The above advert promotes the health benefits of adhering to the
Mediterranean diet. In order to persuade viewers of the health benefits of this
diet choice, the advert utilises several persuasive techniques.
Firstly, the title uses a rhetorical question, as rhetorical questions
have been shown to lead to more favourable attitudes towards a persuasive
message when strong arguments are presented (Burnkrant & Howard, 1984).
The rhetorical question at the start of the advert also uses social
consensus as a persuasive technique. Research has found that being shown that a
large number of other people are performing a behaviour results in increased
compliance when requested to perform that behaviour, as it provides social
proof of what is the “correct” thing to do (Reingen, 1982). The statement
“millions are living longer than you” utilises this technique by highlighting
the high number of long-lived populations who have benefited from this diet
choice. This use of social consensus aims to use the large number of long-lived
populations adhering to the Mediterranean diet (or similar diets) to strengthen
the argument that such a diet is the “correct” choice in terms of health
outcomes, etc.
Another key persuasive technique used in the advert is a fear appeal.
Persuasive messages containing appeals to negative emotions such as fear have
been shown to be highly effective, particularly when such messages include
recommendations for avoiding the fearful consequence (Maddux & Rogers,
1983; Pratkanis, 2007). The advert uses this technique by comparing the two
“choices” of either following this diet choice or contracting heart disease and
various other serious conditions. Combined with a fairly graphic image of the
physiology of a heart attack, this fear appeal aims to instil a strong
emotional reaction in the audience, and also offers (dietary) recommendations
for how viewers can avoid these fear-inducing outcomes.
The advert acknowledges that “A diet full of fast food, red meat
and saturated fat might seem like the easy option”, which is then countered by
reiterating the serious health implications, given which the audience “can’t
afford NOT to make the switch”. In doing so, the advert makes use of the
“defusing objections technique”, in which the audience’s likely objections to a
persuasive message are refuted before they are even raised: This technique has
been shown to increase the persuasiveness of messages in areas such as climate
change (Pardini & Katzev, 1986). The advert identifies one of the
audience’s possible objections to the message (processed, fattening foods are perhaps easier to prepare), and then refutes this possible objection – in the
long-term, extremely poor health and reduced life expectancy hardly seems like
an “easier” option.
By stating “Mortality or Longevity: You are free to make your choice”,
the advert utilises the “but you are free to… technique” (Pratkanis, 2007).
Research has shown that when individuals are made aware that they are free to
“say no” or choose freely between several options, this can increase the
effectiveness of the message in changing behaviour (Guéguen & Pascual,
2000). It is made clear to viewers of the advert that they are free to choose
between the dietary choices presented, which should increase the persuasiveness
of the message according to the above-cited research. The bottom statement also
aims to strengthen the aforementioned use of fear appeal. Additionally, the
statement (as well as the advert in general) employs the perceptual contrast
principle (Cialdini, 2007), according to which people make judgements based on
relative, not absolute quantities. The advert makes use of this principle by
contrasting the health benefits of the Mediterranean diet with the negative
consequences of following a diet high in saturated fats, etc., and thereby aims
to make the health benefits of the MD appear greater in contrast to developing
the list of diseases the diet could be used to prevent.
Finally, the advert in general uses information from experts (medical
journals), as persuasive messages have been shown to be more effective when
coming from a credible source (Hovland & Weiss, 1951), and it also makes use
of multiple arguments to convince viewers of the Mediterranean diet’s health benefits
(prevents heart disease, cancer, diabetes, premature mortality, etc.), as presenting a
greater number of arguments has also been shown to increase the effectiveness
of a persuasive message (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984).
References:
Burnkrant, R. E., & Howard, D. J. (1984). Effects of the use of introductory rhetorical questions versus statements on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1218-1230.
Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence:
The psychology of persuasion. New
York: Collins.
Guéguen N. and Pascual A. (2000),
Evocation of freedom and compliance: The "But you are free of…"
technique, Current Research in Social Psychology, 5, 264-270.
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of
source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.
Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection
motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude
change. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(5), 469-479.
Pardini, A. U., & Katzev, R. D. (1986). Applying
full-cycle social psychology to consumer marketing: The defusing objections
technique. Journal
of Economic Psychology, 7(1), 87-94.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of
involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and
peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 46(1), 69-81.
Pratkanis, A. R. (Ed.). (2007). The
science of social influence: Advances and future progress. Psychology Press.
Reingen, P. H. (1982). Test of a list procedure for inducing
compliance with a request to donate money. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 67(1), 110-118.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.