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}
Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-19 09:37 pm (UTC)Firstly, the fandom sprawls out way beyond one person's ability to get the measure of it. A lot of fandom happens secretly. A lot happens in chat rooms, journals (which may or many not be friendslocked). There is sitll a great measure of fandom that doesn't interact with other fans(as I used to be, and am now again - the silent, solitary consumers of a fandom).
I also think that people do not respond predictably to any "text". As is quite obvious, no matter how bald or absolute the statement, a million interpretations are launched. There *is* space in BtVS for multiple interpretations. Some are probably more correct than others. We all slot in our hierarchies of probablities differently.
I wrote a lot more, but I think it would be wisest to stop here. Everything you think about my view on Spike? There's an Angel fan who thinks the same about my views on Angel and who takes similar offence. Ditto a lot of Buffy fans. Let's not get started on the big Wesley-Gunn-Fred controversy! Or anywhere near Connor. I can't express how much relief I feel at having been released from my excitement/interest in the show and the characters. Fandom, Ugh. I always felt as if I was one step away from being locked in the attic.
Agree
Date: 2005-09-19 11:30 pm (UTC)And coming up with the same confusing muddle I just did. Heh..
So I tend to agree. [Particularly with your last paragraph. Ditto on the last sentence of your post! I wondered much the same about myself for a few years there. So happy to past all that.] Also, you're right - attempting to analyze fandom may be akin to capturing and analyzing lighting in a bottle, impossible. I think there's an obsessiven nature to being a fan that is worth studying, but difficult due to unknown variables.
Was thinking it over today and saw quite a few holes in my own arguments, while I could defend a position that there was a definite Angel bias on TWOP and ATPO in later years, I'd have to step back and admit that a) BTVS had ended and b) that the number of people frequenting both boards had scattered a bit. Also Buffy Cross and Stake, a spoiler board which had the highest number of posters of the three boards, averaging 600 or more a day at the height of it's popularity, showed a significant bias or leaning towards Spike (partly because Angel had his own show and there was the sister board, Angel's Soul for Angel fans, which had less posters interestingly enough. Perhaps a better argument would be that much of the Spike hatred was due to the fact that these fans felt displaced on their former boards?) Feel a little sorry for the Xander fans, who probably did feel a little like deviants on the boards, especially b/x and b/r shippers.
So you are right my arguments don't work if you expand upon them. I was attempting to confine them to three boards in analysis, but even there the argument falls apart.
Have another book to read for the same class entitled: "How We Know What Isn't So: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life by Thomas Gilvovich", which pokes holes in many social psychology studies and other research. It also cautions against attempting to do what I just did. The exercise taught me that you can't determine group behavorial patterns merely through observation, you need to be aware of other types of variables - such as the situation, the personalities of the people involved, and external influences.
Thanks for your comments, helped me clarify a few things in my head couldn't have done alone.
Re: Agree
Date: 2005-09-21 12:06 am (UTC)I don't think its impossible at all, but I think there would have to be a measure of self-definition by other fans - perhaps my fannish experience and yours isn't the same, but your experience would be setting the parameters for the entire study? Things like that. similarly, as a non-shipper, with a canonical interest in the show's canonical couples with a deeper interest in the couples-who-aren't as a kind of mirror image (I rarely if ever want the show to depict the ships I actually read fic about) my fannish experience isn't probably very representative.
Re: Agree
Date: 2005-09-21 12:53 pm (UTC)Not sure this is true. There were lots of fans who did not directly "ship" onscreen relationships. (I know because half of them sent me emails asking for essays for websites featuring non-cannon ships : ie. Willow/Spike, Spike/Riley, Spike/Xander, Faith/Buffy, Buffy/Xander, Andrew/Spike, Willow/Buffy...Lilah/Spike. Giles/Anya - was huge on the BC&S board for a while. It goes on.) Also there's slash which is hardly canon or even condoned by the writers. Hence the name slash. Huge percentage of fandom actually prefers the non-canonical ships as a reaction to the shipping wars partly and possibly because they knew like I did that this being television the actual romances would never satisfy, so you might as well make up your own. There are quite a few people who shipped B/S in seasons 2-4, but did not ship them in 5-7.
So you aren't as atypical as you may think.
I tended to do both. I went with what was onscreen. I also played with reading fantasies of things that did not happen onscreen. But I doubt that was atypical either.
That's the difficulty with the analysis, determining what is the typical fan and what is the deviant, or the control/non-control.