Abstract
The prevailing confusion as to what kinds of persuasion are morally legitimate has two unfortunate conse quences: persuaders can be subtly deceptive without realizing it, and they can lean over backward to avoid the stigma of "propaganda." It is useful to compare the words persuasion and propaganda and to recognize that they differ only in the evil overtones of the latter.
Five forms of persuasion, or elements in it, seem inherently legitimate: (1) getting and keeping attention; (2) getting and keeping rapport; (3) building credibility, as in Hovland's two- sided approach; (4) appealing to strong motives, including "emotions"; (5) action involvement. Five forms seem morally questionable, if not wrong: (1) lying; (2) innuendo; (3) pre senting opinion as fact; (4) deliberate omission; (5) implied obviousness.
Most of the questionable methods can be used "innocently" in the sense that those who use them are deceiving themselves as well as others. But self-deception itself is a sign of weak ness, or worse, if no real effort is made to counteract it.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.