect a small effect (i.e., 0.15) for each of these predictors on persuasion.

Previous studies have largely examined the effect of linguistic features on persuasion in isolation and do not incorporate properties of language that are often involved in real-world persuasion. As such, little is known about the key verbal dimensions of persuasion or the relative impact of linguistic features on a message’s persuasive appeal in real-world social interactions. To address these limitations, we collected large-scale data of online social interactions from a public forum in which users engage in debates in an attempt to change each other’s views on any topic. Messages that successfully changed a user’s views are explicitly marked by the user themselves. We simultaneously examined linguistic features that have been previously linked with message persuasiveness between persuasive and non-persuasive messages. Our findings provide a parsimonious and ecologically-valid understanding of the social psychological pathways to persuasion as it operates in the real world through verbal behavior.

Three linguistic dimensions appeared to underlie the tested features: structural complexity, negative emotionality, and positive emotionality. Each dimension uniquely predicted persuasion when the effects of the remaining dimensions were statistically controlled, with greater structural complexity exhibiting the highest odds of persuasion. Interestingly, messages marked with less emotionality had higher odds of persuasion than messages marked with more emotionality, regardless of whether it was positive or negative. Emotionality can help persuasion in specific contexts [ 37 , 38 ], but emotional appeals can also backfire when audiences prefer cognitive appeals [ 39 ]. Given that OPs were publicly inviting others to debate them, it is plausible that they preferred cognitively-appealing responses—ones that include an abundance of clear and valid reasons to support an argument—rather than emotionally-appealing responses.

The linguistic features that made a message longer, more analytic, less anecdotal, more difficult to read, and less lexically diverse were most essential to a message’s persuasive appeal and uniquely predictive of persuasion. Longer messages provide more context and likely contain more arguments than shorter messages. Presenting more arguments can be more persuasive even if the arguments themselves are not compelling [ 40 ]. Longer messages likely provided more opportunities for the OP to engage with material that could potentially change their mind, thus increasing the likelihood of persuasion.

Although more readable content is easier to understand and less aversive than less readable content [ 41 ], greater reading difficulty and comprehension can engender more interest, attention, and engagement [ 42 , 43 ]. It can also facilitate deeper cognitive processing that leads to greater learning and long-term retention [ 44 , 45 ]. This is especially true for individuals intrinsically motivated or capable of engaging in complex and novel tasks [ 46 ]. OPs were likely capable of and intrinsically motivated to engage in content that challenged their beliefs considering they were inviting others to debate them. The interpretation of users being intrinsically motivated to challenge their beliefs is also in line with the link that emerged between greater usage of analytical language and persuasion. Similarly, messages that focused less on one’s own personal experiences may have provided more objective evidence to support a particular argument, facilitating persuasion.

Last, while greater lexical repetitions may be perceived as less interesting [ 31 , 47 ], it facilitated persuasion in this context. Lexical repetitions provide effective ways for speakers to communicate complex topics as it keeps “lexical strings relatively simple, while complex lexical relations are constructed around them” [ 48 ]. Lexical repetitions are advantageous for navigating through the order and logic of an argument, providing “textual markers” that help readers connect important aspects of an argument together [ 49 ]. Lower lexical diversity, then, appeared to be beneficial for building arguments that are more cohesive, more coherent, and thus, more persuasive.

Altogether, our findings reveal that the linguistic features linked to persuasion fall along three dimensions pertaining to structural complexity, negative emotionality, and positive emotionality. Our findings also highlight the importance of linguistic features related to a message’s structural complexity, particularly the verbal behaviors that provide a greater amount of factual evidence in a way that enables readers to connect important aspects of the information in an appropriately stimulating manner. Although the other linguistic features that were examined in this study may contribute to message persuasiveness to some degree, our results indicate that they are relatively less important after word count, lexical diversity, reading difficulty, analytical thinking, and self-references are taken into account. These findings also seem to reflect r/ChangeMyView’s digital environment. A central feature of r/ChangeMyView is ensuring that all posts and replies meaningfully contribute to the conversations. As such, OPs and repliers must adhere to all moderator-enforced policies of interaction. In addition, users who post on r/ChangeMyView are likely individuals who are open to attitude change given that they are publicly inviting others to debate them on a topic they already have an opinion on. This suggests that, in digital environments that underscore meaningful contributions to conversations, the ability to convey more objective information while fostering engagement and a holistic understanding of an argument are most vital to the alteration of established attitudes among open-minded individuals.

Our findings also have implications for the process by which persuasion research via language is conducted. Assessing the relative importance of a linguistic feature on message persuasiveness allowed us to understand its interconnections with other linguistic features and its link to persuasion, yielding a more comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the feature’s role in message persuasiveness. Consider word count , for example: without assessing word count’s relative importance on message persuasiveness in the current study, we would not have been able to ascertain its link to message persuasiveness via a message’s structural complexity and the importance of providing more content in a way that enables readers to connect important aspects of the information in an appropriately stimulating manner. Because the meaning of a word or linguistic feature in any text is dependent on the context by which it is used, understanding the social psychological pathways to persuasion via language requires researchers to account for the presence of multiple linguistic features within a given message when assessing a linguistic feature’s link to message persuasiveness. This holistic approach may also help reconcile conflicting results from previous research on language and persuasion.

Our findings also inform theories, such as ELM, that address how linguistic features influence persuasion and provide a more precise understanding of the social psychological pathways to persuasion. For example, ELM states that here are two main routes to persuasion: the central route, which focuses on the message quality on persuasion, and the peripheral route, which uses heuristics and peripheral cues to help influence individual decisions regarding a topic [ 6 ]. Individuals are more likely persuaded via the central route if they have the ability and motivation to process the information. On the other hand, individuals are more likely persuaded via the peripheral route if involvement is low and information processing capability is diminished. OPs likely have the ability and motivation to process arguments from repliers and are thus likely persuaded via the central route given that they are publicly inviting others to debate them. Supplying more information to support a conclusion may be more likely to persuade via the central route, but this information also needs to be organized in a way that helps readers connect important aspects of the information together. A wealth of information that is structured in an incoherent manner would undoubtedly hinder comprehension, and thus, persuasion.

Strengths and limitations

Our dataset contained a large sample of replies that spanned a wide variety of topics, and provided high ecological validity given that it captured the process of persuasion as it occurred naturally without elicitation. The enforcement of rules on r/ChangeMyView yielded interactions that were conducted under similar conditions and expectations. This helped to minimize interaction variance without interfering with the naturalistic nature of the data. However, OPs can award deltas to responses within subtrees (the “children” of direct replies) typically as the result of “back-and-forth” interactions with repliers. These were not included in the current study as we only examined top-level responses. Our results could also differ by topic, recency of the post, and post length, and it is possible non-linguistic features such as the popularity of a post, the number of “upvotes” (i.e., the number of instances other users have registered agreement with a particular post or reply) a reply receives, and the number of deltas a replier has ever received may also impact message persuasiveness. Future studies should determine if these variables moderate the findings, and doing so would also address the relative importance of linguistic versus non-linguistic features on message persuasiveness.

Although it is a policy on r/ChangeMyView that OPs must post a non-neutral opinion (i.e., their post must take a non-neutral stance on a topic), and posts that violate this rule are removed by moderators, it is possible that an OP’s post did not accurately reflect their true attitude or attitude strength. Given the nature of the data, this study cannot address whether the resulting attitude changes were long-lasting, nor if the OP’s attitude strength moderated their attitude change. Longitudinal studies can assess these points. Because there were substantially more non-persuasive replies (99.39%) than persuasive ones, we constructed a balanced subsample and conducted our analyses on this balanced subsample. While this strategy limited biased outcomes stemming from a large class imbalance, it also limits the generalizability of results to posts in which no persuasion occurred. Further examinations of the class imbalance are needed to address this issue. For example, it is possible that posts in which no persuasion occurred are systematically different from posts in which persuasion occurred. Or, perhaps the class imbalance simply reflects the rigid nature of attitudes. In addition, our results may only reflect a particular population given that Reddit users tend to skew younger and male [ 50 ]. Since we did not have access to subjects’ demographic information, we cannot assert the representativeness of our sample. Future research should investigate persuasion that takes place on other debate-style forums and websites to incorporate more diverse subjects, interaction modes, and digital environments.

Acknowledgements

We thank Haley Bader, Carolynn Boatfield, Maria Civitello, Katie Kauth, and Xinyu Wang for their assistance in data cleaning, Arthur Bousquet and Leonardo Carrico for their assistance in data analysis, and David Johnson for his helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. Preparation of this manuscript was funded, in part, by grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation (#196255) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (15F06718R0006603). The views, opinions, and findings contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be construed as position, policy, or decision of the aforementioned agencies, unless so designated by other documents.

Author contributions

VT developed the concept of the study, conducted data analysis, and wrote the manuscript. RL Boyd collected the data, assisted with study development, natural language and statistical analyses and provided critical revisions. SS assisted with data preparation and analyses and provided critical revisions. AK, CG, AL, and LM assisted with data cleaning and literature review.

Not applicable.

Declarations

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

https://osf.io/4rj26/?view_only=5556b511084b4e75bc14808e47d15dce .

Approval granted by Lancaster University’s ethics committee (Reference #FST19067).

Not applicable; data was non-identifiable and publicly available.

1 We define linguistic feature as a characteristic used to classify a word or corpus of text based on their linguistic properties. Examples include reading difficulty, words denoting high or low emotionality, hedges, etc.

2 For all of r/ChangeMyView’s policies, visit https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_a .

3 Supplementary materials can be found here: https://osf.io/4rj26/?view_only=5556b511084b4e75bc14808e47d15dce

4 We adopted the Valence-Arousal-Dominance circumplex model of emotion (Bradley & Lang, 1994; Russell, 1980) and the PAD emotion state model (Mehrabian, 1980; Bales, 2001) and conceptualize valence, arousal, and dominance as the dimensions of emotion. All three dimensions have been linked to message persuasiveness (see Table ​ Table1 1 ).

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Political Science

Volume 25, 2022, review article, open access, a framework for the study of persuasion.

• James N. Druckman 1
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: Department of Political Science, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA; email: [email protected]
• Vol. 25:65-88 (Volume publication date May 2022) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-110428
• First published as a Review in Advance on November 18, 2021
• Copyright © 2022 by Annual Reviews. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See credit lines of images or other third-party material in this article for license information

Persuasion is a vital part of politics—who wins elections and policy disputes often depends on which side can persuade more people. Given this centrality, the study of persuasion has a long history with an enormous number of theories and empirical inquiries. However, the literature is fragmented, with few generalizable findings. I unify previously disparate dimensions of this topic by presenting a framework focusing on actors (speakers and receivers), treatments (topics, content, media), outcomes (attitudes, behaviors, emotions, identities), and settings (competition, space, time, process, culture). This Generalizing Persuasion (GP) Framework organizes distinct findings and offers researchers a structure in which to situate their work. I conclude with a discussion of the normative implications of persuasion.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• Abito JM , Besanko D , Diermeier D. 2019 . Corporate Reputation and Social Activism New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Achen CH , Bartels LM. 2016 . Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Ahn TK , Huckfeldt R , Ryan JB. 2014 . Experts, Activists, and Democratic Politics: Are Electorates Self-Educating? New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Albarracin DG , Kumkale T , Poyner-Del Vento P. 2017 . How people can become persuaded by weak messages presented by credible communicators: Not all sleeper effects are created equal. J. Exp. Psychol 68 : 171– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Albarracin DG , Shavitt S. 2018 . Attitudes and attitude change. Annu. Rev. Psychol 69 : 299– 327 [Google Scholar]
• Albertson B , Dun L , Gadarian SK. 2020 . The emotional aspects of political persuasion. See Suhay et al. 2020 169– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Althaus SL , Tewksbury D. 2002 . Agenda setting and the “new” news: patterns of issue importance among readers of the paper and online versions of The New York Times . Commun. Res 29 : 2 180– 207 [Google Scholar]
• Amsalem E , Zoizner A 2022 . Real, but limited: a meta-analytic assessment of framing effects in the political domain. Br. J. Political Sci 52 : 1 221 – 37 [Google Scholar]
• Arceneaux K , Vander Wielen RJ. 2017 . Taming Intuition: How Reflection Minimizes Partisan Reasoning and Promotes Democratic Accountability Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Bail C. 2021 . Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Bail C , Argyle LP , Brown TW , Bumpus JP , Chen H et al. 2018 . Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. PNAS 115 : 37 9216– 21 [Google Scholar]
• Barnes J 1984 . The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Bartels LM. 1993 . Messages received: the political impact of media exposure. Am. Political Sci. Rev 87 : 2 267– 85 [Google Scholar]
• Bashir NY , Lockwood P , Chasteen AL , Nadolny D , Noyes I. 2013 . The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol 43 : 7 614– 26 [Google Scholar]
• Bayes R , Druckman JN. 2021 . Motivated reasoning and climate change. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci 42 : 27– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Bayes R , Druckman JN , Goods A , Molden DC. 2020 . When and how different motives can drive motivated political reasoning. Political Psychol . 41 : 5 1031– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Berelson BR , Lazarsfeld PF , McPhee WN. 1954 . Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• Bolsen T , Druckman JN. 2015 . Counteracting the politicization of science. J. Commun 65 : 5 745– 69 [Google Scholar]
• Booth W. 2004 . The Rhetoric of Rhetoric: The Quest for Effective Communication Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
• Boudreau C , MacKenzie SA. 2014 . Informing the electorate? How party cues and policy information affect public opinion about initiatives. Am. J. Political Sci 58 : 1 48– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Bovitz GL , Druckman JN , Lupia A. 2002 . When can a news organization lead public opinion? Ideology versus market forces in decisions to make news. Public Choice 113 : 127– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Brader T. 2006 . Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• Brady WJ , Wills JA , Jost JT , Tucker JA , Van Bavel JJ. 2017 . Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. PNAS 114 : 28 7313– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Broockman DE , Butler DM. 2017 . The causal effects of elite position-taking on voter attitudes: field experiments with elite communication. Am. J. Political Sci 61 : 1 208– 21 [Google Scholar]
• Broockman DE , Kalla JL. 2016 . Durably reducing transphobia: a field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science 352 : 6282 220– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Bullock JG. 2011 . Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. Am. Political Sci. Rev 105 : 3 496– 515 [Google Scholar]
• Campbell A , Converse PE , Miller WE , Stokes DE. 1960 . The American Voter Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• Carlson TN. 2019 . Through the grapevine: informational consequences of interpersonal political communication. Am. Political Sci. Rev 113 : 2 325– 39 [Google Scholar]
• Carpenter CJ. 2019 . Cognitive dissonance, ego-involvement, and motivated reasoning. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc 43 : 1 1– 23 [Google Scholar]
• Chaiken S. 1980 . Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 39 : 5 752– 66 [Google Scholar]
• Chaiken S , Trope Y , eds. 1999 . Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology New York: Guilford [Google Scholar]
• Cheatham L , Tormala ZL. 2015 . Attitude certainty and attitudinal advocacy: the unique roles of clarity and correctness. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B 41 : 11 1537– 50 [Google Scholar]
• Chen S , Chaiken S. 1999 . The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology S Chaiken, Y Trope 73– 96 New York: Guilford [Google Scholar]
• Chong D , Druckman JN. 2007a . Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. Am. Political Sci. Rev 101 : 4 637– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Chong D , Druckman JN. 2007b . Framing theory. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 10 : 103– 26 [Google Scholar]
• Chong D , Druckman JN. 2010 . Dynamic public opinion: communication effects over time. Am. Political Sci. Rev 104 : 4 663– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Cionea IA , Hoelscher CS , Ileş IA. 2017 . Arguing goals: an initial assessment of a new measurement instrument. Commun. Rep 301 : 1 51– 65 [Google Scholar]
• Clifford S , Jerit J 2018 . Disgust, anxiety, and political learning in the face of threat: disgust and political learning. Am. J. Political Sci 62 : 2 266– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Coppock A. 2021 . Persuasion in Parallel Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• Cotter RG , Lodge M , Vidigal R. 2020 . When, how, and why persuasion fails. See Suhay et al. 2020 51– 65 [Google Scholar]
• Dahl RA. 1971 . Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Della Vigna S , Gentzkow M 2010 . Persuasion: empirical evidence. Annu. Rev. Econ 2 : 643– 69 [Google Scholar]
• Disch L. 2011 . Toward a mobilization conception of democratic representation. Am. Political Sci. Rev 105 : 1 100– 14 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman JN. 2003 . The power of television images: the first Kennedy-Nixon debate revisited. J. Politics 65 : 2 559– 71 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman JN. 2012 . The politics of motivation. Crit. Rev 24 : 2 199– 216 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman JN. 2014 . Pathologies of studying public opinion, political communication, and democratic responsiveness. Political Commun . 31 : 3 467– 92 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman JN. 2022 . Experimental Thinking: A Primer on Social Science Experiments New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Druckman JN , Bolsen T. 2011 . Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. J. Commun 61 : 4 659– 88 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman JN , Fein J , Leeper TJ. 2012 . A source of bias in public opinion stability. Am. Political Sci. Rev 106 : 2 430– 54 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman JN , Jacobs LR. 2015 . Who Governs? Presidents, Public Opinion, and Manipulation Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• Druckman JN , Klar S , Krupnikov Y , Levendusky M , Ryan JB 2021 . Affective polarization, local contexts, and public opinion in America. Nat. Human Behav 5 : 28– 38 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman JN , Leeper TJ. 2012a . Is public opinion stable? Resolving the micro/macro disconnect in studies of public opinion. Daedalus 141 : 4 50– 68 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman JN , Leeper TJ. 2012b . Learning more from political communication experiments: pretreatment and its effects. Am. J. Political Sci 56 : 4 875– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman JN , Levendusky MS , McLain A. 2018 . No need to watch: how the effects of partisan media can spread via inter-personal discussions. Am. J. Political Sci 62 : 1 99– 112 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman JN , Lupia A. 2000 . Preference formation. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 3 : 1– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman JN , Lupia A 2006 . Mind, will, and choice: lessons from experiments in contextual variation. The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis RE Goodin, C Tilly 97– 113 . Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Druckman JN , McGrath MC. 2019 . The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nat. Climate Change 9 : 111– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman JN , Nelson KR. 2003 . Framing and deliberation: how citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. Am. J. Political Sci 47 : 4 729– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman JN , Parkin M. 2005 . The impact of media bias: how editorial slant affects voters. J. Politics 67 : 4 1030– 49 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman JN , Peterson E , Slothuus R. 2013 . How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. Am. Political Sci. Rev 170 : 1 57– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Eagly AH , Chaiken S. 1993 . The Psychology of Attitudes Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publ. [Google Scholar]
• Eckles D , Gordon RB , Johnson GA 2018 . Field studies of psychologically targeted ads face threats to internal validity. PNAS 115 : 23 E5254– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Feinberg M , Willer R. 2013 . The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychol. Sci 24 : 1 56– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Feinberg M , Willer R. 2019 . Moral reframing: a technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 13 : e12501 [Google Scholar]
• Fishbach A , Ferguson MJ. 2007 . The goal construct in social psychology. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles AW Kruglanski, ET Higgins 490– 515 New York: Guilford [Google Scholar]
• Fishbein M , Ajzen I. 2010 . Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach New York: Taylor & Francis [Google Scholar]
• Flores AR. 2019 . Persuasion and ballot initiatives: How persuasive were the televised campaign ads on same-sex marriage?. Politics Groups Identities 7 : 1 177– 93 [Google Scholar]
• Flynn DJ , Nyhan B , Reifler J. 2017 . The nature and origins of misperceptions: understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Adv. Political Psychol 38 : S1 127– 50 [Google Scholar]
• Ford BQ , Feinberg M , Lam P , Mauss IB , John OP. 2019 . Using reappraisal to regulate negative emotion after the 2016 U.S. presidential election: Does emotion regulation trump political action?. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 117 : 5 998– 1015 [Google Scholar]
• Gaines BJ , Kuklinski JH , Quirk PJ. 2007 . The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Anal . 15 : 1 1– 20 [Google Scholar]
• Gallup G , Rae SF. 1940 . The Pulse of Democracy: The Public-Opinion Poll and How It Works New York: Simon & Schuster [Google Scholar]
• Garsten B. 2006 . Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Gentzkow M , Shapiro JM. 2010 . What drives media slant? Evidence from daily newspapers. Econometrica 78 : 1 35– 71 [Google Scholar]
• Gerber AS , Gimpel JG , Green DP , Shaw DR. 2011 . How large and long-lasting are the persuasive effects of televised campaign ads? Results from a randomized field experiment. Am. Political Sci. Rev 105 : 1 135– 50 [Google Scholar]
• Gil de Zúñiga H , Copeland L , Bimber B 2014 . Political consumerism: civic engagement and the social media connection. New Media Soc 16 : 3 488– 506 [Google Scholar]
• Gilens M , Hertzman C. 2000 . Corporate ownership and news bias: coverage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. J. Polit 62 : 2 369– 86 [Google Scholar]
• Girvan EJ , Weaver J , Snyder M. 2010 . Elevating norm over substance: self-monitoring as a predictor of decision criteria and decision time among independent voters. Anal. Soc. Iss. Public Policy 10 : 1 321– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Gooch A. 2018 . Ripping yarn: experiments on storytelling by partisan elites. Political Commun . 35 : 2 220– 38 [Google Scholar]
• Green MC , Brock TC. 2000 . The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 79 : 5 701– 21 [Google Scholar]
• Groeling T. 2013 . Media bias by the numbers: challenges and opportunities in the empirical study of partisan news. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 16 : 1 129– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Groenendyk E. 2016 . The anxious and ambivalent partisan: the effect of incidental anxiety on partisan motivated recall and ambivalence. Public Opin. Q 80 : 2 460– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Groenendyk E. 2019 . Two minds, but one heart: a good “gut” feeling moderates the effect of ambivalence on attitude formation and turnout. Am. J. Political Sci 63 : 2 368– 84 [Google Scholar]
• Groenendyk E , Krupnikov Y 2021 . What motivates reasoning? A theory of goal-dependent political evaluation. Am. J. Political Sci 65 : 1 180– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Groves RM. 2011 . Three eras of survey research. Public Opin. Q 75 : 5 861– 71 [Google Scholar]
• Guess AM , Barberá P , Munzert S , Yang JH 2021 . The consequences of online partisan media. PNAS 118 : 14 e2013464118 [Google Scholar]
• Guess A , Coppock A. 2020 . Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. Br. J. Political Sci 50 : 4 1497– 515 [Google Scholar]
• Habermas J. 1984 . The Theory of Communicative Action Boston: Beacon [Google Scholar]
• Hager A , Hilbig H. 2020 . Does public opinion affect political speech?. Am. J. Political Sci 64 : 4 921– 37 [Google Scholar]
• Hamby A , Brinberg D , Daniloski K. 2017 . Reflecting on the journey: mechanisms in narrative persuasion. J. Consum. Psychol 27 : 1 11– 22 [Google Scholar]
• Hersh ED , Schaffner BF 2013 . Targeted campaign appeals and the value of ambiguity. J. Politics 75 : 2 520– 34 [Google Scholar]
• Hill SJ , Lo J , Vavreck L , Zaller J. 2013 . How quickly we forget: the duration of persuasion effects from mass communication. Political Commun . 30 : 4 521– 47 [Google Scholar]
• Hillman AL. 2010 . Expressive behavior in economics and politics. Eur. J. Political Econ 26 : 4 403– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Hillygus DS , Shields TG. 2008 . The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Holbrook AL 2011 . Attitude change experiments in political science. The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science JN Druckman, DG Green, JH Kuklinski, A Lupia 141– 54 . New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Hovland CI , Weiss W. 1951 . The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opin. Q 15 : 4 635– 50 [Google Scholar]
• Howat AJ. 2019 . The role of value perceptions in intergroup conflict and cooperation. Politics Groups Identities 9 : 4 657– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Howe LC , Krosnick JA. 2017 . Attitude strength. Annu. Rev. Psychol 68 : 327– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Kalla JL , Broockman DE. 2018 . The minimal persuasive effects of campaign contact in general elections: evidence from 49 field experiments. Am. Political Sci. Rev 112 : 1 148– 66 [Google Scholar]
• Kalla JL , Broockman DE. 2020 . Reducing exclusionary attitudes through interpersonal conversation: evidence from three field experiments. Am. Political Sci. Rev 114 : 2 410– 25 [Google Scholar]
• Kalla JL , Broockman DE. 2021 . Which narrative strategies durably reduce prejudice? Evidence from field and survey experiments supporting the efficacy of perspective-getting. Am. J . Political Sci . https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12657 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• Karpowitz C , Mendelberg T. 2014 . The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation, & Institutions Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Kim E. 2019 . Entertaining beliefs in economic mobility PhD Diss., Univ. Penn. Philadelphia, PA: [Google Scholar]
• Kinder DR , Kalmoe NP. 2017 . Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• Klapper JT. 1960 . The Effects of Mass Communication Glencoe, IL: Free Press [Google Scholar]
• Klar S. 2013 . The influence of competing identity primes on political preferences. J. Politics 75 : 4 1108– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Kraft PW , Krupnikov Y , Milita K , Ryan JB , Soroka S 2020 . Social media and the changing information environment: sentiment differences in read versus recirculated news content. Public Opin. Q 84 : S1 195– 215 [Google Scholar]
• Kubin E , Puryear C , Schein C , Gray K. 2021 . Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts. PNAS 118 : 6 e2008389118 [Google Scholar]
• Kunda Z. 2001 . Social Cognition: Making Sense of People Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. , 4th ed.. [Google Scholar]
• Lasswell HD 1948 . The structure and function of communication in society. The Communication of Ideas L Bryson 37– 51 New York: Harper [Google Scholar]
• Lau RR. 2020 . Classic models of persuasion. See Suhay et al. 2020 29– 50
• Lazarsfeld PF , Berelson B , Gaudet H. 1944 . The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce [Google Scholar]
• Leeper TJ , Slothuus R. 2014 . Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Adv. Political Psychol 35 : S1 129– 56 [Google Scholar]
• Lelkes Y. 2020 . National and cross-national perspectives on political media bias. See Suhay et al. 2020 572– 89
• Levendusky M. 2018 . Americans, not partisans: Can priming American national identity reduce affective polarization?. J. Politics 80 : 1 59– 70 [Google Scholar]
• Levine AS. 2021 . Single conversations expand practitioners’ use of research: evidence from a field experiment. PS Political Sci. Polit 54 : 3 432– 37 [Google Scholar]
• Levine AS , Kline R. 2017 . A new approach for evaluating climate change communication. Climatic Change 142 : 1–2 301– 9 [Google Scholar]
• Levine AS , Kline R. 2019 . Loss-framed arguments can stifle political activism. J. Exp. Political Sci 6 : 3 171– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Levitan LC , Verhulst B. 2016 . Conformity in groups: the effects of others’ views on expressed attitudes and attitude change. Political Behav 38 : 2 277– 315 [Google Scholar]
• Levy R. 2021 . Social media, news consumption, and polarization: evidence from a field experiment. Am. Econ. Rev 111 : 3 831– 70 [Google Scholar]
• Liberman N , Trope Y. 1998 . The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: a test of temporal construal theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 75 : 1 5– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Lodge M , Taber CS. 2013 . The Rationalizing Voter New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Lupia A. 2006 . How elitism undermines the study of voter competence. Crit. Rev 18 : 1–2 217– 32 [Google Scholar]
• Lupia A , McCubbins MD. 1998 . The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• McGraw K , Dolan TM. 2007 . Personifying the state: consequences for attitude formation. Political Psychol . 28 : 3 299– 327 [Google Scholar]
• McGuire W 1969 . The nature of attitudes and attitude change. The Handbook of Social Psychology G Lindzey, E Aronson 136– 314 Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley [Google Scholar]
• Ma Y , Dixon G , Hmielowski JD. 2019 . Psychological reactance from reading basic facts on climate change: the role of prior views and political identification. Envir. Commun 13 : 1 71– 86 [Google Scholar]
• Malhotra N , Michelson MR , Rogers T , Valenzuela AA 2011 . Text messages as mobilization tools: the conditional effect of habitual voting and election salience. Am. Political Res 39 : 4 664– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Marcus GE. 2002 . The Sentimental Citizen: Emotion in Democratic Politics Univ. Park, PA: Pa. State Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Markovich Z , Baum MA , Berinsky AJ , de Benedictis-Kessner J , Yamamoto T. 2020 . Dynamic persuasion: decay and accumulation of partisan media persuasion Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association Jan. 9–11, San Juan, PR [Google Scholar]
• Martin G , McCrain J. 2019 . Local news and national politics. Am. Political Sci. Rev 113 : 2 372– 84 [Google Scholar]
• Matz SC , Kosinski M , Nave G , Stillwell DJ. 2017 . Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion. PNAS 114 : 48 12714– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Matz SC , Netzer O. 2017 . Using big data as a window into consumers’ psychology. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci 18 : Dec. 7– 12 [Google Scholar]
• Miller PV. 2017 . Is there a future for surveys?. Public Opin. Q 81 : S1 205– 12 [Google Scholar]
• Minozzi W , Neblo MA , Esterling KM , Lazer DMJ. 2015 . Field experiment evidence of substantive, attributional, and behavioral persuasion by members of Congress in online town halls. PNAS 112 : 13 3937– 42 [Google Scholar]
• Minozzi W , Song H , Lazer DMJ , Neblo MA , Ognyanova K. 2020 . The incidental pundit: Who talks politics with whom, and why?. Am. J. Political Sci 64 : 1 135– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Mousa S. 2020 . Building social cohesion between Christians and Muslims through soccer in post-ISIS Iraq. Science 369 : 6505 866– 70 [Google Scholar]
• Moy P , Rinke EM 2012 . Attitudinal and behavioral consequences of published opinion polls. Opinion Polls and the Media: Reflecting and Shaping Public Opinion C Holtz-Bacha, J Strömbäck 225– 45 . London: Palgrave Macmillan UK [Google Scholar]
• Mullinix KJ. 2016 . Partisanship and preference formation: competing motivations, elite polarization, and issue importance. Political Behav . 38 : 2 383– 411 [Google Scholar]
• Mutz DC , Sniderman PM , Brody RA 1996 . Political persuasion: the birth of a field of study. Political Persuasion and Attitude Change DC Mutz, PM Sniderman, RA Brody 1– 16 . Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press [Google Scholar]
• Nelson TE , Clawson RA , Oxley ZA. 1997 . Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. Am. Political Sci. Rev 91 : 3 567– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Nelson TE , Oxley ZM. 1999 . Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. J. Politics 61 : 4 1040– 67 [Google Scholar]
• Nickerson DW , Rogers T. 2020 . Campaigns influence election outcomes less than you think. Science 369 : 6508 1181– 82 [Google Scholar]
• O'Keefe DJ. 2016 . Persuasion: Theory and Practice Los Angeles: Sage. , 3rd ed.. [Google Scholar]
• O'Keefe DJ. 2018 . Message pretesting using assessments of expected or perceived persuasiveness: evidence about diagnosticity of relative actual persuasiveness. J. Commun 68 : 1 120– 42 [Google Scholar]
• O'Keefe DJ. 2021 . Persuasive message pretesting using non-behavioral outcomes: differences in attitudinal and intention effects as diagnostic of differences in behavioral effects. J. Commun 71 : 4 623– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Osmundsen M , Bor A , Vahlstrup PB , Bechmann A , Bang Petersen M. 2021 . Partisan polarization is the primary psychological motivation behind political fake news sharing on Twitter. Am. Political Sci. Rev 115 : 3 999– 1015 [Google Scholar]
• Ostfeld MC. 2019 . The new white flight? The effects of political appeals to Latinos on white Democrats. Political Behav . 41 : 3 561– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Pennycook G , Epstein Z , Mosleh M , Arechar AA , Eckles D , Rand DG 2021 . Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature 592 : 590– 95 [Google Scholar]
• Pennycook G , McPhetres J , Zhang Y , Lu JG , Rand DG 2020 . Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychol. Sci 31 : 7 770– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Persily N , Tucker JA , eds. 2020 . Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Petty R , Cacioppo J. 1986 . The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol 19 : 123– 205 [Google Scholar]
• Porter E , Wood TJ 2019 . False Alarm: The Truth about Political Mistruths in the Trump Era New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Schattschneider EE. 1960 . The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston [Google Scholar]
• Settle JE. 2018 . Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Shadish WR , Cook TD , Campbell DT. 2002 . Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inferences Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Google Scholar]
• Sinclair B. 2012 . The Social Citizen: Peer Networks and Political Behavior Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• Slothuus R. 2016 . Assessing the influence of political parties on public opinion: the challenge from pretreatment effects. Political Commun . 33 : 2 302– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Slothuus R , Bisgaard M. 2021a . How political parties shape public opinion in the real world. Am. J. Political Sci 65 : 4 896 – 911 [Google Scholar]
• Slothuus R , Bisgaard M. 2021b . Party over pocketbook? How party cues influence opinion when citizens have a stake in policy. Am. Political Sci. Rev 115 : 3 1090– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Sniderman PM , Theriault SM 2004 . The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. Studies in Public Opinion WE Saris, PM Sniderman 133– 65 . Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Song H , Lewis NA , Ballew MT , Bravo M , Davydova J et al. 2020 . What counts as an “environmental” issue? Differences in issue conceptualization by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. J. Env. Psychol 68 : 101404 [Google Scholar]
• Soroka S , Fournier P , Nir L. 2019 . Cross-national evidence of a negativity bias in psychophysiological reactions to news. PNAS 116 : 38 18888– 92 [Google Scholar]
• Stanley ML , Henne P , Yang BW , De Brigard F. 2020 . Resistance to position change, motivated reasoning, and polarization. Political Behav . 42 : 3 891– 913 [Google Scholar]
• Stark TH , Silber H , Krosnick JA , Blom AG , Aoyagi M et al. 2020 . Generalization of classic question order effects across cultures. Sociol. Method. Res 49 : 3 567– 602 [Google Scholar]
• Suhay E , Grofman B , Trechsel AH , eds. 2020 . The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Sydnor E. 2019 . Disrespectful Democracy: The Psychology of Political Incivility New York: Columbia Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Tappin BM. 2020 . Estimating the between-issue variation in party elite cue effects Work. Pap., Mass. Inst. Technol. Cambridge, MA: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/p48zb [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• Tappin BM , Pennycook G , Rand DG. 2020 . Bayesian or biased? Analytic thinking and political belief updating. Cognition 204 : 104375 [Google Scholar]
• Tappin BM , Pennycook G , Rand DG 2021 . Rethinking the link between cognitive sophistication and politically motivated reasoning. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen 150 : 6 1095– 114 [Google Scholar]
• Teeny JD , Petty RE. 2021 . The perception of others’ attitude bases and position as antecedents of inferred open-mindedness: consequences for attitudinal advocacy . Paper presented at Psychology Department Speaker Series Northwestern Univ. Evanston, IL: [Google Scholar]
• Tesler M , Zaller J 2017 . The power of political communication. The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication K Kenski, KH Jamieson 69– 84 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Valentino NA , Brader T , Groenendyk EW , Gregorowicz K , Hutchings VL 2011 . Election night's alright for fighting: the role of emotions in political participation. J. Politics 73 : 1 156– 70 [Google Scholar]
• Van Bavel JJ , Reinero DA , Spring V , Harris EA , Duke A. 2021 . Speaking my truth: why personal experiences can bridge divides but mislead. PNAS 118 : e2100280118 [Google Scholar]
• Weeks BE , Ardèvol-Abreu A , Gil de Zúñiga H. 2017 . Online influence? Social media use, opinion leadership, and political persuasion. Int. J. Public Opin. Res 29 : 2 214– 39 [Google Scholar]
• Wiest SL , Raymond L , Clawson RA 2015 . Framing, partisan predispositions, and public opinion on climate change. Glob. Envir. Change 31 : 187– 98 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, framing theory, discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse, historical institutionalism in comparative politics, the origins and consequences of affective polarization in the united states, political trust and trustworthiness, public attitudes toward immigration, what have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research, what do we know about democratization after twenty years, economic determinants of electoral outcomes, public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature.

Persuasion: Definition, Approaches, Contexts

• First Online: 11 December 2020

Cite this chapter

• Olga Dontcheva-Navratilova 6  

Part of the book series: Postdisciplinary Studies in Discourse ((PSDS))

593 Accesses

Dontcheva-Navratilova presents the intercultural approach to the study of persuasion in specialised discourse adopted in this book. Drawing on previous conceptualisations of this phenomenon, she defines persuasion as an essentially context-sensitive process emerging in complex social interaction and reflecting discourse- and culture-dependent meanings. As well as presenting the corpus used in the investigation, this chapter identifies contextual factors shaping persuasive interaction in specialised discourse. While outlining the analytical framework rooted in functional linguistics and intercultural rhetoric, Dontcheva-Navratilova previews strategies pertaining to the ethical, logical and pathetic persuasive appeals which are scrutinised in the volume and relates them to linguistics resources employed for their realisation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Genre as a Context for Persuasion: The Construction of Identities in Different Forms of Institutionalised Discourse. A Case Study

Rhetoric and Pragmatics: Suggestions for a Fruitful Dialogue

The art of rhetoric: persuasive strategies in Biden’s inauguration speech: a critical discourse analysis

Askehave, I., & Swales, J. (2001). Genre identification and communicative purpose: A problem and a possible solution. Applied Linguistics, 2 (22), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.2.195

Article   Google Scholar  

Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: Why contrastive rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3 (4), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.002

Bach, K. (2005). The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. In B. J. Birner & G. Ward (Eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (pp. 21–30). https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.80.03bac

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bell, A. (1997). Language style as audience design. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: A reader and coursebook (pp. 240–250). New York: St Martin’s. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25582-5

Bennett, K. (2009). English academic style manuals: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8 , 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.12.003

Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1994). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication . London/New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315538747

Book   Google Scholar  

Bhatia, V. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings . London: Longman. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100013668

Bhatia, V. (2002). Applied genre analysis: A multi-perspective model. Iberica, 4 , 3–19.

Google Scholar  

Bhatia, V., & Bremner, S. (2017). The Routledge handbook of language and professional communication . London/New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315851686

Bhatia, V., Sanchez Hernandez, P., & Peréz-Peredes, P. (2011). Researching specialized languages . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.47

Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358

Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Zhang, M. (2018). Lexis and grammar as complementary discourse systems for expressing stance and evaluation. In M. de los Ángeles Gómez González & J. Lachan Machenzie (Eds.), The construction of discourse as verbal interaction (pp. 201–226). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.296

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English . Harlow, UK: Pearson.

Biber, D., & Zhang, M. (2018). Expressing evaluation without grammatical stance: Informational persuasion on the web. Corpora, 13 (1), 97–123. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2018.0137

Bloch, J., & Chi, L. (1995). A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 231–274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Candlin, C., & Gotti, M. (Eds.). (2007). Intercultural aspects of specialized communication . Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.

Chamonikolasová, J. (2005). Comparing the structures of academic texts written in English and Czech. In M. Huttová (Ed.), Slovak studies in English 1 (pp. 77–84). Bratislava, Slovakia: Univerzita Komenského.

Cheung, M. (2008). ‘Click here’: The impact of new media on the encoding of persuasive messages in direct marketing. Discourse Studies, 10 (2), 161–189. https://doi.org/10.1177//1461445607087007

Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse . London/New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218

Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural difference in the organisation of academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 11 (2), 211–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90196-2

Čmejrková, S. (1996). Academic writing in Czech and in English. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing (pp. 137–152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.41.11cme

Čmejrková, S., & Daneš, F. (1997). Academic writing and cultural identity: The case of Czech academic writing. In A. Duzsak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 40–62). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821048.41

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524599

Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3 , 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.003

Connor, U. (2008). Mapping multidimensional aspects of research: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 299–316). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169

Connor, U., & Moreno, A. (2005). Tertium comparationis: A vital component in contrastive rhetoric research. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. Eggington, W. Grabe, & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in applied linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan. Multilingual matters (pp. 153–164). England, UK: Clevedon.

Connor, U., & Upton, T. (Eds.). (2004). Discourse in the professions . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.16

Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2018). Persuasion in earnings calls: A diachronic pragmalinguistic analysis. International Journal of Business Communication, 55 (3), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488417735644

Dillard, J. P., & Pfau, M. (Eds.). (2002). The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976046

Dillard, J. P., & Seo, K. (2013). Affect and persuasion. In The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 150–166). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218410.n10

Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2013). The Sage handbook of persuasion . London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218410

Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2013). Authorial presence in academic discourse: Functions of author-reference pronouns. Linguistica Pragensia, 23 (1), 9–30.

Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2014). The changing face of Czech academic discourse. In K. Bennett (Ed.), The semiperiphery of academic writing (pp. 39–61). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137351197

Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2018). A contrastive (English, Czech English, Czech) study of rhetorical functions of citations in linguistics research articles. In P. Mur-Dueñas & J. Šinkūnienė (Eds.), Intercultural perspectives on research writing (pp. 15–37). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.18

Duffy, M., & Thorson, E. (2016). Persuasion ethics today . London/New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315651309

Duranti, A. (1985). Sociocultural Dimensions of Discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis , Vol. 1. (pp. 193–230). London: Academic Press.

Duranti, A. (2006). Narrating the political self in a campaign for U.S. congress. Language in Society, 35 , 467–497. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060222

Duszak, A. (1997). Cross-cultural academic communication: A discourse community view. In A. Duzsak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 11–39). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821048.11

Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). On distinctions between classical and modern rhetoric. In R. J. Connors, L. S. Ede, & A. A. Lunsford (Eds.), Essays on classical rhetoric and modern discourse (pp. 37–49). Carbondale/Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power . London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis . London: Longman.

Fetzer, A. (2004). Recontextualizing context: Grammaticality meets appropriateness . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.121

Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., & Kinn, T. (2006). Academic voices: Across languages and disciplines . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.148

Flowerdew, L. (2004). The argument for using English specialized corpora to understand academic and professional language. In U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 11–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.16

Flowerdew, L. (2012). Grammar and the research article. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics . Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0473

Fowler, R. (1986). Linguistic criticism . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Gil-Salom, L., & Soler-Monreal, C. (Eds.). (2014). Dialogicity in written specialised genres . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.23

Goering, E., Connor, U., Nagelhout, E., & Steinberg, R. (2008). Persuasion in fundraising letters: An interdisciplinary study. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40 (2), 228–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009339216

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior . Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk . Oxford, UK: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8400300204

Gotti, M. (2008). Investigating specialized discourse (2nd ed.). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0214-7

Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, volume 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.

Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action. Vol. II. Reason and the rationalization of society . Boston: Beacon Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar . London: Edward Arnold.

Halmari, H., & Virtanen, T. (Eds.). (2005). Persuasion across genres . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.130

Harwood, N. (2005). ‘We do not seem to have a theory … the theory I present here attempts to fill this gap’: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26 , 343–375. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami012

Hasan, R. (1989). The texture of a text. In M. A. K. Halliday & R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (2nd ed., pp. 70–96). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Higgins, C., & Walker, R. (2012). Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports. Accounting Forum, 36 , 194–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2012.02.003

Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analyses of L2 text (pp. 141–152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hogan, J. M. (2013). Persuasion in the rhetorical tradition. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The Sage book of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 2–19). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218410.n1

Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20 (2), 237–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.2.237

Huber, A., & Pable, J. (2019). Aristotelian appeals and the role of candidate-generated videos in talent assessment. International Journal of Arts and Design Education, 38 (1), 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12176

Hunston, S. (1999). Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 176–207). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hunston, S. (2007). Using corpus to investigate stance quantitatively and qualitatively. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse (pp. 27–48). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164

Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (1999). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30 , 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5

Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18 , 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0

Hyland, K. (2002a). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34 , 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8

Hyland, K. (2002b). Directives: Arguments and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23 (2), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.2.215

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7 (2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365

Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. IJES, 8 (2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.8.2.49151

Hyland, K., & Guinda, C. S. (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres . Basingstoke, UK/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156

Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.5

Jaklová, A. (2002). Persvaze a její prostředky v současných žurnalistických textech. [Persuasion and means for expressing it in contemporary journalistic texts]. Naše řeč, 85 (4), 169–176.

Jakobson, R. (1990[1960]). On language . London, UK/Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jucker, A. (1997). Persuasion by inference: Analysis of a party political broadcast. Political Linguistics, Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 11 , 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.11.07juc

Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x

Kilgarriff, A., Rychly, P., Smrz, P., & Tugwell, D. (2004). The sketch engine. In G. Williams & S. Vessier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX international congress (pp. 105–116). Lorient: Université de Bretagne-Sud.

Killingsworth, J. (2005). Appeals in modern rhetoric: An ordinary language approach . Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Kinneavy, J. L. (1971). A theory of discourse: The aims of discourse . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice.

Kissine, M. (2016). Non-assertion speech acts. In S. Goldberg & E. Borg (Eds.), Oxford handbook of philosophy online . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.013.5

Kristeva, J. (1969). Sémiotique. Recherches pour une sémanalyse . Paris: Seuil.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics . London/New York: Longman.

Li, X. (2008). From contrastive rhetoric to intercultural rhetoric: A search for collective identity. In W. V. Rozycki, E. Nagelhout, & U. Connor (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 13–41). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169

Lorés-Sanz, R. (2011). The construction of the author’s voice in academic writing: The interplay of cultural and disciplinary factors. Text and Talk, 31 , 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2011.008

Lunsford, A., Wilson, K. H., & Eberly, R. A. (Eds.). (2009). The Sage handbook of rhetorical studies . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412982795

Martin, J. R. (1985). Process and text: Two aspects of human semiosis. In J. Benson & W. Graves (Eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse (Vol. 1, pp. 248–274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English . London: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910

Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12 , 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-I

McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31 (3), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.11.002

McIntosh, K., Connor, U., & Gokpinar-Shelton, E. (2017). What intercultural rhetoric can bring to EAP/ESP writing studies in an English as a lingua franca world. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 29 , 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.09.001

Miller, G. R. (Ed.). (1980). Persuasion: New directions in theory and research . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Miller, G. R. (2013). On being persuaded: Some basic distinctions. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 70–82). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976046.n1

Moreno, A., & Suárez, L. (2008). A study of critical attitude across English and Spanish academic book reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8 (1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.009

Mulholland, J. (1994). A handbook of persuasive tactics: A practical language guide . London/New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203420768

Mur-Dueñas, P. (2007). I/we focus on…: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6 , 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.05.002

Mur-Dueñas, P. (2009). Citation in business management research articles: A contrastive (English-Spanish) corpus-based analysis. In E. Suomela-Salmi & F. Dervin (Eds.), Cross-cultural linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives on academic discourse (pp. 49–60). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.193

O’Keefe, D. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research . Thousand Oaks, CA/London/Delhi, India: Sage.

Orts Llopis, M. A., Breeze, R., & Gotti, M. (2017). Power, persuasion and manipulation in specialised genres: Providing keys to the rhetoric of professional communities . Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/b11481

Östman, J.-O. (2005). Persuasion as implicit anchoring: The case of collocations. In H. Halmari & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach (pp. 183–212). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.130

Palmer, F. (1986). Mood and modality . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pelclová, J., & Lu, W.-L. (Eds.). (2018). Persuasion in public discourse . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.79

Perelman, C. (1982). The realm of rhetoric . Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Perloff, R. (2010). The dynamics of persuasion. Communication and attitudes in the 21st century (4th ed.). New York/London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315657714

Savolainen, R. (2014). The use of rhetorical strategies in Q & A discussions. Journal of Documentation, 70 (1), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-11-2012-0152

Scotto di Carlo, G. (2015). Ethos in TED talks: The role of credibility in popularized texts. Linguistics and Literature, 81 (91), 81–91.

Searle, J. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, mind and knowledge (pp. 344–369). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Shaw, P. (2003). Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2 , 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00050-X

Shaw, P. (2009). The lexis and grammar of explicit evaluation in academic book reviews, 1913 and 1993. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 217–235). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244290_13

Sheldon, E. (2009). From one I to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 28 (4), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.001

Simons, H., & Jones, J. (2011). Persuasion in society . London/New York: Routledge.

Šinkūnienė, J. (2017). Citations in research writing. The interplay of discipline, culture and expertise. In T. Egan & H. Dirdal (Eds.), Cross-linguistic correspondences: From lexis to genre (pp. 253–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.191

Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., et al. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25 , 359–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x

Strawson, P. F. (1964). Intention and convention in speech acts. Philosophical Review, 73 , 439–460. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183301

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. English in academic and research settings . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011773

Swales, J. (2004). Research genres . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827

Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58

Trosborg, A. (1997). Rhetorical strategies in legal language: Discourse analysis of statutes and contracts . Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Trosborg, A. (Ed.). (2000). Analysing professional genres . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.74

van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17 (3), 359–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250

van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power . Basingstoke, UK/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

van Emeren, H. (Ed.). (1986). Argumentation: Perspectives and approaches . Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. In C.-R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 32–70). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.184.55lee

van De Mieroop, D. (2007). The complementarity of two identities and two approaches: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of institutional and professional identity. Journal of Pragmatics, 39 , 1120–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.01.009

Vassileva, I. (1998). Who am I/who are we in academic writing? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8 (2), 163–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1998.tb00128.x

Virtanen, T., & Halmari, H. (2005). Persuasion across genres: Emerging perspectives. In H. Halmari & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Persuasion across Genres (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.130.03vir

Vold, E. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and crossdisciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16 (1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00106.x

Walton, D. (1997). Appeal to expert opinion . University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Walton, D. (2008). Informal logic: A pragmatic approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808630

Warchał, K. (2015). Certainty and doubt in academic discourse: Epistemic modality markers . Katowice, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.

Watts, R. (2003). Politeness . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184

Wodak, R., & Krzyzanowski, M. (Eds.). (2008). Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences . Basingstoke, UK/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Yakhontova, T. (2006). Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5 , 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.03.002

Yzer, M. (2013). Reasoned action theory: Persuasion as belief-based behaviour change. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of persuasion (pp. 120–136). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218410.n8

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of English Language and Literature, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

Olga Dontcheva-Navratilova

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olga Dontcheva-Navratilova .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2020). Persuasion: Definition, Approaches, Contexts. In: Persuasion in Specialised Discourses. Postdisciplinary Studies in Discourse. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58163-3_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58163-3_1

Published : 11 December 2020

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-58162-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-58163-3

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

10.9 Persuasion

Learning objectives.

• Determine the purpose and structure of persuasion in writing.
• Identify bias in writing.
• Assess various rhetorical devices.
• Distinguish between fact and opinion.
• Understand the importance of visuals to strengthen arguments.
• Write a persuasive essay.

The Purpose of Persuasive Writing

The purpose of persuasion in writing is to convince, motivate, or move readers toward a certain point of view, or opinion. The act of trying to persuade automatically implies more than one opinion on the subject can be argued.

The idea of an argument often conjures up images of two people yelling and screaming in anger. In writing, however, an argument is very different. An argument is a reasoned opinion supported and explained by evidence. To argue in writing is to advance knowledge and ideas in a positive way. Written arguments often fail when they employ ranting rather than reasoning.

Most of us feel inclined to try to win the arguments we engage in. On some level, we all want to be right, and we want others to see the error of their ways. More times than not, however, arguments in which both sides try to win end up producing losers all around. The more productive approach is to persuade your audience to consider your opinion as a valid one, not simply the right one.

The Structure of a Persuasive Essay

The following five features make up the structure of a persuasive essay:

• Introduction and thesis
• Opposing and qualifying ideas
• Strong evidence in support of claim
• Style and tone of language
• A compelling conclusion

Creating an Introduction and Thesis

The persuasive essay begins with an engaging introduction that presents the general topic. The thesis typically appears somewhere in the introduction and states the writer’s point of view.

Avoid forming a thesis based on a negative claim. For example, “The hourly minimum wage is not high enough for the average worker to live on.” This is probably a true statement, but persuasive arguments should make a positive case. That is, the thesis statement should focus on how the hourly minimum wage is low or insufficient.

Acknowledging Opposing Ideas and Limits to Your Argument

Because an argument implies differing points of view on the subject, you must be sure to acknowledge those opposing ideas. Avoiding ideas that conflict with your own gives the reader the impression that you may be uncertain, fearful, or unaware of opposing ideas. Thus it is essential that you not only address counterarguments but also do so respectfully.

Try to address opposing arguments earlier rather than later in your essay. Rhetorically speaking, ordering your positive arguments last allows you to better address ideas that conflict with your own, so you can spend the rest of the essay countering those arguments. This way, you leave your reader thinking about your argument rather than someone else’s. You have the last word.

Acknowledging points of view different from your own also has the effect of fostering more credibility between you and the audience. They know from the outset that you are aware of opposing ideas and that you are not afraid to give them space.

It is also helpful to establish the limits of your argument and what you are trying to accomplish. In effect, you are conceding early on that your argument is not the ultimate authority on a given topic. Such humility can go a long way toward earning credibility and trust with an audience. Audience members will know from the beginning that you are a reasonable writer, and audience members will trust your argument as a result. For example, in the following concessionary statement, the writer advocates for stricter gun control laws, but she admits it will not solve all of our problems with crime:

Although tougher gun control laws are a powerful first step in decreasing violence in our streets, such legislation alone cannot end these problems since guns are not the only problem we face.

Such a concession will be welcome by those who might disagree with this writer’s argument in the first place. To effectively persuade their readers, writers need to be modest in their goals and humble in their approach to get readers to listen to the ideas. See Table 10.5 “Phrases of Concession” for some useful phrases of concession.

Table 10.5 Phrases of Concession

Try to form a thesis for each of the following topics. Remember the more specific your thesis, the better.

• Foreign policy
• Television and advertising
• Stereotypes and prejudice
• Gender roles and the workplace
• Driving and cell phones

Collaboration

Please share with a classmate and compare your answers. Choose the thesis statement that most interests you and discuss why.

Bias in Writing

Everyone has various biases on any number of topics. For example, you might have a bias toward wearing black instead of brightly colored clothes or wearing jeans rather than formal wear. You might have a bias toward working at night rather than in the morning, or working by deadlines rather than getting tasks done in advance. These examples identify minor biases, of course, but they still indicate preferences and opinions.

Handling bias in writing and in daily life can be a useful skill. It will allow you to articulate your own points of view while also defending yourself against unreasonable points of view. The ideal in persuasive writing is to let your reader know your bias, but do not let that bias blind you to the primary components of good argumentation: sound, thoughtful evidence and a respectful and reasonable address of opposing sides.

The strength of a personal bias is that it can motivate you to construct a strong argument. If you are invested in the topic, you are more likely to care about the piece of writing. Similarly, the more you care, the more time and effort you are apt to put forth and the better the final product will be.

The weakness of bias is when the bias begins to take over the essay—when, for example, you neglect opposing ideas, exaggerate your points, or repeatedly insert yourself ahead of the subject by using I too often. Being aware of all three of these pitfalls will help you avoid them.

The Use of I in Writing

The use of I in writing is often a topic of debate, and the acceptance of its usage varies from instructor to instructor. It is difficult to predict the preferences for all your present and future instructors, but consider the effects it can potentially have on your writing.

Be mindful of the use of I in your writing because it can make your argument sound overly biased. There are two primary reasons:

• Excessive repetition of any word will eventually catch the reader’s attention—and usually not in a good way. The use of I is no different.
• The insertion of I into a sentence alters not only the way a sentence might sound but also the composition of the sentence itself. I is often the subject of a sentence. If the subject of the essay is supposed to be, say, smoking, then by inserting yourself into the sentence, you are effectively displacing the subject of the essay into a secondary position. In the following example, the subject of the sentence is underlined:

Smoking is bad.

I think smoking is bad.

In the first sentence, the rightful subject, smoking , is in the subject position in the sentence. In the second sentence, the insertion of I and think replaces smoking as the subject, which draws attention to I and away from the topic that is supposed to be discussed. Remember to keep the message (the subject) and the messenger (the writer) separate.

Developing Sound Arguments

Does my essay contain the following elements?

• An engaging introduction
• A reasonable, specific thesis that is able to be supported by evidence
• A varied range of evidence from credible sources
• Respectful acknowledgement and explanation of opposing ideas
• A style and tone of language that is appropriate for the subject and audience
• Acknowledgement of the argument’s limits
• A conclusion that will adequately summarize the essay and reinforce the thesis

Fact and Opinion

Facts are statements that can be definitely proven using objective data. The statement that is a fact is absolutely valid. In other words, the statement can be pronounced as true or false. For example, 2 + 2 = 4. This expression identifies a true statement, or a fact, because it can be proved with objective data.

Opinions are personal views, or judgments. An opinion is what an individual believes about a particular subject. However, an opinion in argumentation must have legitimate backing; adequate evidence and credibility should support the opinion. Consider the credibility of expert opinions. Experts in a given field have the knowledge and credentials to make their opinion meaningful to a larger audience.

For example, you seek the opinion of your dentist when it comes to the health of your gums, and you seek the opinion of your mechanic when it comes to the maintenance of your car. Both have knowledge and credentials in those respective fields, which is why their opinions matter to you. But the authority of your dentist may be greatly diminished should he or she offer an opinion about your car, and vice versa.

In writing, you want to strike a balance between credible facts and authoritative opinions. Relying on one or the other will likely lose more of your audience than it gains.

The word prove is frequently used in the discussion of persuasive writing. Writers may claim that one piece of evidence or another proves the argument, but proving an argument is often not possible. No evidence proves a debatable topic one way or the other; that is why the topic is debatable. Facts can be proved, but opinions can only be supported, explained, and persuaded.

On a separate sheet of paper, take three of the theses you formed in Note 10.94 “Exercise 1” , and list the types of evidence you might use in support of that thesis.

Using the evidence you provided in support of the three theses in Note 10.100 “Exercise 2” , come up with at least one counterargument to each. Then write a concession statement, expressing the limits to each of your three arguments.

Using Visual Elements to Strengthen Arguments

Adding visual elements to a persuasive argument can often strengthen its persuasive effect. There are two main types of visual elements: quantitative visuals and qualitative visuals.

Quantitative visuals present data graphically. They allow the audience to see statistics spatially. The purpose of using quantitative visuals is to make logical appeals to the audience. For example, sometimes it is easier to understand the disparity in certain statistics if you can see how the disparity looks graphically. Bar graphs, pie charts, Venn diagrams, histograms, and line graphs are all ways of presenting quantitative data in spatial dimensions.

Qualitative visuals present images that appeal to the audience’s emotions. Photographs and pictorial images are examples of qualitative visuals. Such images often try to convey a story, and seeing an actual example can carry more power than hearing or reading about the example. For example, one image of a child suffering from malnutrition will likely have more of an emotional impact than pages dedicated to describing that same condition in writing.

Writing at Work

When making a business presentation, you typically have limited time to get across your idea. Providing visual elements for your audience can be an effective timesaving tool. Quantitative visuals in business presentations serve the same purpose as they do in persuasive writing. They should make logical appeals by showing numerical data in a spatial design. Quantitative visuals should be pictures that might appeal to your audience’s emotions. You will find that many of the rhetorical devices used in writing are the same ones used in the workplace. For more information about visuals in presentations, see Chapter 14 “Creating Presentations: Sharing Your Ideas” .

Writing a Persuasive Essay

Choose a topic that you feel passionate about. If your instructor requires you to write about a specific topic, approach the subject from an angle that interests you. Begin your essay with an engaging introduction. Your thesis should typically appear somewhere in your introduction.

Start by acknowledging and explaining points of view that may conflict with your own to build credibility and trust with your audience. Also state the limits of your argument. This too helps you sound more reasonable and honest to those who may naturally be inclined to disagree with your view. By respectfully acknowledging opposing arguments and conceding limitations to your own view, you set a measured and responsible tone for the essay.

Make your appeals in support of your thesis by using sound, credible evidence. Use a balance of facts and opinions from a wide range of sources, such as scientific studies, expert testimony, statistics, and personal anecdotes. Each piece of evidence should be fully explained and clearly stated.

Make sure that your style and tone are appropriate for your subject and audience. Tailor your language and word choice to these two factors, while still being true to your own voice.

Finally, write a conclusion that effectively summarizes the main argument and reinforces your thesis. See Chapter 15 “Readings: Examples of Essays” to read a sample persuasive essay.

Choose one of the topics you have been working on throughout this section. Use the thesis, evidence, opposing argument, and concessionary statement as the basis for writing a full persuasive essay. Be sure to include an engaging introduction, clear explanations of all the evidence you present, and a strong conclusion.

Key Takeaways

• The purpose of persuasion in writing is to convince or move readers toward a certain point of view, or opinion.
• An argument is a reasoned opinion supported and explained by evidence. To argue, in writing, is to advance knowledge and ideas in a positive way.
• A thesis that expresses the opinion of the writer in more specific terms is better than one that is vague.
• It is essential that you not only address counterarguments but also do so respectfully.
• It is also helpful to establish the limits of your argument and what you are trying to accomplish through a concession statement.
• To persuade a skeptical audience, you will need to use a wide range of evidence. Scientific studies, opinions from experts, historical precedent, statistics, personal anecdotes, and current events are all types of evidence that you might use in explaining your point.
• Make sure that your word choice and writing style is appropriate for both your subject and your audience.
• You should let your reader know your bias, but do not let that bias blind you to the primary components of good argumentation: sound, thoughtful evidence and respectfully and reasonably addressing opposing ideas.
• You should be mindful of the use of I in your writing because it can make your argument sound more biased than it needs to.
• Facts are statements that can be proven using objective data.
• Opinions are personal views, or judgments, that cannot be proven.
• In writing, you want to strike a balance between credible facts and authoritative opinions.
• Quantitative visuals present data graphically. The purpose of using quantitative visuals is to make logical appeals to the audience.
• Qualitative visuals present images that appeal to the audience’s emotions.

Writing for Success Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Using Rhetorical Strategies for Persuasion

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

There are three types of rhetorical appeals, or persuasive strategies, used in arguments to support claims and respond to opposing arguments. A good argument will generally use a combination of all three appeals to make its case.

Logos or the appeal to reason relies on logic or reason. Logos often depends on the use of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning takes a specific representative case or facts and then draws generalizations or conclusions from them. Inductive reasoning must be based on a sufficient amount of reliable evidence. In other words, the facts you draw on must fairly represent the larger situation or population. Example:

In this example the specific case of fair trade agreements with coffee producers is being used as the starting point for the claim. Because these agreements have worked the author concludes that it could work for other farmers as well.

Deductive reasoning begins with a generalization and then applies it to a specific case. The generalization you start with must have been based on a sufficient amount of reliable evidence.Example:

In this example the author starts with a large claim, that genetically modified seeds have been problematic everywhere, and from this draws the more localized or specific conclusion that Mexico will be affected in the same way.

Avoid Logical Fallacies

These are some common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Also, watch out for these slips in other people's arguments.

Slippery slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:

In this example the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same thing.

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:

In this example the author is basing their evaluation of the entire course on only one class, and on the first day which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example:

In this example the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.

Genetic Fallacy: A conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example:

In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car.

Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example:

Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:

In this example the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.

Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. Example:

In this example where two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than their opinions or arguments. Example:

In this example the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.

Ad populum: This is an emotional appeal that speaks to positive (such as patriotism, religion, democracy) or negative (such as terrorism or fascism) concepts rather than the real issue at hand. Example:

In this example the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.

Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example:

In this example the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may affect the other, it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals.

Ethos or the ethical appeal is based on the character, credibility, or reliability of the writer. There are many ways to establish good character and credibility as an author:

• Use only credible, reliable sources to build your argument and cite those sources properly.
• Respect the reader by stating the opposing position accurately.
• Establish common ground with your audience. Most of the time, this can be done by acknowledging values and beliefs shared by those on both sides of the argument.
• If appropriate for the assignment, disclose why you are interested in this topic or what personal experiences you have had with the topic.
• Organize your argument in a logical, easy to follow manner. You can use the Toulmin method of logic or a simple pattern such as chronological order, most general to most detailed example, earliest to most recent example, etc.
• Proofread the argument. Too many careless grammar mistakes cast doubt on your character as a writer.

Pathos , or emotional appeal, appeals to an audience's needs, values, and emotional sensibilities.  Pathos can also be understood as an appeal to audience's disposition to a topic, evidence, or argument (especially appropriate to academic discourse). 

Argument emphasizes reason, but used properly there is often a place for emotion as well. Emotional appeals can use sources such as interviews and individual stories to paint a more legitimate and moving picture of reality or illuminate the truth. For example, telling the story of a single child who has been abused may make for a more persuasive argument than simply the number of children abused each year because it would give a human face to the numbers.  Academic arguments in particular ​benefit from understanding pathos as appealing to an audience's academic disposition.

Only use an emotional appeal if it truly supports the claim you are making, not as a way to distract from the real issues of debate. An argument should never use emotion to misrepresent the topic or frighten people.

• Social Psychology

Persuasion: An Analysis and Common Frame of Reference for IS Research

• September 2019

• UNSW Sydney
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Andrea Lunsford
• Kirt Wilson
• Rosa Eberly
• Alison Parkes

• Nick Bostrom

• M. Q. Patton

• Lawrence R. Wheeless
• Robert A. Barraclough

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Home > Blog > Different Types Of Persuasive Writing

Different Types Of Persuasive Writing

• Smodin Editorial Team
• Updated: July 16, 2024
• General Guide About Content and Writing

Have you ever found yourself needing to write an essay where you convince the reader of your point of view? Then, persuasive writing is what you need!

A persuasive essay or text aims to convince the person reading your words that a particular point is correct. It’s one of the oldest forms of writing and has been used in politics, business, and religion over the years.

Despite there being different types of persuasive writing, they all have one thing in common: allowing the reader to understand (and believe) the writer’s position on any given matter.

But, there is a time and a place for each type, and you need to know when to choose which one to achieve your goals.

Read on to learn more about the three main techniques used for persuasive writing and how to hone your writing skills to have people believe your point of view.

What Is Persuasive Writing?

Persuasive writing is any text that convinces the reader of the writer’s opinion.

There are different techniques and types, which will be discussed later, but each is intended for a specific context and purpose.

For example, if you are trying to get an extension on your essay deadline, you will write an email with a formal tone of voice to your professor. If you’re convincing your roommate to go grab a drink, your text will be far more informal.

You may not even notice it, but persuasive writing is all around us – in the media, in advertisements, in the news, and on social media.

No matter your purpose or context, all persuasive writing has the following in common:

• Evidence to back your claims
• Appealing to the reader’s emotion
• Logical arguments

Why Is Persuasive Writing Important?

Whether you’re a high school student or new to the working world, persuasive writing is an invaluable skill to have in your toolkit.

You may have to write convincing and/or persuasive essays for school to score top marks, or you have to write a convincing cover letter to go with your resume to get the job of your dreams.

But it’s more than that. Knowing how to write in a way to convince others of your personal opinion is a good way to sharpen your writing and negotiation skills. It teaches you how to research, fact-check, and construct concise and clear arguments – tools you can use your entire life.

If you end up in marketing or content writing one day, it is a good tool to have in your writing arsenal. But even if you turn towards charity work, you can use your persuasive writing skills to get donations and rally people to your cause.

3 Types Of Persuasive Writing Techniques

There are three main types of persuasive writing techniques, dating back to ancient Greece. These are:

The Greek philosopher Aristotle coined these terms back in the day, but they are still very applicable today when it comes to argumentative essays or any kind of text that needs to convince the reader.

Most persuasive writing examples use a variety of these techniques, as the combination of them strengthens your arguments.

“Ethos” is the Greek word for “character.” This technique uses writing that appeals to the reader’s character and virtues. For that reason, this style of writing is also called “ personal appeal. ”

This kind of writing plays on the reader’s sense of right and wrong. The writer establishes themselves as a trustworthy and knowledgeable character, and because of that, the readers will agree with what they have to say.

Some examples of ethos writing include:

• “My family has been farming in Texas for four generations, and I’ve been working in food production for 25 years. So, trust me when I say that we need to avoid genetically modified produce.”
• “I spent my entire childhood and most of my teenage years in Eureka Springs. I know most of you from school. Please, listen to me when I say: we need to put money towards restoring the Winona Springs Church – you all know it’s the right thing to do.”

Pathos means either “suffering” or “experience” in Greek. This type of writing targets the emotions of the reader, which is why it’s also called “ emotional appeal. ”

The goal of this type of writing is to trigger an emotional response in the reader, which causes them to trust what you have to say.

You can influence readers by eliciting a variety of emotions, including:

Here are some examples of how you can use the pathos technique in persuasive essays:

• “Are you really willing to stand by and watch as millions of unwanted dogs in the Humane Society shelters are euthanized each year?”
• “Business owners say Gen Z is scared to work, but the real reason is that they’re not paying their staff fair wages.”

“Logos” is the origin of the word “logic”. This technique is also called “ logical appeal. “It is mainly focused on logical arguments, presenting facts to convince the reader that you are speaking the undeniable truth.

Each statement that is written is backed up by facts, enhancing the writer’s credibility.

It’s possible that a writer may twist facts to fit in with their narrative, but many readers can spot this manipulative style of writing.

Some examples of the logos technique are:

• “If you know nicotine is bad for your health, why are you still grabbing your vape as soon as you wake up?”
• “Passenger cars emitted 374.2 million metric tons of CO2 in 2021. If we truly want to slow down climate change, we need to skip the short car trips to the store and walk instead.”

Bonus technique: Kairos

So, this technique wasn’t grouped by Aristotle with the three discussed above. However, he did believe that this was a fourth way to persuade readers to see your point of view.

Kairos means “the opportune moment.” To use this technique, the writer or speaker must create (or take advantage of) the perfect moment to deliver their message.

As an example: after a major storm in the U.S. Virgin Islands, human rights charities in the area may have more success in raising funds for their causes as they can appeal to people’s emotions.

As you can see, this example combines kairos and pathos.

Persuasive Writing Examples

As is evident from the above, persuasive writing can take many forms. Although the main goal is always to influence readers, the applications of persuasive texts are vast.

Below are just some examples of where you might use persuasive writing:

1. Persuasive essays

In persuasive essays – also called argumentative essays – the writer makes a specific claim about a topic and then uses facts and evidential data to drive the point home.

A persuasive essay aims to convince the reader that the writer is correct and that the evidence can’t be disputed in any way.

This type of persuasive writing requires a lot of research and fact-checking from the writer – it’s about more than just their opinion.

Examples of an argumentative essay include:

• School essay
• Thesis statement

2. Opinion pieces

An opinion piece is just the thing you need if you have strong feelings about a certain topic and want to express your views with the hope of convincing others. These are less focused on facts and instead play on the reader’s emotions.

Examples of opinion pieces include:

3. Cover letters

The job market is tough. Hundreds of applicants are vying for the same position. A convincing cover letter and job application can really make you stand out from the crowd. Using persuasive writing in cover letters can help you sell yourself to the recruiter, convincing them that you’re the only one for the job.

Reviews are typically opinion-based, but they can still make use of ethos, pathos, and logos to convince the reader of your opinion.

Say, for example, you are writing a book review on The Hobbit for school. Here are some ways in which you can adopt the three main techniques mentioned above:

• Ethos: “I’ve devoured dozens of fantasy novels, and I believe that J.R.R. Tolkien’s world-building in The Hobbit is the best. He is able to create detailed imaginary worlds like no other writer.”
• Pathos: “The journey of Bilbo Baggins filled me with a sense of wonder and excitement, reminding me of the magic of friendship and having a keen sense of adventure.”
• Logos: “Tolkein’s use of detailed maps and a sensible timeline makes the story of Bilbo Baggins much more believable, as it lends a sense of logic to a fantasy realm.”

How To Excel At Persuasive Writing

Do you want to become a pro at persuasive writing? Learn by doing!

Here are some tips on how to develop your persuasive writing skills. Follow these pointers, and you’ll hone your skills enough to convince a night owl to become an early bird (with enough practice).

1. Conduct thorough research

Humans are emotional beings, but appealing to emotions alone just isn’t enough at times.

If your readers are analytical, they might not respond to emotional writing. That’s why you need to back up your persuasive writing with cold, hard facts.

Plus, having indisputable proof to substantiate your claims makes you seem a lot more trustworthy. By providing stats, facts, case studies, and references, readers will believe your words to be true.

Of course, you need to write your facts and evidence in your own words to avoid plagiarism. Smodin’s AI Paraphrasing Tool can help you write evidence-based text in your own writing style.

2. Be empathetic

Sometimes, all anyone wants is to feel heard and understood. You can provide your readers with this understanding by addressing, and relating to, their pain points. If you can offer them a solution to their problems, that’s even better!

Showing empathy allows you to identify with your readers. They need to know that you understand them. Only then will they realize that what you say truly matters.

If you show you can relate, and that you can help your audience, they’ll be more inclined to trust your solutions.

3. Use tools to help you write

Sitting down and writing an argumentative or persuasive essay or speech from scratch can be very daunting. Writer’s block is real, and sometimes you may have strong opinions but struggle to formulate your words.

There are plenty of tools on the market, but none are as effective in helping you write persuasive essays as Smodin’s AI Writer and Advanced AI Essay Writer.

The AI Writer can help you write shorter texts and sprinkle some persuasive writing into your work, for example. The smart AI technology can even cite your references to add to your credibility.

The Advanced AI Essay Writer is specifically for helping you craft persuasive essays from scratch. It’s so simple, all you have to do is give the tool five words and it will begin to write a powerful, structured essay.

But of course, writing a persuasive essay with AI is not always ideal, especially if your institution uses AI detection tools. The good news is that Smodin has a solution for you: the Smodin AI Detection Remover .

4. Make use of rhetorical questions

One surefire way to grab your reader’s attention is to use rhetorical questions. These questions don’t require answers, but they are thought-provoking. They’re used to make a point (either negative or positive) and will keep your audience hooked.

Here are some examples:

• “How can we expect to progress as a society if we can’t take care of our homeless?”
• “What’s the point of technological advancement if we lose touch with our cultural heritage?”
• “How can we expect positive changes if we’re not willing to stand up for what we believe in?”

5. Repeat yourself

Repetition is a great tool in persuasive writing. By using this technique strategically, you can emphasize your key points while adding value to your argumentative essay.

You can tell stories, paraphrase what someone else said, or use metaphors to bring your point across.

In other words, you’re repeating the same opinion, without becoming redundant.

6. Choose your words carefully

No matter the kind of persuasive content you’re producing, you need to understand your audience.

There’s no point in writing in Elvish if your audience has never read Lord of the Rings!

It depends on the context, but usually, colloquial language is best for persuasive writing. It allows your audience to relate to you (and not make them feel like you’re better than them).

You’ll also want to avoid jargon or technical terms that not everyone will understand. Rather write inclusively, keeping your target audience in mind.

7. Adapt your tone of voice

A persuasive essay for college will have a different tone of voice than political speeches delivered by world leaders.

There isn’t one tone that works for all persuasive texts. Instead, it depends on the context and the readers. The tone you use goes hand in hand with your vocabulary, and can be:

• Professional
• Authoritative
• Encouraging

Can I use persuasive writing in everyday life?

Absolutely! It’s not just about school essays and oral presentations. Persuasive writing and speaking can be used in discussions, cover letters, and texts to your friends… even if you just want to convince them to watch a movie with you.

How can I balance pathos and logos in persuasive writing?

Finding the balance between an emotional and logical appeal is key to your success. First, you need to understand your audience. This will allow you to appeal to their emotions. Then, you can reinforce your emotional triggers with well-researched facts and sound logic.

Wrapping Up

It is clear that persuasive writing is a very powerful skill to have. It can be used in various contexts, helping you to convince the reader about certain issues. Whether you simply want to bring your point across or motivate readers to take action, persuasive writing can help you achieve these goals.

The key to persuasive writing is understanding who your audience is. You need to tailor your words to relate to them.

Fortunately, Smodin offers a whole suite of tools to facilitate your writing process. Smodin can save you a lot of time, stress, and pre-essay tears as it assists you in writing compelling, hassle-free persuasive content.