SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

Compliance-gaining and Fundraising:

Making Two Worlds Meet

Amy Sedlacek

Jane Koehler

Abstract

This study examines the effectiveness of various compliance-gaining messages when used in fundraising for a non-profit organization. It differs from previous compliance-gaining research because it focuses more on the reactions of the receiver to a message rather than the intentions of the sender. A majority of the compliance-gaining techniques commonly used for persuasion were found to be ineffective when applied to a fundraising situation. Of the 16 most frequently agreed upon compliance-gaining tactics, promise was found to be the only truly effective tactic. Instead of using the 16 tactics outlined in compliance-gaining research, fundraisers should focus on providing information about their cause to further their goal of compliance.

Introduction

In any given month, how many times does someone ask you for money? Two, ten, twenty, thirty times? It seems as if we are constantly being bombarded by telemarketers, bell-ringers, jars at check-out stands, door-to-door visits, and myriad other methods that philanthropic organizations use in an attempt to persuade you to give money to their cause. More times than not we dismiss these efforts, passing them by without a second thought.

The challenge for the non-profit fundraiser lies in finding ways to make us, as contributors, actually stop, give a second thought, and then give a donation. We are not likely, however, to simply change our ways on a whim. Non-profit fundraisers must persuade us, usually with little interaction, to start to care enough to give. Persuading people to offer assistance, such as a donation to charity, falls under the realm of compliance-gaining theory. Studying compliance-gaining will offer us insight into the types of messages required to persuade people to donate. Discovering which message types are most effective is the main purpose of this study. It differs from previous compliance-gaining research because it focuses more on the reactions of the receiver to a message rather than the intentions of the sender. We will seek to answer the question "Which compliance-gaining strategies are most effective in persuading a person to donate money to a non-profit organization?"

Amy Sedlacek is an undergraduate student at Hastings College, Hastings, Nebraska, majoring in Media Productions with an emphasis in Broadcast Journalism and Print Journalism.

Jane Koehler is an undergraduate student at Hastings College, Hastings, NE, majoring in English and Communication with an emphisis in Public Relations.

Note: The paper was prepared as part of a course on communication theory taught by Professor Jessica Henry, Hastings College, Hastings, Nebraska.

Speaker and Gavel, Vol. 37 (2000), 1-20

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

Rationale and Justification

Unfortunately, finding the right message to induce compliance is easier said than done, especially with the large number of non-profit organizations vying for our dollars. Over 40,000 non-profit organizations were operating in 1995 (Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1998, p.397). These include any non-governmental organizations with funds and programs managed by their own trustees or directors and whose goals are to maintain or aid social, educational, religious, or other activities deemed to serve the common good (Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1998, p.397). As one can see, these charitable groups seek to provide for a wide variety of needs. The top 20 charities in the United States in 1997 ranged from the Salvation Army at number one to the YMCA at number seven to Cornell University at number 18 (The Time Almanac, 1998, p.818). With such diversity among non-profit organizations, it is important that they tailor their messages to target those who are interested in their cause.

Finding just the right message is essential when one considers the limited resources that most non-profit organizations are dealing with. For example, the American Cancer Society's latest treasury report states that the organization raised $556.2 million last year. This an impressive figure, considering they only spent $122,910 thousand on fundraising efforts (Zacks, 1999). With such a small budget, it is important that the efforts of the fundraising staff are carried out in the most effective manner. Therefore, an organized study of the methods that best persuade individuals to contribute to non-profit organizations would be of great benefit to them.

The need to identify the most effective messages is also crucial because the level of individual donations has remained relatively constant since 1974, as cited in a report by the American Association of Fund Raising Counsel Trust for Philanthropy (Barry, 1996). With all the developments in technology, research and advertising methods, why these figures have not increased is a mystery. Common sense would suggest that as income levels have risen (which, of course, they have) charitable donations would have risen as well. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

People do not donate to charity simply because they have money. There must be some motivating reason to give. This could be as general as the fact that it makes you feel good knowing you've helped another human being or the fact that your employer expects this behavior (Harvey, 1990). Donating could also be motivated through personal ties to the cause or charity or by family involvement. Unfortunately many people are not effected by these motivational circumstances and do not feel obligated to contribute to a cause that doesn't concern their personal life.

What will it take to change people's attitudes towards giving? We hope to answer this question as part of our study by discovering which message strategies receivers are most receptive to. This is one of the single biggest challenges facing those in charge of fundraising for non-profit organizations. Studying this change in beliefs, attitudes, intentions, motivations, and behaviors all falls under the umbrella of persuasion techniques, specifically within the theory of compliance-gaining (Gass, 205).

It is important to recognize and remember the differences between the um

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

brella of persuasion and the niche of compliance to understand why fundraisers would be interested in compliance-gaining rather than persuasive techniques. Persuasion is "concerned with changing beliefs, attitudes, intentions, motivations and behaviors," (Gass, 205). Compliance is a more restrictive term referring to changes in a person's overt behavior (Gass, 205). Simply put, traditional persuasion research has focused on identifying what strategies are believed to be most effective in changing people's attitudes, while compliance-gaining research focuses more on what strategies people will actually use and react to. Because of this, compliance-gaining theory seems to offer more realistic applications to fundraising. This difference is significant because fundraising is mainly concerned with making overt behavior changes in a reciever. The emphasis in most compliance-gaining research has been primarily focused on the "senders" rather than on the "receivers." In fact, Seibold, Cantrill, and Meyers (1994) estimate that at least 124 studies on compliance-gaining focusing on the sender have been conducted. This research has primarily studied what kind of messages senders use in certain situations, rather than their effect on a receiver. Compliance-gaining in relation to fundraising, however, must focus more on the receiver. Fundraisers are trying to get people to comply with a request that will not seem to directly affect them in a positive or negative way. Therefore, the fundraiser must take the receiver's perspective into account to establish a more effective message.

All of this focus on what methods work best for the sender has left the receiver as an outcast in compliance-gaining study. However, the receiver is the most vital link in providing non-profit organizations with a means of financial stability to continue their efforts. Without the receiver, or donor, non-profit and charitable organizations would cease to exist. Typical compliance-gaining research has forgotten this. It has targeted the senders and what messages they choose to use.

A majority of the studies on compliance-gaining and articles on successful fundraising techniques have concentrated on the importance of interpersonal, face-to-face contacts rather than one-to-many contacts. For example, Thibodeaux (1992) explains that "The difference [in fundraising] lies in whom a donor is giving to. Donors feel more connected to an individual and give more freely to an individual than to an entity" (p. 61). The article goes on to give fundraising techniques, highlighting the need for personalization in presentation, graphics, and message (Thibodeaux, 1992). Many of today's fundraisers, however, do not have the luxury of time or resources to personally solicit funds from each individual on their donor list, as suggested by Thibodeaux. Instead, fundraisers need to know, specifically, which persuasive compliance-gaining techniques work best in a one-to-many relationship where the receivers of the message come from a variety of racial, social, and economical backgrounds.

After all, an organization could spend a large amount of time and money developing a message or campaign that may look great on paper, but if it fails to persuade the targeted audience to donate, the message is a failure. That is why answering the question of which technique motivates receivers to donate is important.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

Theoretical Framework

The theory most relevant to our research is compliance-gaining. Compliance-gaining focuses on what people do when they want to get someone to do something or act in a certain way (Gass, p. 205). Gerald Marwell and David Schmitt originally developed this theory in 1967. Prior to this study most research had focused on why people comply, rather than how people go about gaining compliance. Marwell and Schmitt sought to define typical techniques used in compliance-gaining that potential message receivers responded similarly to. Their study devised 16 different message techniques for gaining compliance (See Appendix A).

However, Wiseman and Schenck-Hamlin (1981) argued that one of the problems with Marwell and Schmitt's typology was that it left out significant strategies that people might use in seeking compliance. Their criticism said the original strategies were based not on real life experiences but on previous research of the theory. They contended that the 16 tactics were merely created out of convenience in the minds of the researcher rather than through real life observation. Stating this, Wiseman and Schenck-Hamlin developed a new typology, based on strategies created by real people in persuasive situations. Their research distinguished 14 compliance-gaining strategies, many of which offered stark contrast to Marwell and Schmitt's original list of 16 strategies. Although Wiseman and Schenck-Hamlin argue Marwell and Schmitt's categories are insufficient and lacking in their analysis, Marwell and Schmitt's 16 strategies remain at the core of compliance-gaining research and study.

Two approaches towards the development of compliance-gaining research can be distinguished. The first and most prevalent approach focuses on deriving the different compliance-gaining strategies from various theories of social influence already in existence. This is known as the deductive approach. The second approach examines compliance-gaining strategies through the process of induction. These strategies are generated by subjects for a particular persuasive situation. These responses are then examined for patterns and/or generalizations that form the basis for a new category scheme. In other words, the deductive approach provides a subject with a list of the possible strategies and asks him or her to choose the one he or she would most likely use. The inductive approach offers participants a situation and then simply asks how they would construct a relevant compliance-gaining message.

Marwell and Schmitt's 16 techniques form the framework for the deductive approach. Marwell and Schmitt (1967) analyzed subjects' ratings of the likelihood of their using each of the strategies in four different situations. This analysis of likelihood revealed five dimensions of compliance-gaining: rewarding activity, punishing activity, expertise, activation of impersonal commitments, and activation of personal commitments.

A subsequent study by Miller, Boster, Roloff, and Seibold (1977) incorporated Marwell and Schmitt's (1967) methodology to construct a cluster analysis with situations that were more systematically varied. Collecting the same type of data as Marwell and Schmitt, they found that the use of compliance-gaining strategies varied with the type of relationship and goal. Relationships they outlined for

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

a persuasive situation were interpersonal v. non-interpersonal and the nature of the goal (long term v. short term).

Concerns in the differences over the study of compliance-gaining coupled with Marwell and Schmitt's strict outline of only 16 strategies prompted researchers to begin to use a more inductive approach to study compliance-gaining. Clark (1979) for example compared data collected from subjects who composed their own messages instead of choosing from given strategies. He found that subjects choosing from the pregiven strategies tended to choose strategies that were most socially desirable, rather than the strategy they would actually use when faced with the situation. This research was reinforced by Hunter and Boster's (1995) reanalysis of the Marwell and Schmitt data and Miller group studies (1979).

As we have shown, compliance-gaining is a very provocative theory that can be studied in a variety of ways. Faced with so many perspectives, we found it necessary to look at a variety of documented studies to determine the best foundation for our particular study.

Literature Review

In order to answer the question of which compliance-gaining strategy best persuades an individual to donate money to a non-profit organization, it is first necessary to look at the results of previous research. Since little, if any, research has been done specifically linking compliance-gaining and fundraising we will review each of these areas individually. This review will cover the critical compliance-gaining and fundraising studies that best relate to each other and to our question.

Compliance-gaining

In our research we have discovered that compliance-gaining is a very broad theory. There are many dimensions and factors that determine the success of each compliance-gaining attempt. In reviewing the literature on compliance-gaining we found that studies can be divided by various influential factors, such as the relationship between the sender and the receiver, the message, the sender and the receiver themselves, and the situation. Each study of compliance-gaining has a high tendency to overlap each of these areas in providing background support and credibility. In organizing our literature review we will try to follow a general outline, grouping the studies into the most appropriate dimension, however some will fall into several categories.

Sender-Receiver Relationship The first sub-category is the relationship between the sender and receiver. The degree of intimacy between the sender and the receiver has been found to exert influence upon the type of compliance-gaining message selected and the success of that message. For example, Boster and Rodriguez (1995) have suggested that friends reply more with requests than strangers and that their compliance is constant across message types. Strangers, on the other hand, need more of an incentive to comply with a message because they lack an intimate relationship with the sender. The norm of reciprocity leads the stranger to believe that since he or she has no personal connection to the sender, he or she is

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

less obligated and would receive little, if any, reward for simple compliance. Boster and Rodriguez found that a pre-giving strategy worked most effectively with strangers. This strategy involves the sender offering something to the receiver. This offering is followed by a request for compliance, in hopes that the norm of reciprocity will lead the receiver to feel obligated to comply. Among friends, however, Boster and Rodriguez demonstrate that it is reasonable to expect compliance from a direct request because the norm of reciprocity is not as prevalent in intimate relationships.

Another study echoes the connection of intimacy in relationship and the message selected for compliance. Miller and Steinberg (1975) found a conceptual distinction between non-interpersonal and interpersonal communication transactions based on the kinds of messages senders use in predicting message outcomes. Predictions for use of non-interpersonal messages are based primarily on cultural and sociological information, whereas predictions for interpersonal messages are based primarily on psychological information about that individual. Miller and Steinberg found that persons involved in interpersonal communication are typically expected to be more successful in selecting their choice of message strategy, since their messages are based on personal information in regard to their receiver's sociological and cultural characteristics. These receiver characteristics would most likely be similar, if not the same as, the sender's cultural standards. Simply put, this means the message is tailored to a particular person from whom the compliance behavior is desired. On the other hand, they also found that most strategies used in non-interpersonal communication were based on, at most, infrequent relationships. This hypothesis was supported by findings that the most typical strategies selected for non-interpersonal compliance requests were grounded in punishment or harsh words. However, if these more direct and confrontational strategies were to be used in interpersonal attempts of compliance-gaining, the message would most likely scar or threaten the stability of that relationship, making the receiver reluctant to comply.

Message Characteristics A second major division of compliance-gaining research focuses on the message. The actual content of the message has equally been shown to have a great effect on the success of compliance-gaining. Grant and King (1994) found that pro-social behaviors are generally more effective compliance-gaining strategies than anit-social behaviors. Pro-social strategies are those that offer rewards, either physical or mental, for compliance. Anti-social strategies are those that threaten punishments for non-compliance. This study is of value is answering our specific research question because it focuses on the actual message rather than variations in such factors as language intensity. The study by Grant and King stated that, although the difficulty of the request, situational constraints, and other factors may be important in the persuasion process, the specific strategy utilized in composing the message is very important. For example, subjects in this study reported a 90 percent likelihood of compliance with pro-social messages while anti-social messages produced only a 36 percent chance of compliance.

Miller, Bolster, Roloff, and Seibold (1977) explored many of the issues associated with the role of the message, particularly the relative lack of concern in message choice by the sender. They held that when people seek to exert a message

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

to influence the behavior of others they must select from among a set of available symbolic alternatives. For example, statements like "Any fair and ethical businessman should honor his product warranty," and, "If you don't fix my brakes, I'll sue!" (Miller et al., 1997, p. 39) seek the same persuasive outcome to fix the defective brakes. However, the strategic assumptions underlying each message are markedly different. This statement demonstrates the effect of message choice. Miller, Bolster, Roloff and Seibold found that the choice of the first message assumes persuasion will occur based on moral appeal. The later message implies compliance based on threat and potential punishment as more likely to result in persuasive success.

In constructing a message strategy, situational influences often play a key part. Cody, McLaughlin, and Jordan (1980) examined this relationship and its influence on compliance-gaining success. They desired an understanding of potential strategies available to interpersonal persuaders. In their research, they found that several strategies employed by persuaders fell outside the realm of the classifications of Marwell and Schmidt (1967). These multidimensional results indicated that interpersonal tactics could be differentiated on the basis of two dimensions: direct v. indirect and rational v. irrational. Clark's (1979) research helped formulate this study. Clark differentiated messages into categories that focused on three possible communicative objectives; which were instrumental, interpersonal, and identity managing. Fitzpatrick and Winke (1979) also identified factors involved in constructing message strategies. Their five factors of interpersonal conflict tactics were (1) manipulation, (2) non-negotiation, (3) emotional appeal, (4) personal rejection, and (5) empathetic understanding. Cody, McLaughlin, and Jordan (1980) sought to capitalize on the research of Clark (1979) and Fitzpatrick and Winke (1979) to develop a working typology of relevant compliance-gaining message strategies based on cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling techniques. Subjects were asked to construct and sort strategies they would use in three compliance-gaining situations. The result showed messages grouped by a direct-rational, manipulation, and exchange-threat strategies.

Sender and Receiver Characteristics A third division of compliance-gaining study looks at the characteristics, attitudes, and beliefs of the individual sender and receiver. The individual characteristics of both the sender and the receiver play an integral part in determining the outcome of compliance. For example, the amount of power that either the sender or the receiver holds will affect the choice of compliance-gaining tactic and its success. Boster and Kazoleas (1995) conducted a study which generalized that if people were not in an intimate relationship, then the amount of power the sender held relative to the receiver determined the variety of messages the sender could choose from. As the sender's power over the receiver increases, the sender will be more willing to send a greater and more varied number of messages. In other words, if the sender holds a position of power over the receiver, the sender will be more likely to be persistent in seeking compliance and will feel comfortable trying a number of message techniques because the sender will feel he or she has enough authority to do so. For this reason, a sender of higher power often has more success with compliance-gaining. On the other hand, if the sender is in a lower position of power, he or she will not feel as comfortable

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

repeatedly seeking compliance. The sender may also not feel comfortable using as wide a variety of tactics because he or she may feel that some of the tactics require more power then he or she holds.

Miller, Boster, Roloff, and Seibold (1977) offer another study correlating message choices and the characteristics of the potential persuader (sender). They found that if the sender is regarded as highly knowledgeable in a particular area, then attempts to control the attitude and behavior of receivers in this area are likely to rely heavily on expertise strategies. Similarly, physical and /or social prowess may cause a communicator to make frequent use of threat and punishment strategies.

In examining the role of the receiver in compliance-gaining, it has been found that guilt can have a dramatic effect in gaining compliance. Boster, Mitchell, Lapinski, Cooper, Orrego, and Reinke (1999) established that receivers of compliance-gaining attempts typically comply with a request to help more frequently when they feel guilty versus when they do not feel guilty. Guilt was found to produce an unpleasant affective state that the receiver sought to relieve through compliance. It was found that the majority of adults link pro-social actions, such as helping, with obtaining rewards. Obtaining rewards creates a positive affect necessary to reduce guilt. Participants who did not feel guilty had no need to relieve the negative affect, giving them less reason to comply. In other words, it is important to keep the feelings and emotional state of the receiver in mind when developing a compliance-gaining message.

Situation The situation in which the compliance-gaining occurs affects each of the areas previously discussed: the relationship between the sender and receiver, the message, and the individual characteristics of the sender and receiver. Sillars (1980) says that not all strategies are appropriate for all situations. He says the decision depends largely on three things. First, how important is it to get the compliance. Second, the decision to use a strategy may depend on how much persuaders think the strategy will affect their relationship with a persuadee. Finally, the likelihood that the strategy will be used may depend on how successful the persuader thinks the strategy will be.

Compliance-gaining situations are often viewed through dimensions, which allow for the narrowing of message selection. In other words, before considering the situation, senders have a plethora of messages to choose from but the attributes of the particular situation in which the message will be used will enable the sender to narrow this range of possible message choices (Dillard and Burgoon, 1985, p.289). Dillard and Burgoon suggested that compliance-gaining could be divided into six salient dimensions. These six dimensions are (1) the degree of intimacy between the target and the actor, (2) the extent to which compliance would personally benefit the receiver of the message, (3) the consequences of compliance-gaining to the relationship of the sender and receiver, (4) the rights of the receiver in the situation, (5) the extent to which the sender typically dominates the receiver, and (6) the degree of resistance the sender expects the receiver to offer to the compliance-gaining attempt. These categories were reaffirmed by Cody, Woelfel, and Jordan (1983). In a study by Boster and Kazoleas (1995) it was found if people are not in an intimate relationship then as the power of the speaker relative

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

to the target increases, the speaker should be willing to employ more persistent and more diverse message behavior.

Fundraising

Now that we have examined the current research on compliance-gaining, it is necessary to look further into fundraising research in order to build a firm foundation for our own research. In researching, we found that very few compliance-gaining studies have addressed the domain of fundraising. It seems as if, until recently, fundraisers simply tried a message and hoped it worked. If the message was ineffective they simply moved on to the next tactic. Few people attempted to find out what messages would be most successful and why. Our research is important for this reason. Much of the small amount of literature and research that does exist is politically based. However, political fundraising and fundraising for non-profit organizations is very different. Politics often conjure up negative image where many non-profit organizations do not carry this type of stigma. Merely uttering the word "politics," or some derivative of it, immediately forms a positive or negative perception in most people's minds.

One study linking fundraising and compliance-gaining explored the effect of pregiving and "foot in the door" (FITD) techniques in seeking compliance for a donation request to charity (Bell and Cholerton, 1994). The FITD procedure attempts to increase compliance by first making a small request, followed by the larger request that the fundraiser is ultimately seeking compliance for. Pregiving focuses on offering a gift or favor to the receiver before even mentioning the compliance request. The power of this strategy lies largely on the norm of reciprocity which creates a feeling of obligation to be generous to those who have been kind to us. Fundraisers hope that the norm of reciprocity will cause the receiver to comply in order to cancel the debt they now feel towards the sender from the original gift or favor (Gouldner, 1960). Results of the Bell and Cholerton study indicated FITD and pregiving techniques were more profitable than a simple direct request for a donation. The study pointed out that fundraisers must be careful when combining these two techniques, lest they cancel each other out. Pregiving was found to sabotage FITD when placed before the initial request.

The study also offered insight into the overall effectiveness of the pregiving tactic, a term originally coined by Marwell and Schmitt. The study's comparison of pregiving and the control message proved pregiving to be an extremely cost-beneficial method for generating funds. The presentation of a brochure costing $0.20 (the gift used in the study) led to an increase of $1.07 in the average donation received, paying for itself five times over. This finding was consistent with past research by Cialdini (1986), which suggested that small favors could produce substantial gains. Regan (1971) found that favors increased compliance rates even for unfriendly and initially non-complying individuals. His study showed that compliance was more often produced by providing a receiver with even the most trivial of benefits. Within the literature on the reciprocity of helping behavior and compliance lies evidence that most of us feel obligated to help those who have voluntarily helped us due to the psychological mechanism of indebtedness (Greenberg, 1980).

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

Barry and Shapiro (1992) offered a direct insight into the relationship between fundraising and compliance-gaining when they examined how offering a rational exchange in compliance-gaining situation interacts with the type of influence tactic used. They investigated two approaches, soft tactics and hard tactics. Soft message tactics are employed when compliance is sought through flattering and friendliness. Hard message tactics involve an assertive request for assistance. They found that hard and soft tactics work equally well, depending on the situation.

Another approach to fundraising was offered by Goldman (1986). Goldman compared the joint effects of the FITD technique and the door-in-the-face (DITF) technique. Similar to FITD, the DITF method of fundraising is demonstrated through two sequential messages. The sender first issues a request containing substantial cost to the receiver. When the receiver turns down the request the true request is given for compliance. This strategy assumes that the receiver will see the second request as a compromise and, feeling less pressure, will comply. Goldman's work created a curiosity for further investigation of strategies with underlying compliance tactics.

One such investigation studied the differences between large and small initial requests. Dillard (1990) noted that using varying initial requests before the actual request for a donation could take two forms. One form states that a large initial request would be more likely than a small initial request to lead to positive self-attributions, which support compliance with the critical request. The other form argues that a person who has executed an initial request, rather than simply agreeing to do so, would be more likely to comply with the critical request (Dillard, 1990).

James Harvey (1990) presented another fundraising study that suggests a helpful direction for research efforts. Harvey pointed out that America's non-profit fundraising organizations are facing new challenges in today's "business-as-usual" environment. Government support for non-profit organizations is decreasing. For-profit organizations are entering markets that used to be almost exclusively non-profit. Donations from the unmarried, young, and wealthy are down. Harvey contends that improved market segmentation would help alleviate these problems. His research identified five general categories of donors: managers, low involvement, skeptics, guardians, and crusaders. Harvey criticizes fundraisers for failing to recognize the diversity of these contributing markets and developing uni-dimensional messages that really do not meet anyone's needs. Harvey does not, though, suggest what techniques would best suit each category. Our research could lead to more specific follow-up research that would help identify which compliance-gaining tactics would be most effective on each of these audiences.

As we have shown in the previous literature review, compliance-gaining and fundraising researchers have rarely crossed each other's paths. O'Keefe and Shepard (1987) point out that compliance-gaining researchers have focused on the strategy selection in hypothetical situations, while largely ignoring the effectiveness of various strategies in real world compliance-seeking situations. The first step in bridging the gap between these two worlds is to investigate strategies of compliance-gaining in general. This will pave the way for more refined studies, further

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

linking these two areas. Consequently we offer the following research question:

RQ: Which compliance-gaining techniques most effectively persuade a person to donate money to a non-profit organization?

Method

Participants

Forty individuals were surveyed in our study, 21 females and 19 males. The respondents ranged in age from 20 to 61. Approximately half of those surveyed were college students while the other half were employed full-time in a working environment. The surveys were distributed to various adults in Hastings and our home communities of Pierce, Nebraska, and Omaha, Nebraska. Participants came from a variety of environments. Most reported being middle to upper-middle socioeconomic class.

Procedure

In studying the question of what strategy of compliance-gaining best fits the fundraiser's needs in soliciting donations we used our own uniquely formatted four-part questionnaire (See Appendix B). We developed the four-part questionnaire based on criticism of previous compliance-gaining research that relied on checklist methods developed by Marwell and Schmitt (1967). Critics of the checklist only method feel it encourages participants to select strategies that they may not typically use or not have even thought of without the suggestions on the list. Therefore, researchers suggest that to obtain a well-balanced study the experiment should contain a free response portion in addition to a checklist (O'Keefe, 1987).

The first portion of the questionnaire presented a fundraising scenario in which the respondent receives a letter from the World Vision organization (an actual non-profit group) asking the participant for a donation. The participant was asked to list several message ideas that would best persuade him or her to comply with the fundraiser's request for charitable contributions. The free-response portion of the questionnaire was included first in order to obtain results that accurately reflect the true behavior of the participant. This method is also less prone to social bias (O'Keefe, 1987).

The next part of the questionnaire presented the same scenario in which the participant receives a mailing from World Vision with a pamphlet describing the organization and its sponsorship program for needy children in third-world countries around the world. This is an actual program that World Vision organizes. The mailing also contains a letter asking for a contribution. The descriptions were followed by a list of the 16 compliance-gaining strategies outlined by Marwell and Schmitt (1967). Each strategy contained an example of a message relating to the World Vision scenario that displays the technique in seeking compliance. The participants rated each strategy based on their perception of how effective the message would be in eliciting a contribution to the charity. To rate each message, the participant used a Likert scale of one to seven, one being extremely effective and seven being extremely ineffective.

The third portion of our questionnaire asked the participant to rate the believability of the fundraising situations presented. This will be used as a manipulation

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

check on the previous portions of the survey to determine if the scenarios were believable and able to solicit accurate results.

The fourth portion of our questionnaire was a brief demographics section asking general information such as age, sex, race, occupation, and income level. This information may be used in the future to determine any donating trends found within certain subgroups. It could also lead to further research in more specific areas of compliance-gaining and fundraising.

Analysis

A content analysis was conducted on the written answers generated from part one of the questionnaire. This analysis involved reading each individual answer and determining which of the 16 compliance-gaining strategies it most closely resembled. Participants' answers often included more than one strategy. Analyzing the second part of the questionnaire involved determining statistically which strategy or strategies each participant ranked most effective and most ineffective.

Results

Two types of analysis were used to compile data gathered. To analyze the free response portion of the s urvey (Part I), both researchers read through the responses, comparing them to the tactics outlined by Marwell and Schmitt. As shown in the table (see Table 1), over half of the suggested messages for the content of a letter from World Vision did not fall into the 16 tactics of compliance-gaining. For example, 16 respondents wanted precise information about how the money they donated would be used, such as how much money actually went to the child compared to how much money went to overhead administrative costs. Statistical information was the most requested message.

TABLE 1

Results of Free Response Portion of Survey

Suggestion Total

Promise

Newsletter with updates 8

This will be only mailing sent 5

Picture of child 3

Do not sell my name to others 1

Self-feeling (negative)

Guilt 4

Specific information about child 5

Statistical information

Where does my money go? 16

How successful has program been in past? 1

How much does a sponsorship cost? 4

Other 5

Web site

Testimonial from a unbiased group

What makes this organization unique?

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

Of the suggestions that did fall within strategies of compliance-gaining, a variety of opinions within each category were expressed. For example, the tactic of promise was viewed from several perspectives: follow-up, results of donation, and assurance. A promise of future information about the sponsored child, in the form of newsletters, letters from the child, and stories of their progress, was suggested by eight individuals. The promise of a one-time contact from World Vision was suggested by five individuals. Other individuals requested pictures of their sponsored child and assurance that their names would not be sold to or shared with other organizations.Part II of the survey used a Likert scale. A tally was compiled to determine the overall effectiveness of each tactic. As shown below in the table listing the Likert Scale portion of the survey (see Table 2), promise, expertise (positive), and liking were found to be the most persuasive messages. These strategies have the majority of responses listed as either 1 or 2 on the Likert scale. Threat, pregiving, adverse stimulation, moral appeal, self-feeling (negative), altercasting (negative), esteem (positive), and esteem (negative) were found to be extremely ineffective tactics for persuasion. These strategies had the majority of responses within categories 6 or 7. The remaining strategies of expertise (negative), debt, self-feeling (positive), altercasting (positive), and altruism were found to be fairly neutral in their effectiveness to persuade the receiver to donate. The neutral strategies were usually given a rating of a 4.

TABLE 2

Results of Likert Scale Portion of Survey

Tactic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ttl Promise 7 10 9 6 6 2 0 40

Threat 1 0 0 1 2 2 34 40

Expertise (positive) 9 10 10 9 2 0 0 40

Expertise (negative) 0 4 8 11 5 6 6 40

Liking 4 18 8 6 3 1 0 40

Pregiving 2 1 5 8 3 9 12 40

Aversive stimulation 0 1 2 1 6 5 25 40

Debt 5 7 9 11 5 2 1 40

Moral Appeal 0 1 5 1 4 10 19 40

Self-feeling (positive) 3 5 10 12 3 3 4 40

Self-feeling (negative) 1 1 2 7 3 11 15 40

Altercasting (positive) 0 2 3 7 11 10 7 40

Altercasting (negative) 0 1 1 1 3 11 23 40

Altruism 2 9 16 6 2 4 1 40

Esteem (positive) 0 3 2 7 6 11 11 40

Esteem (negative) 0 0 4 2 1 12 21 40

As one can see, most of the 16 tactics outlined by Marwell and Schmitt were not determined as very effective by those surveyed. Most respondents wanted more general information and hard facts. The tactics deter

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

mined by Marwell and Schmitt did not cover the information that most individuals sought.

Discussion

This study was undertaken to determine which compliance-gaining techniques most effectively persuade a person to donate money to a non-profit organization. Marwell and Schmitt's 16 compliance-gaining tactics were used as a skeletal basis for our research; however, the results of the free response portion demonstrated that the most popular techniques were ones not outlined by their research. Rather our results supported ideas presented by Cody, McLaughlin, and Jordan (1980). They found that several effective strategies used in compliance-gaining are not outlined or provided for by Marwell and Schmitt. Study participants were asked to cite messages they viewed as most persuasive. They requested more specific information about the non-profit organization and facts about its programs. Almost every participant listed some form of statistical information. Therefore, we suggest that non-profit organizations focus more on providing detailed information with a persuasive twist. The use of hard facts and statistics would provide a more solid presentation of the validity of the non-profit group, helping it to stand out among hundreds of charitable causes. This would also help to reassure people that their money is actually supporting the cause they intend it to and not being lost to overhead or administrative costs. The bottom line, as found by the free response portion of our research study, is that organizations should worry less about how they say something and more about what they actually have to say. Less focus on persuasive tactics and more focus on pure honesty was another request by many participants. Individuals do not want to be bored or to feel their time is being wasted by another corporate message; they want a true story with facts and pictures to draw them in.

Participants show in their selection of the three tactics of promise, expertise (positive), and liking, that they want fundraisers to present their situation in a positive light. This is the only way it will be viewed as a successful message. A successful fundraising campaign or program should also offer a form of guarantee that what has been stated and promised by the fundraiser is actually being done. This could be accomplished through a website, testimonial from other non-biased and respected foundations, or a regular newsletter. This allows a receiver an opportunity to feel connected to the mission he or she is supporting on his or her own terms without constant reminders to give. Our participants did not appreciate feeling pressured into support by repeated requests for donations.

Although our study did uncover new findings in the area of fundraising and compliance-gaining, there were a few limitations that could be improved for further research. One such limitation was the wide variety and extremes of the 16 compliance-gaining tactics. Tactics such as threat magnified the perceived usefulness of other possible tactics because participants saw the threat method as extremely unrealistic. In reality, no non-profit group has the power to enforce or imply such a tactic and have it be believable. The inclusion of threat and other far-reaching tactics, like aversive stimulation, may have made some of the other tactics, such as altercating (positive), appear more effective to the participant. When presented with such absurd options as threat, tactics that were even remotely real

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

istic suddenly appeared as effective when this may not have actually been the case.

The study was also limited by demographic constraints. The area studied was predominantly Caucasian and of middle class social economical status. These are not the only group of people who donate to charities, so a larger and more diverse group of participants would provide more accurate results of overall trends.

In conclusion, this study shed a great deal of light on the problems faced by non-profit fundraisers in securing financial donations and gifts. Fundraisers are limited not only by resources but by the power and authority from which they can produce message strategies. For further research we recommend that studies focus more on what types of facts and information are most appealing to the receivers. This research should also target specific market segments to develop the most effective strategy. For instance, would hard statistical data or heartwarming stories or a combination of both prove most effective? We also recommend that further studies be conducted on possible divisions within the three tactics that were identified as the most effective of those outlined by Marwell and Schmitt. For example, we found that the tactic of promise could be broken down and divided into four separate categories ranging from the promise of follow-up information on the organization to promises of no future contact. Further research might also be conducted using the five tactics of Fitzpatrick and Winke (1979) rather than the traditional compliance-gaining research using the tactics of Marwell and Schmitt. These strategies focused on more emotional and personal tactics that may be more appealing to the receiver. We anticipate that the finding of this study and the suggestions for further research will provide a clear understanding of the difficulties faced by today's fund-raisers. Their messages must be two-fold. They must secure a donation while at the same time pleasing and meeting the requests of their contributors. This original study has shown that the area of persuasive messages geared toward the receiver requires a second thought and closer look for maximum effect and development

Appendix A

MARWELL & SCHMITT'S COMPLIANCE-GAINING TACTICS

Promise: If the receiver complies there will be a reward.

Threat: Issues an ultimatum for compliance, saying do this or be punished.

Expertise (positive): Compliance will assure a reward due to the nature of the situation.

Expertise (negative): States the opposite of expertise (positive); with an outcome of punishment for not complying.

Liking: Suggests that the sender acts friendly and helpful to put the receiver in a positive, likewise, helpful mood of compliance.

Pregiving: Offers a reward before the compliance is requested.

Aversive Stimulation: Condones punishment until the receiver agrees to comply.

Debt: Places guilt on the receivers, requiring compliance for past favors the sender has performed.

Moral Appeal: Suggests the receiver is immoral for non-compliance.

Self-feeling (positive): Promotes a boost in self-esteem if the receiver complies.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

Self-feeling (negative): Reverses the situation, making the receiver feel worse about themselves for not complying.

Altercasting: (positive): Hints that a "good" person would comply.

Altercasting: (negative): Makes the receiver believe that only a "bad" person would fail to comply.

Altruism: Asks the receiver to comply due to the sender's desperate situation.

Esteem (positive): Says the receiver will be valued as a better person for complying.

Esteem (negative): Says that people will look down upon the receiver if they choose not to comply.

Appendix B

Fundraising Survey

DIRECTIONS: This survey is being conducted to study the effectiveness of various fundraising messages. This survey is for class use only. All information gathered is anonymous and will be kept confidential. Please complete all four parts of in their entirety and return to the surveyor.

Thank you for your participation and help in our research project.

Part 1

You have received a letter and pamphlet in the mail from World Vision, a international organization that cares for children in third-world countries by arranging for them to be sponsored. A sponsorship will provide this child with food, clothing, medical care and an education. They are asking for a donation to be sent back in the enclosed return envelope. The pamphlet fully explains the purpose and goals of World Vision and how you could become a sponsor or make a one-time donation. What would you like to read about?

DIRECTIONS FOR PART 1: Please list ideas for a message for the letter that would best persuade you to read the rest of the letter and make a donation.

Part 2

You have received a letter and pamphlet in the mail from World Vision, a international organization that cares for children in third-world countries by arranging for them to be sponsored. A sponsorship will provide this child with food, clothing, medical care and an education. They are asking for a donation to be sent back in the enclosed return envelope. The pamphlet fully explains the purpose and goals of World Vision and how you could become a sponsor or make a one-time donation. Which of the following messages in the letter would you find most persuasive?

DIRECTIONS FOR PART 2: Using the following scale, fill in the appropriate number in the blank

Extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely

Effective Ineffective

1. If you make a donation we will send you a monthly newsletter featuring children that World Vision is helping.

2. If you do not donate, we will tell your boss or professors how selfish and

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

uncooperative you are.

3. Your donation ensures that a child will have adequate food, clothing, medical care, and education.

4. If you do not make a donation, a child will suffer from a lack of adequate food, clothing, medical care, and education.

5. Five year old Marcos is very happy now that he is able to go to school and be with his friends instead of working all day, thanks to the support of World Vision sponsors.

6. We have enclosed magnetic picture frame for your enjoyment in hope that you will also want to give to someone you don't know.

7. If you do not contribute, every time you buy a pop or candy bar, you will feel guilty that you are not feeding a starving child instead.

8. I am sure that you or someone you know has gone without at some point in his or her life and could have used a helping hand. Now is your chance to return that favor.

9. It is morally wrong not to donate to a cause that will benefit others in need.

10. Donating to World Vision will make you feel good because you know you are helping a needy child.

11. If you do not make a donation to World Vision, you will feel bad later on for not doing your part to better the lives of others.

12. Since you are a mature, intelligent person, you will naturally want to donate to World Vision because it helps those in need.

13. Only a very selfish person would refuse to donate to an organization that helps needy children.

14. I would really appreciate your donation because World Vision will not be able to feed and clothe all thr needy children of the world without your help.

15. All of your fellow students or co-workers will be proud of you for donating to World Vision.

16. Your fellow students or co-workers will be disappointed in you if you fail to donate to World Vision.

Part 3

DIRECTIONS FOR PART 3: Keeping in mind situation Part 2, please circle the appropriate number as a response.

1. I think situation #2 is believable.

very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not very

believable believable

2. I could imagine myself in this situation.

easy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not easy

to imagine to imagine

3. Situation #2 is realistic.

very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not very

realistic realistic

Part 4

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

DIRECTIONS FOR PART 4:

Please supply the following demographic information.

1. Age ____

2. Gender ____

3. Race

___ Caucasian

___ Native American

___African American

___ Hispanic

___ Asian

___ Other (please specify ________________ )

4. Occupation _________________

(if you are a student, please indicate year in school and major)

5. Annual Income ________________

References

Barry, B., & Shapiro, D.L. (1992). Influence tactics in combination: The interactive effects of soft versus hard tactics and rational exchange. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22. 1429-1441.

Barry, John S. (1996). How a flat tax would affect charitable contributions. The Backgrounder, 16, (16), 36-38.

Bell, Robert Alan, & Cholerton, Matthew. (1994). Encouraging donations to charity: A field study of competing and complementary factors in tactic sequencing. Western Journal of Communication, 58 (2), 98-116.

Boster, Franklin J., & Kazoleas, Dean. (1995). The impact of power on communicative persistence, strategic diversity and bargaining outcomes. Communication Reports, 8 (2), 136-145.

Boster, Franklin J., Mitchell, Monque M., Lapinski, Maria Knight, Cooper, Heather, Orrego, Victoria O., & Reinke, Ronald. (1999). The Impact of guilt and type of compliance gaining on compliance. Communication Monographs, 66. 168-178.

Boster, Franklin J., & Rodriguez, Jose I. (1995). The relative effectiveness of a direct request message and a pregiving message on friends and strangers. Communication Research, 22, (4), 475-485.

Cialdini, R.B., Vincent, J.E., Lewis, S.K., Catatlan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B.L. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206-215.

Clark, Ruth Anne. (1979). The impact of self interest and desire for liking on the selection of communicative strategies. Communication Monographs, 46, 257-273.

Cody, M.J., Greene, J.O. Marston, P.J., O'Hair, H.D., Baaske, K.T., & Schneider, M.J. (1986). Situation perception and strategy selection. In M.L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 9. 391-240.

Cody, Michael J., McLaughlin, Margaret L., & Jordan, William J. (1980). A multidimensional scaling of three sets of compliance-gaining strategies. Commu

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

nication Quarterly, 28, (3), 34-36.

Cody, Michael J., Woelfel, M.L., & Jordan, W.J. (1983). Dimensions of compliance gaining situations. Human Communication Research, 9, 99-113.

Dillard, J.P. (1990). Self-inference and the foot-in-the-door technique: Quantity of behavior and attitudinal mediation. Human Communication Research, 16, 422-447.

Dillard, James P., & Burgoon, Michael. (1985). Situational influences on the selection of compliance gaining messages: Two tests of the predictive utility of the Cody-McLaughlin typology. Communication Monographs, 52, 289-304.

Fitzpatrick, M.A., & Winke, J. (1979). You always hurt the one you love: Strategies and tactics in interpersonal conflict. Communication Quarterly, 27, 3-11.

Gass, Robert H., & Seiter, John S. (1990). Persuasion, Social Influence, & Compliance Gaining. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Goldman, M. (1986). Compliance employing a combined foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face procedure. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 111-116.

Grant, Jo Anna, & King, Paul E. (1994). Compliance gaining strategies, communication satisfaction, and willingness to comply. Communication Reports, 7, (2), 99-109.

Greenburg, M.S. (1980). A theory of indebtedness. In K.J. Gergen, M.S. Greenburg, & R.H. Willis (Eds.) Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (3-26). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.

Harvey, James W. (1990). Benefit segmentation for fund-raisers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18, (1), 77-87.

Information Please. (1998) The Time Almanac.

Marwell, Gerald, & Schmitt, David R. (1967). Dimension of compliance-gaining behavior: An empirical analysis. Sociometry, 30, 350-364.

Miller, Gerald R., Boster, Frank, Roloff, Michael E., & Seibold, David. (1979). Compliance gaining message strategies: A typology of some findings concerning effects of situational differences. Communication Monographs, 44, 37-51.

Miller, Gerald R. & Steinberg, Mark. (1975). Between People: A new analysis of interpersonal communication. Palo Alto, CA: Science Research Associates.

O'Keefe, B.J., & Shephard, G.J. (1987). The pursuit of multiple objectives in face-to-face persuasive interaction: Effects of construct differentiation on message organizations. Communication Monographs, 54, 396-419.

O'Keefe, Daniel. (1990) Persuasion: Theory & Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Regan, D.T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 627-639.

Sillars, A.L. (1980). The stranger and the spouse as target persons for compliance gaining strategies: A subjective expected utility model. Human Communication Research, 6. 265-279.

Thibodeaux, Bessie. (1999). The Road Home: Direct Mail Fundraising. Campaigns & Elections. 61-62.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1998). Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1998. 118^th Edition, Washington D.C.

Wiseman, Richard L., & Schenck-Hamlin, William. (1981). A multidimensional scaling validations of an inductively-derived set of compliance-gaining strategies. Communication Monographs, 48, 251-270.

Zacks, David M. (1999). Treasurer's Report: Fiscal Year 1997-1998. The American Cancer Society. http://www.cancer.org/annReport/tex_04.html.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

President Herbert Hoover's

Elocutio Versus Actio:

Innervation Versus Enervation

in the 1932 Campaign

Halford Ryan

"But since the whole business of rhetoric is with opinion, one should pay attention to delivery, not because it is right, but because it is necessary," affirmed Aristotle, who regarded delivery "a vulgar matter when rightly understood" (218). On the other hand, Quintilian recognized delivery's power in persuasion: "For my own part I would not hesitate to assert that a mediocre speech supported by all the power of delivery will be more impressive than the best speech unaccompanied by such power"( XI, 3, 5). But what of the inverse relationship between style and delivery? Can lackluster skills in actio or delivery annul deftness in elocutio or diction?

To win a second term, Hoover and his staff quickly realized that personal, presidential speeches were needed to counter Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt's assault on Hoover and the Republican Party (Robinson and Bornet, 255-256; Lloyd, 170-171). Given that Hoover's canvass, according to French Strother, who was administrative assistant to the president, 1920- 32, would not broach Roosevelt's poliomyelitis "because of the inhibitions we have established against any material which suggests in the slightest way Governor Roosevelt's physical handicap" (Papers), the only rhetorical path open, according to Theodore Joslin, who was secretary to the president from 1931 to 1933, was "that if the President's cause was to be presented properly to the people, he would have to do it himself. He could not do the whole job from Washington. He must go to the country" (297).

Hoover took his case to the electorate by addressing large audiences while his remarks were simultaneously broadcast to the nation. He made a number of subsidiary speeches and numerous whistle-stop talks from his railroad observation car as he traversed the country to his major speaking engagements, but his broadcasts reached the largest audiences. In addition to his acceptance address, delivered in Washington, D.C. on August 11, Hoover gave seven major campaign speeches. Four of these are generally regarded as his best persuasive efforts: Des Moines, Iowa, October 4; Cleveland, Ohio, October 15; Detroit, Michigan, October 22; and Indianapolis, Indiana, October 28. Although these addresses have been treated from economic and political perspectives, their style has not been dealt with, and their delivery has been discussed only in passing.

Albeit Hoover had marshaled military metaphors from 1930 onward in his speeches to combat the Depression (Olson, 206), he made full use of them in the

Halford Ryan is professor of public speaking and Director of Forensics, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA 24450-0303.

Note: Ryan conducted research in the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, West Branch, Iowa, on a grant from the Hoover Presidential Library Association, Inc.

Speaker and Gavel, Vol. 37 (2000), 21-31

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

1932 campaign. He declared a figurative war in his acceptance address and he waged that symbolic war during the campaign. Hoover used militaristic language to stress his role as commander in chief, rather than as chief executive, in order to persuade voters that he could in a second term defeat the Depression.

Governor Franklin Roosevelt eventually sensed the efficacy of militaristic language as a rhetorical response to the nation's needs. Roosevelt concluded his famous "Forgotten Man" radio address from Albany, New York, April 7, 1932, with an action-oriented war metaphor: "We are in the midst of an emergency at least equal to that of war. Let us mobilize to meet it" (627). But FDR did not exploit fully the effectiveness of military imagery in his speeches until his First Inaugural Address, which, owing to his rallying the country with war-like images, was one of Roosevelt's best and most persuasive speeches (Ryan, 75). The point is that both candidates responded rhetorically to the Depression, Hoover earlier and Roosevelt later, with similar language but with dissimilar results.

Of course, non-speech variables contributed to FDR's election and to Hoover's defeat. The Bonus March and Prohibition figured prominently and the Depression foremostly. Yet, with regard to rhetorical factors, Hoover's handling of two of the five classical canons of rhetoric worked to his advantage and disadvantage. Hoover's dull, dour, delivery skills, unlike those of FDR's, annulled salutary effects that his warlike diction communicated. Hoover's listeners reacted not to his innervating elocutio or style but to his enervating actio or delivery. Hoover communicated contradictory presidential images: His inept skills in delivery eviscerated his powerful military imagery.

This criticism of selected addresses from Hoover's 1932 campaign is based on the appropriate archival and audiovisual materials that were researched in the Herbert Hoover Library, West Branch, Iowa. President Hoover's speeches illuminate his own rhetorical habits, for he wrote his addresses, including those for his 1932 canvass. "Herbert Hoover," opined Thomas Bailey, "laboriously using a lead pencil, appears to have been the last incumbent to rely almost entirely on his own literary talents, which were not exceptional"( 203). Therefore, an examination of Hoover's style will disclose his, and not a speech writer's, deployment of military imagery; moreover, it will reveal that his style, contrary to Bailey's assertion, was more exceptional than has been realized.

Although Hoover commendably wrote his speeches, he nevertheless found the process laborious during the campaign. He complained in a press conference, November 6, that he was forced to compose intermittently his St. Paul, Minnesota speech, delivered on the evening of November 5, between ten whistle-stops in Illinois and Wisconsin that he made en route to St. Paul: "You will realize that trying to write speeches between stops is something of a job. I had to write the whole of the St. Paul speech after 9 o'clock yesterday morning and take in all the stops as well" (769).

This analysis also considers delivery. In rhetorical situations that predated sound recordings and motion pictures, reliable historical materials for mounting a study of a speaker's delivery (vocal pacing and emphasis, gestures and bodily movement, and eye contact) were meager or unavailable. However, with the advent of twentieth-century media technology, one has the necessary resources in

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

which to conduct meaningful research.

Herbert Hoover was the first modern media president. To be sure, presidential candidate William McKinley was projected in the first commercial motion picture, October 12, 1896, in New York City (Ramsaye, 323). Warren G. Harding was the first president to broadcast an address, "The World Court," St. Louis, Missouri, June 21, 1923, and Vice President Calvin Coolidge first spoke, December 24, 1922, on the Pallophotophone, the forerunner of the "talkies" (Barnouw, 145, 153). However, Hoover had the honor of being heard extensively over national radio and of being heard and seen on sound motion pictures in movie theaters: "The use of the radio was more extensive than ever before . . . . It was also the first presidential campaign in which `talking motion pictures' were extensively used" (Robinson and Bornet, 272-273). The newsreels, a staple for the movie-going public from about 1928 until their demise in the early 1960s, featured clips of the nation's chief executive. Robert H. Denton, a newsreel cameraman, recalled that his editors would say to him concerning Hoover: "God Almighty! Can't you get him to do this or that. He is not looking at the audience. He can't sell this. He can't sell that" (Denton, 17).

In the 1932 campaign, Hoover had to sell himself vis-a-vis Roosevelt. Though the election did not have campaign debates as such, Hoover and Roosevelt figuratively debated their respective candidacies before the American electorate. Myles Martel identified five strategies that inhere in campaign speaking: "attack, defend, sell, ignore, and `me too . . . me better'" (Martel, 62).

Hoover engaged the enemy with three of these strategies. In his acceptance address and speeches at Des Moines and Cleveland, Hoover linked the strategies of defend and sell. He used military metaphors to sell his credentials as commander in chief and to defend his presidential responses to the Depression. Beginning with his Cleveland speech and continuing in his Detroit and Indianapolis addresses, he increasingly added attacks on the Republican Party and Governor Roosevelt to his rhetorical arsenal. These strategies grounded Hoover's persuasive purposes with regard to actio and elocutio.

PRESIDENT HOOVER'S ELOCUTIO

Acceptance Speech, Washington, D.C., August 11, 1932

"This address," Theodore Joslin recalled Hoover's saying of his acceptance speech, "is going to be my own from beginning to end. It must be in my own language. I have a style of my own and it is most effective when I use it" (Joslin, 283). After admitting to his Constitution Hall audience of about four thousand people that "The last 3 years have been a time of unparalleled economic calamity" (Hoover, 357), Hoover explained the causes of the Depression. Then, taking credit for his administration's responses to the crisis, Hoover selected militaristic words to stress his generalship on the battlefield:

Two courses were open to us. We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead, we met the situation with proposals to private business and to the Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put that program in action. Our measures

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

have [applause] repelled these attacks of fear and panic. We have maintained the financial integrity of the Government [applause] (Hoover, 359).

Hoover's diction with regard to the Depression was vigorous, but his delivery was not. Although the partisan audience applauded Hoover's resolute deeds and his words made robust reading, his delivery was not rousing, for it was communicated by "reading in a low monotone" ("President's Speech is Cheered Wildly," 5). Hoover could not convey his pugnacious diction. He delivered all of his words in bland tones, with an even rate, and with no vocal inflections that could cue important verbal thrusts and parries. Moreover, he evidently did not understand the quality of his own rhetoric. In the time it took the audience to digest the import of "We put that program in action," which Hoover could have highlighted with an upward inflection and/or a rhetorical pause, Hoover plodded on without any cognition of what he had said until the audience interrupted him (Sound Recording 68-65). With military metaphors Hoover marched forward, but his delivery matched not, for "His hands rested on the lectern; he swayed slightly back and forth" ("President's Speech is Wildly Cheered," 5).

. Throughout the acceptance address, Hoover dispersed militaristic diction, such as "invading forces of destruction," "definite strategy . . . forming a continuous campaign waged against the forces of destruction on an ever-widening and constantly shifting front," "demobilized and withdrawn," "powerful attack upon the depression along the whole national front," and "We shall march to a far greater accomplishment [emphasis in original]" (Hoover, 359, 362, 362, 365, 374). This language sounded the tocsin for voters to enlist in Hoover's army in order to vanquish the Depression.

In addition to ordering bellicose words, Hoover also arrayed anaphora. Anaphora, a figure of sound, is using the same or similar words to begin successive units of speech, such as phrases or sentences. The rhetorical effect of anaphora is to dint an important idea into the audience's mind through repetition and restatement. Thus, when President Franklin Roosevelt, who was famous for his penchant for using anaphora, spoke four successive sentences of "Last night Japanese forces attacked" in his War Message, December 8, 1941, he elegantly communicated Japanese perfidy. President Herbert Hoover, too, could craft anaphora.

But, just as Hoover's delivery was oppressive, his style was onerous. Hoover simply overused parallelism. Bragging to his listeners that he had initiated programs to battle the Depression, he assured Americans he was guided by "eternal principles of our Nation"; then, he inexorably marched in lock step twelve times with the anaphora of "It was in accordance with these principles" (Hoover, 362-363, 363-365). (One might also note that "It was in accordance with these principles" was in the passive voice, which weakened the energy of the thought.) Perhaps sensing that his style had become a battering ram, Hoover relieved the tedium once by substituting "accord" for "accordance"; once he said "It was in accordance with these purposes"; and twice he spoke "It was in accord with these ideas." Hence, Hoover delivered with anaphora fifteen virtually identical phrases that were overkill. Perhaps that is why the editors of the Atlanta Constitution noted: "The President gives credit for such benefits as have accrued from relief legislation to

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

`the soul of the people'_and then unblushingly takes that glory to himself by saying, in effect, `I did it'" ("Editorial Opinion Divided on Hoover's Dry Revision Stand,"6).

Des Moines, Iowa, October 4

For his kick-off speech at Des Moines, Hoover deployed militaristic language to sell and defend his administration's frontal assaults on the Depression. "Now," the president assured his audience, "we have fought an unending war against the effect of these calamities upon our people in America. This is no time to recount the battles on a thousand fronts. We have fought the fight to protect our people in a thousand cities from hunger and cold"; moreover, he pressed the attack with other warlike words: "we have forged to win in this war against the depression," "I wish to describe one of the battles we fought to save this Nation," "That battle was fought parallel with other battles on other fronts," "We are fighting to hold the Gibraltar of world stability," "We had also to meet an attack upon our own flank from some of our own people," "Now, the battalions and regiments and armies which we thus mobilized for this great battle turned the tide toward victory by July"(Hoover, 461, 463, 464, 464, 470).

President Hoover also marshaled some of his military images in anaphora. Unlike his acceptance address, he fortunately varied his diction for effect, and he used active verbs to strengthen his language:

We have defended millions . . . .

We have fought the battle to balance the budget.

We have battled . . . .

We have fought to retard falling prices.

We have fought to secure . . . .

We have fought for stability (Hoover, 462) . . . .

In the speech's conclusion, Hoover again trumpeted his commander-in-chief role in staccato-like sentences:

That battle has been won. The next attack on this front is to reverse these processes of deflation and bring things back to their real values. That battle is in progress, and we must all move together. . . . The battle against depression is making progress. We are still faced with forces which render 10 million men idle and agriculture prostrate. We have forged new weapons, we have turned the tide from defense to attack. I shall continue the fight (Hoover, 484-485).

Cleveland, Ohio, October 15

Thirty thousand people heard Hoover at Cleveland's Public Hall, and the speech was broadcast to the nation. After speaking at ten whistle-stops during the day, it was little wonder that his voice trailed off at the ends of phrases, which gave the impression of defeatism.

Nevertheless, Hoover employed militaristic diction to fortify his image as commander in chief. In the introduction he warned the people not to change their presidential leadership: "A change in the strategy of that war_of those policies_

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

may convert what is now a victorious battle in progress into a defeat of the American people"; later in the speech he reminded the people of his successful generalship thus far: "we carried a victorious battle over the winter of 1931-32. Still again, during the past few weeks, I have cooperated with the great national agencies in the remobilization of the voluntary forces of the country for an attack on the forthcoming winter"; he appealed directly to workers: "We have fought a great battle to maintain the stability of the American dollar, the stability of our exchange. We have fought in order that we might protect the working people of the United States"; and in the conclusion, he waved the bloody flag: "If there shall be no retreat, if the attack shall continue as it is now organized, then this battle in the history of our race is won" (Hoover, 519, 528, 536, 543).

At Cleveland, Hoover attacked frontally the Democrats by name and Roosevelt by innuendo. He used anaphora and barbed tropes. Hoover sallied forth against the Democrats with twelve instances of parallelism, which he fortunately varied with slightly different words. His foray focused on the anaphora of "The leaders of the Democratic Party," to which he then added specific charges, "appear to be in ignorance of . . . . have apparently not yet learned . . . . ignore the effect of . . . . never heard of . . . . appear not to recognize" and so forth (Hoover, 521-523). The president also figuratively side-swiped Governor Roosevelt. Hoover coyly allowed that "State governments have the primary responsibility to protect their citizens in these matters [speculation in securities] and that the vast majority of these transactions originated or took place in the State of New York," and then he complained that Roosevelt''s attacks were like Johnny-come-lately Jeremiads: "I did not notice any Democratic Jeremiahs" (Hoover, 523, 524).

Detroit, Michigan, October 22

To an audience of twenty-two thousand at Olympia Arena and an untold national radio audience, Hoover unsheathed his rhetorical sword. The president attacked Governor Roosevelt's campaign complaints about the Federal deficit, and sarcastically allowed: "We have had a vast amount of oratory from the Democratic side on the subject of economy during the whole session. The oratory, instead of the facts, seems to have lodged in the mind of the Democratic candidate"; the president enumerated eighteen programs that he and the Republicans had mustered to master the Depression; and with the anaphora of "On," the president tallied eleven specific dates on which the Congressional Democrats sabotaged the ship of state with wastrel spending (Hoover, 578, 582-84, 587-588).

Hoover arrayed his traditional militaristic imagery in the introduction and conclusion of his Detroit speech to sell and defend his presidency. The president charged his audience to stay the course. "The battle must be continued," Hoover implored, for "We have yet to go a long way and to capture many position to restore agriculture and employment. But it can be made plain that if the strategy which we have established is maintained and the battle is not halted by change in the midst of action, we shall win"; however, the diction was delivered without platform presence, without any gestures, without any bellicose phrasing, without any vocal emphasis (Hoover, 610; Sound Recording 72-113). To conclude, like General George Washington at Valley Forge, Hoover succored his American army:

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

I can well understand that my countrymen are weary and sore and tired. I can well understand that part of this weariness comes from the exhaustion of a long battle. But in the battle we have carried the first-line trenches. It is of transcendent importance that there shall be no interruption; that there shall be no change in the strategy and the tactics used in the midst of a victorious movement. The essentials of American life must not be broken down in chaos and in peril (Hoover, 591).

Indianapolis, Indiana, October 28

As the campaign closed, Hoover gradually shifted tactics. In his previous speeches, he sold and defended his administration with military imagery, and in Detroit he trained his sights on the Republican party and Roosevelt. At Butler University Field House, he aimed his broadside directly at Governor Roosevelt and incidentally at the Democrats. The president spoke militantly, but briefly, in his introduction when he reminded his radio audience and live audience of twenty-two thousand listeners of his continued fight: "[T]he battle has now changed from a successful defense . . . to a forward-marching attack on a hundred fronts through a score of instrumentalities and weapons toward recovery" (Hoover, 610; Sound Recording 72-110). But, for the military imagery Hoover deleted, he countervailed in two tropes.

The figures of speech that Hoover coined were joined to the tariff and deficit. Governor Roosevelt had delivered a speech in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, October 19, 1932, in which he attacked the Hoover administration's stance on tariffs and its ballooning deficit. Unfortunately, FDR never specified how he would balance the budget, and he vacillated on the tariff. Although Roosevelt's "Forgotten Man" probably could not fathom the internal contradictions in the governor's address, Hoover could and did, and he determined to refute Roosevelt's careless handling of economic figures. Impugning the catch-phrase of Roosevelt's New Deal, Hoover accurately labeled FDR's waffling on the issues as a pejorative "new shuffle"; later in the speech he correctly likened Roosevelt's economic stance to a "chameleon on the Scotch plaid" (Hoover, 616, 619).

President Hoover saved his most prescient insight of the campaign for the conclusion of his Indianapolis speech. Robinson and Bornet (263) place this attack in Hoover's speech at Madison Square Garden in New York City, which speech was a major disappointment because Hoover refused to discuss Prohibition. But the attack was first mounted at Indianapolis. Joslin (322) termed Hoover's Indianapolis speech the "high point of his campaign." At Baltimore, Maryland, October 25, Governor Roosevelt complained in a campaign address how the Republicans controlled the federal government. In a caustic carp about Republican hegemony, FDR indicted "the Executive, the Senate, the House of Representatives," and then he ad-libbed, "and, I might add for good measure, the Supreme Court as well" (Roosevelt, 837). Well, Hoover was livid, and he censored FDR's politicizing the Supreme Court:

There are many things revealed in this campaign by our opponents which should give Americans citizens concern for the future. One of

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

the gravest is the state of mind revealed by my opponent in that statement. He implies that it is the function of a party in power to control the Supreme Court. For generations the Republican and Democratic Presidents alike have made it their most sacred duty to respect and maintain the independence of America's greatest tribunal (Hoover, 631).

As a coup de grace, Hoover skillfully crafted a series of three elegant rhetorical questions about Roosevelt's ill-advised statement. These interrogatories, the technical term is plurium interrogationum or many questions, were designed to move listeners to support the president's candidacy by questioning the governor's political motives; hence, the audience was supposed to answer "Yes":

Does it disclose the Democratic candidate's conception of the functions of the Supreme Court? Does he expect the Supreme Court to be subservient to him and his party? Does that statement express his intention by his appointments or otherwise to reduce that tribunal to an instrument of party policy and political action for sustaining such doctrines as he may bring with him (Hoover, 358)?

Hoover correctly foretold the future, for early in his second term, Roosevelt unveiled to the Congress and nation on February 5, 1937, his infamous Court-packing scheme, which ultimately failed for the very reasons that Hoover rhetorically deprecated in his three questions (Ryan, 109-126).

PRESIDENT HOOVER'S ACTIO

Hoover was plagued by delivery skills that did not serve well his campaign to listeners in the live audience, over the radio, or on the newsreels. Nicholas Cripe claimed that "Herbert Hoover had neither the vocal delivery nor the bodily eloquence necessary to be an effective public speaker"; Joseph Green, a career diplomat during Hoover's presidency, stated flatly: "He wasn't a public speaker; that fact had to be accepted"; and, reacting to Hoover's 1932 acceptance address, a British journalist skewered Hoover's "unprepossessing exterior, his sour, puckered face of a bilious baby, his dreary, nasal monotone, reading interminably, and for the most part inaudibly, from a typescript without a single inflection of a voice or gesture to relieve the tedium" (Cripe, 634; Green, 26; quoted in Burner, 314).

Hoover's delivery was a detriment over the radio. Joslin found Hoover's actio wanting: "And, of vital importance, the nominee must have a `radio voice.' If he is so gifted, half of his troubles are over. If he is not, he is laboring under a distinct handicap"; Paul Boller scored Hoover's radio speeches, which "sounded dreary, especially over the radio"; and Martin Fausold concluded that in the 1932 campaign, "Roosevelt had the edge," for FDR's "melodious voice sounded better than his opponent's tonal evenness" ( Joslin, 317; Boller, 235; Fausold, 209). An example of Hoover's dreadful delivery occurred during his radio address to the nation on welfare and relief mobilization, October 18, 1931. Hoover began with a military allusion: "This broadcast tonight marks the beginning of the mobilization of the whole Nation," but he marred his actio with a four-second pause when he stumbled over "with the churches and our [pause] our [four second pause] fraternal and patriotic societies"; hence, the speech's militaristic gambit was outflanked

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2000

by a poor presentation (Hoover, 487, 488; Sound Recording 68-69). Particularly poignant examples from the campaign were Hoover's speech at St. Paul, Minnesota, November 5, which Joslin characterized: "He spoke haltingly and without emphasis. his voice was tired. He lost his place in the manuscript again and again," and a short radio broadcast from the president's private railroad car in Elko, Nevada, November 7, in which Hoover w