Content area
Full Text
Scholarship in argumentation praises reluctant testimony sources who provide evidence in conflict with their own self-interests. Persuasion theorists prefer the testimony of objective sources. Rhetorical theorists are silent on the merits of reluctant testimony. This study offers empirical evidence on the merits of reluctant testimony. It adopts the cognitive response perspective on persuasion and corrects a design flaw in previous empirical research on reluctant testimony. The data show that both reluctant and objective sources are more persuasive than biased ones, and that there are no significant differences between reluctant and objective sources. Biased sources are perceived as less trustworthy, evoke more unfavorable thoughts, and evoke fewer favorable thoughts than either reluctant or objective sources. KEY CONCEPTS reluctant testimony, biased testimony, credibility, cognitive response model, ELM, attitude change
In the first presidential debate of 1996, President Clinton argued that Senator Dole's proposed tax cut was a risky venture, citing 500 economists and 9 Nobel Prize winners. However, Clinton also offered a different source of evidence in this debate to attack Dole: Senator Al D'Amato.
And now with this risky $550 billion tax scheme of Senator Dole's, even his own friends, his campaign co-chair, Senator D'Amato, says that they can't possibly pay for it without cutting Medicare more and cutting Social Security as well, according to him. But it won't be possible to do if his tax scheme passes, because even his own campaign co-chair, Senator D'Amato, says he'll have to cut Medicare even more than was cut in the bill that I vetoed. Now, remember, folks, even Senator Dole's campaign co-chair, Senator D'Amato, says he's got to cut Medicare to pay for this. (Clinton, 1996)
Of course, not only was Senator D'Amato serving as Senator Dole's campaign co-chair, but he also chaired the Senate committee investigating the Clintons' Whitewater real estate dealings. No one would expect Senator D'Amato to give evidence supporting Clinton and his policies; the reasonable expectation is that his testimony would support Senator Dole. Is this kind of source of evidence (reluctant testimony) likely to help Clinton?
Most rhetorical and communication scholars agree that source credibility is an important component of persuasion. Aristotle, for example, wrote that "We believe good men more fully and more readily than others; this is true generally...