Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|uhm_ma_3165_uh.pdf||For UH users only||2.7 MB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|uhm_ma_3165_r.pdf||Restricted for viewing only||2.7 MB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|Title:||Persuasive strategies and closing arguments in a trial setting : a pilot study|
|Authors:||Geiger, Gloria J.|
|Abstract:||Done through a rhetorical examination of the transcripts of closing arguments from high-profile, criminal jury trials, this was an exploratory study aimed at determining the correlation between persuasive strategy, opposing council, and verdict outcome. For the purposes of this study, persuasive strategy refers a pattern of speech organization used to maximize communication effectiveness.
The findings suggest that persuasive strategy is not a valid determinant of verdict outcome, and that there is no persuasive strategy more successful or persuasive than others. The findings also indicate that trial lawyers tend to use a combination of strategies rather than one single template.
|Description:||Thesis (M.A.)--University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2004.|
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 47-48).
v, 48 leaves, bound ill. 29 cm
|Rights:||All UHM dissertations and theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission from the copyright owner.|
|Appears in Collections:||M.A. - Communication|
Items in ScholarSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.