Research concerning rebuttal analogy suggests that communicators using this argument form are perceived unfavorably by message receivers. To further understand the effects of rebuttal analogy, the present investigation examines respondents’ perceived likability of rebuttal analogy users, respondents’ cognitive responses to the message, and their reported attitudes toward messages using rebuttal analogy. Respondents were either exposed to one of four persuasive messages employing rebuttal analogy or to one of the same four messages with a nonanalogy version of the argument. As predicted, results revealed that respondents rated the communicator using rebuttal analogy as less likable. Cognitive responses and argument recall showed the message-processing effects of rebuttal analogy. However, no significant difference for attitude was detected between groups. Implications of the findings are discussed and research directions concerning persuasion are offered.
Aristotle
. (1932). The rhetoric of Aristotle (L. Cooper, Trans.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
Bennett, W. L.
(1977). The ritual and pragmatic bases of political campaign discourse. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 63, 219-238.
4.
Bosman, J.
(1987). Persuasive effects of political metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2, 97-113.
5.
Bosman, J.
, & Hagendoorn, L. (1991). Effects of literal and metaphorical persuasive messages. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 6, 271-292.
6.
Bowers, J. W.
, & Osborn, M. M. (1966). Attitudinal effects of selected types of concluding metaphors in persuasive speeches. Speech Monographs, 33, 147-155.
7.
Chaiken, S. (1978). The use of source versus message cues in persuasion: An information processing analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
8.
Chaiken, S.
(1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
9.
Chaiken, S.
(1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Chaiken, S.
, & Eagly, A. H. (1983). Communicator modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 241-256.
11.
Chaiken, S.
, Liberman, A. & Eagly, A. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford.
12.
Downs, V. C.
, Kaid, L. L., & Ragan, S. (1990). The impact of argumentativeness and verbal aggression on communicator image: The exchange between George Bush and Dan Rather. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 99-112.
13.
Eagly, A. H.
, & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
14.
Fraser, B.
, & Nolen, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93-109.
15.
Gentner, D.
(1982). Are scientific analogies metaphors? In D. S. Miall (Ed.), Metaphor: Problems and perspectives (pp. 106-132). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
16.
Gentner, D.
(1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.
17.
Gibbons, P.
, Busch, J., & Bradac, J. (1991). Powerful versus powerless language: Consequences for persuasion, impression formation, and cognitive response. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10, 115-133.
18.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
(1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Goodall, H. L.
(1983). The nature of analogic discourse. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 171-179.
20.
Graesser, A. C.
, Mio, J., & Millis, K. K. (1989). Metaphors in persuasive communication. In D. Meutsch & R. Viehoff (Eds.), Comprehension of literary discourse: Results and problems of interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 131-154). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
21.
Graham, G. M.
(1928). Analogy—A study in proof and persuasion values. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 14, 534-542.
22.
Gross, A.
(1983). Analogy and intersubjectivity: Political oratory, scholarly argument and scientific reports. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 37-46.
23.
Hecht, B.
(July, 1991). Out of joint. The New Republic, p. 10.
24.
Hockenberry, J.
(November 22, 1993). By reason of insanity. DAY ONE. Transcript No. 138.
25.
Holtgraves, T.
(1997). Yes, but... positive politeness in conversation arguments. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 222-239.
26.
Holyoak, K. J.
, & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.
27.
Johnson, B. T.
, & Eagly, A. H. (1989). The effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.
28.
Johnson, B. T.
, & Eagly, A. H. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Types, traditions, and the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 375-384.
29.
Johnson, J. T.
, & Taylor, S. E. (1981). The effect of metaphor on political attitudes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 305-316.
30.
McCroskey, J. C.
, & Combs, W. H. (1969). The effects of the use of analogy on attitude change and source credibility. Journal of Communication, 19, 333-339.
31.
Mio, J. S.
(1996). Metaphor, politics, and persuasion. In J. S. Mio & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Metaphor: Implications and applications (pp. 127-146). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
Mio, J. S.
, & Katz, A. N. (Eds.). (1996). Metaphor: Implications and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
Perelman, C.
(1979). The new rhetoric and the humanities: Essays on rhetoric and its applications. Boston: Reidel.
34.
Perelman, C.
, & Olbrechts-Tyteca, Md. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
35.
Petty, R. E.
, & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
36.
Petty, R. E.
, Cacioppo, J. T., & Heesacker, M. (1981). Effects of rhetorical questions on persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 432-440.
37.
Petty, R.
, Ostrom, T., & Brock, T. (Eds.). (1981). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
Polanski, V. G.
(1984). Do student-produced metaphors persuade?Educational Research Quarterly, 9, 36-43.
39.
Read, S.
, Cesa, I., Jones, D., & Collins, N. (1990). When is the federal budget like a baby? Metaphor in political rhetoric. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 5, 125-149.
40.
Reinsch, N. L., Jr.
(1971). An investigation of the effects of the metaphor and simile in persuasive discourse. Speech Monographs, 38, 142-145.
41.
Reinsch, N. L., Jr.
(1974). Figurative language and source credibility: A preliminary investigation and reconceptualization. Human Communication Research, 1, 75-80.
42.
Rieke, R.
, & Stutman, R. (1990). Communication in legal advocacy. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
43.
Roberts, P.
(1992, November). Zero cut. Seattle Weekly, p. 20.
44.
Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R.
, & Fazio, R. H. (1992). The accessibility of source likeability as a determinant of persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 19-25.
45.
Schreier, M.
, Groeben, N., & Blickle, G. (1995). The effects of (un-)fairness and (im-)politeness on the evaluations of argumentative communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 260-288.
46.
Siltanen, S. A.
(1981). The persuasiveness of metaphor: A replication and extension. The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 47, 67-83.
47.
6th Newswatch. (1988, March 25). Associated Press.
48.
Steffan, V.
, & Eagly, A. H. (1985). Implicit theories about influence style: The effects of status and sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 191-205.
49.
Sternberg, R. J.
(1977). Component processes in analogical reasoning. Psychological Review, 84, 353-378.
50.
Sternberg, R. J.
, & Nigro, G. (1983). Interaction and analogy in the comprehension and appreciation of metaphors. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35, 17-38.
51.
Sullivan, B.
(1991, January). Seaweed and picture frames: Are they the keys to economic diversity?The NorthCoast Journal, 11, p. 17.
52.
Thagard, P.
(1992). Analogy, explanation, and education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 537-544.
53.
Voss, J. F.
, Kennet, J., Wiley, J., & Schooler, T.Y.E. (1992). Experts at debate: The use of metaphor in the U.S. Senate debate on the gulf crisis. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 7, 197-214.
54.
Whaley, B. B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of analogy in persuasion: A test of the persuasive roles of analogy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
55.
Whaley, B. B.
(1997). Perceptions of rebuttal analogy: Politeness and implications for persuasion. Argumentation and Advocacy, 33, 161-169.
56.
Whaley, B. B.
(1998). Evaluations of rebuttal analogy users: Ethical and competence considerations. Argumentation, 12, 351-365.
57.
Whaley, B. B.
, & Babrow, A. S. (1993). Analogy in persuasion: Translator’s dictionary or art?Communication Studies, 44, 239-253.
58.
Whaley, B. B.
, & Holloway, R. (1996). Rebuttal analogy: A theoretical note. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11, 161-167.
59.
Whaley, B. B.
, & Holloway, R. L. (1997). Rebuttal analogy as political argument: Affiliation and attack in sound bite. Political Communication, 14, 293-305.
60.
Zashin, E.
, & Chapman, P. (1974). The uses of metaphor and analogy: Toward a renewal of political language. Journal of Politics, 36, 290-326.
