Do superdiffusers argue differently? An analysis of argumentation style as a function of diffusion ability.

• Author: Carpenter, Christopher J.
• Position: Report

Scholars in the field of communication have long been interested in the diffusion of ideas, products, and behavior through a network (Dearing et al., 1996; DeFleur, 1987; Greenberg, 1964; LaRose & Hoag, 1997; Rogers, 2003). Recent meta-analytic work of opinion leader-based diffusion research suggests that the heterogeneous effect sizes found in opinion leader-based interventions might be due to the varying ways in which opinion leaders influence people (Doumit, Gattellari, Grimshaw, & O'Brien, 2007). An extensive review of the diffusion literature found that little attention has been paid to the methods influential members of a network use to persuade others (Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004). Doumit et al. (2007) argued that future efforts to use influential network members to change the behavior of others require that research uncover the ways that these influentials persuade others. Alternatively, research on the argumentation practices of influential people might enable the development of training methods to teach people to become influential. Although the great Roman orator Cicero (55 BCE, 1970) noted "that nature and genius in the first place contribute most aid to speaking," (p. 34) he also stated that, "I do not make these observations for the purpose of altogether deterring young men from the study of oratory, even if they be deficient in some natural endowments" (p. 35). Perhaps influential people can be made as well as born.

In addition to the practical need to examine the methods of influentials, due to a dearth of research in the area there is value in advancing argumentation research by examining how different persuasive situations and individual differences combine to affect how it is that influentials convince others (Hample, 2005, p. 183). The recent development of an extensively validated and highly reliable measure of three dimensions that assess the extent to which one has the characteristics of an opinion leader facilitates the exploration of what makes persuasive attempts by opinion leaders different from the persuasion attempts of those who are not opinion leaders (Boster, Kotowski, & Andrews, 2006).

SUPERDIFFUSERS

Diffusion scholars have demonstrated that the diffusion of a new practice or product is often dependent on particular, unique people in a network (Bullet, et al., 2001; Kelley et al., 1997; see Rogers, 2005, p. 308-330; Valente & Pumpuang, 2007 for reviews). They are variously known as influentials, opinion leaders, champions, change agents, and peer leaders, and they are able to persuade many people to change their behavior much more quickly than others. Previous research has identified these people in a number of ways including sociometric methods, asking those who are knowledgeable about a network, and by the construction of self-report surveys (Valente & Pumpuang). The self-report survey promises to be a highly reliable and easily implemented method of identifying them, although previous measures have failed to measure all of the important facets of the construct (Boster et al., 2006).

To improve upon the self-report method, Boster et al. (2006) presented evidence consistent with a three-dimensional conceptualization of opinion leaders. They argue that someone who can persuade many people to change their behavior, here termed a superdiffuser, must be high on each of the three dimensions described subsequently.

First, such a person must be a connector. Connectors are people who enjoy meeting new people, maintaining contacts with many others, and who often provide a link between disparate groups. These characteristics give them access to many people in many different groups, greatly increasing their reach and influence.

Boster et al. (2006) argue that the second characteristic required is to be a persuader. Persuaders are highly influential because they are skilled at argument. They enjoy arguing and seek out opportunities to influence others. They are able effectively to frame arguments for particular audiences. Boster et al. presented evidence consistent with their concept of persuaders as strongly correlated with, but conceptually distinct from, trait argumentativeness.

The third required characteristic is to be a maven (Boster et al., 2006). Mavens are those who have in-depth knowledge of a particular content area, such as healthy lifestyles, politics, or particular kinds of consumer goods. Mavens are recognized by others as experts in a given area. Others come to them for advice in the content area in which they specialize. They also enjoy helping others learn about their area of expertise. They are particularly effective diffusers in their area of specialization because when they recommend a new idea or practice, their expertise helps them construct compelling arguments that are likely to persuade others to adopt it.

Boster et al. (2006) provided evidence consistent with the hypothesis that these three dimensions are able to capture aspects of opinion leadership that previous measures have failed to include. The construction of a highly valid scale to identify superdiffusers allows detailed examination of how the persuasive strategies that superdiffusers use are different from those who are less influential. Previous research from the compliance gaining literature concerning argument production allows the generation of hypotheses concerning the types of persuasive strategies that superdiffusers might use. This analysis will review the research on the relationship between individual differences and compliance gaining strategies prior to examining the ways in which these dimensions of individual difference and variation in persuasive context combine to affect the generation of arguments.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

Research on compliance gaining message production found that both personality traits and cognitive traits are related to different kinds of compliance gaining message production. Many studies have tried to use personality traits to predict the different argumentation strategies people report they would use or the strategies they use in an interaction (Boster & Stiff, 1984; Canary, Cody, & Marston, 1986; Lusting & King, 1980; see Wilson, 2002, pp. 99-102 for a review). Argumentativeness is one of the strongest predictors of the ways people will try to gain the compliance of others (Boster, Levine, & Kazoleas, 1993; Levine & Boster, 1996). Boster et al. (1993) found that argumentativeness is associated positively with strategy diversity in actual compliance gaining interactions. Past research examining superdiffusers has consistendy found that the extent to which one is a connector, persuader, and maven are all associated positively with argumentativeness, especially the persuader scale (Boster et al., 2006). Therefore, these measures are expected to associate positively with the diversity of arguments that people produce in a compliance-gaining context.

Like personality traits, a number of cognitive traits have been used to predict the kinds of compliance gaining messages people produce (Hample, 2003; O'Keefe, 1988; see Hample, 2005, pp. 176-240 for a review). One important trait is inventional capacity, which Hample defines as the extent to which people vary in the number of possible compliance gaining messages produced. When asked to generate as many ways as possible to change a target's behavior, Hample (2003) found that some people generate many messages whereas others generate very few.

Given the conceptualization of a superdiffuser as someone highly connected, very persuasive, and highly expert in a content domain, this study predicts that the inventional capacity of superdiffusers is higher than that of non-superdiffusers. By virtue of their breadth of association, this analysis suggests that connectors have been exposed to a greater number and variety of arguments in a given domain, and predicts that persuaders have developed a wider repertoire of persuasive messages and tactics so that they can adapt their arguments to a variety of audiences. Mavens are expected to have a wider repertoire of arguments for their specialty based on their wide knowledge base in that domain.

TASK COMPLEXITY

This study will also make predictions concerning how superdiffusers might respond to different argumentation contexts. Several lines of research have examined the impact of the complexity of the persuasive task on the diversity of arguments that are produced (Hample & Dallinger, 2002; O'Keefe, 1988). One feature of the complexity of the persuasion task is the extent to which the persuasion target resists the influence attempt. Pertinent to this issue Hample and Dallinger's secondary analysis of nine compliance gaining studies found that anticipated resistance was one of the strongest predictors of the number of strategies that participants claim they would use to change a target's behavior. Thus, this study predicts that superdiffusers will respond to more complex compliance situations with greater argument diversity.

When explicating the concept of message design logics, O'Keefe (1988) noted that when dealing with tasks in which persons only need to pursue one simple goal, individual differences in message construction ability are unrelated to the kinds of messages produced. Conversely, when goals become more difficult to achieve, people with more complex message production ability distinguish themselves by producing more, and more complex, messages. Thus, this study predicts that when faced with a relatively simple compliance gaining situation, superdiffusers will not produce messages that differ in quality or quantity from non-superdiffusers, but when the compliance gaining goal becomes more complex superdiffusers will produce more complex messages than non-superdiffusers using a wider diversity of argument strategies.

Given the preceding reasoning, if persons are presented with compliance gaining tasks that vary in complexity...