CMJR 350 Week 7 Questions:

Questions for week 7 readings:

IN CHAPTER 6 OF PERSUASION AND INFLUENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE:

            On page 135 the concept of attitudes are discussed and the idea that some phobias or personality traits may cause people to be “predisposed toward certain attitudes” (Woodward & Denton 135). The next few pages then discuss the link between attitudes and behavior. At the bottom of page 135 three factors are listed as possible link between attitudes and behaviors. The first is the idea of situational factors being the strongest influence. The argument is that social roles and values guide “what we say and how we say it” (Woodward & Denton 135). The second factor is defined as individual differences and the last factor is the specificity of linkage as having the ability to influence behavior based on attitudes.

My question is: do you think it is possible for a person with phobias and personality traits that are predetermined to change their behavior based on any 1 of the 3 factor listed for determining behavior based on attitudes? What I am getting at is the idea that just because someone is “predisposed toward certain attitudes” doesn’t mean they will necessarily adopt those beliefs and act out accordingly. If this is true how strong do you think the 3 listed factors are in determining if an attitude is responsible for a human action? Take the example of a mentally ill patient and put logic aside, which factor do you think would be the most influential in determining how that person acts out a behavior based on an attitude. Or do you think that behavior and attitudes can be completely unrelated and unexplainable for the actions of some people?

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RHETORICAL IMAGES BY CHARLES A. HILL:

            At the bottom of Page 26 Hill states that, “If images, by their nature, prompt irrational and unreflective responses, then they are best avoided rather than studied closely, and they certainly have no place in the classroom, where the goal is to help students develop useful and sound reasoning habits” (Hill 26-27). Do you agree with this statement? My question is: how can anyone determine if an image prompts irrational and unreflective responses? Unless, I missed something, telepathy isn’t one of our human qualities. At least not on this plant; so how is it possible to know if an image promotes an irrational and unreflective response? I didn’t see Hill discuss this any further in his chapter and I’m anxious to know how this was determined? Can it also be argued that these so called images that are best avoided STILL have a place in the classroom to be studied? After all, how can students be taught that visual images promote irrational and unreflective responses unless students are told and shown that certain images DO promote irrational and unreflective responses? Is it possible to construct an image solely for the purpose to be viewed as irrational and unreflective? What might that say about the image and the study of rhetoric pertaining to that idea?

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RHETORICAL IMAGES BY CHARLES A. HILL:

            Another interesting concept I discovered was the idea of presence in visual rhetoric (page 28). Presence is the idea that certain objects or concepts are emphasized more than others in the consciousness of audience members in a rhetorical situation. In other words, depending on the audience, they might have a tendency to take certain objects, ideas or concepts into account more than others. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca argue that, “skillful rhetors attempt to increase the presence of elements in the rhetorical situation that are favorable to their claim because they know that elements with enhanced presence will have a great influence over the audience’s attitudes and beliefs” (Hill 28). It is even argued that a really good rhetor is able to get the audience to focus on only the presence of events that the rhetor wants the audience to focus on. This essentially allows for an audience to only see what the rhetor wants them to see in a given rhetorical situation. This ties into the idea of attitudes influencing behavior discussed in question 1 on chapter 6 in PERSUASION AND INFLUENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE.

My question is: how do you think Barack Obama has used presence in his presidential campaign and how much do you think that influence will impact the actual voting behavior of specific target audiences where presence might have been used more exclusively? Maybe by the time you answer this question you will have a much better idea of JUST HOW effective the Obama campaign has been in using presence. Watch for the results of this Tuesday night and see if you can offer some explanation using the idea of presence to influence attitudes and beliefs that might lead to voting behavior!