Political Campaigning: Persuasion or Manipulation?

Each and every day, we are barraged with images and advertisements persuading us to buy the newest gadgets, try a restaurant’s new hamburger, or say no drugs. Yet, nowhere is persuasion of this kind more prevalent than within political advertising. As the election season comes around, these ads are increasingly congesting the flow of media. But why is so much importance placed on advertising during this season? Surely these 60 seconds clips on television do not have the sole power to sway voters’ opinions towards one candidate or another. People are rational thinkers who make reasonable and well-though-out decisions, right? Well, unfortunately, this is not entirely true, and is the primary reason that politicians are willing to spend millions dollars each campaign season on advertisements persuading the public to vote for them. Social psychologists have identified a list of persuasive techniques that are effective and easy to imbed into almost any advertisement. These factors that convince people to buy a restaurant’s new “Triple Bacon Super Cheeseburger Supreme” are the same factors that can persuade people to place their vote in the favor of one candidate versus another. These techniques are used repeatedly throughout advertising for one simple reason: they work. This shows that although people are rational creatures, many decisions that we make are manipulated through persuasion and are not products of reason.  To demonstrate the use of some of these techniques, here is an ad from this year’s political season:

One of the most predominant persuasive techniques used in this ad is conditioning. This the learning theory developed by Ivan Pavlov which suggests that if a stimulus that elicits a certain behavior is is paired with a second stimulus that does not elicit that same behavior, eventually, the second stimulus will elicit that behavior^[1]. He demonstrated this in his famous experiment in which he presented his dogs with food, which would cause them to salivate. Then, he would ring a bell and present them with the food at the same time. After a period of trials, eventually just the sound of the bell ringing would cause the dogs to salivate— a response that they did not initially have to that stimulus^[1]. In essence, through classical conditioning, we become conditioned to have the same response to two previously unrelated things. This model works the same way through persuasion. Throughout this ad, Romney’s statement of knowing how jobs come and how jobs go is repeatedly paired with accounts of him outsourcing jobs. Outsourcing jobs is something that many Americans have negative feelings towards— especially during a time when unemployment is so high. So, by repeatedly pairing Romney’s statement with the negative emotion that many have towards outsourcing jobs, this ad has the power to create negative feelings within the viewer towards Romney, simply through that repetition.

Closely related to the conditioning used in this advertisement is the scarcity tactic. This is the idea that when there is less of something, people want it more^[2]. Currently, jobs in this country are perceived as quite scarce. This causes people to be more protective over their own jobs, but also over American jobs in general. This further feeds the negative emotion towards the evidence presented on Romney outsourcing American jobs.

Also used in this ad is the persuasive tool of reactance. This idea suggests that when people’s freedom or rights are threatened, they more likely to take the necessary steps towards protecting them^[2]. Throughout this ad, the impression is made upon the viewer that if Romney were to be elected, more American jobs would be outsourced to other countries. Then, at the end of the advertisement, the Obama + Biden “Truth Team” logo is shown, signaling to the viewer that voting for Obama is the clear way to prevent this outsourcing from happening. American jobs are something that, as Americans, we feel we are entitled to, so we see them as a right. Throughout the ad, the argument is made that Romney is evidently threatening that right. Therefore, when viewers feel as though their rights are being threatened by one candidate, this causes them to take the necessary steps towards protecting those rights— by voting for the opposing candidate. This is also a prime example of the idea that fear+direction=action. In a series of studies by Howard Leventhal and his associates, it was found that if people are presented with fear-arousing information, along with instructions as to how to prevent that fear, people are much more likely to take the preventative steps provided to them^[3]. By pairing Romney with the perceived notion of losing jobs to other countries, Romney himself becomes an object of fear. Then, the clear direction presented for avoiding this fear is voting for Obama. By providing this instruction for avoiding this fear, viewers are more likely to take the necessary preventative steps by voting for Obama, which is exactly the response that this ad is looking for.

Still, none of these techniques would be as effective as they are without the fact that humans do not think rationally 100% of the time. We are prone to making snap decisions, responding mindlessly to social cues, and, as a result, being easily persuaded by simple techniques. This is most likely to happen when we are presented information while we are distracted. As a result, this is what makes these campaign ads on television so effective. The viewer is presented with persuasive information in an environment where they are not completely focused, and consequently, they are much more susceptible to being persuaded by these flawed arguments. This causes people to often make unconscious decisions, based off of information that they were unknowingly persuaded by. Therefore, the ability to be persuaded is almost completely out of the control of the viewer. For some, this may present ethical issues in that people’s choices are being manipulated to a certain degree. However, this manipulation may be quite irrelevant within the grand scheme of the campaign season. A 2011 study by Gerber et al. has found that although campaign ads have strong effects on voting preferences, this effect is very short^[4]. This suggests that although these ads can be extremely manipulative towards people’s decision making, the short-lived effects of this manipulation weakens the argument of the unethical nature of these ads, and at the same time, may not make the money spent on these advertisements worthwhile.

In essence, it is important to realize how easy it is to be persuaded by any one of these techniques, and that they are present in almost every form of advertisement within the media. Because these techniques are so widely used within advertising, they are often difficult to recognize. Still, the best way to avoid being persuaded by these techniques is to simply avoid distractions when information is being presented, and to carefully weigh all relevant factors when making important decisions— like voting for a world leader. These persuasive techniques are powerful, but only for a short term, so ultimately decision lies within us as voters: to allow our decisions to be manipulated through simple persuasive techniques, or to rise above the media, and make sound, reasonable, conscious decisions. The choice is ours.

Mariah Pope

mpope@regis.edu

                                                                                                                                                                           

References:

[1] Pavlov, I. P. (2003). Conditioned reflexes. London: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from

              http://books.google.com/bookshl=en&lr=&id=cknrYDqAClkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=conditioned

              reflexes&ots=Kzrso5-dFe&sig=8T4WBm6qLe74faj7V4cX1nT8R4k

[2] Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Harnessing the power of persuasion. Harvard Business Review, Retrieved from

              http://uspace.shef.ac.uk/servlet/JiveServlet/previewBody/61756-102-1117566/HarnessingTheScienceofPersuasion.pdf

[3] Freedman, J. (1963). Attitudinal effects of inadequate justification. Journal of Personality, 31, 371-385.

[4] Gerber, A. S., Gimpel, J. G., Green, D. P., & Shaw, D. R. (2011). How large and long-lasting are the persuasive effects of televised

              campaign ads? Results from a randomized field experiment. American Political Science Review, 105, 135-150.