Perceptions of rebuttal analogy: politeness and implications for persuasion.

• Author: Whaley, Bryan P.

Classical rhetorical scholars and contemporary communication theorists suggest that analogy is an effective persuasive device (e.g., Aristotle, trans. 1932/1987; Graham, 1928; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969). Analogy has been viewed from numerous perspectives and examined across several contexts (e.g., Goodall, 1983; Gross, 1983; Whaley & Holloway, in press; Wilcox & Ewbank, 1979; Zashin & Chapman, 1974). Analogy's long standing reputation as persuasive, however, is not accompanied by any noteworthy empirical support of its effectiveness. Published studies are scant and provide meager backing for the influence of analogy (McCroskey & Combs, 1969).(1) Hence, very little is known either about analogy's persuasive effect or the factors that may mediate its influence.

As such, the following is the report of an effort to begin systematically investigating the persuasiveness of analogy. Specifically, this essay provides the theoretical foundation for "rebuttal" analogy and details an investigation to determine receiver perceptions of sources using this analogic form and the effective and ethical appeal of rebuttal analogy.

Symbolically, the most general structure of analogy is A is to B as C is to D (Aristotle, trans. 1932/1987; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969). The A and B elements (A:B) can be referred to as the "target" and the C and D elements (C:D) as the "base" (Gentner, 1983).(2) To be an analogy, the two domains (target, base) must be heterogeneous. In other words, they must represent different domains of experience. Moreover, the base is ordinarily a more familiar domain of experience than is the target (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969). For instance, consider the analogy, "Right now, we're selling hardwood for firewood. That's like making hamburger out of a good steak" (Sullivan, 1991). In this example, "hardwood" is to "firewood" as "steak" is to "hamburger" or A (selling hardwood) : B (for firewood) :: C (making hamburger) : D (out of a good steak). Rhetorically, analogy functions via its structure. The actions or assertions linking objects on one side of the analogy occur among the relations of the other side.

Research suggests that there are several types of analogy, each with a characteristic structure determining the cognitive processing and pragmatic function (Gentner, 1982, 1983; Thagard, 1992; Whaley & Babrow, 1993; Whaley & Holloway, 1996). Although different types of analogies are primarily designed for alternative pragmatic purposes, they may still serve a persuasive function, albeit by different means (Whaley & Babrow, 1993). However, a recently identified type of analogy-rebuttal analogy - has a structure specifically tailored for argumentative and persuasive purposes (Whaley & Holloway, 1996).

Rebuttal analogy, argue Whaley & Holloway (1996), functions pragmatically by serving two communicative purposes: argument and social attack. These functions are pursued simultaneously and typically concern a third party in absentia. Rebuttal analogies serve as argument in the clash between contending/opposing claims. In addition, there is an inherent (though more or less explicit) attack component in this analogic form. Rebuttal analogies imply evaluations of opposing parties as well as their arguments. Several examples illustrate this claim:

* Besides, it's absurd that we only have an oral tablet to treat vomiting. It's like treating diarrhea with a suppository. (Hecht, 1991)

* Henry Steadman, Sociologist: A few cases are intriguing, outrageous, and get a lot of press coverage, and the public therefore assumes that the insanity defense is represented by all the cases like that when, in fact, those cases represent a very small portion of all insanity cases. Abraham Halpern, Psychiatrist, responds: That would be like saying that nuclear leaks in atomic plants are not very, very serious because they don't occur very often. (Day One, January 22, 1993)

* Secretary of State George Shultz is raising the possibility that the administration will seek authority for a quick vote on military aid if the current cease-fire in Nicaragua breaks down. But house speaker Jim Wright says that's like discussing terms for divorce during a wedding ceremony. He says he'll oppose such efforts by the administration when congress considers a humanitarian aid package next week. (Associated Press, March 25, 1988)

Whaley & Holloway suggest that rebuttal analogy's frequent use is founded primarily on its function to comment on the opposition, rather than its argumentative value. The following section further explicates these ideas and provides support for such claims.

REBUTTAL ANALOGY AS ARGUMENT

An examination of analogies garnered from the public arena suggests that the instrumental function of rebuttal analogy is to challenge an opponent's claims-rebuttal analogies offer counterarguments or refutation (see Baaske, 1991 for an alternative interpretation of analogy and analogy in public discourse). For instance, rebuttal analogy was used to undercut Secretary of State George Shultz's plan to seek military aid for Nicaragua during a cease-fire: "That's like discussing terms for a divorce during a wedding ceremony." Specifically, Wright's analogy suggests that to discuss military aid is not only premature and inappropriate but undermines the desired outcome before it is achieved. This argument is accomplished by the listener's applying an easily understood and unchallenged truth (base) to the issue at hand (target). This simple, yet elegant reasoning process is designed to have the instrumental effect of demonstrating that the fundamental principle (target) is flawed in the opponent's argument via the use of the base. A rebuttal analogy simplifies otherwise complex arguments into deceptively efficient retorts that rely on common sense and common experience.

Rebuttal analogy does not appear to be used exclusively and simply for its argumentative proof value (Graham, 1928), for there are far more respected forms of argument (Hollihan & Baaske, 1994; Kahane, 1984; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969). Rebuttal analogy is used in place of other argument forms because of its implied social component.

REBUTTAL ANALOGY AS SOCIAL ATTACK

Implicit in rebuttal analogy is an evaluation not only of the opposing issue or argument, but also of the opposing arguer. The point of employing rebuttal analogy as argument is that it simultaneously addresses a second communicative function - the attack on the opposition's character or competence (i.e., "face"). That is, inherent in public argument (the context in which rebuttal analogy is examined here) is a motive to belittle the opposition (Bennett, 1977). Rebuttal analogy not only suggests that one's idea may not have merit, but exploits identity issues by suggesting that the idea is really stupid. For instance, the following bases (C:D) are indicative of flawed thinking:

* The White House trotted out Dick Darman, the budget director, to blast Governor Clinton's deficit reduction. This is a man who's run $1 trillion 238 million of deficits. Isn't that a little like the Boston Strangler criticizing street crime? (Al Hunt, CNN Capital Gang, Transcript #17, June 27, 1992)

* Lee Iacocca responds: And finally, they [Japanese automakers] say all of our problems are our fault. That's like blaming our Army and our Navy for Pearl Harbor because they weren't ready. (NBC Nightly News, Jan. 10, 1992)

* ... an inexperienced Secretary of Defense getting "on the job training" (running the Pentagon) is like...