In 1993, a crowd of 1,000,000 people
marched on Washington to make a stand against unequal rights for gay people.
Urvashi Vaid, an Indian-American LGBT rights activist, was asked to make a
speech. This speech aimed to draw the attention of the crowd to the injustice suffered
by the gay community in America. It was a very persuasive message that helped
rally spectators in a stand against inequality. This was due, in part, to the
high personal involvement of the crowd members. (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979).
An experiment by Petty, Cacioppo, and
Goldman (1981) examined the effect of levels of personal involvement, source
expertise and argument quality on persuasion. Subjects (145 students) listened
to tapes of speeches that they were told were policy statements from various
sources of varying credibility made for the vice chancellor. The tapes with
high personal involvement stated that there would be a policy change next year,
and the tapes with low personal involvement that there would be a policy change
in 10 years time. The subject’s attitude to the argument presented after
listening to the speech was then measured. They found that messages with high
involvement and strong arguments produced the most favourable responses. They
also found that the quality of the arguments in the message primarily
influenced attitudes when there was high personal involvement. When there was
low personal involvement, expertise of the source primarily influenced
attitudes.
So why was Urvashi Vaid’s speech so
persuasive? Because of the high personal involvement. The need for gay rights
throughout America is huge, and the people at the march would have a high stake
in the outcome.
Oliver Stoney
References
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Effects of
forewarning of persuasive intent and involvement on cognitive responses and
persuasion. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 5, 173-176.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R.
(1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of personality and social psychology,
41(5), 847.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.