Talk:Persuasion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

This article just jumps into "Methods"[edit]

I think the article would benefit from elaboration on persuasion before it jumps into "Methods." How about a history section, a section on notable examples of mass persuasion or persuasion in experimental settings, etc.... Have a look at the rhetoric page, which seems to be much more fleshed out. I also take issue with the Methods section taking information from just two books. Are these the preeminent works in the field? Finally, the neurobiology section doesn't have much background. Requiredforclass (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the list of methods, but I agree that there should be a more explicit definition of persuasion, including some history, before jumping into methods. I also think a couple examples of persuasion would be useful, taken from multiple sources to achieve a balanced view. Propaganda should not be included in methods, but in its own section. If the idea is to make connections between persuasion and similar themes, perhaps that might be the heading with more than one similar concept. Finally, if the neurobiology of persuasion is included, the psychology of persuasion should definitely be in there. Best, K-BlueHerring (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Trying to get some one to do something[edit]

You may rest your mind on that point: "most romantic" is definitely a better characterisation than "most brutal". May I join you in telling the academic to grow up? —Paul A 06:56, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Anthony Pratkanis[edit]

The article about Anthony Pratkanis professor of persuasion has been started, he is the author of The book Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. Anthony pratkanis and elliot aronson (editors).SriMesh | talk 02:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Systems of persuasion for the purpose of seduction?[edit]

This section appears to be wishful thinking and doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia standards on the basis of substantiation and/or original thinking. One would have to clarify what exactly are "Systems of persuasion", what is the basis for defining them as such, and where is the evidence that they actually lead to persuasion. I marked this section dubious and added a note. I'll delete it unless such explanation is provided. TippTopp (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Potential Scholarly Peer-reviewed Journal Articles to Enhance Article[edit]

Friestad, Marian; Wright, Peter. Everyday persuasion knowledge. Psychology & Marketing16. 2 (Mar 1999): 185.

Lyttle, Jim. The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics training. The Journal of General Psychology128. 2 (Apr 2001): 206-16.

Yoo, Chan Yun. THE EFFECTS OF PERSUASION KNOWLEDGE ON CLICK-THROUGH OF KEYWORD SEARCH ADS: MODERATING ROLE OF SEARCH TASK AND PERCEIVED FAIRNESS. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly86. 2 (Summer 2009): 401-418.

Murphy, P Karen; Alexander, Patricia A. Persuasion As a Dynamic, Multidimensional Process: An Investigation of Individual and Intraindividual Differences. American Educational Research Journal41. 2(Summer 2004): 337-363.

Sinclair, Robert C.; Mark, Melvin M.; Clore, Gerald L.Mood-Related Persuasion Depends on (Mis)Attributions. Social Cognition12. 4 (Dec 1994): 309-326.

Watkins, M. (2001). Principles of persuasion. Negotiation Journal, 17(2), 115-137. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/205148964?accountid=12935

Leding, Juliana K.False memories and persuasion strategies. Review of General Psychology16. 3 (Sep 2012): 256-268.

mmm.designs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

As this is such a large topic, you will need to make sure that your sources concentrate in one narrow area. I don't know this area well, so I don't know if they do, but that is something worth checking out. Wadewitz (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree. It will be much easier if you pick one section to add or improve in this article. Clevwiki (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Taking the comments into consideration, I decided to focus on one article to improve to improve/add things (1) introduction to Persuasion so we do not have to jump straight to methods and (2) Culture Specific Everday Persuasion. I am going to be using this article: Friestad, Marian; Wright, Peter. Everyday persuasion knowledge. Psychology & Marketing16. 2 (Mar 1999): 185. This is an aced mix per-reviewed article that has been cited 43 times.

Outline of Talking Points or Subsections within part 2

1. Sociocognitive resources and sociocultural

2. Persuasion tactics and culture

3. Researchers andDiffusion into culture

4. Persuasion Expertise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.69.132.56 (talk) 06:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Do be sure that you use more than one source. Remember that Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect a range of views, not just one. Otherwise, this looks good. (Remember to login when you edit!) Wadewitz (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what culture specific everyday persuasion means, are you saying you will just focus on our own culture? If so, be careful as your audience is international. Try to find related sources on the same specific subtopic. Clevwiki (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A definition of persuasion[edit]

I have changed the definition of persuasion in accordance with two thinkers on the subject, who uphold an "expanded" meaning of the term. It appears to encompass the majority of definitions by published sources. The definition in this article has been simplified to:

"Persuasion is the influence of beliefs, attitudes, intentions, motivations, or behaviors,"

from

"Persuasion involves one or more persons who are engaged in the activity of creating, reinforcing, modifying, or extinguishing beliefs, attitudes, intentions, motivations, and/or behaviors within the constraints of a given communication context."

Since the subject constitutes a fuzzy concept, feel free to change this and future definitions. Moreover, I believe a distinction between persuasion and rhetoric could be useful. NTox (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Left ear advantage[edit]

The article states there is a persuasive advantage to talking in the left ear. Every reference I have found online states that the advantage is for the right ear. Can someone verify which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.106.108 (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Overhaul to Come[edit]

Hello everyone, I just wanted to inform people that I and three other college students who are taking a upper-level course on Persuasion and Propoganda will be drastically editting this page for a class. The changes I speak of are mostly additive, as our professor feels (and we agree) this page is severely lacking. If you would like to know more about what specific changes we are planning, feel free to ask. Otherwise, we will begin our project soon.

CalvinG1rl (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)CalvinG1rl

Hello all, I have been teaching Influence and Persuasion for many years, and currently we are following a course on wiki. So, I'm a novice to wiki pages and although I made changes to this page, apparently according to the professor, I did not follow wiki code or rules of conduct. So, please don't completely get rid of everything I have added, I will come back another day and put some real thought into how I could add to this page in a positive way...thanks for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhansonfbs (talkcontribs) 16:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't understand sentence[edit]

The show that it can only be from golan thought is that it will affect how people view certain products, knowing that most purchases are made on the basis of emotion What is this sentence trying to say? --Ephi (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)