FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — Give people options and acknowledge their grievances. Those are two of the recommendations a University of Arkansas psychologist presented to an audience of State Department officials, journalists and representatives of private industry last week.

The University of Michigan Yaffe Center for Persuasive Communication hand-picked Eric Knowles, UA professor of psychology, to join a prestigious panel of researchers for its symposium, "Restoring America’s Image Abroad." Through their various fields of expertise, these researchers were charged with educating a select audience on ways to change negative opinions about the United States overseas.

"Public opinion surveys such as the Pew Global Attitudes Project have found negative views of the United States increasing worldwide," said Rajeev Batra, director of the Yaffe Center. "The State Department spends roughly a billion dollars each year trying to change those opinions. We organized this symposium to address what is obviously a significant issue in American foreign relations."

The center invited Knowles to participate based on his extensive research into reducing people’s resistance to persuasive arguments and appeals. Though his recommendations may seem like little more than common sense, they are backed by rigorous scientific testing. Knowles is one of few researchers nationwide who empirically test the effectiveness of specific persuasive strategies. And among those few researchers, Knowles’ novel approach to persuasion sets him apart from colleagues in his field.

Knowles examines a phenomenon called the approach-avoidance conflict — the opposing positive and negative reactions people feel when presented with a persuasive argument or offer.

"In any appeal, some aspects are attractive and push for acceptance, but other aspects are displeasing and create resistance. The decision to accept the offer or to reject it depends on which aspects are dominant," Knowles explained. "If the attractive features outweigh the unattractive features, people will accept the offer but with some trepidation. If the negative aspects prevail, they will reject the offer but with some regret."

Until now, much of social influence scholarship has focused on the approach side of this phenomenon, aiming to win an audience over by heightening the attractive features of a message — heaping more compelling or more persuasive information onto an argument.

But Knowles believes that addressing the avoidance side of the conflict often can yield more successful and satisfying results for both parties. Rather than overcoming an audience’s resistance to a message by adding arguments, Knowles looks for tactics that reduce or remove resistance altogether. Minimizing people’s resistance decreases the chance that they’ll experience future regrets about agreeing, Knowles said.

Through his research, Knowles has found that one of the most effective ways to reduce resistance — and one of the easiest — is simply to acknowledge it. Persuasive appeals can often disarm a skeptical audience by incorporating an opening statement like, "I know you may not agree, but.." Acknowledgement may lead to other benefits as well, Knowles suggested.

"All too often, resistance is seen as an encumbrance, an inconvenience that must be ignored or overpowered," he said. "In fact, resistance is informative. It can tell you the real issue at stake and the reasons for people’s disagreement. Acknowledging and listening to resistance may offer ideas on how to change a message to meet more compliance."

In the context of international relations, that may mean the United States must recognize and honor the fact that other nations and other populations have strong reasons for opposing our policies and actions before progress toward agreement can be made.

Once such progress is under way, diplomats and policymakers may benefit from another tactic that Knowles’ research has proven effective — offering people options. According to Knowles, choices enable people to exercise acceptance and resistance simultaneously, indulging their desire to be discriminating while still leading them to a mutually acceptable decision.

"If you give people only one alternative, all their resistance is focused on that choice, and that often overrides their reasons to accept or agree," Knowles said. "As much as possible, you want to separate the acceptance from the resistance. The less resistance that remains in someone’s decision, the more satisfied they are with the outcome."

The strategies of acknowledging resistance and offering choices both work under conditions in which an audience actively resists persuasion — through arguments, protests and counter-negotiation, for example. But what if an audience resists by disregarding persuasion and disengaging from discussion? Knowles claims that such apathy constitutes a very different form of resistance, one that must be addressed with different techniques.

Apathetic resistance sometimes occurs when people feel they have no stake in the outcome of an argument or issue. But more often, people resort to it only after active resistance fails. When protests and arguments prove futile against a persuasive appeal that they cannot accept, people switch to inattention. Once this occurs, Knowles’ research indicates that the quality of a persuasive argument makes no impact on the audience’s opinions. The real trick in this situation is to regain their attention before applying persuasion.

On a one-on-one basis, Knowles’ studies have shown that presenting an offer or appeal in an unexpected way nearly doubles compliance. For example, a sales person may say that their product costs 300 pennies rather than three dollars. Or a neighborhood association may post a speed limit sign that reads 14 1/2 miles per hour rather than 15.

Knowles admits that such tactics may not be effective for the larger audiences inherent in foreign relations, but they suggest a more general solution that could be applied on a wider scale, he said — namely that stating an argument in a novel way jolts people out of their apathetic resistance.

"Over the course of my research, I’ve studied many persuasive strategies, and the first thing I found was that overwhelming resistance with rhetoric never takes it away; it just stifles it. More effective techniques have attempted to distract or subvert resistance, but even these yield only temporary results," Knowles said. "The only way to deal with resistance and put it to rest is to answer the need from which it originates."

For more information on Knowles’ research visit his Web site at http://www.uark.edu/~omega/.

# # #