Online Activism as Persuasive Communication - ECREA Thematic ...

Online Activism as Persuasive Communication
Ella Kyllönen, M.A.
University of Jyväskylä
Department of Communication
P.O. Box 35
40014 University of Jyväskylä
FINLAND
ella.kyllonen@jyu.fi
1

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 person’s 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 author’s 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 people’s 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
2

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 people’s 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.
3

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 people’s 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 public’s prevailing conceptions of certain things
(Dempsey 2002). Activism thus calls for an opponent, or at least having a target for one’s demands
4

(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: 150–152).
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
5

choose to support an activist organization’s 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 individual’s 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 organization’s 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.
6

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 people’s 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).
7

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 author’s 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 person’s 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.
8

References
Baym, N. K. (1995) ‘The Emergence of Community in Computer-Mediated Communication’ pp.
138–163 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: 403–407.
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: 1–16.
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. 129–163 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. 13–29 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. 5 th 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: 71–91.
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: 81–110.
9

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: 315–336.
Miller, L. C., Cody, M. J. & McLaughlin, M. M. (1994) ‘Situations and Goals as Fundamental
Constructs in Interpersonal Communication Research’, pp. 162–198 in M. L. Knapp
& G. R. Miller (eds) Handbook of interpersonal communication, 2 nd 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 käytössä: Tutkimus Internetistä 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, 4 th ed.
Prospect Heights, Ill: Waveland Press.
Vegh, S. (2003) ‘Classifying Forms of Online Activism’, pp. 71–95 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: 1–43.
10

Wilson, E. Vance (2003) ‘Perceived Effectiveness of Interpersonal Persuasion Strategies in
Computer-Mediated Communication’. Computers in Human Behavior, 19: 537–552.
11