A Dominant Factor in Rhetorical Communication

Ethos: A Dominant Factor in Rhetorical Communication

Ethos Defined— An attitude held by the receiver (the audience) toward the speaker (the source). We commonly refer to this as source credibility, the prestige of the speaker, and personal proof. Ethos can be initial (the beginning of the message), it can be derived (produced during the message) and it can be terminal (source credibility at the close of the message. Ethos is in the mind of the receiver; the receiver has it; we as an audience determine if the communicator is credible. The ethos of a source may vary greatly; especially if he/she is controversial. And the ethos may vary even within the same message. We commonly and mistakenly speak as if the source has the ethos. The source may be a group or organization; does not have to be an individual. Ethos is dynamic; always subject to change; may even be volatile.

The Dimensions of Ethos— We evaluate others with ethos…an evaluative attitude. Specifically, we tend to consider ethos to be the degree of expertness, of trustworthiness, and intention toward us, the receiver. Other factors have been added; namely that of dynamism or the liveliness of the source in delivery. But after all the dust settled, the two most critical factors that influenced the receiver to determine ethos were competence and character. And the element of goodwill or “intentions toward the receiver” cannot be ignored. Which of these factors is more important for an audience….competence? Character? Goodwill? Some research suggests that goodwill was deemed greater than competence but less than character or trustworthiness. But that is no guarantee that all audiences feel the same way. In short, audiences will assign some degree of ethos to the speaker on the basis of what they perceive to be an acceptable level of competence; on whether or not they feel the speaker is of good character and whether or not the speaker treats the audience with respect.

The Effect of Initial Ethos— Not surprisingly, speakers with high ethos are more likely than those with low ethos to affect opinion changes. If you have a reputation or have established your competency and experience with the audience, you have a much greater change of shifting their attitude. This is logical and research merely supports what we would likely suspect. Sometimes we assign some degree of ethos to speakers whose qualification are not relevant to the issue being argued. We might be swayed to some degree by race, age, gender, etc, whether or not they have much relevancy to the case in point. While such factors can sometimes have “some” impact, they do not compare favorable when matched against relevant and objective ethos factors. Sponsorship effect—the effect of higher ethos rubs off on the speaker/communicator is that speaker is in the midst of higher ethos subjects. The mere fact that we might be physically located near someone of great credibility may have a positive effect on our ethos as well. If possible, we would be wise to surround ourselves with highly credible people if we are attempting to influence others. Physical attractiveness is also a factor that positively impacts source credibility. But the particular sex of the source is less important than the fact that the source is attractive. Does this suggest we are shallow and easily influenced or just a fact of being human?

Initial Ethos and Learning— The main value of ethos in informative message settings is to increase the attention span of the audience members. If the message is coming from an expert we are more likely to pay closer attention than if it came from some guy we never heard of before. Given the option, we will expose ourselves to the experts and avoid those who we consider are not. High initial learning can affect increase learning in two ways: (a) we will probably expose ourselves to those we believe have high ethos; and (b) we are more likely to pay close attention to high ethos sources.

Derived Ethos— Aristotle’s term of “rhetorical choices” what we choose to discuss; the facts and other evidence; how we choose to structure and support our message. We have to be careful what we select to speak or write about. You must select your evidence with care; what you choose to include in your message will influence how your audience perceives you. Even those who have considerable initial ethos need to have solid evidence. We can only trade on our reputation for so long. But make sure the evidence is something the audience doesn’t already know. Telling us that if we play with fire we’ll get burned may be true, but hardly enlightening and does little to impact your derived ethos. And if the evidence is poor or erroneous then your ethos is likely to be damaged. Delivery aspect of derived ethos—good delivery will always help; poor delivery will always hurt. Additionally, speaking fluently is a big plus while being hesitant and unsure is damage your ethos. Be sincere when you speak. Lack of sincerity toward your audience will always undercut ethos. Sometimes we can be fooled by a person who appears to be sincere but is not. But it is vital that we treat our audience with sincerity. Perception is everything here. Organization of ideas contributes to derived ethos. Messages that are easy to follow and see the structure enhance the speaker’s credibility. Strong fear appeals from a low-ethos source will hurt the communicator’s credibility but fear appeals coming from high-ethos sources can enhance credibility. Common ground means that the source should make the audience aware of any similarities between the source’s background, experiences, etc. and the audience’s world. Goodwill toward the audience means speaking with the best interest of the audience at heart. This is the process of getting the audience to see the source as having the right attitude toward them. Transfer means that a source may benefit or profit from references to affiliation with worthy organizations. Having a background in an area relevant to your audience is important. Having worked in an industry; having joined a club, just being affiliated with positively perceived people or businesses. The element of humor or irrelevant digression can be helpful to reduce tension or put issues back in perspective. Must be used carefully as humor always carries risks of backfiring and reducing ethos.

Terminal Ethos— This is the product of the initial and the derived ethos. Terminal ethos can vary in importance. Sometimes it is critical to leave the audience with strong, positive feelings. Sometimes it doesn’t matter. Messages may be concept-centered where the primary purpose is to modify the audience’s attitude toward or understanding of some topic. Or messages may be ethos-centered where the goal is enhance the ethos of the speaker. Most rhetorical communication is concept- centered. With concept-centered communication the speaker or writer uses their credibility to increase the favorable response to their message. With ethos-centered communication the speaker or writer will rely on the audience’s positive feelings to increase their credibility. One in a one-shot communication setting does the communicator not care about terminal ethos. When you think this is the end of your contact with that audience and never will interact again, then terminal ethos doesn’t matter. But be careful about “burning your bridges;” you might need them later. Bottom line: if you plan on communicating with your audience again at some later time, then you should be concerned with terminal ethos.

Long -Term Effects of Ethos Ethos can have a powerful initial affect on audience. Whether it has a long-term effects is somewhat debatable. High-ethos sources tend to lose some or a lot of there impact over time. Surprisingly, research says that sometimes low-ethos sources can gain effectiveness over time! This so-called “sleeper effect” says that in the absence of stimuli reinstating the ethos of the source over time, the audience remembers the message but forgets the source. This doesn’t mean that the evidence is weak or the that source is untrustworthy. But rather we frequently tend to remember what was said more so than who said it. It is hard to predict what the long-term effects will be on ethos. But a consistent pattern is that a high-ethos source always seems to lose some effect on the audience. But if the audience is reminded about the high-ethos source at various times, the effect is reinstated. In short, if we don’t have a well-known reputation then we need to keep the focus on our evidence. If our reputation is well known and respected, then we need to keep that awareness in the audience’s collective mind from time to time.

Power and Ethos— Power, the capacity to influence people to believe or do what they would not have done without our effort. French and Raven compiled an often-used list of power types available for communicators:  Coercive—the power to punish; or the receivers’ perception that they are subject to being punished if they don’t follow the source’s direction.  Legitimate—or “assigned” power that comes from the role we play or the position we hold; gives us the right to influence others.  Reward—the receivers’ perception that they can be rewarded for following the sources’ direction.  Expert—receivers perceive that the source is very knowledgeable about the subject; and the competence is influential.  Referent—based on the receivers’ identification with the source. Charismatic or interpersonal attraction factor makes the source influential. Use of coercive or legitimate power will reduce your ethos. Use of expert or referent power will increase your (the source) ethos. Use of reward power tends to have little impact on ethos—plus or minus. Be very careful when using coercive or legitimate power. Our audience will usually resent those acts even if we are within our rights to use them. In short, the more we use coercive power, the more we lose all other types of power.