Has Persuasion Become a Key Function of Democratic Governments - Essay Example

Walter Lippmann predicted that as a result of psychological developments, persuasion would become a key function of government and change the practice of democracy. The research question for this essay examines whether Lippmann was correct in his prophecy. Persuasion has become a key function of the government when the work of researchers such as Hovland provided the psychological basis for persuasive practices. While persuasion has always been the method of the politician, it usually came down to rhetoric and personal charisma. Now, through the psychological findings, persuasion can be presented in a way where the message carries the point rather than relying on the messenger or source. Psychological research has been able to identify the way people perceive the world or a situation through their past experiences, attitudes and knowledge. Much of the perception is based on questionable grounds. Various theories such as the dissonance theory and risk aversion gave insights to the ways decisions are made. The development of first our understanding of schema, later enlarged and given the term frame, gave rise to the practice of framing. It was largely through this technique that governments could start to research issues and then to present them in a way that the public would accept the rational, particularly against an opposing view. The use of framing has grown rapidly and has become institutionalised into the way governments analyse and present their programmes. Studies of framing have led to interests in other components and techniques of the persuasion process. These include the need to move from mass media to individualised approaches which is currently achieved by moving from broadcasting to narrowcasting; to achieving greater empathy by collecting personalised information and creating psychographs; by further understanding the power of peer pressure through the study of cults; and the necessity to incorporate feedback through the use of focus groups. Has Persuasion become a key function of Democratic Governments When R.A. Butler (1971) claimed that ‘politics is the art of the possible’, he could have continued: ‘and the possible is achieved through persuasion.’ Persuasion is an essential trait for a politician and it stands to reason that politicians would be trained in ways to persuade effectively and that the government would make persuasion a key function. This eventuality was foreseen by Walter Lippmann who provides, the research question for this essay when he said, ‘As a result of psychological research, coupled with the modern means of communication, the practice of democracy has turned a corner…. Persuasion has become a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government’ (Lippmann, 1956). Was Lippmann right: has persuasion become a key function of government? This essay will support the first part of Lippmann’s claim1 that the application of psychology is changing the practice of democracy, and that persuasion has become an integral function of the government as a means of bringing about a change in attitude. It will concentrate on the ‘psychological research’, a part of social cognition, with particular attention to the application of ‘framing’ as a technique to present messages of persuasion. To make my case and support Lippmann’s assertion that ‘persuasion has become a self-conscious art and regular organ of popular government’, I will first define the terms ‘persuasion’ and ‘framing’; then examine the ways that ‘framing’ is used to persuade. This will be followed by an outline of a comprehensive technique of the framing process termed strategic frame analysis, which is a process used to achieve attitude change on major issues. Then I will discuss the manipulative effects of framing and the public’s attitude to such practices. In conclusion, I will claim that Lippmann was correct when he saw developments in psychology provide techniques that have become a part of government and are changing the nature of democracy. At this juncture it would also be prudent to define ‘democracy’ which as per Wikipedia ‘is a form of government in which policy is decided by the presence of majority in a decision-making process, usually elections or referendums, open to all or most citizens’. This decision making process itself is now influenced through ‘persuasion’ and ‘framing’. What is persuasion and what is the link between democracy and persuasion? Persuasion is used in every field and politics has not been spared either. In fact democracy is overpowered by persuasion the way the receiver accepts and changes his attitude. In democracy psychology has a very significant role to play. Persuasion can have both positive and negative effects on the society; it can be either constructive or destructive. Persuasion (Rhoads 1997) attempts to win "the heart and mind" of the target. Thus persuasion must induce attitude change, which entails affective (emotion-based) change. Although persuasion is more difficult to induce, its effects last longer because the target actually accepts and internalizes the advocacy. Persuasion is defined as ‘the process by which attitude change is brought about, usually by the presentation of a message containing arguments in favour or against the person, object, or issue to which the attitude applies’ (Oxford Dictionary of Psychology, 2003). Persuasion is a complex process and it has been studied by a large number of researchers (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Kanouse & Hanson, 1972; Meyerowitz & Chaiken, 1987; Pratkanis & Aronson, 1992; Smith & Petty, 1996). A pioneer in the research of persuasion is Hovland (Hovland, Janis & Kelley, 1953) who postulated that attention, comprehension and acceptance are of central importance when forming new attitudes. The three variables of communication: the source (i.e. the sender), the way in which the message is sent (i.e. the content) and the audience (or the receiver of the message), or who says what to whom, also play a role. Hovland and Janis developed a model, the Hovland paradigm, which reflects the interaction of these variables: The model was developed further by Hovland and Kelley and became known as ‘The Yale Model of Persuasion’ (cited in Pratkanis & Aronson, 2002). It showed the process of changing a person’s attitude and identified the circumstances under which people are influenced by persuasive communications. As part of the process, various effects on the message were studied: the discrepancy between the message and the original positions, rational versus emotional message, and the use of fear. Their findings included that carefully designed, belief-laden messages could change attitudes; that highly credible sources enhanced the effectiveness of persuasive messages; and that the change in attitude was unrelated to gains in factual information. Acceptance of the message by the audience is an essential part of research. It is for the receiver to critically analyse the advice and suggestions before acceptance. When examining communication as a process, researchers were aware that people are not capable of accepting and processing all the stimuli available to them. Broadbent (1958) for example found in his filter model of attention that people could only select one sensory channel at a time. Treisman (1960) proposed her Attenuation Theory (Oxford Dictionary of Psychology, 2003), which is often understood as selective listening; where people pay more attention to messages they want than to those they consider as less interesting. Therefore, the design of the message, including the content, becomes all-important if communication is to take place in the way it was intended, as attitude change cannot occur unless the message is accepted. In the persuasion process, the ‘what’ (or content) of a message, is important as to how it affects the knowledge and attitudes of the receiver. The message content forms a ‘frame’ that interacts with an individual’s knowledge and attitudes. A frame2 (formerly known and referred to as schema) is an underlying assumption or set of assumptions that assists an interpretation or concept, as a result of the knowledge and experiences, which are accepted (Oxford Dictionary of Psychology, 2003). Most communications are framed, although not always consciously (Entman, 1991). Framing is a process that selects specific properties and makes them more prominent in messages so as to promote a particular interpretation. It is a discursive practice of repeating, placing and reinforcing both images and words that refer to some idea. The desired outcome of the framing process is to create the acceptance of the message and at the same time, to distance the message from the opposing view. Individuals construct frames in order to make sense of the world, events, or people around us and to organize information in an understandable way. When we learn or see something new, we give it some kind of name or label to identify it. Information that is compatible with existing assumptions is included into a current frame and a new frame is created if the information is not compatible with the current frame. These frames act as cognitive shortcuts. We do not need to go through the various steps and bits of information but come to the ‘bookmark’ and know what the site is all about. The process of constructing a frame is done by the message recipient, who assigns labels only to the parts that are observed. Parts that are irrelevant or not understood are ignored and therefore not included in the frame. Frames can be strengthened if new information agrees with the information already held but there is a reluctance to modify an existing frame if the new information does not agree with what is already there. If there is a conflict between an existing frame and new information, then there is a situation of dissonance. Dissonance has been subject to considerable research since Festinger published A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957). Festinger (1997), while explaining the Cognitive Dissonance Theory cites how in the Aesop’s fable the grapes turned ‘sour’ for the fox when it changed its attitude towards the grapes. When he could not reach the grapes despite several attempts he provided an acceptable explanation for his behaviour. Festinger emphasizes that it is a ‘distressing mental state’ and this motivates the person to either accept or reject the stimulus. The attitude change occurs when the message is accepted. Festinger further postulated that pairs of cognitions or elements of knowledge can be relevant or irrelevant to each other (Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999). If two elements of knowledge are relevant to one another, they are either consonant or dissonant. Two cognitions are consonant if one follows from the other, and they are dissonant if the opposite of one cognition follows from the other. When there is dissonance we feel psychologically uncomfortable and seek to reduce the dissonance and avoid information likely to increase the dissonance. Festinger uses the term ‘cognition’, but for the purposes of this essay the term ‘frame’ is used in a similar context. Dissonance can be reduced by removing dissonant cognition, adding new consonant cognitions, or by reducing the importance of dissonant cognitions. Festinger (1957) gives an example of his theory using the case of a heavy smoker. The knowledge that smoking is bad for health is dissonant with the cognition that he continues to smoke. He could reduce the dissonance by changing his behaviour that is stop smoking, which would be consistent with the cognition that smoking is bad for health. He could reduce dissonance by changing his cognition about the effect of smoking on health and believe that smoking does not have a harmful effect on his health. Alternatively, he might look for positive effects of smoking and believe that smoking reduces tension and keeps him from gaining weight. Attitude change is difficult to bring about; however, framing is being proven effective in bringing about such change. The technique of framing is not recent: in Ancient Greece, Cicero used a form of framing to present criminals as laudable patriots so as to have them acquitted. However, he did this as an art form and not in the sophisticated way that framing is designed today. Aristotle also used techniques of persuasion, which he called atechnoi and Cicero developed these into a theory of statis, or techniques of presenting arguments. However, most of the techniques based on psychological experiments have been developed since Lippmann’s prophesy: moving persuasion away from an art form. Politicians and governments have now incorporated these techniques and thereby are changing democracy. Once a person’s position or frame on a particular issue or interest has been established, a message or situation can be presented to reinforce an existing belief and therefore strengthen that frame or if there is conflict then the existing frame can be modified using some of the framing processes discussed in this essay. It is then not surprising that during the political era of ‘permanent campaign’ (Mann & Ornstein 2000), the western governments, particularly the United States, are in a continuous election mode to persuade the electorate of their policies. Festinger proposed ways to understand cognition (or frames) on certain matters and thereby to change or modify behaviour and this dissonance theory provides the politician with the psychological research on which to change policy. For example, identifying the public’s attitude to a particular issue, such as the promise not to raise taxes, compared to a terrorist threat that requires raising additional funds. For the voter, the dissonance created from the ‘no new taxes’ frame can be rationalised by the strengthening of the national security frame through consonant cognition. When the opposition raises the issue that the tax increase is an election promise breach, they can be framed as soft on security and unwilling to protect our way of life. Frames influence decision-making, both on the personal and government level. Minor aspects of a situation, for example, the precise way in which an issue is presented impacts the responses of recipients. This phenomenon has been termed “framing effect” (Oxford Dictionary of Psychology, 2003). A classic example is provided by Tversky & Kahneman (1981) who presented subjects with two programmes for combating an unusual disease. Participants in one group were told that programme A would save 200 lives, whereas programme B had a one-third probability of saving 600 lives and a two-third probability of saving no lives. Seventy-two percent preferred A to B. Participants in a second group were told that under programme C 400 people would die, whereas under programme D there was a one-third probability that no one would die and a two-third probability that 600 would die. Seventy-eight percent preferred D to C. The majority of participants were risk adverse in their preference of A with its certain outcome over B that involved a risky gamble, when their frame was set to gains. Alternatively, the participants were risk seeking in their preference of D over C, when their frame was set to losses. These framing effects were present even though the two programmes were merely different ways of describing the same problem as the outcomes and descriptions remained equivalent. It largely depends upon how the receiver perceives and how the message is conveyed. Often remarks can have double meaning and hence a misleading effect on the receiver. To avoid mental stress and minimize dissonance a person would naturally opt for the seemingly less risky proposition. These are merely framing tactics mostly intended with ulterior motives. Based on psychological experiments conducted by others, Marwell and Schmitt (1967) produced taxonomy of sixteen techniques to develop positive frames. One of these techniques is ‘positive expertise’, which occurs when you speak with authority on the subject saying, ‘I can tell you that rewards will occur if you do X, because of the nature of reality’. ‘If you start working out at our gym regularly, you’ll find that people are more attracted to you physically’ (Cited in Rhoades, 2002). There are thousands of different tactics that compliance practitioners employ to produce a positive response, however, the majority fall within six basic categories of reciprocation, consistency, social proof, liking, authority and scarcity. Each of these categories is governed by a fundamental psychological principle that creates the desirable frame and in doing so the tactics become effective and powerful. These principles can be employed by the compliance professionals and incorporated into requests for votes or assent (Cialdini, 2001). The tax relief frame was introduced as soon as President Bush came into power. The image of a rescue of the population from an inherently bad situation by a hero has been created. The frame was extended to ‘tax relief creates jobs’, as more money in the economy should create new jobs. Democrats found it difficult to argue against the frame that was conservative and based on biased if not incorrect facts. They were unable to effectively support their position within the frame that they voted against tax relief. The outcome is that $330 billion dollars is being redistributed, over ten years, to the wealthiest Americans. Frames can be an effective device offering a perspective and manipulative salience that may influence future judgement (Rhoades, 2002). Various techniques of attitude change have been created by the application of frames. Tax relief is one such frame; voluntary student unionism rather than dismembering student choice is another. However, a frame needs to contain some substance or they are not accepted: frames that have not been accepted include ‘sanitation engineer’ rather than ‘garbage collector’ or ‘death taxes’ rather than ‘estate taxes’. Understanding frames and framing effects provides the psychological basis for their application. For example, Levin & Gaeth (1988) conducted a study where people were persuaded to consider buying meat on positive health grounds by labelling beef as “75% lean” rather than “25% fat. This was achieved by guiding the buyer to the frame where lean meant healthier. Another use of a frame is that it can direct a person to consider certain features and ignore others. This refers to what Rhoades (2002) describes as manipulative salience where we are encouraged to observe certain stimuli, which are inside the frame at the expense of what is outside it. Calling a person by a desirable image such as ‘intellectual’ may build up a favourable predisposition (frame) and may draw away attention from a less desirable attribute. Such frames may influence subsequent judgements in that information received after the frame is delivered may be organized and shaped to fit within the boundaries established by the frame. Therefore, a frame not only contains packeted information, but also constrains the information that is presented within it, and primes for future information. When the Republicans introduced the Partial Birth Abortion bill and the Democrats failed to adjust the frame to later-term abortion, and every argument against the bill, including the woman’s right of choice, were doomed to failure (Fagan, 2003). For politicians, message design based on knowledge of framing is now a fundamental skill. In the last Federal elections, Mr. Howard was able to deflect criticisms of having misled the public over the war in Iraq by creating the frame that his opponents would be poor managers of the economy and, if elected, would diminish personal wealth through inflation. The trust frame remained; however, it was changed from an ethical trust to an economic trust. People chose the frame of maintaining their current perceived good life over an ethical concern. President Bush who had a questionable military record was able to frame his opponent who had a distinguished record in Vietnam as a person who betrayed his comrades as he threw away his medals. Framing is used in analysis of public understanding and for gaining support for a particular policy in its relation to an opposing view. This is known as strategic frame analysis. It is a model that unites the social and cognitive sciences and attempts to identify the dominant frames of the public eye and the dynamic role of the media in establishing and activating particular frames. While opinion polls, surveys and focus groups are seen as the main methods used to gauge public opinion, it is strategic frame analysis, which is used for major, particularly government, campaigns. This is a comprehensive approach requiring substantial resources, careful design, and formulation of a hypothesis, usually constant measurement and statistical analysis such as multi variate scaling. A study of the effects of stakeholders and news media framing of a policy on public opinion by Koella (2001) outlines this method. When a policy issue attracts the involvement of stakeholders, a battle to frame the context of the policy debate is waged. This study examined the policy debate over former President Clinton’s plan for health care reform where stakeholders fought to control the news frame and ultimately to influence public opinion. The stakeholders attempted to frame health care reform by defining the boundaries of how the public would think about health care. They chose words and phrases that would further their positions by emphasising either favourable or unfavourable views toward Clinton’s plan. The primary strategy employed by supporters and opponents of the reform effort was to highlight or characterise specific features of the proposed National Health Security Act that might move public opinion in their favour. Ultimately, the fight was over how the conflict would be ‘understood by the public, with each side attempting to frame the debate to its own advantage’ (Koch, 1998). As health care reform is a complex issue, this study moves away from the more common frame analysis of tracking only two frames that are in competition for media attention (e.g. those supporting Clinton’s plan and those opposing). Two competing framing would not offer an adequate representation of the multitude of competing stakeholders and their positions concerning health care reform. Framing and frames in their various forms provide valuable information to political decision making as to how policies, candidates and opponents are perceived on various issues. For example, decisions can then be made as to whether an issue should be explained further because it is currently misunderstood or dropped altogether or the policies of the opposition be attacked on that particular issue. Framing therefore provided valuable information on which to base the decisions needed in the process of persuasion. Persuasion is a very effective tool of communication and the government is well aware of its consequences. It can either make or break a person; it definitely can alter the way a person thinks. This is the reason the government concentrates on narrowcasting more than broadcasting. In this case the person has more focused attention and is more likely to pay attention to what is being communicated. Just as the consumer market is flooded with persuasive advertising by competitors, so do the different political parties try to persuade the people. Persuasive statements are often misleading. There is an underlying meaning which is not explicitly conveyed. Framing is widely used in the public relations industry, and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Persuaders (Frontline, 2004) provides an insight to the ways that this industry currently works - not just advertising on behalf of their clients but, in the process, changing society. Each year billions of dollars are spent trying to determine how to persuade consumers and voters what to buy, whom to trust, and what to think. The cultures of marketing have come to influence not only what Americans buy, but also how they view themselves and the world around them. Governments are large clients of the public relations industry and they rely on the industry’s expertise to persuade voters to agree with their agendas. The amounts spent by governments on public relations are huge (Pratkanis & Aronson, 2002). In Australia, the costs of public opinion research and message design are harder to locate. Not just public relations, Hovland’s research too were funded by the United States government, which had seen the power of propaganda during World War II. The United States was concerned that with developments in the Cold War, it could not mount a credible opposition because the population had lost interest in post-war European affairs. Therefore, Hovland was given the brief to find a psychological basis for human behaviour that was suspected as being there but not having been scientifically proven. His findings were then incorporated into various government departments, particularly the defence department. This itself establishes that the government relies and spends heavily on ‘persuasion techniques’. Some criticism of Lippmann’s vision centred on whether the public would allow itself to be persuaded to such an extent, particularly as persuasion carries with it connotations of manipulation. It seems that public attitudes have changed a great deal. People have low opinions of politicians and their ethics and have come to accept this as quite acceptable. The St James Ethics Centre conducted a survey on Truth in Government and reports that anecdotal evidence suggests that many people simply assume that politicians will lie when it is in their interests to do so. The reality of politics is such that a closer inspection would reveal a world of constant trade-offs in which truthfulness has to be balanced against effectiveness (Longstaff, 2004). Through the techniques of framing, and using psychological research findings such as the dissonance theory, people can come to terms with questionable ethical concerns. The government no longer considers a questionable action such as waging a war against another country on the lack of conventional justification. Instead, if the government is determined to proceed then its advisers will craft a way to frame the actions in a way that is acceptable to the public and create a frame that makes the opposition’s view unacceptable in comparison. The ‘war on terror’ enabled the invasion or liberation of Afghanistan and the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ enabled the war on Iraq. As Lippmann forecast, public expectations and attitudes are rapidly changing largely due to the advances in psychological research and their application. We are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has ever known. Not only are our thoughts and attitudes continually being shaped and moulded, the doors of our perception are carefully and precisely regulated (O’Shea, 2003). When political actions are seen as becoming unethical, framing is used to divert public attention. For example when the justification for the invasion of Iraq was being questioned there was a flurry of activity to clean up corporate America, such as the prosecution of Enron and closing of Arthur Andersen, to show that the Administration was intent to pursue high standards of ethics, be it at home or abroad. In conclusion, McNair (1998) gives support to Lippmann with what is seen as the emergence of a new form of democracy, where he sees the politicians and the journalists competing to set the news agenda. The spin-doctors act as coaches and managers on behalf of the politicians, and as technical assistants in realising the desired communicative effects. In the years since Lippmann offered his prophecy, a great deal of understanding of the processes of the psychology and processes of persuasion has taken place. Communication is moving from mass media to narrowcast, which is becoming increasingly possible through developments in mobile telephone, internet, wireless and interactive technology. The development of narrowcasting requires action by the individual, even something simple like opening and reading an email, and this personal involvement gets them involved in the frame being presented and therefore more likely to accept it. The use of frames and framing in message design form part of the methodology by which this is achieved. This is evidenced by the large amounts of money spent by governments on public relations firms, and the creation of special government agencies vested with the brief of framing and presenting persuasive, legally defensible messages that clearly differentiate the government’s position from that of its opponents. Developments in other parts of the persuasion model such as priming, the study of cults, use of focus groups and the building of psychographs further reveal how to influence frames. The claim that the practice of persuasion is a key function of government and that it has changed the very nature of democracy is true. The threat to democracy occurs when the focus is on winning the elections or gaining from political power rather than maintaining the democratic form of government. Negative political persuasion has increased over the years. A set of rules to be formulated and followed strictly by the candidates alone can help restore the democratic system. (These are additions to your own bibliography and may be incorporated. The first one refers to Page 3 para 3 and the second one can be found on page 5 para 2). Festinger L (1957) A First Look at Communication Theory McGraw-Hill, Inc. viewed 29 August 2005, < www.afirstlook.com> Rhoads K (1997) “Working Psychology – introduction to influence’, viewed 30 August 2005, < http://www.workingpsychology.com/definit.html> Read More