One frequently successful approach involves the establishment of common ground

Want to take it for a ride?- thus demonstrating interest on our part, providing information about the product, and giving impetus to further conversation. If the customr is interested in a specific item, the merchandise approach seems best; if she or he seems to be merely wandering
around, a "service" opening may be more effective.

Requires custom-designed'strategies, some general strategy patterns applicable to all persuasive situations can be identified. One frequently successful approach involves the establishment of common ground .between you and the persuadee, that, finding the beliefs and attitudes you have in common and using these as points from which other disagreements and conflicts might be resolved. Stewart and Cash describe three common-ground strategies: Yesbut, where the persuader begins the interview in areas of agreement and gradually moves to areas of conflict; yesyes, where a series of agreements or yes answers is used to build a habitual response which in tUl11 produces more favourable reactions when controversial issues are reached; and implicative, where the interviewer uses several agreements to imply a conclusion which, if stated explicitly, might be rejected by the persuadee. This last method requires considerable skill, however, for the persuadee may miss the implication and see no point to the questioning. It should therefore be used only after we have become skilled in interviewing-or when we are desperate because nothing else has worked.

Another persuasive strategy takes into account the order in which arguments in support of your position are presented. Should your stronger arguments be presented

first, saved for last, or sandwiched between lesser arguments? Researchers have termed these patterns the anticlimax, climax, and pyramidal orders, respectively. Many studies have investigated the effectiveness of each order. Lund, Jersild, and Hovland found SUPP0l1 for the anticlimax order. Sponberg Gilkinson et aI. and Gulley and Berlo supported the climax sequence. No one has found an advantage in placing the strongest arguments in the middle of the message. While evidence seems equallydivided between the climax and anticlimax orders, then; the only certainty is that strong arguments should not be placed in the middle of the message. .

Some miscellaneous strategies also seem useful in the persuasive situation. Should we present only our 'side of the issue, or should we present both sides, refuting the arguments the other side holds? Studies summarized by Bettinghaus suggest that two-sided presentations are more effective with well-educated persuadees, people who initially disagree with your position, and people who are likely to receive later messages opposing your views. On the other hand, one-sided appeals are more effective when the receiver already agrees with you and is not likely to be exposed to later opposing messages. Should we employ appeals to fear in an eff0l1 to persuade people by "scaring hell out of them?" If the interviewee thinks you trustworthy, and if the topic is important to her or him, fear appeals usually are effective. To what extent should we use evidence or supporting materials to document our arguments? If the receiver thinks us untrustworthy, is well-educated or intelligent, or already is familiar with the evidence, we should present it. Should humour be used to enhance out appeals? Studies to date of the effect of humour have shown no appreciable gain in persuasive effect produced by its inclusion. However, a recent investigation discovered that a humorous source was rated more trustworthy than a serious one, suggesting that inclusion of humour might be helpful if the receiver perceives you to rehttively untrustworthy. Final determination of the role of humour awaits further research.