Persuasion Scripts Blog

Consider again the current use of “persuasion scripts” this time in a politics context (although the point goes beyond politics and into any situation where you’re using communication to persuade others). This example is from the Rudy and Sheila Wellstone foundation aimed at training and development for progressive politics. Here’s a snippet of their “persuasion script”:

Sample Persuasion Script:

“Hi, my name is (give first name), and I’m here tonight in regard to the upcoming presidential election. Do you have a quick minute?”

(Pause for a reply, and if the person says they are busy, tell them you have only two questions)

“Does it concern you that President Bush’s tax cuts went primarily to Americans earning more than $150,000 a year, yet they created record budget deficits that will take decades for our children to pay back?”

(Wait for an answer. If “yes”, go to Option A. If “no”, go to Option B.)

Option A: “It bothers me, too, especially since those deficits have also forced states to cut eligibility requirements for health insurance and raise co-payments and cut funding for schools - all of which benefit average middle-class families. Do you think this is right?”

(Wait for an answer and acknowlege it, engaging in a brief conversation, but do not get into a debate.)

“Okay, one last question: if the election were held today, who would you most likely vote for: John Kerry, George Bush, or Ralph Nader?”

(Let them volunteer “undecided”)

“Thank you very much for your time today”

Option B: “Okay, thanks. Does it concern you that these deficits have forced states to cut eligibility requirements for health insurance and raise co-payments and cut funding for schools - all of which benefit average middle-class families?”

(Wait for an answer and acknowledge it, engaging in a brief conversation, but do not get into a debate.)

“Okay, one last question: if the election were held today, who would you most likely vote for: John Kerry, George Bush, or Ralph Nader?”

(Let them volunteer “undecided”)

“Thank you vey much for your time today”

We can immediately note the obvious similarity to the Howard Dean script posted about earlier here. This is clearly a debate script aimed at direct argumentation with issues, stands, evidence, and reasoning. No doubt this can be persuasive and lead to changing the way someone thinks, feels, or behaves, but I suspect that such scripts are more likely to fail and in some case more likely to produce boomerang outcomes that serve to make things worse.

Realize that such an approach immediately triggers a high WATT, biased processor - someone who is actively involved, but responding defensively, knowing that someone is going to argue with them and against them. The Wellstone script here immediately forewarns receivers that they are in a debate even before the specific issues, positions, and arguments are made. This is certainly a sincere and authentic approach, but not likely to be effective.

The script in no way instructs or plans for the source to get any kind of “audience analysis” before launching into the debate. Note that the script doesn’t adivse to look at the house, the neighborhood, the people on the street to get a sense of what kind of people live here and how they might already be thinking, feeling, or behaving. There is certainly nothing in the script that guides the source in sizing up the person who answers the door. What’s their mood? Are they attentive or distracted? How are they dressed? How quickly do they respond to your questions? Nothing in the script assess the immediate mental state of the receiver at the door. Just bang away with the arguments and “if they say X, then you say Y.”

It is also worth noting that both “debate scripts” I’ve posted on have been connected with sources (Paul Wellstone and Howard Dean) who are associated with high intensity, in-your-face communication styles. (The fact that both are progressive Democrats is less relevant. I suspect that one day I’ll find Republican examples of such scripts and those sources will probably be just as intense and aggressive. It’s not the content of the politics, it’s the style of the politician that’s the point.)

I suspect that people using these debate scripts are more likely to find kindred spirits rather than actually changing anyone’s thoughts, feelings, or behaviors in a positive direction. Certainly, there’s nothing wrong with attracting those who are attracted to you, but you’ve got to realize that attraction is not persuasion. And when you use debate scripts that attract those attracted to you and then label it an exercise in persuasion, you are misleading yourself about what you are doing, the impact it is having, and why things are occurring the way they are occurring. In other words, under the surface of your current success courses a deeper tide running toward failure.

Do you really want to change the world?