PART ONE: THEORETICAL PREMISESLebacqz, K. (1985). Projessiorud ethics. Nashville, TN:Abingdon Press.Levitt, T. (1974). The morality ( 0 of advertising. InJ. S. Wright &D. S. Mertes (Eds.), Advertising’s rolein society (pp. 278–289). St. Paul, MN: West.Ludwig, A. (1965). The importance of lying. Springfield,IL: Charles C. Thomas.Luthin, R. (1959). American demagogues (rPt. cd.).Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.McMillan, J. E. (1963). Ethics and advertising. In J. S.Wright &D. S. Warner (Eds. ), Speaking of advertis-ing (pp. 453–458). New York: McGraw-Hill.Merrill, J. C., & Odell, S. J. (1983). Philosophy and jour-nalism. New York: Longman.Miller, C., & Swift, K. (1981). The handbook of nonsex-ist writing. New York: Barnes and Noble.Minnick, W. C. (1968). The art of persuasion (2nd cd.).Boston Houghton Mifflin.Niebuhr, H. R. (1963). The responsibk self. New York:Harper & Row.Nilsen, T. R. ( 1974). Ethics of speech communication(2nd cd.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Memill.Nimmo, D. (1981). Ethical issues in political commu-nication. Communication, 6, 187 –206.1974/75 roster and organization of the American Associa-tion of Advertising Agencies. (1974). New York:AAAA.Oliver, R. T. (1957). The psychology of persuasive speech(2nd cd.). New York: Longmans, Green.Oran, D. (1975). law dictionary for nonkwqers. St.Paul, MN: West.Pennock, J. R. (1960). The problem of responsibility.In C. J. Friedrich (Ed.), hJomos HI: Responsibi~ity(pp. 3-27). New York: Liberal Arts Press.Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. ( 1969). The newrhetoric. Notre Dame, IN: University of NotreDame Press.Pincoffs, E. L. (1975). On being responsible for whatone says. Paper presented at Speech Communica-tion Association convention, Dec. Houston, TX.Qualter, T. H. ( 1962). Propaganda and psychological war-fare. New York: Random House.Rakow, L. (1994). The future of the field: Finding ourmission. Address presented at Ohio State Univer-sity, May 13.Ross, R. S., & Ross, M. G. (1982). Relating and inter-acting. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Rothwell, J. D. (1982). Telling it like it isn’t: Languagemisuse and malpractice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Spec-trum Books.Samuelson, R. J. (1994). Clinton—passionate hyp-ocrite. Washington Post National Weekly Edition, Jan-uary 24–30, 28.Samuelson, R. J. ( 1995). Clinton, the deficit and thetruth. Washington Post National Weekly Edition, No-vember 27 –December 3, 5.Schwartz, T. (1974). The responsive cbd. Garden City,NY: Anchor Books.Shorris, E. (1977). The fourth estate. Harper’s, Oct.,p. 106.Thompson, W. (1975). The process of persumion. NewYork: Harper & Row.Toulmin, S. (1950). An examination of the place of rea-son in ethics. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.Wallace, K. R. (1955). An ethical basis of communi-cation. Speech Teacher, 4, 1 –9.Wellman, C. (1988). Morals and ethics (2nd cd.). En-glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Werkmeister, W. H. ( 1957). An introduction to miticalthinking (rev. ed. ). Lincoln, NE: Johnson.Williams, H. M. (1974) What do we do now, boss?Marketing and advertising. Viral Speeches of the Day,40, 285-288.Wood, J. T. (1994). Gendered lives: Communication)gender, and cukure. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.3Approaches to fd~r..Research in Persuasion*~ ;...●●Permanence and change exist in the world ofpersuasion, and the same holds true for research inpersuasion — some ancient theories and conceptshave current validity and usefulness, while new the-ories and concepts continue to emerge as explana-tions for persuasive events. Knowledge of these es-tablished and emerging theories should help you tobecome a more critical persuadee and hence a moreeffective persuader. As we focus on these explana-tions, try to keep in mind that research exists alonga continuum from qualitative/’’artistic” research onone end to quantitative/’’scientific” research on theother (see Table 3.1 ). We will explore samples of thetheory and research typical of various points alongthe continuum. The purpose of the continuum isto provide a simple means for you to “borrow” the-ories to evaluate the many persuasive messagesaimed at you every day by family, friends, advertis-ers, politicians, government, and mass media.“The persuasion!Wearch ContinuumAt the qualitative end of our research continuumare theories that trace their origins to the analy -sis of persuasion (frequently referred to as“rhetoric”) as an “artistic” activity. At the quan-titative end are theories that trace their originsto the rise of the social sciences. They approachpersuasion research and theory as a “scientific”enterprise. Table 3.1 lists several typical charac-teristics of each approach. Additionally, the re-search cited may give you a few clues or ideasin the search for the widely held major premisesin what Aristotle called the enthymeme — theassumption supplied by the audience or persuadeewhile the persuader provides the minor premisethat leads to the audience-drawn conclusion.Human beings have been trying to explain howand why persuasion works, and to define itsethics and its values as well as its dangers for mostof human history. The age-old questions con-cerning the ethical and unethical uses of per-suasion have become even more central to mod-ern life in a highly sophisticated technocracysuch as ours and will continue to be raised aswe approach the twenty-first century. Suchquestions will probably be increasingly difficultto answer because of the awesome powers ofvarious new and old technologies for humancommunicant ion.PART ONE: THEORETICAL PREMISESQuantitative Characteristics ~Qualitative CharacteristicsIndividual interpretation of communication eventGroup interpretation of communication eventPersuasion = ArtPersuasion = ScienceEvaluation/predictionExplanation/predictionLooks for patterns of messages/communicationLooks for patterns of receiver responseExamines types of communicationExamines amounts or quantity of communicationo-Tde 3.1. The continuum of research theories and methodsQualitative ResearchTheory and MethodsWe begin our study of contemporary persuasionby returning to the roots of persuasion research,ancient Greece: where persuasion was essential toall citizens because they had to represent them-selves and their interests before the Greek courts.The Greek city-states were democratic, and thecitizenry had the right to speak out on issues ofthe day. Greek philosophers like Aristotle tried todescribe what happened when persuasion oc-curred, and