Public speaking in Fribourg: do rhetorical questions encourage closer scrutiny of arguments?
In a management presentation, “can we carry on like this?” may seem more engaging than a straightforward statement. The useful question is more precise, however: does this wording help the audience assess the recommendation, or interfere with an assessment already under way?
What the literature establishes
Richard E. Petty, John T. Cacioppo and Martin Heesacker (1981, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) examined the effects of rhetorical questions on persuasion, varying personal involvement and argument quality among other factors. Their findings indicate that these questions can stimulate elaboration when involvement is low, but disrupt it when involvement is high. The same speaking technique therefore need not have the same effect across audiences with different dispositions to think about the subject.
An invitation to process the message, not evidence
Robert E. Burnkrant and Daniel J. Howard (1984, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) compared introductory rhetorical questions with statements. Their findings support the idea that interrogative wording can increase processing of the arguments that follow, with consequences depending on argument quality. Encouraging more thought can therefore help a strong case without making a weak case more persuasive.
The premature conclusion
It would be tempting to conclude that a good presentation should start with a question. These studies do not justify that general rule: a committee already deeply concerned with the issue does not necessarily need this additional prompt. A rhetorical question changes the conditions in which a message is received; it does not add evidential weight. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these experiments cannot promise
These experiments concern controlled persuasive messages, not the full range of constraints in a bilingual professional presentation. They establish neither lasting improvements in decisions nor automatic transfer to an investment committee or research presentation. An audience that appears more attentive is therefore not, on its own, evidence that the technique works.
A practical check in Fribourg
Within SHR’s “Public Speaking & impact” programme, an exercise in Fribourg could bring together managers from the agri-food sector, bilingual industry and the university community to consider the same recommendation. Randomly assign participants to either a declarative or an interrogative introduction, keeping the arguments, materials and duration identical and using semantically equivalent versions within each language. Afterwards, individually and before discussion, ask participants to identify the recommendation’s main rationale and one limitation of the evidence presented. Compare the proportion of responses accurately capturing both elements against a scoring guide prepared in advance, distinguishing language and familiarity with the topic: the measure concerns scrutiny of the case, not simply how much participants liked the speaker. To go further: explore the Public Speaking & Impact training in Fribourg in the canton of Fribourg, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Public Speaking & Impact in Fribourg
- public speaking & impact
- Fribourg
- research
- training fribourg