Persuading others in different communication media: appeals to logic, authority and emotion.

Purpose: Scholars of persuasion have long made a distinction between appeals to logic, emotion and authority- logos, ethos and pathos- but ideas developed to account for live face-to-face conversation processes must also be tested in new media. We aimed to test the effectiveness of these three strategies in one-to-one chats through different communication media. Design/methodology/approach: With a 3 × 3 × 2 between-subject factorial design, we tested these three strategies in one-to-one chats (female–female or male–male pairs) through three communication media: face-to-face, Skype video or Skype text. The persuasion scenario was adapted from prior studies in which students were presented with the idea of requiring a comprehensive exam as part of their degree. The participants were all undergraduate students of a major university in USA. Findings: Our results showed trivial differences between female–female and male–male conditions. The logos appeal worked best overall in persuading the participants to change their reported attitudes. Additionally, the explanations provided by the participants for their own opinions were most like the persuasion scripts in the logos condition compared to the other two appeal conditions. Separately, participants indicated some disapproval of the pathos appeal in the text-based chat condition, although this did not seem to make a difference in terms of actual attitude change. Research limitations/implications: One major limitation of our study is that our subjects are college students and therefore are not representative of Internet users in general. Future research should test these three types of persuasion strategies on people of diverse backgrounds. For example, while logos seems to be most effective strategy in persuading college students (at least in our study), pathos or ethos may be more effective when one attempts to persuade people of different backgrounds. Practical implications: Although it is enough for a statistical test, our sample size is still relatively small due to constraints on time, personnel and funding. We also recognize that it is challenging both conceptually and empirically to compare the effectiveness of three persuasion strategies separately. Social implications: Our findings suggest it is helpful to use fact-checking tools to combat disinformation in cases where users may not have sufficient domain knowledge or may not realize the need to identify or examine the given information. Additionally, it may require more effort to negate the impact of the disinformation spread than correcting the information, as some users may not only believe false information but also may start to reason in ways similar to those presented in the disinformation messages. Originality/value: Past studies on online persuasion have limitedly examined whether and how communication media and persuasion strategies interact in one-to-one persuasion sessions. Our experiment makes an attempt to close this gap by examining the persuasion process and outcome in three different communication media and with three different persuasion strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]