Skip to main content
Log in

Conviction, Persuasion, and Argumentation: Untangling the Ends and Means of Influence

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This essay offers a start on sorting out the relationships of argumentation and persuasion by identifying two systematic ways in which definitions of argumentation differ, namely, their descriptions of the ends and of the means involved in argumentative discourse. Against that backdrop, the traditional “conviction-persuasion” distinction is reassessed. The essay argues that the traditional distinction correctly recognizes the difference between the end of influencing attitudes and that of influencing behavior—but that it misanalyzes the means of achieving the latter (by focusing on emotional arousal) and that it mistakenly contrasts “rational” and “emotional” means of influence. The larger conclusion is that understanding the relationships of the phenomena of argumentation and persuasion will require close attention to characterizations of communicative ends and means.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albarracin, D., B.T. Johnson, M. Fishbein, and P.A. Muellerleile. 2001. Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 127: 142–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alemi, F., S.A. Alemagno, J. Goldhagen, L. Ash, B. Finkelstein, A. Lavin, J. Butts, and A. Ghadiri. 1996. Computer reminders improve on-time immunization rates. Medical Care 34: OS45–OS51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, R.E., S.C. Franckowiak, J. Snyder, S.J. Bartlett, and K.R. Fontaine. 1998. Can inexpensive signs encourage the use of stairs? Results from a community intervention. Annals of Internal Medicine 129: 363–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 322BC/2007. On rhetoric (trans: Kennedy, G.A.). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Armitage, C.J., and M. Conner. 2001. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology 40: 471–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E., C. Fried, and J. Stone. 1991. Overcoming denial and increasing the intention to use condoms through the induction of hypocrisy. American Journal of Public Health 81: 1636–1638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, G.P., and H.B. Huntington. 1925. The principles of argumentation, 2nd ed. Boston: Ginn and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84: 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, G. 1776. The philosophy of rhetoric. Online edition at: http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/Ulman1/Campbell/.

  • Cardenas, M.P., and B.G. Simons-Morton. 1993. The effect of anticipatory guidance on mothers’ self-efficacy and behavioral intentions to prevent burns caused by hot tap water. Patient Education and Counseling 21: 117–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conner, M., and C.J. Armitage. 1998. Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28: 1429–1464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Young, R. 1989. Exploring the difference between recyclers and non-recyclers: The role of information. Journal of Environmental Systems 18: 341–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, W.T. 1917. Argumentation and debating, rev. ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, P.M., and P. Sheeran. 2006. Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. In Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 38, ed. M.P. Zanna, 69–120. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, K.M., T.B. Gutkin, C.P. Wilson, and R.G. Oats. 1998. Using vicarious experience and verbal persuasion to enhance self-efficacy in pre-service teachers: “Priming the pump” for consultation. School Psychology Quarterly 13: 169–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlan, D., M. McConnell, S. Mullainathan, and J. Zinman. 2010. Getting to the top of mind: How reminders increase saving. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 16205. Available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w16205.pdf.

  • Ketcham, V.A. 1917. The theory and practice of argumentation and debate. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwak, L., S.P.J. Kremers, M.A. van Baak, and J. Brug. 2007. Formation of implementation intentions promotes stair use. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 32: 254–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacEwan, E.J. 1898. The essentials of argumentation. Boston: D. C. Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maibach, E., and J.A. Flora. 1993. Symbolic modeling and cognitive rehearsal: Using video to promote AIDS prevention self-efficacy. Communication Research 20: 517–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niedenthal, P.M., J.P. Tangney, and I. Gavanski. 1994. “If only I weren’t” versus “if only I hadn’t”: Distinguishing shame and guilt in counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67: 585–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M.C. 1996. Aristotle on emotions and rational persuasion. In Essays on Aristotle’s rhetoric, ed. A.O. Rorty, 303–323. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, D.J. 2000. Guilt and social influence. Communication Yearbook 23: 67–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, D.J. 2002. Guilt as a mechanism of persuasion. In The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice, ed. J.P. Dillard, and M. Pfau, 329–344. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, J.M., C. Laycock, and R.L. Scales. 1917. Argumentation and debate. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C. 1959. Pragmatic arguments. Philosophy 34: 18–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roseman, I.J., M.S. Spindel, and P.E. Jose. 1990. Appraisals of emotion-eliciting events: Testing a theory of discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 899–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roseman, I.J., C. Wiest, and T.S. Swartz. 1994. Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67: 206–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, E.Z. 1932. Prolegomena to argumentation: Part II. The historical roots of the problem. Quarterly Journal of Speech 18: 224–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheeran, P., and S. Orbell. 2000. Using implementation intentions to increase attendance for cervical cancer screening. Health Psychology 19: 283–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, M. 1982. When believing means doing: Creating links between attitudes and behavior. In Consistency in social behavior: The Ontario symposium, vol. 2, ed. M.P. Zanna, E.T. Higgins, and C.P. Herman, 105–130. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steadman, L., S. Field, D.R. Rutter, and L. Quine. 2006. An implementation intentions intervention to increase uptake of mammography. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 32: 127–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, J., and N.C. Fernandez. 2008. To practice what we preach: The use of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance to motivate behavior change. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2: 1024–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tangney, J.P., R.S. Miller, L. Flicker, and D.H. Barlow. 1996. Are shame, guilt, and embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70: 1256–1269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.N. 1996. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, K., S.R. Levy, C. Zhu, C. Perhats, A. Handler, and B.R. Flay. 1995. Impact of a school-based AIDS prevention program on young adolescents’ self-efficacy skills. Health Education Research 10: 329–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisse, C.S., A.A. Turbiasz, and D.J. Whitney. 1995. Behavioral training and AIDS risk reduction: Overcoming barriers to condom use. AIDS Education and Prevention 7: 50–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whately, R. 1828. The elements of rhetoric, 2nd ed. Oxford: Murray and Parker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yzer, M.C., J.D. Fisher, A.B. Bakker, F.W. Siero, and S.J. Misovich. 1998. The effects of information about AIDS risk and self-efficacy on women’s intentions to engage in AIDS preventive behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28: 1837–1852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

A version of this paper was presented at the Persuasion and Argumentation symposium, Centre de Recherches sur les Arts et le Langage (CRAL), L’École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS), Paris, September 2010.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel J. O’Keefe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O’Keefe, D.J. Conviction, Persuasion, and Argumentation: Untangling the Ends and Means of Influence. Argumentation 26, 19–32 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9242-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9242-7

Keywords

Navigation