Credibility and Reasoning Describing Credibility • Credibility is the audience’s attitude toward or perception of the speaker. • Components of Credibility – Competence • Perceptions.
Download ReportTranscript Credibility and Reasoning Describing Credibility • Credibility is the audience’s attitude toward or perception of the speaker. • Components of Credibility – Competence • Perceptions.
Credibility and Reasoning Describing Credibility • Credibility is the audience’s attitude toward or perception of the speaker. • Components of Credibility – Competence • Perceptions of the speaker’s intelligence, expertise – Character • Perceptions of the speaker’s sincerity, trustworthiness – Dynamism • Perceptions of the speaker’s energy, enthusiasm 3 Types of Credibility • 3 Types of Credibility: – Initial – Derived – Terminal • Stems from how the audience perceives: – you – cause(s) you represent – the group(s) you represent Strategies to Enhance Credibility • Explain your competence • Establish common ground • Deliver your speech fluently, expressively, and with conviction Evidence • Can be in the form of examples, statistics, & testimony • Use Evidence that is specific, novel, from credible sources, and made clear (relevant to the point). • Importance: – Especially when you’re not recognized as an expert – Or when target audience opposes your views Reasoning • Drawing a Conclusion Based on Evidence • Reasoning from Specific Instances – Progress from a number of facts to a general conclusion – Beware of hasty &/or sweeping generalizations – Be careful with wording (don’t overstate facts) – Reinforce the argument with statistics or testimony Reasoning from Principle • Move from general principle to specific conclusion • Make certain audience accepts the general principle • Make sure audience will accept the minor premise Causal Reasoning • Tries to establish cause and effect relationship • Avoid fallacy of false cause • Avoid fallacy of misidentification of the cause (correlation NE causation) • Avoid the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy • Avoid the slippery slope fallacy Analogical Reasoning • Compares 2 similar cases to draw conclusion that what is true in 1 will also be true in the other • Valid if the cases are essentially alike Emotional Appeals • Intend to make listeners feel sad, angry, guilty, fearful, reverent, etc. • 3 ways to generate emotional appeals – emotionally charged language – vivid examples – sincerity and conviction • Make sure they are appropriate to the topic • Do not substitute emotional appeals for evidence and reasoning