Persuasion and campaigns

1. Persuasion and campaigns

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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”

5. 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

6. Goals of Why We Fight • Series: Prelude to War, The Nazis Strike, Divide and Conquer, The Battle of Britain

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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%

12. 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

13. 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%

14. Results • Unconditional surrender by Nazis is important war aim • Experimental group 62% • Control group 60%

15. 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”

16. 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

17. 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

18. Results: Learning from films

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. Audience factors • Scouts who valued group membership highly were least influenced by speaker who criticized wood craft learning