Table Of ContentA HISTORICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE
CONVICTION-PERSUASION CONCEPT
IN PUBLIC SPEAKING
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of the School of Speech
The University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Robert Stuart Griffin
August 1941
UMI Number: DP31952
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Polishing
UMI DP31952
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProOuest
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
This dissertation, written by
...... ROBERT_„STUAOT .......
under the guidance of hLs.. Faculty Committee
on Studies, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by the Council
on Graduate Study and Research, in partial fu l
fillment of requirements for the degree of
DO CTO R OF P H ILO S O P H Y
Dean /
Secretary
3 cl /9
Date
Committee on Studies
Chairman
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. THE PROBLEM . * . . . . . ......... ......... 1
A. Introduction........... 1
B. The problem . .......... 3
Statement of the problem........... . . . 3
Importance of the study . • .............. 3
G. Organization of the remaining chapters • . 4
II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CONVICTION-
PERSUASION CONCEPT ^ . 5
A* The ancients • 5
Aristotle ; . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • 5
Cicero • 7
Quintilian » • • • • • • • • • 10
B. The early English authors 13
Leonard Cox . . . . . . . . ............. 13
Thomas Wilson 13
Hugh Blair • ................. 15
George Campbell • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 17
Richard Whately......... . . ........... 22
C. Earlier textbooks in America • • • • • • • 24
Baker and Huntington * • . . . . . • • • • . 24
Victor Alvin Ketcham • • • • . . . • • • . • 27
Raymond Macdonald Alden • • . • • • • • • • • 28
in
CHAPTER PAGE
William Trufant Foster . . . . . . ........ 30
Arthur Edward Phillips . . . . . . . . . . . 52
D. New theories of persuasion and critics of
the duality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
James Albert Winans . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Mary Tost .................... 36
Charles Henry Woolbert ......... • • 37
Edward Z. Rowell . ........................ 57
William Norwood Brigance • . . . .......... 70
Robert T. Oliver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
E. Later writers of textbooks in argumentation
and debate 79
O’Neill, Laycock, and Scales ............ 80
Warren Choate Shaw • 81
Edwin DuBois Shurter .' ........ . . . . . . 83
Collins and Morris • • . . . • • . 4 . . . . 84
Winans and Utterback . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Charles A. Fritz . . . . . . . ............ 86
O’Neill and McBurney . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Hayworth and Capel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
. Nichols and Baccus ............ 91
A. Craig Baird • • • • . . . . .......... 92
Harold F. Graves . . . . • • . . • . • • • • 95
iv
CHAPTER PAGE
Alan Nichols • 96
P. Summary of the points of view of the
various writers * * . . . . . . . . . . 100
G. Conclusions to historical stud y........ 109
III. AN INTEGRATED EXPOSITION OF THE CONVICTION*.
PERSUASION DICHOTOMY ........ . . . . . . . 112
A. Statement of the problem .............. 112
1. Analysis of the first argument-rational
reasoning 113
Psychological aspects of reasoning . . . . . 113
Relevant similarities 121
G. Analysis of the second argument—
non-rational reasoning • ............ 126
Psychological hedonism and shifting goal-sets
in reasoning • 127
Relevant and irrelevant similarities . . . . 136
Appeals to emotions............. 137
The nature of emotions......... 138
The thalamic theory of emotions.......... 141
Functional decortication . . . . . ........ 143
Irrational reasoning ................... 153
The temporal sequence of reasoning
and emotion 156
V
CHAPTER PAGE
D. Distinctions between conviction and
persuasion . • • • ........... * . • • 157
Conviction and persuasion as perception and
non-perception of relevant similarities . 157
Relevance and the experiential background . 159
E. Reasoning and overt action • . . 161
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
A. Summary ................ 166
B. Conclusions...................... 172
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
A. INTRODUCTION
From the time of Aristotle down to the present writing
the conviction-persuasion concept has occupied a dominant
place in the theory of how hest and most effectively to go
about the task of influencing the beliefs and actions of
those who listen to a speaker* All the writers of treatises
on rhetoric have included the duality in their systems of
rhetoric, although their accounts have differed in various
respects* It remained, however, for the scholars of the £~'
Twentieth Century to challenge the validity of the division.
Today the thinking with respect to conviction and
persuasion is beclouded by controversy. Accounts of the
nature of appeals include a trichotomy of authority-conviction-
persuasion, a dichotomy of conviction-persuasion, and a
monistic interpretation under which there is only one aspect
to the process of influencing others, the process of persuasion.
Conviction is said to be appeals to reason, appeals
to rationality, logical appeal. It occupies the central and
most important place in the process, it occupies only secon- ?
dary place, and it has no place at all in the rhetorical sys
tem. Persuasion has been defined as appeal to feelings,
appeal to emotions, appeal to prejudices, appeal to stereo
types, appeal to subconscious reasoning, appeals to the
Freudian wish— in short, appeals to every category of drive,
urge, desire, motivation, and biological disturbance*
In view of the continuous and almost universal atten
tion given to the concept, it appears that there must be ele
ments in the speaker-audience situation which call forth all
this discussion, agreement, disagreement, and theorizing. It
might have been expected that modern psychology would have
shed much light on the matter, but it appears that quite the
contrary may have been true. Much of the present controversy
appears to have been the result of attempts to criticize the
conviction-persuasion concept in the light of psychological
principles.
The psychologists as a group have not been directly
concerned with the process. Their efforts have been directed
largely at discovering basic facts of human behavior which
underlie all forms of human activity. Their work has passed
the stage of dependence upon theorizing alone, and they have
retired to the laboratory. Their experimental findings have
been piecemeal, often the results of experiments on animals;
and these findings may or may not lend themselves to inter
pretation of human behavior; Those who have attempted to
deal with conviction-persuasion in the light of psychological
facts have found those facts often too scanty to justify
5
valid reasoning based upon them; On the other hand, the avail
able facts may not have been adequately utilized.
B. THE PROBLEM
Statement of the problem. It was the purpose of this
study (1) to review historically the theorizing that has tak-
en place as to the nature of the conviction-persuasion con
cept and its place in a system of rhetoric; (£) to examine
the available psychological evidence as it relates to the
concept with the view of arriving at a better understanding
of the process of Influencing others through the spoken word;
(3) to indicate; if possible, the unanswered questions upon
the answers to which must depend the final understanding of
the process.
Importance of the study. It would be difficult to
overemphasize the importance to the field of speech of a
clarification of the process by which others are influenced
by the spoken word. It constitutes the very foundation of
the training of public speakers. It is the basis upon which
all systems of rhetoric must inevitably rest. If public
speaking is to be effective and efficient, it must be founded
upon accurate knowledge of the entire process by which people
are induced to respond to a speaker’s words, to change their
beliefs and their modes of behavior. As Harris stated the
matter:
