The final week of Q's

1) Woodward and Denton’s 2004 text states, “For more than a decade, there have been increasing numbers of studies, polls, and news articles lamenting the decline of ethical behavior in America” (Woodward & Denton 338). Some of these articles, studies, and polls have shown that lying and cheating has become customary among both children and adults; the absence of shame is a norm in our culture; half of the 80 percent of high school students who admitted to cheating at least once didn’t believe it was necessarily wrong (Woodward and Denton 338). Considering that most of this information was released in the early and mid nineties, our nation, in my opinion, has surely declined further in terms of ethical behavior. Do you agree or disagree? Why? Also, in 1983, Philosopher S. Jack Odell argued that “[a] society without ethics is a society doomed to extinction” (Larsen 25). Do you think that, if our society’s decline of ethical behavior continues, we are at risk of extinction? Or, do you think our society thrives off of a lack of ethics?

2) When it comes to behaving ethically, it’s important to recognize that we clearly live in an individualistic culture; according to Woodward and Denton, “[w]e are concerned with self-actualization, success, comfort, convenience, property, and the pursuit of happiness” while growing less and less concerned with ethics (Woodward and Denton 338). Early philosophers who expressed a concern for ethics (Plato, Aristotle, etc.), as well as later philosophers, were also studying human happiness. I would argue that they saw a link between maintaining one’s self-imposed ethical standards and happiness. The United States is a wealthy, powerful, and technologically advanced nation. Those living in the U.S., as discussed above, are lacking certain ethical behaviors, as they are declining quickly in our nation overall. Our Declaration of Independence discusses our pursuit of happiness, but lifestyle statistics regarding happiness levels show that we are the 30th happiest nation (nationmaster.com). Larsen states that it’s a persuaders’ responsibility to be “[…] accountable to one’s own conscience” (Larsen 24). Do you think that lacking accountability to one’s own conscience has an effect on one’s happiness level? Do you think that either our increasingly individualistic attitudes, or our declining ethical standards are directly related to Americans’ low levels of happiness?

3) In Larsen’s piece on persuasion-related reception and responsibility, one section, entitled “Responsibilities of Receivers,” reminds readers that “[…] persuasion can be viewed as a transaction in which both persuaders and persuadees bear mutual responsibility to participate actively in the process.” Our responsibilities, according to Larsen, can be encapsulated by two phrases: reasoned skepticism and appropriate feedback (Larsen 26). This section was of particular importance to me, as it can be too easy to forget that our cultural, familial, and relational baggage and biases, which we constantly carry with us, can hinder one’s ability to be an ethical receiver of persuasive messages. Reasoned skepticism involves maintaining a balanced position, and realizing “[…] that accurate understanding of a persuader’s message may be hindered by attempting to impose your own ethical standards on that persuader [as] [y]our immediate ‘gut-level’ ethical judgments may cause you to distort the intended meaning” (Larsen 26). Larsen goes on to say that, due to the amount of distrust and lack of truthfulness, we are living in an especially skeptical era, and reasoned skepticism demands that we do not assume that most public communication is untrustworthy.
Do you tend to automatically assume that most public communication is untrustworthy? If so, what would it take for you to adopt a less assuming perspective, and/or how do you combat those assumptions to remain ethical?

Questions para tu

1) In his first chapter, Paul Messaris, author of Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising, attempts to discover, through research and analysis, the implication of iconicity for the uses of pictures in ads. As a starting point, Messaris discusses Henrik Dahl’s analysis of the fundamentals of persuasive communication and Dahl’s argument that “one of its central characteristics is the fact that it is typically unwanted communication” (Messaris 5). Messaris then states, “With the possible exception of those of us who have a professional interest in the subject, most people do not actively seek out exposure to advertising” (Messaris 5). I agree that, especially in our culture, people recognize advertising exposure as an unwanted component of daily life, and are often aware of, and frustrated by, the manipulative tactics used to persuade us. However, it’s a fact that “[…] real world vision is intimately connected with emotion, which, in turn, is tied to our functional needs as biological and social creatures,” and it’s also true that many of the tools advertisers use “[…] are derived from the principles of real-world, face-to-face interaction” (Messaris 4-5) That said, since advertisers often construct visual iconicity’s that attempt to fulfill, or respond to, our functional needs, we could be subconsciously, and/or unconsciously, seeking out chances for exposure to advertising. For example, when walking somewhere, do you ever find yourself taking the busier streets, like Broadway, which is filled with visual advertising? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
2) The major categories of visual imagery are also discussed in this chapter. Visual distortions, visual violations, and visual parodies are seen as major categories. Of these categories, which is most interesting and/or appealing to you? Why? Is your opinion of which category you prefer due to how well it actually persuaded you, or peaked your interest in a product? Or, is it because the category of images you find most appealing are the one’s where the ads image most stands out to you, but you can’t even remember what they were selling? If so, what does that say about visual imagery as persuasion?
3) In terms of identification, Messaris states that, “[…] the primary inclination of most female viewers will be to identify with the female models” and “[b]y identifying with someone else, we turn the observed consequences of her or his actions into lessons for our own lives” (Messaris 43-44). So, to strengthen our emotional involvement with ads, our tendency to identify with the models is used, and the images presented to us have models whose sexual or financial or other types of success “we may wish to emulate” (Messaris 44). But what about the consequences, for our lives, of these observed consequences of the models “life”? What do you think this does to our understanding of successes we were already striving for when other successes are linked to it, like the “successfulness” of a model's skinny-ness? For example, if, in my current life, I’m striving for success in business, and I see an ad for high fashion business attire with skinny female models who, as they wear the clothes, are shown (somehow) as being at an advantage and very successful, I’m suppose to recognize that the “consequence” of not wearing this brand of high fashion business attire is that I won’t be the type of successful, business-wise, that I want to be. There. The ad wins, and it’s done the job. However, it’s also added a new idea of female business-related success: the clothes worked for the model, but the model doesn’t look like me, as she’s long, skinny, and her face (surely) looks flawless. So, how is it that the image has the power to add a new type of desired success (of being thin and flawless) that I cannot relate to, but now see as a success, rather than just causing me to dismiss the entire brand and image, as the person I’m to identify with deviates from the norm? Do you think it could be because there may be two forms of identification occurring, as we may try to identify with the models character’s success, while also identifying with the model herself, and her life as a model for this ad?

Answer to Rashad's Week 8 Question 2

Question: The text explains that there are three aspects of nonverbal behaviors that affect persuasion. One pertaining to the level of animation, the second relating to behavior liking or attraction, and the third pertaining to the level of relaxation displayed during interaction. The text mentions that being relaxed gains trust and the appearance of truthfulness, and a relaxed posture and the absence of vocal anxiety are important elements in establishing credibility. I agree with this for the most part, but I also think its interesting to note that there are degrees and levels to these aspects, the text does not expand the idea that it is possible for an audience participating in interaction with a speaker who is establishing credibility through relaxation may overreach and as a result be perceived as too relaxed or too comfortable. Illustrating a sense of over relaxation can make people think that one is cavalier, and may not take the situation seriously enough. Would you agree with this stance, and do you think the author should expand this idea of relaxation? Or is it simply implied that being overly relaxed in a situation where credibility is being established can result in poor perceptions?

Answer: Woodward and Denton state that the “[…] level of relaxation displayed during an interaction is important in gaining trust and the appearance of truthfulness” (194). Since gaining trust and the appearance of truthfulness depends upon the level of displayed relaxation, the idea that negative perceptions can be caused by one having an overly high level of relaxation, to me, seems implied. However, although I understand this to be implied, I do believe that the authors could, and should, expand on this idea of relaxation.
This idea is important, and should be further discussed, because individuals may have slight differences for what it means to nonverbally appear relaxed. Additionally, as we all surely know, when attempting to persuade others, nervousness, and/or excitement, will likely be a factor. That said, attempts to display relaxation are probably often forced, and, therefore, more difficult to execute convincingly. It would also be of value to expand on this idea because antonyms for “relax” are “increase, grow, agitate, excite, tense, worry” (dictionary.com); these antonyms are similar to other nonverbal behaviors the text actually suggests, such as nonverbal behaviors communicating enthusiasm, frequent gesturing, hand movements, and high levels of energy (194). Relaxation, shown through nonverbal behavior, isn’t, in my opinion, synonymous with high energy, enthusiasm, and frequent hand gestures; however, there is an evident difference between doing these things relaxed and versus not relaxed (in terms of nonverbals).
In most persuasive situations I do agree with the following stance: “Illustrating a sense of over relaxation can make people think that one is cavalier, and may not take the situation seriously enough.” As the text emphasizes, the purpose and context of the event are vital factors when looking into nonverbal characteristics of interpersonal persuasion (195). That said, in a situation where one’s credibility is in question, a sense of over relaxation could not only imply that one is cavalier, but also that, even if they do take the situation seriously, they are too certain that their persuasion will rid them of this credibility issue.
For example, if, during Nixon’s Checkers speech, Nixon was extremely/overly relaxed when speaking, one might feel that since he knew what he was going to say, his relaxed demeanor clearly indicated that he felt his speech would get him off the hook before the speech was even finished. In the same type of situation, though, I can see how appearing overly relaxed might be convincing, in terms of regaining credibility. If a person was accused of murder, for example, was highly relaxed when discussing the crime while being interviewed, one might think, “If they’re this relaxed it must be because they truly have nothing to worry about, as they didn’t commit the crime.” I wouldn’t see it that way, but others might.
I recognize that the text emphasizes that a relaxed posture and the absence of vocal anxiety are important elements in establishing credibility, and that these elements related to relaxation are of high importance when trying to persuade. The implication is that posture and vocalics are greatly affected by nervousness; it may seem obvious to some, but it would be interesting if the text referenced how and what other nonverbal behaviors are affected by a lack of relaxation.
What isn’t addressed in the chapter is what it means, in terms of gaining trust and the appearance of truthfulness, when one has a low level of relaxation or appears nervous. Can that have a positive effect? For example, for our first day of campaign presentations there were speakers who were confident, but, possibly due to nervousness and/or excitement, not very relaxed. I saw this as a sign that the candidates cared a lot about their presentation; so, in my eyes, their lack of relaxed movements resulted in a gaining of credibility, and a proving of their emotional investment.