Article Review On Persuasive Coursework

Jennifer’s situation is one that is faced by many people every day, in a wide variety of scenarios. Persuasion is a symbolic process that the communicators employ in order to try to change others attitudes or behaviours regarding an issue in an environment of free choice. The art of persuasion is a process that involves the interaction between the advertiser and the individual. The process of persuasion involves the employment of symbols laid out in a careful arrangement with a dedicated course in mind.
Persuasion cannot force a person to do something that they don’t want to do. This is an indication that it was a secondary form of influence that caused Jennifer to take part in the recitation. Even the art of self-persuasion is not a fit in this instance as the girls did not actively work to persuade her to recite the passage. In this case, the girls that shot Jennifer the nasty look did not do any of the prior work that would qualify as persuasion. Although the transmission of the message that her actions were unwelcome was a direct tie to the persuasion argument, the single instance only serves to instil a perception on intimidation. This form of nonverbal intimidation can be viewed as form of coercion.
Jennifer did hold the position of free choice, and therefore had no active threat, yet, the non-verbal communication was just as effective as any verbal cues could be. This meets the criteria for coercion, with Jennifer feeling threatened by the attitude of the other girls. The girls met the definition of coercion when they in effect forced Jennifer to act contrary to her wishes.
Gass and Sieter define persuasion as creating, modifying, enforcing or eliminating the beliefs, or behaviours in a communication context. This approach argues that someone doesn’t have to intend to persuade somebody in order for persuasion to have occurred. Through no overt method, there could be a communication of the desire to demonstrate a specific behaviour by one person that is observed by the second person who then subsequently changes their purchasing habits based on the first person. Persuasion occurred even though there was no direct intention.
A contrasting argument states that the persuader must in fact intend to persuade in order for the process to be met. Yet, Gass and Sieter argue that as long as there has been a change in the underlying habits of the second individual then the base definition of being persuaded has been met. This can be considered a form of border line persuasion, that seeks to influence the decision making process without the artist not even having the goal of changing the habits. Through the medium of the art the viewer is persuaded to a different action.
This form of border line persuasion can take place nearly anywhere at any time. While this is not a form of pure persuasion the desire to provoke thought in the area of arts and the media constitute another form of border line persuasion. In the case of prejudicial remarks, it is the border line persuasion of the first person that allows the second person to allow them to demonstrate a similar behaviour. Overall it is the exposure to the larger influence, regardless of the intent that enables a sense of persuasion to occur.
Social proof occurs when a group of people decide that they must look outside of themselves to answer any form of questions. This approach relies on a form of group think to accomplish all of their goals, with the clear behaviour pattern based on the actions of those around them.
In the case of the Jonestown Cult, the social proof theory was clearly demonstrated in several of the regulations that the adherents were forced to live with. Examples that included the discouragement of independent thought and the suppression of any form of curiosity only fostered the dependence on the group to provide the impetus for any decision making process. Further, the adherence to the group dynamic built up a clear reliance on the established leadership, which in turn made sure to structure the lives of the members in such a manner that each moment of their lives, from waking to sleep, was the same as their brother and sisters. Again, this element of constant group interaction fosters the dependence on the group, which in turn proves the social proof theory in action.
Social proof can be argued to be illustrated in the operation of the Kitty Genovese bystander effect. Working on the same group think principle a large gathering of people will fail to act, in many cases simply because no one stepped forward to initiate the event. In this case it is the group dynamic of ‘let someone else do it’ that provides the mechanism for the social proof theory. Further, once action has been initiated often times the group will act once direction has been given. The dependence on leadership is an innate element of the social proof theory.