◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙

You have now covered the "Direct Route" of Persuasion.

The indirect route of persuasion is based on the credibility of the speaker. If the speaker is more believable or credible to the listener, then his arguments are more likely to be persuasive. If a person is not credible, then that works against his verbal arguments.

There are several factors that enhance the credibility of the speaker.

Expertise. If you are an expert, what you say will be more persuasive than if you deliver the same message but are not an expert. There was once a story of an import automobile dealership whose mechanics wore lab coats, carried clipboards and answered to foreign names whenever they needed to speak to a customer. Why? Because it enhanced their credibility. So when a Mechanic named "Hans" (who wears a white lab coat) tells you that your German car would benefit from the "Deluxe tune-up" rather than the "Standard tune-up" you are more likely to believe him than if his name is "Hank" and he wears greasy coveralls.

In collective bargaining situations, sometimes management will bring in a benefits expert such as the insurance provider to provide "bad news" about how the union's demands are unrealistic. The perceived expertise makes the presentation more convincing than if the same message had been delivered by a line manager.

Neutrality. If the person who delivers the message has nothing to gain from it, then it is more credible that if the same message comes from someone who has a vested interest in the outcome. This is why advertisements will often say things like, "in taste tests conducted by independent laboratories, four out of five tobacco chewers preferred My Old Plug over the next leading brand." The "independent laboratories" may have received thousands of dollars in funding from the makers of My Old Plug but they are perceived as independent by consumers and that enhances their credibility.

Arguing for Something that is Against Their Own Personal Best Interest. This is difficult to accomplish in a bargaining situation ("Is this person lying to me?" is a natural reaction). However, if you can demonstrate that you support a negotiation proposal that is not optimal for you but is in the best interest of the group as a whole, then your message is more persuasive. Thus, the message that police officers should have more power to search suspect's homes because it leads to "good government" is more persuasive when it comes from a Public Defender's Association than when it comes from the Fraternal Order of Police. Thus either Neutrality (no interest in the outcome) or Against Your Interest can enhance your credibility.

Trustworthiness. If the speaker is believed to (a) be telling the truth and (b) have your best interests at heart, then he is seen as more trustworthy. Trustworthiness enhances credibility and makes the message more persuasive.

Personal Experience. If a person has actually used a product and likes it, that enhances the persuasiveness of their sales pitch. If a person had previously worked in a company that tried the flextime and found that it was unworkable for assembly-line employees, then their opposition to that proposal takes on additional credibility.

Similarity. If you can show the other side that you are similar to them, then you will be more persuasive. In fact, more than one study showed that similarity had greater effects than expertise -- especially when the issues were close to one's values! (Brock, 1965, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Goethals, G. and Nelson, R. 1973, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology).

Review Question:
	When a television commercial asks: "Which type of toothbrush do dentists keep in their medicine cabinets at home?" It is relying upon which indirect types of persuasion?
		arguing against what is in your best interest and trustworthiness.
		personal experience and expertise
		similarity with the audience and neutrality.
		drawing conclusions and arguing against what is in your best interest.

◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙