Online Activism as Persuasive Communication

Ella Kyllnen, M.A. University of Jyvskyl Department of Communication P.O. Box 35 40014 University of Jyvskyl FINLAND ella.kyllonen@jyu.fi

Abstract This paper focuses on persuasion in the context of online activism. Theoretically, persuasion is considered to be a communication process designed to influence another persons attitudes, values, or behaviour. Most theoretical perspectives agree that there are at least two essential elements in persuasion: intentionality and success. The goal here is to discuss the ways in which activism, particularly in online settings, may challenge these traditional approaches to persuasion. The purpose is to analyze persuasion theoretically, and to give examples from the individual activists point of view. This paper is part of the authors ongoing doctoral research that focuses on persuasion in the context of activism.

Persuasion Persuasion is one of the oldest and the most studied phenomena in the field of speech communication. It has often been defined as a communication process with the aim of having an influence on other peoples thoughts, attitudes or actions (see, e.g. Reardon 1991: 3; Simons, Morreale & Gronbeck 2001: 7). Persuasion includes both the sending and receiving of persuasive messages.

In a very comprehensive literature review, Gass and Seiter (2004) collected numerous definitions of persuasion from the past few decades and found certain elements or criteria that are common to most of them. Here, I will look at two of these more closely: intentionality and effectiveness. This is what Gass and Seiter (2004) call pure persuasion. According to Gass and Seiter, intentionality is an element almost all definitions of persuasion agree on. A communication process with no

persuasive intent cannot thus be labelled persuasion. A second key element is the effectiveness or success of persuasion. Persuasion has thus had the form of actually evoking change, making a difference.

According to Griffin (2003: 183), persuasion is an intentional communication process. Several others have also separated persuasion from other types of influence on the basis of intentionality. For example, Simons, Morreale and Gronbeck (2001: 7) state that persuasion, being a form of attempted influence, differs from other kinds of influence. Other kinds of influence would, then, include attitude change processes with no persuasive intent.

Theoretically, intentional influence has often been divided into two processes: compliance-gaining and persuasion (e.g. Griffin 2003). In gaining compliance, the main emphasis is on communication situations and the verbal strategies used in trying to influence the communication partner. Studies focus on the kinds of strategies people use or might use in various situations to influence others opinions. Very often, research on compliance-gaining focuses on close relationships. This line of theory has been criticized for using almost exclusively experimental research methods and not necessarily reflecting peoples actual choices of strategy in actual communication situations. (Griffin 2003.)

Persuasion, on the other hand, focuses on attitude change and how that desired change might be achieved in the other person. Persuasion has been studied in numerous contexts, ranging from communication in close relationships (Hsiung & Bagozzi 2003) to political election behaviour (Gordon & Miller 2004). In practice, however, separating the processes of persuasion and compliance-gaining would be somewhat artificial since they often overlap.

Considering effectiveness in persuasion, one has to keep in mind that although persuasion can be simplified into sending and receiving persuasive messages, it cannot be viewed as a one-way process, at least in all contexts. Persuasion is created through the interaction of two or more people, so the outcome may well turn out quite different from what was intended (Reardon 1991: 3).

Online Activism In recent years, communication technology has become more and more pervasive. It has already been the primary, if not the only, mode of communication for activists for several years. Almost every NGO has at least a webpage and a listserv, but several activist groups and organizations also have discussion forums, instant messaging systems, webcasting applications and other means of technology in use. Individual activists have started blogging about important events and actions. The mobilization of supporters and the organization of events and demonstrations are done nowadays largely by means of various communication technologies, such as e-mail or group text messaging. As communication technology has spread into peoples daily lives, it has increasingly been adopted as a tool for activism. Some have argued that many contemporary social movements would be less active or effective without e-mail and the Internet (Bullert 2000). According to Walch (1999), communication technology is important for activists today in several ways. It provides a channel creating and enhancing communication inside an activist organization; it promotes equality by challenging existing hierarchies; it facilitates the distribution of information and it helps to promote the activists cause.

An activist is an active individual who works to change something in the present social situation. Activism also involves some sort of marginalized status within a particular society, and the aim of the activist of a certain ideology is to challenge the publics prevailing conceptions of certain things (Dempsey 2002). Activism thus calls for an opponent, or at least having a target for ones demands

(Sassi 2000: 79). Activism or advocating social and political issues is not in itself a new phenomenon, but communication technology has provided activists with new communication channels and new ways to promote a cause or an ideology. New communication technology and its use has thus brought changes to the ways people communicate in various activist organizations.

Online activism has been defined as a politically oriented movement that functions using the Internet (Vegh 2003: 71). According to this definition, activists may use the Internet either as an additional communication channel to enhance communication or as the only mode of action, taking the form of a virtual sit-in or online direct action. In the latter case the actions are aimed at the technology itself, e.g. websites and e-mail lists. Online activism can be said to cover everything from cyberterrorist attacks to sending an e-mail to the city council. These activities do not necessarily need an organization to support them, but they can be the work of individual activists. (Dyer-Witheford 2002: 150152).

Persuasion in the Context of Online Activism The relationship between online activism and persuasion is two-fold: on the one hand, online activism can be seen as a context in which persuasion occurs, and on the other hand persuasion is one of the communication processes taking place in the context of online activism. As mentioned earlier, activism is oriented towards social change. A central component in activism is thus a desire to influence or change the present situation. Influence is usually carried out intentionally through various campaigns and protests. Change is also one of the key components of persuasion, which can be achieved through various kinds of communication.

Online activism can be seen as involving intentional influence processes. Even at the stage of choosing to be involved in activism, individuals usually take an ideological stand. They perhaps

choose to support an activist organizations goals or methods by taking part in demonstrations, sitins or virtual marches. It has been argued that the willingness to participate in such activities may arise from a variety of personal reasons, such as perceiving the need to protect social or cultural values, feelings of responsibility or altruism, or learning about a particular situation from the media or from other people (McLeod, Scheufele & Moy 1999: 320). In any case, there is some level of intentionality in activism in general.

However, intentional influence is not necessarily present in all the communication situations of the activists. A goal has been seen as something that a person desires to achieve in a certain situation (Miller, Cody & McLaughlin 1994). Sometimes in activism, however, the goal of a particular communication situation might not involve influence but, for example, entertainment, and certainly an individuals actions on behalf of an activist organization involve more than just single persuasive events or persuasive communication strategies. For example, participating in an activist organization may arise from wanting to be able to feel the sense of community among other activists. People participate in activist organizations in order to work together with others who share their ideas or values (Dempsey 2002). On the other hand, some people merely want to spend time with others without paying too much attention to the organizations goals or how these goals are pursued (Collins-Jarvis 1997).

The main question in examining communication in technologically mediated contexts is whether communication processes are similar to or completely different from face-to-face contexts. It is also worth considering whether traditional theories of communication, most of which were formed when computer-mediated communication was not as widely used as it is today, are applicable to computer-mediated environments.

Communication through various technologies has been perceived as different from face-to-face communication. Early theories on computer-mediated communication (or CMC) stated, for example, that technology cannot convey all the information needed for successful interaction; in particular, the lack of nonverbal communication and social context cues was considered to undermine the quality of communication and further, the quality of the relationship. According to these perspectives, text-based, asynchronous technologically mediated communication was seen as impersonal, task-oriented and low in social presence. However, as communication technology started to become more common in peoples everyday communication, these perspectives became increasingly criticized for exaggerating the effects technology has on communication. For example, Walther (1996) has found that the problems reported in early CMC-studies may be overcome when people communicate through technology over a period of time. Indeed, it has been noticed in several studies that people can form close interpersonal relationships and are able to work together online. People develop appropriate ways to communicate socially and effectively in a variety of situations via communication technologies. (See, e.g. Baym 1995; Walther 1996.)

Studies have shown that even though the differences between face-to-face and computer-mediated communication are not as remarkable as one might assume, some differences in the communication processes still do exist. Influence has not yet been widely studied in computer-mediated contexts, but there are already some examples. For instance, compliance-gaining message strategies have found to vary between face-to-face and computer-mediated communication contexts, especially in terms of strategy selection and quantity (Moore 2002). Furthermore, in one study the results imply that persuasion is perceived as less effective in computer-mediated than in face-to-face contexts (Wilson 2003).

Discussion Considering the two criteria for persuasion discussed earlier in this article, several issues seem to emerge from the perspective of online activism. Firstly, in the light of previous theoretical approaches persuasion is considered to be intentional influence. This seems to fit well for online activism too, since activism can be viewed as intentional action including persuasive communication situations. However, online activism involves other kinds of influence as well, as the preliminary results of the authors ongoing research also seem to imply. This sets a challenge to online activism research not to focus on persuasion alone, but to approach influence from other perspectives as well.

Secondly, persuasion perspectives have regarded it as a successful or effective communication process in which the other persons attitude is actually changed. This is challenging for research, since it is difficult to prove whether attitudes actually do change in a single-shot persuasive situation. Furthermore, in online activism the audience or the target of persuasive messages may be very separated in time and space, possibly spread all over the world, which means that measuring the success of persuasion becomes difficult.

Thirdly, the characteristics of communication technology seem to make some difference in persuasion processes. Some studies have found that people use different persuasive strategies when using technology to communicate (Moore 2002) and others state that persuasion might not be perceived as effective in CMC contexts as in face-to-face communication (Wilson 2003). This obviously needs more research to determine whether it is the qualities of the communication media, the qualities of the communication relationship, or the context that affect the persuasive process.

References Baym, N. K. (1995) The Emergence of Community in Computer-Mediated Communication pp. 138163 in S. G. Jones (ed) Cybersociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Bullert, B. J. (2000) Progressive Public Relations, Sweatshops, and the Net. Political Communication, 17: 403407. Collins-Jarvis, L. (1997) Participation and consensus in collective action organizations: The influence of interpersonal versus mass-mediated channels. Journal of Applied Communication research, 25: 116. Dempsey, S. E. (2002) Discourse of College Activists: Creating a Space for Political Involvement. Paper presented at the Annual National Communication Association Convention, 21.-24. November, 2002. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Dyer-Witheford, N. (2002) E-capital and the Many-Headed Hydra, pp. 129163 in G. Elmer (ed) Critical Perspectives on the Internet. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Gass, R. H. & Seiter, J. S. (2004) Embracing Divergence: A Definitional Analysis of Pure and Borderline Cases of Persuasion, pp. 1329 in J. S. Seiter & R. H. Gass (eds) Perspectives on Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Griffin, E. A. (2003) A First Look at Communication Theory. 5th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Gordon, A. & Miller, J. L. (2004) Values and Persuasion During the First Bush-Gore Presidential Debate, Political Communication, 21: 7191. Hsiung, R. O. & Bagozzi, R. P. (2003) Validating the Relationship Qualities of Influence and Persuasion with the Family Social Relations Model, Human Communication Research, 29: 81110.

McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A. & Moy, P. (1999) Community, Communication and Participation: The Role of Mass Media and Interpersonal Discussion in Local Political Participation. Political Communication, 16: 315336. Miller, L. C., Cody, M. J. & McLaughlin, M. M. (1994) Situations and Goals as Fundamental Constructs in Interpersonal Communication Research, pp. 162198 in M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (eds) Handbook of interpersonal communication, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moore, J. (2002) Compliance Gaining: An Analysis of Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Message Strategies. Paper presented at the Annual National Communication Association Convention, 21.-24. November, 2002. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Reardon, K. K. (1991) Persuasion in Practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sassi, S. (2000) Verkko kansalaisyhteiskunnan kytss: Tutkimus Internetist ja uusista politiikan muodoista [Civil Society and the Web: A Study of the Internet and New Forms of Politics]. University of Helsinki. Simons, H. W., Morreale, J. & Gronbeck, B. (2001) Persuasion in Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stewart, C. J, Smith, C. A. & Denton, R. E. Jr (2001) Persuasion in Social Movements, 4th ed. Prospect Heights, Ill: Waveland Press. Vegh, S. (2003) Classifying Forms of Online Activism, pp. 7195 in M. McCaughey & M. D. Ayers (eds) Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Walch, J. (1999) In the Net: An Internet Guide for Activists. London: Zed Books. Walther, J. B. 1996. Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction. Communication Research, 23: 143.

10

Wilson, E. Vance (2003) Perceived Effectiveness of Interpersonal Persuasion Strategies in Computer-Mediated Communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 19: 537552.

11