As Election Day approaches, we will
continue to be bombarded with political ads on the television, before
every YouTube video, and between songs on Pandora. If you're like
most Americans you'll hit the mute button, leave the room, or tune it
out. You'll think, “Why do they spend so much money on a political
campaign? Is it really even that effective?” As it turns out, these
ads, as obnoxious as they may be, are persuading you more than you
realize.
Take this Obama ad for example.
At first glance, it's difficult to believe
that a 30-second clip could persuade a person to vote for Obama. But
let's look a little deeper.
Jack Brehm, a well-known social
psychologist, came up with the Theory
of Psychological Reactance (pp. 377-390). This means that when
our freedoms are eliminated or threatened with elimination, we are
motivated to reestablish those freedoms. In terms of a political ad,
this psychological reactance can be counterproductive in gaining the
vote of the viewer. For example, if the message of the ad is saying,
“You must vote for [insert name here]!” the viewer may see that
as a threat to their freedom to vote for the candidate of their
choice. This could cause them to think, “I
don't have to vote for him, I can vote for whomever I want,”
causing that candidate to lose that viewer's vote.
However,
in the above ad, Obama uses this idea of reactance to his advantage.
The message of the ad says, “If you vote for Romney, your freedom
to have an abortion or to make your own choices as a woman will be
eliminated.” Women who view this may react to that threat of
freedom and, in turn, reestablish it by voting for Obama.
Another
article (pp. 213-231) talks about the “magnitude of reactance,”
or the size of the reaction when a person's freedoms are threatened.
Two of the variables that impact the magnitude of reactance are the
importance of the freedom and the size of the threat. The more
important the freedom is to the person, the bigger the reaction will
be. Similarly, the bigger the threat of that freedom, the harder the
person will fight to maintain their freedom. For some women, the
freedom to have an abortion, or just to have the choice
to have an abortion, is pretty important. The threat to overturn Roe
v. Wade and outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, could
be considered a very large threat. That may lead to women choosing to
reestablish their freedom by voting for Obama instead of Romney.
In
addition to using reactance to gain the votes of viewers, Obama also
uses the very common persuasive technique of fear. In his book
Campaigning
for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work,
Ted Brader makes the point that, “. . . fear ads do not merely
deliver a worrisome message, but also rely heavily on images, music,
and sound effects to make voters uneasy” (8). The video clip begins
with eight somber, worried, or even angry women, indicating that
something is clearly wrong. The music playing in the background, when
paired with the message, gives the viewers that uneasy feeling that
Brader mentions. However, there is a shift in the music at the end of
the video when Obama comes on the screen, giving the video a now
hopeful, “light at the end of the tunnel” feeling to it.
Another
common technique used to persuade the audience is credibility. This
is something we see every day. Certain toothpaste brands claim to be
the “#1 brand recommended by dentists.” Children's medicine is
“recommended by most pediatricians.” Is this effective? Of
course! Dentists are virtually guaranteed to be more educated on the
right kind of toothpaste to use than the average person, as are
pediatricians with children's medicine. These things are their
business, so why shouldn't we believe them? In the same way, this ad
uses the Washington Post, ABC News, and a CNN Debate as sources. News
is their business, so logically we're going to believe what they say.
An
article analyzing studies conducted over the past 50 years
indicates that, when it comes to changes in attitude,
high-credibility sources are more persuasive than low-credibility
sources. So if the person watching the political ad views these
sources as credible, based on expertise and trustworthiness, they are
more likely to be persuaded by the ad.
One
last persuasion technique, which is similar to credibility but not
supported by scientific studies, only through my own thoughts, is
what I'll call the Average Joe technique. In this ad, the Democratic
National Committee uses a woman by the name of Jenni to tell her
story. She's no one famous, we don't even get her last name. She's
just an Average Joe. This means she does not have high credibility.
However, it does give her one advantage. She's relatable to everyone.
Because she's just a regular citizen, people will be able to relate
to her better than they would to some famous politician. If the
person speaking in the ad is relatable, the chances of persuading the
viewers is much higher.
In
addition to all of these persuasive techniques, one way to
effectively persuade people is to know the audience and appeal to
them. The Obama ad does this effectively.
In the book The Social Animal,
Eliot Aronson looks at 44 years of data
collected by John Jost and his colleagues from over 22,000
people.
The results indicate that “[Conservatives] are far more moved by
arguments that induce fear and cast issues in simple black and white
terms. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to respond to more nuanced,
fact-based arguments that appeal to reason rather than strong
emotions” (103). If the target audience of this ad is conservative
women, they did a good job of instilling fear, which would be the
most effective way to persuade them, as shown by Jost's work.
Now,
looking back on that seemingly simplistic ad, I hope you can see all
the complex forms of persuasion that are taking place. So what should
you do with all this newly found information? Pay attention the next
time a political ad comes on during a commercial break. Instead of
muting the TV or ignoring the ad altogether, take the time to analyze
it and figure out how they're trying to persuade you. Maybe then
it'll be a little less like brainwashing and a little more like
making up your own mind.
Emma Shewmaker
No comments:
Post a Comment