Today we are going to understand what makes an audience allow itself to be persuaded, regardless of format, but always considering that the medium conditions the way in which a message can persuade in a media interview. Research in communication, cognitive psychology, and media analysis makes it possible to identify patterns that explain how this perception is formed. That is why today we are going to analyze 4 factors that, when mastered, will help us make our audience believe us.
Ease of Understanding
The theory of cognitive fluency, presented by Reber, Schwarz and Winkielman in the theoretical review paper Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure, demonstrates that people tend to trust messages that they process with less effort. This premise is also supported by the work of Cruz, F., & Lombrozo explained in How to Use Conversation Levels to Communicate with Impact. This explains why in print media and digital media, precision and immediate readability are decisive. What the audience understands quickly, they perceive as more credible.
Nonverbal Coherence and Perception of Competence
Before your audience decides whether your argument is valid or not, they will decide (consciously and unconsciously) whether your image, your presentation, and your nonverbal language are congruent with what you are trying to communicate. And that is something that is noticeable in seconds.
The first filter of the audience in discourse is not at the argumentative level, but at the level of expression. People evaluate the congruence between voice, body, and content.
There is a perception that nonverbal communication can be more important than the truth. That confusion comes from a misinterpretation of the Mehrabian study; but what we do know from the work of Burgoon, Guerrero and Floyd is that nonverbal language can reinforce, substitute, complement, emphasize, or contradict the verbal message.
That is why it is key to ensure congruence between the message and nonverbal language. Let's look at a clip from the Interview of Martha Debayle with Dr. Mauricio González, in which congruence is apparent.
On television, live videos, and any format where image is dominant, the audience interprets nonverbal signals as indicators of competence and credibility (ethos).
Therefore, Hall, Horgan and Murphy affirm in Nonverbal communication (2016) that an open posture, steady gaze, and a defined vocal rhythm increase the perception of self-control and, therefore, credibility (ethos).
Strategic Structure
Persuasive responses in difficult interviews usually have something in common: they are built from a simple and orderly structure. Heath and Heath, in Made to Stick (2007), show that memorable ideas have simplicity, concreteness, and a basic narrative form.
This structure is what allows you to respond with clarity even when the journalist changes direction or pressures with unexpected questions. In press conferences or spontaneous interviews, having two or three anchor premises makes all the difference between message dispersion and control of the meaning of each response to maintain coherence and credibility.
There are multiple structures you can adhere to to lead an interview in the direction you need it to go. The one we propose is the G.R.A.C.E. structure, which, as its name indicates, allows you to respond gracefully while landing the conversation on your Talking Points.
Gratitude
The first thing we are going to do is recognize the validity of the question we have received and thank the journalist who is asking it to us.
Reframe and Affirmation
The reframe is also known as bridging. It is an exercise in which you validate that you have understood the question that has been asked of you, but before answering it you relate it to the Talking Point you are trying to make. See, for example, the first few minutes of that interview with Zohran Mamdani on NBC News after his meeting with Trump.
Mamdani listens to the first two questions from the journalist and understands them, but does not answer them. Instead, he uses them as a pretext to land the point he is trying to make.
We know it is not because he is distracted or does not understand, because the third question the journalist asks him he answers directly, because it is aligned with the agenda he has for that interview.
Connection and Explanation
Many people stop at Reframe and Affirmation, but it is a very good practice to apply connection and explanation, which is to dedicate some time to connecting the point you just made with the journalist's question and answer. In a way of explanation. The question that was originally asked of you. Using gratitude, reframe, affirmation, connection, and explanation, you will, on one hand, land your point with the audience and at the same time gain goodwill with the journalist who is interviewing you.
Adjusting to the Medium
As explained in the article Guide to Media Interviews: How to Persuade According to Format, each medium requires a different strategy based on the type of format (duration, pace, whether there is image, editing, etc.).
To this must be added what Napoli states in Social Media and the Public Interest (2019), describing that on a digital medium attention lasts only seconds; in podcasts it can last an hour; in print the word remains fixed and allows for review; and in video or voice, the use of nonverbal communication is of great importance.
This diversity of contexts explains why a spokesperson cannot repeat the same response in the same way. Although the objective and argumentation may be the same, it is important to understand that the form should be adapted to the medium.
Ideas Left in Our Inkwell
The ability to persuade through emotional influence (pathos) does not mean dramatizing, but rather guiding our interlocutor emotionally. To achieve this without falling into exaggerations, the most effective combination is to build a brief narrative accompanied by precise evidence.
Green and Brock state in Transportation in Public Narratives (2000) that well-constructed stories reduce cognitive resistance and facilitate message comprehension for the interlocutor. In longer interviews, such as podcasts or other digital or physical formats, this combination allows the audience to understand why a piece of data matters, not just that the data exists.
One of the common mistakes in interviews with specialists is thinking that providing more data is the means to achieve persuasion. Petty and Cacioppo showed in Communication and Persuasion (1986) that people are more convinced when they complete the reasoning themselves, because they themselves have participated in the argumentation. This means that in formats such as print media or technical interviews, a single well-oriented piece of data produces a more notable effect when the interlocutor is allowed to reach the conclusion.
In this sense, one must carefully choose the hard data that will be answered so that there is no ambiguity, but also present them in a way that the interlocutor participates in our argumentation. This reduces resistance and leads to persuasion.
On the other hand, Brehm explains in Psychological Reactance (1981) that when a person perceives an attempt to persuade with triumphalist or protagonist discourse, resistance to what is being asserted is usually activated in the interlocutors. This especially affects sensitive topics such as health, security, or public policy, where the public usually approaches the conversation with previous suspicions.
In these cases, positioning the audience as the protagonist and giving importance to what matters to them is the means to achieve persuasion and gradually reduce their resistance.
The evidence reviewed shows that persuading in media is a matter of aligning verbal, nonverbal, and contextual factors in an environment that always selects, edits, and accelerates public perception. Therefore, the studies cited converge on the same thing: a clear message is processed with less resistance, a well-constructed narrative facilitates acceptance because it reduces cognitive effort, and coherence between word, gesture, and voice increases the immediate credibility of the spokesperson.
Bibliography
Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2016). Nonverbal communication. Routledge.
Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press.
Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2007). Made to Stick: Why some ideas survive and others die. Random House.
Mehrabian, A., & Wiener, M. (1967). Decoding of inconsistent communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(1), 109–114
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382.