Persuasion

Less than a Cup of Coffee

According to Encyclopedia Britannica “persuasion, the process by which a person’s attitudes  or behavior  are, without duress, influenced by communications from other people” Watching television late at night will inevitably expose one to visions of fly covered children, bellies distended with malnutrition and heartfelt pleas to give “just a few cents a day, to help feed the children.”

Convincing someone to part with their hard earned money isn’t an easy task. In an economy that is troubled everyone feels the pinch, perhaps those who rely on the good will and generosity of others feel it the most. Giving money to worthy causes relieves guilt for some, and might fill a need for others.

While prime time advertisers who are selling us a product have only a few minutes to catch our attention, those who rely on people to give out of the goodness of their hearts employ both the central and peripheral route of persuasion. The central route of persuasion makes people think; the peripheral route of persuasion evokes the good feelings that we long for. Using the central route of persuasion Feed The Children advertisements engage logical rationale to understand that “just a few cents a day can make a huge difference in the life of a child who needs it.” Using the peripheral route of persuasion the ads appeal to the emotional feelings of goodwill and making a positive impact in the life of a child.

“Any factors that help people clear the hurdles in the persuasion process increase the likelihood of persuasion” (Myers, 2010). Promising a picture of the child your quarter a day buys food for makes the giving process personal. While helping needy children is important, there are some who have difficulty sharing their relative wealth. “Thus if you can’t make a strong case, you might want to put your audience in a good mood and hope they’ll feel good about your message without thinking too much about it” (Myers, 2010).  It gives a warm and fuzzy feeling to help a child receive nutrition, clothes that fit, education, and after all, it costs less than that Starbucks Venti Skinny Caramel Macchiato that I’m waiting in this line to purchase.

Reference

http://www.britannica.com.lib.ottawa.edu/EBchecked/topic/453093/persuasion

Myers, D. (2010) Social Psychology (10^th ed.) McGraw-Hill. New York, New York.

Conformity

Crucify Him

Two men stood in front of a boisterous angry mob. “Crucify him! Crucify him!” They shouted repeatedly. One man stood silent, the other said, “I have found he has done no wrong.” The frenzied crowd would not be abated and continued to shout louder. This man that they were condemning to death was the same man who they had followed all over the land. Here was Jesus, who had healed them, who had fed them with five loaves and two fish, who had received their pleas for health, wellness and teaching. Yet somehow in the midst of their freedom, they chose the path of least resistance. Long established Hebrew law and the teachers of the law created enough doubt and enough social pressure by defending traditional social norms that the less educated, less questioning society succumbed to the pressure.

In Social Psychology, David Myers explains conformity.

Conformity- changing one’s behavior or belief as a result of group pressure- comes in two forms. Compliance is outwardly going along with the group while inwardly disagreeing; a subset of compliance is obedience, compliance with a direct command. Acceptance is believing as well as acting in accord with social pressure. (p 192)

In the book of Luke, it is clear that Pilate complied with the crowd. Three times he explained that he didn’t believe the actions or words of Jesus to be punishable by death. “But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. So Pilate decided to grant their demand” (Luke 23:23-24).

“The degree of an individual’s conformity to a group has been determined to rely upon variables such as the prestige of the group to which they belong, the degree to which their decisions might be considered ambiguous, and the group’s size”(credoreference, n.d.). This sheds an interesting light on the cries of the crowd. The religious leaders of the day, those who had the people convinced that they alone had the ear of God, wanted this man dead for blasphemy. To agree with those one holds in highest esteem may give an inflated sense of self. The energy of the innumerable crowd would have further expanded as the individuals in the crowd became a little piece of the bigger puzzle. Perhaps they thought that by following and mimicking the desires of the religious leaders, Jesus, who they once thought of as the son of God, would be unable to distinguish each individual for their part in the condemnation.

                                                                                 

 “The more insecure we are about out judgments, the more influenced we are by others” (Myers, 2010). This easily swayed crowd had a history of blind unquestioning acceptance. Before the trial and crucifixion they hung on every word that Jesus spoke. They cut holes in a roof of a house to see him; and to lower a friend down for healing. They crowded so close he had to retreat to the mountains; to walk in solitude, to pray in the middle of the night in an olive grove. For a while he was IT. He was the Messiah who the scriptures foretold. But then the pressure got too great. The uneducated, rabbi reliant public believed whoever shouted the loudest. True to the nature of Jesus, he gave the gift of his life silently.

Reference

http://www.credoreference.com.lib.ottawa.edu/entry/worldsocs/conformity

Luke 23: 23-24 (nd). As retrieved from www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+23&version=NIV

Myers, D. (2010). Social Psychology (10^th ed.) McGraw-Hill. New York, New York.

Belief Perseverance

The Sky Is Not Blue

I work with a woman who will argue anything with anyone.  She always has an opinion, and it’s always right. Dare you disagree with her and she will tell you just how wrong you are until there is bloodshed.  I have witnessed the beat-down on more than one occasion, and even, once, engaged in a battle of differing opinions with her. Often her opinions begin as an uninformed judgment and through repetition become firmly ensconced as a belief. “When there is no compelling external explanation of one’s words, saying becomes believing” (Klass, 1978, as cited by Myers, 2010 p 133)

As a young girl my co-worker lost her father in an accident. Her youthful naivety and sheltered world was shattered by something beyond her control. The one thing she can control is her beliefs. Myers (2010) sheds light on why, “The bottom line: We view our social worlds through the spectacles of our beliefs, attitudes, and values. That is one reason our beliefs are so important; they shape our interpretation of everything else” (p. 84).  

According to Myers (2010) “We are eager to verify our beliefs but less inclined to seek evidence that might disprove them, a phenomenon called the confirmation bias” and “People also tend not to seek information that might disprove what they believe” (p 93). My co-worker in question chooses not to listen or educate herself on that which she comes to believe.  When others engage her battle of beliefs, an explanation by Charles Kiesler rings true, “When you attack committed people and your attack is of inadequate strength, you drive them to even more extreme behaviors in defense of their previous commitment” (197, p 88. as cited by Myers, 2010 p 260). Right or wrong, informed or ignorant, I have never witnessed a difference of opinion that does not escalate into a perceived attack, thus further entrenching her beliefs.

Reference

Myers, D. (2010) Social Psychology (10^th ed.) McGraw-Hill. New York, New York.

Social Influence

Stage Fright

I am blessed to have the opportunity to volunteer in my son’s second grade classroom once or twice a month. This allows me to see what he does throughout his day, and it also allows me to get to know the other kids in his class. Recently the parents and families of 58 second graders were at the school for the annual Second Grade Music Program. We gathered to see our children perform; to bask in the obvious talent; and to support this part of their education.

As our seven and eight year olds walked out onto the stage and up the risers to their specific predetermined spot, dressed in their finest duds, the sounds of parental pride filled the air. We each searched for our child and their friends, and the atmosphere in that stuffy gymnasium was charged with joy. The music began and the children’s voices were soft, their eyes firmly on their teacher, they were frozen in place. As the first song ended, the music teacher turned to welcome us, in typical student fashion, the fidgeting and horseplay started. I began to watch all the students, and noticed in particular one boy from my son’s class. This young man is quiet, mostly keeping to himself, content to be on the sidelines. He is comfortable sitting at his desk quietly, securing a spot on the back edge of the carpet during carpet time. All signs point to him not wanting to be noticed. Yet he was the one my eye was drawn to this night.

“But does the presence of observers always arouse people? In times of stress, comrade and be comforting. Nevertheless, with others present, people perspire more, breathe faster, tense their muscles more and have higher blood pressure and a faster heart rate” (Geen & Gange, 1983; Moore & Baron, 1983) (as cited by Myers, 2010 p 270). “Even a supportive audience may elicit poorer performance on challenging tasks” (Butler & Baumeister, 1996) (as cited by Myers, 2010 p 270). There was no doubt that standing and singing was a challenging task for this boy. He was not disruptive or distracting, but it was obvious to anyone watching him that this evening, on the risers in front of all those people, remaining in the moment, doing what was asked of him was out of his comfort zone.

His parents were proud of him, they enjoyed him, just as we were proud and enjoyed watching Douglas. We weren’t expecting Grammy performances from our offspring, but each of them are rock-stars in our eyes.

Reference

Myers, D. (2010) Social Psychology (10^th ed.) McGraw-Hill. New York, New York

Group Think

Speak Up… or Shut Up?

This season of the popular reality show “The Biggest Loser” exemplifies both good and bad sides of Group Think. One week a group of three had to decide how to win a competition. Each team had to hold the weight they had lost over a tank of water. All three of them would have to work together to hold as long as they could. The winning team earned video chats with their family. A group leader emerged and encouraged the other two in sticking it out to the end. David Myers (2010) cites an African Proverb “If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” The group would have lost quickly if they were each working individually, but to go the distance, the group had to work together to endure. “…given open leadership, a cohesive team spirit can improve decisions” (Myers, 2010 p 295).

In another instance, a group of two had another challenge to overcome. They were off the Biggest Loser Ranch for a week and given the opportunity to decide what tools they might need to lose the most at the weigh in after being off location. They had to choose if they were shopping and cooking for themselves or having meals prepared; if they were going to talk to their families or work out with their trainer; if they were going to have a spa day and dinner out or if they would work out in the gym on their own. The two of them needed to agree and they spent time discussing the decisions. If they were unsuccessful in losing more weight than those left at the Ranch for the week, one of them would be going home.

The group of two became closed minded and as a result lost one of the group members lost and had to go home that week. Both members of the group struggled with some of Myer’s explanations like, “Rationalization. The groups discount challenges by collectively justifying their decisions” (2010 p 292). The group rationalized that they had been on the ranch for 13 weeks and should know what they needed to do without help. This rationalization lead to “Self-censorship. Since disagreements were often uncomfortable and the groups seemed in consensus, members withheld or discounted their misgivings” (Myers, 2010 p 293). And the “Illusion of unanimity. Self-censorship and pressure not the puncture the consensus create an illusion of unanimity” (Myers, 2010 p 293).  In hindsight the remaining group member recognized the tendency to succumb to group think to avoid confrontation.

Abraham Maslow hit on the idea of group think in his theory of the hierarchy of needs; with one of the need level being Belongingness. “Maslow’s proposed need for belongingness can only be satisfied through association with, and more important, acceptance by other people” (Schultz & Schultz, 2009).  Because we need to belong to a group it may be a natural progression for up to move into group think mindset. In the right situation with the right leader and followers, group think can be a positive experience. It seems that very often group think is detrimental to a positive outcome.

Reference

The Biggest Loser, NBC Reality Television Show. Aired March 22, 29, 2011

Myers, D. (2010) Social Psychology (10^th ed.) McGraw-Hill. New York, New York.

Schultz, D. & Schultz, S.(2009). Theories of Personality (9^th ed.) Wadsorth. Belmont, CA