Demonstrate an understanding of the theories of persuasion in rhetoric and communication.

As you learned in chapter one, persuasion isn’t merely a tool used by con artists and cult leaders. Many professional persuaders are engaged in socially acceptable , if not downright respectable careers. They include advertising executives, bloggers, campaign managers, celebrity endorsers, clergy, congresspersons among several others. For this assignment, you will analyze the various persuasive technics used primarily by advertisers and content creators. The purpose of this assignment is to help you identify the connections between persuasive theories and how they are used in everyday commercials around us. After the assignment, you will be able to:
Demonstrate an understanding of the theories of persuasion in rhetoric and communication.
Demonstrate an understanding of persuasive techniques and be able to explain why they work or fail in specific cultural contexts
______________________________________________________________________________
Guidelines
Select One TV commercial or (e)magazine advertisements and analyze them through the lens of one or two of the concepts or theories discussed in the textbook. The paper should be organized using the following format.
Title Page
Do not just write, “Application Paper 1.” Come up with something creative based on your theory/concept selection
Introduction
Preview what you are about to say in this essay.
Second Paragraph
Explain the theory/concept, process, principle of persuasion, social influence, and/or compliance gaining being used and justification for its use (e.g., why is this theory appropriate for use with this commercial or advertisement). In this section, you may select any theory, concept, principle, or process covered in the lecture and in the text. Make sure to explain the theory and how it works. Incorporate 2-3 outside sources (such as peer-reviewed academic articles, credible news sites and videos that help you explain the concept. As a rule of thumb, always go to the primary source of the concept. Do not rely on secondary sources to explain the concept)
Note: While only using the textbook as a source will help you complete the assignment with a good grade, papers with an excellent grade do further research and use outside academic sources that utilize the same concepts to expand the textbook’s explanation of the concept.
Third Paragraph.
Once you have clearly explained the concept(s), describe and summarize the key part(s) of your chosen advertisement. You do not have to tell the reader everything about the media artifact you have chosen. You can just tell us about the most important facets of the artifact that relates to the concept/theory you have chosen. Also, explain the context of its production. Is this commercial related to a particular social issue or cultural moment? How does the context influence its consumption? In other words, how would people interpret the commercial because of the cultural context. These early paragraphs should merely summarize the information presented (wait until the next section to “apply” the concepts).
Fourth Paragraph
In this part of the paper, show us the reader how the concept is being illustrated in the news article, TV show, program, or movie. What part(s) made you think about each concept? The type of experience I’m referring to here is of the sort: “That sounds just like what we were reading and discussing in class.” Then you Explain the Connection. What made you see this link and help us to see it as you did? This takes some real critical thinking skill and is what is meant by “application.” You are using the reading concepts to help us understand (or “frame”) a particular persuasive “puzzle” that arose in the commercial.
Note: Using specific quotes and intricate descriptions and meanings of color, slogans, situations, dialogue among others will really help you to clearly demonstrate the connection to your concepts. Using two or three quotations, words can help you to explain what specifically made you think that the concept was being illustrated in this particular part of the artifact.
Fifth paragraph
(This is not your conclusion). Ethical Implications – what have we learned from this analysis? What ethical implications emerge from your analysis? For example: Does Budweiser’s use of sexist language in their commercial further the oppression of women? Does Peta’s shocking visual imagery help it to further the animal rights movement? Using what you know so far about the ethical implications of persuasion, is the motive appropriate?
Last Paragraph:
Conclude the paper with a summary of your main points. What insights do you want the reader to take away from your paper? What should the reader really remember about what you’ve said in the paper?
You will be evaluated on how clearly and concisely you explain the theory, concept, principle, or process, and how meaningful and relevant your application of the particular theory is.
Writing style matters. The citation format for this class is APA. You should carefully proof-read your paper for typographical, spelling, and grammatical errors. If you cite material from the text, indicate the page number(s). If you cite sources outside the text, provide complete references. Direct quotations require page numbers.
Assignment Specifics
Double-Spaced
2-3 pages
Times New Roman
Reference Page Required.
Embed the image or a link to your artifact in the assignment
492 Application Paper Rubric
492 Application Paper Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Introduction
5 pts
Exceptional
Introduction grabs interest of reader and states topic. Thesis is exceptionally clear, well-developed, and a definitive statement.

Introduction is interesting and states a topic of relevance but still vague. Thesis is somewhat clear and contains an arguable statement of position.

Basic introduction that states topic but lacks interest. Thesis is somewhat clear and arguable.

Weak introduction/paper’s purpose is unclear/thesis is weak or missing.

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Content/Knowledge

Paper is exceptionally researched, contains 2-3 peer reviewed articles. The 2-3 articles relate to the thesis argument in a logical manner. References are correctly cited

Information relates to the main topic but the connections between thesis and researched information is not entirely clear. Nonetheless, paper appears to be well-researched

Researched information relates to the main topic, but few details and/or examples are given. Shows a limited variety of sources. References are not cited correctly

Researched information has little or nothing to do with the thesis. Information has weak or no connection to the thesis. References are not cited correctly.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Content application: Support of Thesis and Analysis
15 pts
Exceptional
Paper is exceptionally analytical, relevant and consistent connections made between evidence and thesis and persuasive theory
12 pts
Proficient
Consistent connections made between evidence and thesis but arguments are not regularly circled back to the theory
10 pts
Good
Some connections made between evidence and thesis. But overall, connection to theory is not clearly established or it lacks logical coherency.
8 pts
Developing
Paper has limited or no connections made between evidence, theory and thesis. Basically, there is a lack of analysis.
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Conclusion
5 pts
Exceptional
Excellent summary of thesis argument, body with concluding ideas that impact reader. Introduces no new information.
4 pts
Proficient
Good summary of topic with clear concluding ideas. Conclusion introduces no new information.
3 pts
Good
Basic summary of topic with some final concluding ideas. Introduces no new information.
2 pts
Developing
lack of summary of topic.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Writing and Reference Guidelines
5 pts
Exceptional
Writing is clear and relevant, with no grammatical and/or spelling errors – polished and professional. Reference section properly formatted.
4 pts
Proficient
Most ideas are stated clearly and are related to the topic, with only minor grammatical and/or spelling errors. Reference section adequate.
3 pts
Good
Many ideas require clarification and/or are off-topic or have marginal relevance to the assignment. Many grammatical and/or spellings errors throughout the paper. The paper is very challenging to read due to poor writing flow. Improper reference section.
2 pts
Developing
Paper does not meet the criteria for the assignment (too short or incomplete, too long, and/or completely off-topic). Reference section missing.
5 pts
Total Points: 50
Mia S.
a few seconds ago
I would like the title on the cover page to be Certified Money Maker
Mia S.
a few seconds ago
Textbook Info:
“Did you know that roughly one in four advertisements features a famous person (Elberse & Verleun, 2012; Spry, Pappu, & Cornwall, 2011)? Were you aware that approximately 10 percent of all advertising expenditures go to pay celebrity endorsers (Agrawal & Kamakura, 1995)? Nike alone spends about $500 million per year on celebrity endorsements (Bruno, 2011). Celebrities and athletes with a high Q-Score (their selling quotient)1 can command salaries in millions of dollars. No wonder Berger (2011) claims we now live in a celebritocracy.
Considering all the money that is spent on celebrity endorsements, you might be wondering whether they actually work. When asked, most consumers claim they would never buy a product based on a celebrity endorser’s say-so (Study finds …, 2000). However, consumers may be more susceptible than they think. Indeed, a phenomenon known as the third-person effect reveals that people underestimate the effect advertising has on themselves and overestimate its effect on others (Jensen & Collins, 2008; Shin & Kim, 2011).
A recent meta-analysis (Knoll & Mathis, 2017) found that celebrity endorsements improved consumers’ attitudes toward endorsed products, but not necessarily their intentions to purchase those products. Another study found that endorser credibility has a significant effect on brand equity, which refers to the value attached to a particular brand (Spry, Pappu, & Cornwall, 2011). According to one study (Elberse & Verleun, 2012), endorsers boost sales by about 20 percent on average. Celebrity endorsers appear to be most effective at promoting new products and services rather than established brands (Djafarova & Rushworth, 2017; Kumkale, Albarracín, & Seignourel, 2010). If celebrities didn’t yield profits, advertisers wouldn’t use them.
That said, some people argue that celebrity endorsers are losing their clout. Why? Consumers are relying more and more on social networks than spokespersons (Weir, 2011). In fact, some people rate bloggers as more credible than traditional news media (O’Neil & Eisenmann, 2017). Even so, celebrities with large numbers of followers, such as Kim Kardashian, Taylor Swift, and Justin Bieber, have considerable online clout.”
Mia S.
a few seconds ago
“The match-up hypothesis suggests that an endorser must be a good “fit” for the brand being endorsed (Kamins & Gupta, 1994; Koernig & Boyd, 2009; Till & Busler, 2000). As such, Usain Bolt, the “world’s fastest man,” is a natural choice for Gatorade. Likewise, Justin Bieber’s huge fan base of young “Beliebers” makes him a good choice for Proactiv skin-care products.
One explanation of why celebrities should fit the brands they endorse stems from the meaning transfer perspective. According to this view, an endorser’s public persona is projected onto a brand. The brand’s image is then incorporated into the consumer’s self-concept (McCracken, 1986, 1989). By way of illustration, Ellen DeGeneres danced her way through one of American Express’s “My Life, My Card” commercials. Independent-minded consumers who see themselves as “dancing to their own tune” can identify with DeGeneres, whom they see as successful while doing her own thing.

Catch a Falling Star
Of course, there can be a downside to relying on well-known celebrities, athletes, or other famous figures. What happens if a famous person becomes embroiled in a scandal or a legal proceeding? When former Subway pitchman, Jared Fogle, was charged with distributing kiddie porn, the company tossed him like wilted lettuce. After it was revealed that celebrity chef Paula Dean made racist remarks off air, Home Depot and other sponsors dumped her like a pan of hot grease. Following news reports that Olympian Ryan Lochte falsely claimed that he was robbed at gunpoint during the 2016 Olympics, the swimmer’s stock with Speedo and Polo Ralph Lauren sunk like a stone.
As these examples clearly show, if a celebrity, athlete, journalist, or politician is tainted by scandal, it can rub off on the sponsor’s credibility (Till & Shimp, 1998). To avoid the risk and expense of actual endorsers, many companies rely on fictional spokespersons. Aunt Jemima would never engage in insider trading. The Geico gecko will never be arrested for sexual assault. Mr. Clean won’t ever test positive for steroid use, and the Keebler elves won’t be charged with child pornography in an undercover sting operation. Having examined the downside of relying too heavily on credibility as a tool of persuasion, let’s consider more carefully what it actually is and how it actually works.
WHAT IS CREDIBILITY?
O’Keefe (2002) defines credibility as “judgments made by a perceiver (e.g., a message recipient) concerning the believability of a communicator” (p. 181). We suggest that this definition should be extended to institutions as well. Private companies and governmental agencies also have images to protect. They want to be viewed favorably, too. In addition, it should be recognized that in face-to-face encounters there are really two sources whose credibility is at stake, because each party to the interaction is simultaneously a sender and a receiver of messages.
Credibility Is a Receiver-Based Construct
An important feature of O’Keefe’s definition is the recognition that credibility is a receiver-based construct. Credibility exists in the eye of the beholder. For example, Edward Snowden may be perceived as a heroic whistleblower by some, and as a publicity-seeking traitor by others. A celebrity who takes a strong political stand may be cheered by some and jeered by others. In short, if these folks are credible, it is because we bestow credibility on them. Modifying a time-worn philosophical question, one might ask, “If a source stood in the middle of a forest and there were no one around to perceive him or her, would there be any credibility?” Our answer is no. Different sources possess different abilities and attributes, but the value assigned to these abilities and attributes resides in the receiver, not in the source. Credibility is a perceptual phenomenon.

Credibility Is a Multidimensional Construct
A second important feature of credibility is that it is not a unidimensional construct —that is, it is not made up of only one element. Credibility represents a composite of several characteristics that others perceive in a source. Credibility is a multidimensional construct. An analogy may serve to clarify. Imagine that you were trying to define athleticism. It would be difficult to single out only one thing that makes an individual athletic. Athleticism requires strength, coordination, stamina, and quick reflexes, among other things. Similarly, credibility isn’t a single characteristic, but a combination of qualities a source is believed to possess. We discuss these qualities shortly.

Credibility Is a Situational/Contextual Phenomenon
A third feature of credibility is that it is a situational or contextual phenomenon. A persuader’s credibility is subject to change from one audience or setting to another. The very qualities that are admired in a communicator in one setting may be derided in another setting. The president of the National Rifle Association might be well received when speaking before an audience of hunting and fishing enthusiasts. The same source might encounter a hostile reception, however, if he spoke before a group of animal rights advocates. Your own credibility is subject to such situational changes too. You may enjoy more credibility in one context—for example, work, family, friends, school—than in another.

Credibility Is Dynamic
Credibility can change over time. For example, in his first 100 days in office, the public’s disapproval of President Donald Trump increased 11 percent, from 41 to 55 percent (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/). It is important to recognize, then, that credibility is dynamic: It fluctuates over time. A source’s credibility can change even during the course of a single speech, sales pitch, or boardroom presentation.
THE FACTOR ANALYTIC APPROACH TO CREDIBILITY
Just as chefs are interested in what ingredients go into award-winning recipes, persuasion researchers have tried to determine the “ingredients,” or underlying dimensions, of credibility. In fact, as long ago as 380 BCE, Aristotle proclaimed in The Rhetoric that the ingredients “which inspire confidence in the orator’s character … that induce us to believe a thing apart from any proof of it … [are] good sense, good moral character, and good will” (1378). Aristotle wasn’t far off the mark.
In the 1960s and 1970s researchers began to use a statistical technique known as factor analysis to uncover the underlying dimensions or ingredients of credibility. Controversy emerged during this period over how many credibility dimensions there were and what they should be called (Cronkhite & Liska, 1976; Pornpitakpan, 2004). Subsequent investigations, though, have clarified the situation considerably, if not completely.
Primary Dimensions of Credibility
There is now fairly solid evidence that there are three primary dimensions of credibility that almost always apply to the evaluation of sources. There are also multiple secondary dimensions that are more situation specific. To enhance your own credibility, you should focus on these primary dimensions. The secondary dimensions may or may not matter depending on your particular situation. The scale items used to measure these dimensions can be found in Box 4.1.
Expertise
The first primary dimension of credibility is expertise (McCroskey, 1966; Pornpitakpan, 2004). To be credible, a persuader must know his or her stuff or, at least, appear to know his or her stuff. Sometimes a title alone, such as MD, PhD, or CPA, can confer credibility on a source. You have to be careful, though; not all titles mean what they say. For example, a person who uses the prefix Dr., may not be a medical doctor or an academic. Honorary doctoral degrees are sometimes awarded by universities, but only as a form of recognition. Kermit the Frog, for instance, received an honorary doctorate of “amphibious letters” from South Hampton College. What’s more, it isn’t difficult to buy a doctoral degree online from a non-accredited institution (Bartlett & Smallwood, 2014). And, of course, some “doctors,” like Dr. Dre, Doc Rivers, and Doc Marten are simply nicknames.
”
Textbook citation info: Persuasion Social Influence and Compliance Gaining
Robert H Gass; John S Seiter
Needs to be apa cited and include references

Last Completed Projects