Effects of social persuasion on attitudes
Sep. 18th, 2005 12:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatThe period came along with the rain, so feeling less irritable and cranky. No longer feel as if a monster is inside me clawing at my insides trying to get out. I envy people who aren't sensitive to the weather. I, unfortunately am, hence the reason I do not live in areas of the country where it rains about 70% of the time.
Social Psychology continues to fascinate. Been reading The Social Animal by Elliot Aronson, Ninth Edition for class. Clarified a few things.
One there is a difference between having an opinion and an attitude about something. Opinions can be easily changed, attitudes however are incredibly difficult to change. An opinion is what a person believes to be factually true - ie. New York is hot in the summer and there are approximately 12 million people lieving in NYC.
Opinions are primarily cognitive - they take place in our heads rather than our hearts. They can also be changed by good clear evidence to the contrary.
An attitude on the other hand is an opinion that contains an evaluative and emotional component. These aren't necessarly logical and can be influenced by numerous variables. ie. Our opinions about the characters and relationships on the TV show Buffy The Vampire Slayer or in regards to Spike and Angel are "attitudes" not opinions.
I was thinking about this while reading the chapter on mass communication, propaganda and persuasion and realized something interesting. Before I came online in 2002, I enjoyed the character of Angel, but had grown tired of the series due largely to the baby storyline. People online persuaded me to give the series another chance and I did, finding myself intrigued by the characters Wes, Lilah, Angel and Connor. As time wore on however, my interactions with others online caused an attitude adjustment, after a period of time I found myself beginning to dislike the character of Angel and oddly enough the actor portraying him. I liked the character fine if I was not interacting with any of the fans and if I did not discuss him. But whenever I read anyone's post or any fan's interest in the character or a fanfic centered on the character - I found I despised the character and had a completely negative attitude. Not necessarily logical so much as a gut reaction. According to studies conducted by social psychologists we can be persuaded to dislike or like something based on the "attractiveness" of the person doing the persuading or commonality of interest with that person. For instance, in one study, participants were told the Neo-Nazis favored a certain trival item - people found themselves rejecting that item because Neo-Nazis favored it. This tends to work with more trivial items that don't require a great deal of thought, although it can work with more important ideas as well. Is it possible that my opinion of a television character was influenced by my interactions with people who loved that character?
The answer a qualified, yes. I qualify that answer because there's another component that should be addressed - how much was do to the individual poster's personality and how much of my reaction was due to how they argued their points or the "nature" or "reasons" stated? You could argue about 50/50 or 60/40, but actually
it's more complicated. For instance, at a recent gathering of BTVS/ATS fans, the majority of the people at the gathering were Angel fans and preferred the B/A relationship to the B/S one, one of the people showed me a series of vids she had created of the show. I liked the person showing the vids. I also liked the other person who joined us to watch them. One of the people - S, the other spectator, stated a strong preference for the B/A relationship, while L declared herself to be neutral. Her opinion was B/S was all about fighting and B/A was all about kissing. S agreed stating how she much preferred to watch B/A and even oohed and awed over my shoulder as the vid was being shown. After watching the two vids, I had an interesting emotional reaction - I had no desire to see an episode of the early seasons of BTVS, felt an intense dislike for the B/A relationship, and was bored watching the vids on the screen, although I politely nodded and suppressed these feelings. The vid did the opposite from what the maker intended, instead of reminding me of what was good and romantic about the characters and instilling a love of them or interest in the series, it made me wonder why I'd bothered with it and what a load of romantic sappy crap. The first vid, B/S, where the vid maker kept telling me that this relationship was all about fighting and clearly a train wreck, shown prior, made me feel quilty for being turned on. And annoyed. Same experience online - my reaction often had more to do with how and what the person was saying than who they were, since obviously you have no clue on most of these boards - people tend to be pretty anynomous - it's how the phrase their opinions that influence or persuade.
Persuasion notes Aronson, while discussing political issues such as health care reform not tv characters, is predicated on how you approach the audience and when. In several studies they determined that people tended to ignore or deny something if it was forced upon them. If someone says - this is "good" for you and this is "bad" for you - a la Mom and Dad telling you to eat green beans instead of ice cream, you are more likely to ignore them and do the reverse. (This is not meant to state that B/A and B/S are analogous to green beans and ice cream, don't be silly. Personally see both as ice cream.) For instance, if you present an hour long documentary about the poor and how bad their health care is to someone who does not want national health care reform, they are likely to flip to Wheel of Fortune, if you on the other hand, have place small ten minute add spots in between favorite tv programs, have the news media investigate it and do a spot, and maybe introduce it in the plot of a tv show - then you are more likely to persuade.
The other thing about persuasion - is the tone of it, also how you back up your facts. You are not going to change my mind regarding B/A or the character of Angel by degrading B/S or Spike. All you will accomplish is make me hate B/A, despise Angel, and lose all interest. Negative political advertising has seen the same backlash. But it also works occassionally, some people state that Bush Sr. owed his election to Willie Norton, a convict that was furloughed by Dukakis and ended up raping and murdering a woman in Maryland. Dukakis tried to fight this by citing statistics and factual data that Bush had furloughed just as many convicts as head, all governors do. It's standard. But Bush appealed to the emotions with his ad, pushed people's buttons, while Dukakis appealed to intellect. The arguements I've heard professing B/A to be the cat's pajamas inadverently do the opposite of the intent, they piss me off. The arguments professing Angel to be interesting equally piss me off. I oddly enough liked the character and the actor playing him far more when I didn't know anyone else who did. What bit of information is the proponent using that is pissing me off or pushing my buttons? Causing me to turn a death ear? I think a combo of things - the biggest ones being: Angel was adored by his peers, he was an accomplished artist, he deserved Buffy, he was the "chosen" one, he was successful and the most evil.
What persuades one person to like something could very well turn another off. But social influences also play a role. If the people you like and admire like one coupling over another, you might be persuaded towards their viewpoint. Attractiveness. If people you can't abide prefer something, you may disregard their opinion out of hand. In another study, pairs of women were given a topic to discuss. Before each presented their case to their friend. They were told that their friend either strongly agreed or disagreed with them, this influenced how they presented their case. OF the people told that their friend strongly disagreed, about 75% changed their case to fit their friends point of view. (We don't like to be in conflict with our friends, so will often tailor our views to fit theirs?) Another factor at play, if the opinion being professed disagrees with an attitude that is deeply imbedded in you - say for instance you hate frat parties, had a bad experience with certain type of guy in school, read poetry (which was soundly criticized) and struggled in high school and college academically. While say, someone who is a mere acquaintance, who had what you'd call an easy ride in school, barely had to study, everything came easily for, was a member of a frat -etc, comes online and professes through their examination of a character how people who wrote "bad" poetry and weren't popular and couldn't get straight A's are losers. They may not intend to be saying this - but their examination may be interpreted that way sublimally in their defense of say Angel over Spike. How would you reacte? Probably with an intense dislike for Angel, a character you may have previously enjoyed, and an increased interest in Spike. That's what some social psychologist would no doubt site as a personality or developmental factor - the factor that is not addressed by social psychology.
The problem with human thinking, and something I keep thinking we need to keep in mind while interacting with one another, is it is not always logical. It does not always follow a clear syllogism.
What may seem like a persuasive argument from one perspective could be the opposite depending on the audience you are attempting to persuade. Persuasion has a lot to do with how receptive the audience is to the argument.
Juries are a perfect example. In NYC they create hostile juries merely through how juries are selected. You wait anywhere from half a day to three days in an overcrowded room, unable to do work, waiting for your name to be called. Once it is, you are put in another small room and asked a bunch of personal questions in front of strangers. Then if chosen, forced to sit in an uncomfortable court room listening to lawyers present a case for hours on end. Needless to say juries are not made up of people who are receptive. They aren't comfortable.
They aren't happy. They are pissed. Whoever speaks the least, makes them the happiest, will most likely win the day. The OJ Simpson case is a perfect example. Cochran did wonders with a memorable and rhyming phrase that stuck in the jury's head like glue :"Glove doesn't fit acquit". Logically it's possible to wear tight fitting gloves to comit murder also blood and other chemicals can shrink them. But all they remember is the phrase. (I'm not saying OJ was guilty, just using an example cited by Aronson.) We remember what is most recent, we are receptive to what is presented to us in a comforting manner, and does not conflict with prior attitudes.
If I remove myself from the online fandom, I like Angel fine and Boreanze is a serviceable actor who I don't mind watching, even enjoyable, but if I read the fandom, I can't abide the character or actor. I reject both vehemently. Some of the reasons may be due to social influences, others...ah, not so much. But social interaction definitely plays a part in my views and those of the people around me. More I think than we know or are willing to acknowledge.
ETA 2022: I just re-read the comments to this - and they are insane. We did take ourselves a touch too seriously back then, didn't we?
Social Psychology continues to fascinate. Been reading The Social Animal by Elliot Aronson, Ninth Edition for class. Clarified a few things.
One there is a difference between having an opinion and an attitude about something. Opinions can be easily changed, attitudes however are incredibly difficult to change. An opinion is what a person believes to be factually true - ie. New York is hot in the summer and there are approximately 12 million people lieving in NYC.
Opinions are primarily cognitive - they take place in our heads rather than our hearts. They can also be changed by good clear evidence to the contrary.
An attitude on the other hand is an opinion that contains an evaluative and emotional component. These aren't necessarly logical and can be influenced by numerous variables. ie. Our opinions about the characters and relationships on the TV show Buffy The Vampire Slayer or in regards to Spike and Angel are "attitudes" not opinions.
I was thinking about this while reading the chapter on mass communication, propaganda and persuasion and realized something interesting. Before I came online in 2002, I enjoyed the character of Angel, but had grown tired of the series due largely to the baby storyline. People online persuaded me to give the series another chance and I did, finding myself intrigued by the characters Wes, Lilah, Angel and Connor. As time wore on however, my interactions with others online caused an attitude adjustment, after a period of time I found myself beginning to dislike the character of Angel and oddly enough the actor portraying him. I liked the character fine if I was not interacting with any of the fans and if I did not discuss him. But whenever I read anyone's post or any fan's interest in the character or a fanfic centered on the character - I found I despised the character and had a completely negative attitude. Not necessarily logical so much as a gut reaction. According to studies conducted by social psychologists we can be persuaded to dislike or like something based on the "attractiveness" of the person doing the persuading or commonality of interest with that person. For instance, in one study, participants were told the Neo-Nazis favored a certain trival item - people found themselves rejecting that item because Neo-Nazis favored it. This tends to work with more trivial items that don't require a great deal of thought, although it can work with more important ideas as well. Is it possible that my opinion of a television character was influenced by my interactions with people who loved that character?
The answer a qualified, yes. I qualify that answer because there's another component that should be addressed - how much was do to the individual poster's personality and how much of my reaction was due to how they argued their points or the "nature" or "reasons" stated? You could argue about 50/50 or 60/40, but actually
it's more complicated. For instance, at a recent gathering of BTVS/ATS fans, the majority of the people at the gathering were Angel fans and preferred the B/A relationship to the B/S one, one of the people showed me a series of vids she had created of the show. I liked the person showing the vids. I also liked the other person who joined us to watch them. One of the people - S, the other spectator, stated a strong preference for the B/A relationship, while L declared herself to be neutral. Her opinion was B/S was all about fighting and B/A was all about kissing. S agreed stating how she much preferred to watch B/A and even oohed and awed over my shoulder as the vid was being shown. After watching the two vids, I had an interesting emotional reaction - I had no desire to see an episode of the early seasons of BTVS, felt an intense dislike for the B/A relationship, and was bored watching the vids on the screen, although I politely nodded and suppressed these feelings. The vid did the opposite from what the maker intended, instead of reminding me of what was good and romantic about the characters and instilling a love of them or interest in the series, it made me wonder why I'd bothered with it and what a load of romantic sappy crap. The first vid, B/S, where the vid maker kept telling me that this relationship was all about fighting and clearly a train wreck, shown prior, made me feel quilty for being turned on. And annoyed. Same experience online - my reaction often had more to do with how and what the person was saying than who they were, since obviously you have no clue on most of these boards - people tend to be pretty anynomous - it's how the phrase their opinions that influence or persuade.
Persuasion notes Aronson, while discussing political issues such as health care reform not tv characters, is predicated on how you approach the audience and when. In several studies they determined that people tended to ignore or deny something if it was forced upon them. If someone says - this is "good" for you and this is "bad" for you - a la Mom and Dad telling you to eat green beans instead of ice cream, you are more likely to ignore them and do the reverse. (This is not meant to state that B/A and B/S are analogous to green beans and ice cream, don't be silly. Personally see both as ice cream.) For instance, if you present an hour long documentary about the poor and how bad their health care is to someone who does not want national health care reform, they are likely to flip to Wheel of Fortune, if you on the other hand, have place small ten minute add spots in between favorite tv programs, have the news media investigate it and do a spot, and maybe introduce it in the plot of a tv show - then you are more likely to persuade.
The other thing about persuasion - is the tone of it, also how you back up your facts. You are not going to change my mind regarding B/A or the character of Angel by degrading B/S or Spike. All you will accomplish is make me hate B/A, despise Angel, and lose all interest. Negative political advertising has seen the same backlash. But it also works occassionally, some people state that Bush Sr. owed his election to Willie Norton, a convict that was furloughed by Dukakis and ended up raping and murdering a woman in Maryland. Dukakis tried to fight this by citing statistics and factual data that Bush had furloughed just as many convicts as head, all governors do. It's standard. But Bush appealed to the emotions with his ad, pushed people's buttons, while Dukakis appealed to intellect. The arguements I've heard professing B/A to be the cat's pajamas inadverently do the opposite of the intent, they piss me off. The arguments professing Angel to be interesting equally piss me off. I oddly enough liked the character and the actor playing him far more when I didn't know anyone else who did. What bit of information is the proponent using that is pissing me off or pushing my buttons? Causing me to turn a death ear? I think a combo of things - the biggest ones being: Angel was adored by his peers, he was an accomplished artist, he deserved Buffy, he was the "chosen" one, he was successful and the most evil.
What persuades one person to like something could very well turn another off. But social influences also play a role. If the people you like and admire like one coupling over another, you might be persuaded towards their viewpoint. Attractiveness. If people you can't abide prefer something, you may disregard their opinion out of hand. In another study, pairs of women were given a topic to discuss. Before each presented their case to their friend. They were told that their friend either strongly agreed or disagreed with them, this influenced how they presented their case. OF the people told that their friend strongly disagreed, about 75% changed their case to fit their friends point of view. (We don't like to be in conflict with our friends, so will often tailor our views to fit theirs?) Another factor at play, if the opinion being professed disagrees with an attitude that is deeply imbedded in you - say for instance you hate frat parties, had a bad experience with certain type of guy in school, read poetry (which was soundly criticized) and struggled in high school and college academically. While say, someone who is a mere acquaintance, who had what you'd call an easy ride in school, barely had to study, everything came easily for, was a member of a frat -etc, comes online and professes through their examination of a character how people who wrote "bad" poetry and weren't popular and couldn't get straight A's are losers. They may not intend to be saying this - but their examination may be interpreted that way sublimally in their defense of say Angel over Spike. How would you reacte? Probably with an intense dislike for Angel, a character you may have previously enjoyed, and an increased interest in Spike. That's what some social psychologist would no doubt site as a personality or developmental factor - the factor that is not addressed by social psychology.
The problem with human thinking, and something I keep thinking we need to keep in mind while interacting with one another, is it is not always logical. It does not always follow a clear syllogism.
What may seem like a persuasive argument from one perspective could be the opposite depending on the audience you are attempting to persuade. Persuasion has a lot to do with how receptive the audience is to the argument.
Juries are a perfect example. In NYC they create hostile juries merely through how juries are selected. You wait anywhere from half a day to three days in an overcrowded room, unable to do work, waiting for your name to be called. Once it is, you are put in another small room and asked a bunch of personal questions in front of strangers. Then if chosen, forced to sit in an uncomfortable court room listening to lawyers present a case for hours on end. Needless to say juries are not made up of people who are receptive. They aren't comfortable.
They aren't happy. They are pissed. Whoever speaks the least, makes them the happiest, will most likely win the day. The OJ Simpson case is a perfect example. Cochran did wonders with a memorable and rhyming phrase that stuck in the jury's head like glue :"Glove doesn't fit acquit". Logically it's possible to wear tight fitting gloves to comit murder also blood and other chemicals can shrink them. But all they remember is the phrase. (I'm not saying OJ was guilty, just using an example cited by Aronson.) We remember what is most recent, we are receptive to what is presented to us in a comforting manner, and does not conflict with prior attitudes.
If I remove myself from the online fandom, I like Angel fine and Boreanze is a serviceable actor who I don't mind watching, even enjoyable, but if I read the fandom, I can't abide the character or actor. I reject both vehemently. Some of the reasons may be due to social influences, others...ah, not so much. But social interaction definitely plays a part in my views and those of the people around me. More I think than we know or are willing to acknowledge.
ETA 2022: I just re-read the comments to this - and they are insane. We did take ourselves a touch too seriously back then, didn't we?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Seven Samurai
Date: 2005-09-19 12:24 am (UTC)I think the context, and the framing of an act is all important. I don't think that Seeing Red, for example, glorified attempted rape, it just depicted it. Until Season 5, (when I first came into fandom) I thought BtVS had a pretty troubling attitute towards violence, but I was willing to suspend my sensibilities becuase I figured, well, it's cartoon violence for a cartoon show - nothing there. It's when I saw Season 5 that i started reassessing what I'd seen before, which was Buffy's admission that violence and the way of life that she had to lead was changing her. I would actually, quite strongly argue that there are many Buffy episodes that contain violence that do not in any way condone violence. It is used as a metaphor, while simultaneously acknowledging its reality within its own narrative as being meaningful violence at the basic level (i.e, Buffy does indeed slay vampires - but the meaning of it within the narrative is shifting. This is very well illustrated by the killing of the one lone vamp in The Body. I saw in it two things: the meta-comment that BtVS has to have an intrusion of "reality" (in Buffy terms) into the episode. It's very clever - to show the normal act of a death as being so unreal and grotesque that the killing of a vampire has the feel of a gritty reality - of a corporeality, of solidity. Secondly, it highlighted to me what vampires really do stand for - death, time, disruption.
Re: Seven Samurai
Date: 2005-09-20 12:02 am (UTC)At work today, it was a mindless day (which is nice for a change, last week was incredibly stressful), I rolled around your argument on LMPTM. When I saw LMPTM for the first time - my immediate reaction was you'd hate it. And I dreaded going online, because I saw exactly what you did.
I also saw the opposite. It's a weird episode, because it is mainly written in Robin Wood's point of view from start to finish. But like many BTVS and ATS episodes does not stay consistently there. I think they tried to do too much in that episode and may have been better served splitting it up a bit. Because the switches in pov are a bit jarring and confusing emotionally. But what the hey, that's television.
At any rate - I'm not sure that Spike's actions are condoned. Nor is Spike shown in a positive light. No one in that episode is, including our heroine, who throughout the season is shown falling slowly towards rock bottom. Or at least I think that was the writer's intent. The previous week she rejects power knowing what lies ahead, she closes herself off, only allowing one person in - Spike. Giles worrying about this attempts to put a stop to it. That's one interpretation - Giles. Then we have Buffy's pov. Then Spike's. Then Wood's. How you feel in the episode is which pov you take and it's impossible for anyone to be in all four.
Too jarring. Violence isn't condoned here. Wood beats Spike to a pulp, burns him, punchs him, while he lies defenseless on the floor moaning in demon face reliving his past trauma, then the tables turn and Spike defends himself against Wood, beats him down and then when Wood lies broken, pulls out Spike's best weapon words. He punchs the man with words.
Just as Wood initially punched Spike with words. Neither man comes out well - both are monsters and both blame their mothers for it. Enter Buffy who states that it's not their mother's fault, they can choose to be different. The mother was just doing her job, what Wood and Spike decide to become is their business. And she does not need to be saved by them and certainly not through violence. That's the reading of the episode I see now. It was not however the one I saw then.
It's a weird episode, but I'm not sure it condones violence any more than Villians, Graduation Day, Who Are You, Chosen, or Selfless necessarily did. I'm also not sure how much of my own views colored what I saw.
Remember how a couple of posters tore apart my theories on the episode after I first saw it? I can't in all honesty right now say they were wrong. It was an odd episode.
Re: Seven Samurai
Date: 2005-09-20 11:59 pm (UTC)I don't think that the writers thought they were condoning violence. I don't think they aimed to decisively come down on either side. Like a lot of season 7, I felt LMPTM was thematically incoherent. But when you don't reach the ends, all you have left are the means, and the means of LMPTM (and, even more so, Get It Done) I found really off putting. There are lots of BTVS eps that contain elements that may be shocking or troubling. But they are always sited in some context that either allowed you to argue away the disturbing elements or transformed the disquiet into something really very thought provoking and good.
I may be fooling myself here in that there were lots of fans who had enormous problems with eps that I felt were indeed disturbing but explainable. Maybe LMPTM was my Waterloo, but other people reached theirs long before. In that sense, this is where attitudes, histories, individual engagements with the show starts showing up. Of course I think that our personal histories, emotions and experiences play a part in how we read the show. But I sometimes think that argument can be used thusly:
"My normal past and experience and emotional wellness lets me read the show in one way, and your unbalanced, odd, unwell personality/past reads the show in a completely different way!"
The most amusing example of the above was when an unnamed person started going on about how the show shouldn't have to cater for people who'd gotten tied to trees as a child and abandoned by the step-father. That isn't the story Joss is telling. Only you know, that was exactly the story he was telling.
Which leads me to the conclusion that perhaps our past and our experiences and our attitudes dictates both our world views, but also the manner of our interaction with others. And that this interaction isn't cut and dried but an organic living process rather than a one off event. BtVS the show is always watched by one individual, but when it's dicussed and shared with other people - that's how we get AtPO. That's how we get each other, our pasts, our experiences, our attitudes, our worlds. I think this coils in neatly with some of the more positive messages of BtVS S7, and in its better moments, when the experience of being a "fan" becomes something more than the tv show in question.
Re: Seven Samurai
Date: 2005-09-21 12:45 pm (UTC)Heh. This correlates neatly with a statement that my professor made last night in class regarding how we evaluate others behavior. We tend to be more lenient with ourselves, while more judgemental of someone else.
ie. I was late today because my alarm didn't go off but they were late because they are irresponsible. Or I didn't help that person due to the situation, there were huge guys threatening her and I would have been hurt greatly, while they didn't do it because of how they were brought up. (Not the best examples).
This example can be extended to how we reacted to one anothers views on BTVS and ATS. At times it felt like people were watching completely different television shows. And we at times were judgmental, I think, of one another's perspective because it did not validate or correlate with our own.
I may be fooling myself here in that there were lots of fans who had enormous problems with eps that I felt were indeed disturbing but explainable. Maybe LMPTM was my Waterloo, but other people reached theirs long before. In that sense, this is where attitudes, histories, individual engagements with the show starts showing up. Of course I think that our personal histories, emotions and experiences play a part in how we read the show.
Very true. For some viewers the Waterloo episode was Dead Things and Buffy beating Spike to a pulp. They felt that the show condoned it because of the next few episodes. (Possibly the same reason many people felt Spike's actions at the end of LMPTM were condoned due to what happened in the next few episodes.) I remember writing an essay about it at the time regarding domestic violence. Another Waterloo moment was Seeing Red - not the sexual assault, but the killing of Tara and Willow becoming DarkWillow. For them that was possibly the most offensive thing the show ever did. They saw the Lesbian Cliche. Granted, you and I could argue it's not there, but I can't see that the people who saw it were entirely wrong either nor can I explain away their point of view by stating they are nuts or projecting, any more than I would be right to explain away the perspective that Angel in S2 and S1 of BTVs, actually in the whole series, had a disturbing Lolitish aspect. For some, he even appeared to be a bit of a pedophile - interested in young girls whom he could control. It may not have been my perspective, but was it completely invalid? (Shrugs)
And I'm not sure anyone has a normal past so to speak. But I find it interesting how we judge our own pasts and others based on incomplete information. Because the truth is - no matter how much someone tells us about themselves, there is always bits and pieces we don't know. I've been told that it is easy to envy or judge someone else from afar, but when you're literally in their skin it's quite another matter. There are days I was such a thing were possible, to be inside someone else's skin, but most of the time - I'm glad it's not. The closest we can get I suppose is through watching shows such as BTVS and discussing them and being open to views that may not agree with our own.