Persuasive Communication - How Audiences Decide. 2nd Edition

Person Perception in Audience Decision Making 287

who communicate more shared information are also viewed more favorably by the other members

of the group.^388

One reason shared information enhances a group member’s infl uence is that other group mem-

bers perceive shared information (i.e., the information they too possess) to be more credible and

more valuable than unshared information.^389 Group members also evaluate information that can

be corroborated by other group members more favorably whether or not they personally can cor-

roborate it.^390 However, there is an important exception to the rule. Group members with more

unshared information can be highly infl uential if their unshared information is relevant to the

group’s shared schema.^391

PERSON PERCEPTION IN AUDIENCE DECISION MAKING:

IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNICATORS

• The main takeaway for communicators in Chapter 6 is that audience decisions are based
  in part on audience perceptions of how well the professionals who communicate with
  them play their roles. Audience decisions are also biased by additional communicator
  attributes such as likeability and similarity. Who you are perceived to be can be as impor-
  tant as what you say and how you say it.


• Use the information presented in the chapter to adjust your behaviors and appearance
  to meet audience role expectations and to bias audiences in your favor. Do not expect
  audiences to adjust their biases to suit your personal style.


• Why use the information? To enhance the persuasiveness of your communications. To
  enhance audience perceptions of you as a leader.


• To become competent at the behaviors presented in the chapter, practice them and ask
  the audience for feedback.

Notes

1 Kraus, S. (1996). Winners of the first 1960 televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon. Journal of Com-

munication , 46 , 78–96.

2 McKinnon, L. M., & Tedesco, J. C. (1999). The influence of medium and media commentary on presi-

dential debate effects. In L. L. Kaid & D. G. Bystrom (Eds.), The electronic election: Perspectives on the 1996

campaign communication (pp. 191–206). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McKinnon, L. M., Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (1993). The third 1992 presidential debate: Channel and

commentary effects. Argumentation and Advocacy , 30 , 106–118.

Patterson, M. L., Churchill, M. E., Burger, G. K., & Powell, J. L. (1992). Verbal and nonverbal modality

effects on impressions of political candidates: Analysis from the 1984 presidential debates. Communication

Monographs , 59 (3), 231–242.

3 Hogan, R. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 873–919). Palo Alto, CA: Consult-

ing Psychologists Press.

Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies , 12 (3), 405–424.

Watson, D. (1989). Strangers’ ratings of the five robust personality factors: Evidence of a surprising con-

vergence with self-report. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 57 (1), 120–128.

4 Slaughter, J. E., Zickar, M. J., Highhouse, S., & Mohr, D. C. (2004). Personality trait inferences about

organizations: development of a measure and assessment of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology,

89 (1), 85.