Transcript Persuasion_and_campa..

Persuasion and campaigns
Administrative research
• Lazarsfeld distinguished between critical
and administrative research by noting that
administrative research:
• Is carried out in the interest of powerful
organizations or government
• Takes the existing media system for granted
• Aims to adjust the behavior of the audience
to the interests of the study
Persuasion
• Persuasion studies are really propaganda
research that tends to take an effects
approach
– Persuasion really could be considered
propaganda
– Varies from single exposure individual effects
studies to time-based campaign studies of
population change
Development of persuasion
studies
• Classic work of Hovland
Experiments on Mass Communication (1949)
Communication and Persuasion (1953)
Yale School of communication research
“Search for the magic keys”
WWII American Soldier studies
• Part of a large-scale social science investigation of
American soldiers recruited or drafted for service
in WWII
• This part especially interested in the effects of
films developed to prepare soldiers for military
duty
– Why We Fight
• Directed by Frank Capra
– Documentary explanation of the buildup to, and early
years of the war
Goals of Why We Fight
• Series: Prelude to War, The Nazis Strike,
Divide and Conquer, The Battle of Britain
Films were intended to foster:
• A firm belief in the right of the cause for which we fight
• A realization that we are up against a tough job
• A determined confidence in our own ability and the
abilities of our comrades and leaders to do the job that
must be done
• A feeling of confidence, insofar as possible under the
circumstance, in the integrity and fighting ability of our
Allies
• A resentment, based on knowledge of the facts, against our
enemies who have made it necessary to fight
• A belief that through military victory, the political
achievement of a better world order is possible
Battle of Britain
• Men in two camps--some exposed to film,
some not
– 2100 in one camp (before/after control group)
– 900 in another camp (before/after control
group)
– 1200 (after-only control group)
– Sampling by company units
• Units matched on several demographic variables
Battle of Britain
• Before and after questionnaires slightly
different
– Tried to distract men from wondering why
answering twice by writing “revised” on
questionnaire
• One week between exposure and after
measure
• Anonymity assured
Results
• Significant impact on factual knowledge
• Ex. Why weren’t the Germans “successful
at bombing British planes on the ground”?
• Ans. “because the British kept their planes
scattered at the edge of the field”
• Experimental group: 78% correct
• Control group: 21% correct
Results
• Opinions and interpretations
– Effects not as great
– “the heavy bombing attacks on Britain were an
attempt by the Nazis to . . .”
– Answer: “invade and conquer England”
• Experimental group: 58%
• Control group: 43%
Results
• Effect on general attitudes was slight
• “Do you feel that the British are doing all
they can to help win the war?”
– Experimental group 7% greater than control
– In many such cases, 2-3% positive difference
was found
• Not much evidence of positive effect
Results
• Strengthening the overall morale and
motivation of viewers
• Ineffective
– Question concerning whether trainees would
prefer military duty in the U.S. or overseas
– Experimental 41%
– Control 38%
Results
• Unconditional surrender by Nazis is
important war aim
– Experimental group 62%
– Control group 60%
Results
• 9 weeks after exposure
– Factual material forgotten
• Retained only about 50% of factual items that 1-week groups
remembered
– On 1/3 of opinion issues, long-term group showed less
change
– However, on more than half of the fifteen issues under
study, the long term group showed greater change than
the short-term group
• “Sleeper effect”
One-sided v. two-sided argument
• Radio presentation saying war would be
lengthy
• Presented either as one-sided argument or
with additional 4 minutes discussing view
that it would be short
• Before/after with control group
Results
• One-sided argument more effective with soldiers
who:
– Initially supportive of the idea that it would be a
lengthy war
– Had not completed high school
• Two-sided arguments more effective with those
who initially felt the war would be short and/or
had a high school degree or greater education
Results: Learning from films
60
50
40
30
Test Score
20
10
0
Grade School
High School
College
Hovland et al.
• Set up Yale school research on persuasion
• Study the effect of:
–
–
–
–
Source characteristics
Message characteristics
Order of presentation
Psychological characteristics of audience
Source characteristics
• Credibility
– Topic: Atomic submarines
• Sources: J. Robert Oppenheimer/Pravda
– Topic: Future of Movie Theaters
• Sources: Fortune magazine/A woman movie gossip
columnist
– Greater persuasion with more credible source
• However, after 4 weeks difference had disappeared
Content
• Fear appeals
– Greater fear, greater effect on interest, tension
– Lesser fear, greater effect on intension to
change behavior
– Thought to invoke some sort of interference
• Drawing an explicit conclusion
– Significantly greater effect if communicator
drew an explicit conclusion
Message presentation
• One-sided and two-sided presentations that
USSR would not soon be able to develop a
nuclear bomb were equally effective
• However, when exposed to opposing view,
those that had earlier been presented with
two-sided version retained new opinion
more than one-sided audience
Audience factors
• Scouts who valued group membership
highly were least influenced by speaker
who criticized wood craft learning