9 Propaganda Techniques in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11
Back in the Summer of 2004 outspoken documentary-maker Michael Moore brought out 'Fahrenheit 9/11', his personal view of how the terrorist attacks in the US were used by George Bush to pursue illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The response to the film was huge, but rarely ambiguous - audiences either loved it or loathed it.
Some saw it as a brilliant indictment of the lead-up to an unjust war. Others saw it as unfounded liberal/left-wing propaganda designed to give the Democrats a boost in the lead-up to the 2004 US presidential elections.
At the time Dr Kelton Rhoads, an expert in the psychology of persuasion, wrote a piece detailing the psychological techniques of persuasion used by Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11. Although I wrote a summary of Rhoads' article, due to website re-organisations it got lost so I'm reposting it here as it provides a good introduction to propaganda techniques.
Each psychological technique is explained with one example from the film. For a full explanation of the techniques and a fuller list of examples go directly to the document on his website.
Omissions
Psychology: One of the most obvious techniques of any propaganda is not presenting the whole truth. As Dr Rhoads points out, "What gives omissions their power is that often not recognised as missing by their audience." By leaving out important information people are allowed to jump to conclusions about the evidence that is presented. The propagandist has, at no point, failed to tell the truth, they've just failed to tell the whole truth.
Example: One of the largest omission is the failure to show footage of the terrorist hijacked planes hitting the twin towers.
Explanation: Showing this would have provoked the viewer's anger and turned their thoughts to retribution. Instead Moore shows the aftermath, which provokes the emotion of sorrow.
Contextualisation
Psychology: Moore is keen on juxtaposition. This uses an effect psychologists call 'structure activation'. Simply put if you feel sad at any particular moment, that tends to colour how you interpret whatever happens to you next. In propaganda this can be used by creating a bleed-through effect from one scene to another. The emotion from one scene is used to colour how you interpret the content of the next scene.
Example: Contextualisation often makes Bush look foolish
Explanation: First scene: we see the unbelievable grief and suffering of witnesses to 9/11. Second scene cut into this: we see Bush 'happy, smiling and confident'. How could he be smiling at a time like this? The answer is, of course, that he's not, it's just the way the film has been cut together to make him look foolish.
Ingroup/outgroup manipulations
Psychology: This comes down to preferring 'people like us' over 'people who aren't like us'.
Example: The Saudis are represented throughout the film as being part of the 'outgroup' along with Bush.
Explanation: Moore shows Bush to be close to the Bin Laden family by repeated association. Then he shows the Bin Laden family to be close to Osama Bin Laden again by association. Whether these associations are really this close is a point for discussion but the thing to notice is that the only connection is association. Because a policeman tends to be near criminals, does that make him a criminal?
Cynicism
Psychology: People tend to attribute selfish motivations to other people, and altruistic motivations to their own behaviour. On average we have a tendency to be cynical about the reason other people do what they do. It is easy to make people suspicious about someone's motivations by simply questioning them. Intelligence operatives have an acronym: 'F.U.D.' which stands for fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Example: Bush is acting in his own self-interest rather than in the interests of the US.
Explanation: Bush is shown sitting reading "My Pet Goat" to school children for seven minutes after the Secret Service operative has whispered the news of the terrorist attack into his ear. The cynical assumption is that he is possibly: confused, doesn't care, didn't know what to do, etc.. In reality any President movements are completely controlled by the Secret Service for security reasons. Presidents are trained to wait to be told where to go by them. In this situation Bush would probably have been told to stay put while they got information on the best place to go.
Traps
Psychology: Dr Rhoads refers to this as the E.W.Y.G.Y.S. effect or: Either Way You Go Your Screwed.
Example: Bush is presented both as a bumbling fool and as a master manipulator.
Explanation: Bush is shown primping his hair at the start of the film in the moments before broadcasting to the nation. Here he, and indeed the rest of the administration, are seen as master manipulators. The points in the film were he is made to look foolish are almost endless so take your pick.
Modelling the convert communicator
Psychology: People copy each other all the time, it's human nature. If you stand in the middle of the street and stare up at nothing, before long you will have gathered a small crowd of people all straining their neck backwards to see the object of your fascination. If you imagine this situation in terms of people's political point of view, then a similar transformation can be observed. If people are to watch someone else changing their point of view about something it influences them in the same fashion.
Example: One convert communicator in this film is Lila Lipscomb, a mother grieving for the loss of her son in Iraq. She appears to complete a full 180° turn in the course of the film, from supporting Bush to opposing him. From supporting the war in Iraq, to opposing it.
Explanation: Dr Rhoads uncovers evidence that there was no U-turn and it has been manufactured to aid our persuasion. She in fact voted for Al Gore in the last election and has been quoted as saying that: "Bush stole the presidency."
Pacing and distraction
Psychology: Dr Rhoads: "Distraction keeps us from thinking."
Example: It is difficult to process some parts of the film whereas others such as the parts with Lila Liscomb seem only too clear.
Explanation: Those parts of Moore's arguments that may be perceived as 'weaker' fly by with blaring music playing over the top. The strong parts of his argument (Lila Lipscomb) have no blaring music or fast cuts to cause distraction.
Associations
Psychology: This is an effect that psychologists often talk about in relation to Pavlov's dog. When Pavlov fed his dog, the dog salivated and he rang a bell. After a while the dog began salivating when he rang the bell, despite the fact there was no food in sight. So the dog associated the bell with being fed.
Example: Moore shows members of the Taliban visiting Texas. The automatic assumption is that he was invited by Bush.
Explanation: Bush is shown in association with the Taliban despite the fact that Bush hadn't in fact invited them to Texas. They were there to discuss an oil pipeline with the previous permission of the Clinton administration.
Numeric deceptions
Psychology: People like statistics, they sound good. It's been found by psychologists that people are happy to believe them and don't bother checking them. Sounds perfect for the propagandist doesn't it?
Example: Bush was on vacation for 42% of the time during his first 229 days in office.
Explanation: What the original statistics are referring to is the time that Bush spent not in Washington. And the implications is that, if he's not in Washington he's not doing any work and is therefore on vacation. Obviously not true. I'm sat at home in the UK, sitting back on the sofa as I write this so how can I be working? Perhaps I need to move to Washington for this to count as real work? This discussion is facile, but parts of Moore's arguments revolve on this pivotal point.
Dr Rhoads finishes his article by saying:
"...is Fahrenheit documentary, or is it propaganda? Call it as you will. For my part, I see a consistent, effective, and clever use of a range of established propaganda tactics. If only a few of these tactics were used, or if the attempt to deceive weren't as apparent, I might equivocate...I feel safe in applying the rule: if it flies, walks, swims, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."
But Bush still won in 2004!
So if Fahrenheit 9/11 was such a successful piece of propaganda, how come George Bush went on to win the 2004 presidential election? Dr Rhoads published an update on the apparently failed attempt to persuade the American public which I commented on here.
» You can buy Fahrenheit 9/11
which won the Palme D'Or at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival from Amazon.com, Michael Moore's latest film is 'Sicko
'.» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
Labels: Persuasion
Compliments Could Earn Hairstylists Thousands More in Tips
[Photo by suzun]
A new experiment finds that hairstylists who compliment their customers earn one third more in tips - which could mean thousands more over a year.John Seiter and Eric Dutson of Utah State University, recruited two hairstylists who, after cutting their customer's hair, randomly pulled one of three pennies from their pocket. This was to ensure that customers were not treated differently during the haircut itself.
If the penny was marked with a 1, they gave the customer no compliment. If it was marked with a 2 they told the customer: "Your hair looks terrific". If it was marked with a 3 they said: "Any hairstyle would look good on you." The amount tipped by each customer was then recorded by the hairstylist.
To be able to compare across differently priced haircuts, the tips were converted into a percentage of the total price for the haircut. Here are the average tip percentages in each condition:
- "Your hair looks terrific." - 12.83% tip
- "Any hairstyle would look good on you." - 12.51% tip
- No compliment - 9.14% tip
As you can see the average tip percentages are one third higher in the compliment conditions than the no compliment condition. Over the months and years this can add up to a substantial difference.
This is a good practical demonstration that a simple method of ingratiation - a compliment - can actually have a persuasive, and easily measurable effect on people. Indeed, this finding could well be applicable across a wide range of service-related jobs. But I'm sure I don't need to remind such intelligent, discerning readers as yourselves of that, do I?
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Reference
Seiter, J. S., & Dutson, E. (2007). The Effect of Compliments on Tipping Behavior in Hairstyling Salons. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(9), 1999-2007.
Labels: Persuasion
Have You Ever Been Scammed?
[Photo by mcsixth]
Perhaps you've lost some loose change on the street hunting the lady while trying to beat the 'three-card trick'? This is the one where three cards are moved one over the other and you have to find a particular card. It appears easy when you watch someone else winning but, when you step up to have a go at the makeshift table, you keep losing. The card should be where you think it is, but it's not. So you lose a bit of cash. I like card tricks, although the mechanical explanations of their workings are usually disappointing. It always turns out to be some low-level cheating which almost anyone could get the hang of with a little practice. Same with the three-card trick. When you know how the card trick itself is done, you feel like a fool for falling for it. That's because the trick isn't really in the cards, it's in the mind.
The interest for me in card tricks, and in magic generally, is the psychology. The best part is understanding how the magician, or huckster, plays on our human nature to get us to behave in a certain way.
Sheep theory
The three-card trick relies on what is variously known in psychology as 'emergent norm theory' or 'crowd psychology' or what I like to call 'sheep theory'. My name is better (although less scientific sounding) because it clearly emphasises how much people like to follow each other. Like sheep.
Baaaaaaaaaa!
If I had to explain only one thing to someone who knew nothing about psychology, it would be 'sheep theory'. Being aware and watching out for this one fact would improve our imaginary naive person's life no end.
One classic example of sheep theory is Stanley Milgram's famous electro-shock obedience experiment. Social psychology is filled with endless studies of us copying each other or, in the lingo, 'conforming to group norms'. It's not just humans, there's evidence that chimps conform as well.
Three-card trick
This is why along with telling our imaginary ingenue about sheep theory I would also show them an experienced mob running the three-card trick.
Keeping a safe distance from them I would point out the all-too-simple components. There are the shills pretending to play the game - sometimes winning sometimes losing. Here's a punter walking up and watching the shills, not realising they are in on the game. There's another shill explaining how easy the game looks. And there they go, approaching the table.
They say a fool and his money are soon parted but I wouldn't call our ingenue a fool. They are merely acting just like the rest of us, the way that is often good for us, by fitting in with others and following their lead.
In life the real trick is knowing when to conform and when to buck the trend.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Labels: Persuasion
Loudest Voice = Majority Opinion
New research reveals even if only one member of a group repeats their opinion, it is more likely to be seen by others as representative of the whole group.
A group of us are sat around shooting the breeze, talking about this that and everything else besides. Like all British people we always end up with a bit of weather-related chat when the conversation flags. And sure enough, before long, James is complaining about the unseasonably cool and wet weather that we're having at the moment.
"It just flies in the face of all that 'global warming' crapola, right?" says James.
Now, like the others I know a little bad weather in the short-term doesn't disprove a long-term trend. But, for whatever reason, I don't say anything and neither does anyone else.
He goes on: "Doesn't it just make you wonder what's really going on with all these environmental groups telling us we're ruining the planet and all the rest?"
There's no more talk on the subject until much later when I'm with one of the group on his own. We start on about global warming and the environment again. It soon becomes clear that he's been swayed by what James said earlier.
"Well no one really said anything against James and I just thought everyone agreed," he explains. "I thought you guys were all up to date with this sort of thing being scientific types?"
I explained to him that James' opinions probably bore no relation to what the rest of us thought - it's just we hadn't expressed our own opinions. I don't think he believed me, which was annoying. It seemed the simple act of one person expressing their opinion loudly and clearly in a group setting had convinced him we all felt the same way. Unfortunately, knowing that group, I saw nothing could be further from the truth.
The study, carried out by Kimberlee Weaver and colleagues, found we can tell that three different people expressing the same opinion better represents the group than one person expressing the same opinion three times - but not by much.
In fact, if one person in a group repeats the same opinion three times, it has 90% of the effect of three different people in that group expressing the same opinion. When you think about it, that is strange. Indeed, I'm not sure I'd even believe it if I hadn't already read many other psychology studies that point to the illogical and unreasonable ways our minds sometimes work.
Where does this effect come from? The authors argue it comes down to memory. Because repetition increases the accessibility of an opinion, we assume it has a high prevalence. In everyday life we are likely to hear the same opinion many times in different places. We then put all these together to judge the general mood of a group. When one person repeats their opinion, we simply over apply the rule.
Similarly, and more worryingly, when an opinion is repeatedly broadcast at us by the same organisation - think of a particular media conglomerate or an advertiser - we're likely to come to believe it represents the general opinion. That's despite the fact it is analogous to the same person repeating themselves over and over again.
So, next time James spouts off, I'll make a point of speaking up. And make sure I repeat myself. Several times.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Reference
Weaver, K., Garcia, S.M., Schwarz, N., & Miller, D.T. (2007) Inferring the popularity of an opinion from its familiarity: A repetitive voice can sound like a chorus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 821-833.
A group of us are sat around shooting the breeze, talking about this that and everything else besides. Like all British people we always end up with a bit of weather-related chat when the conversation flags. And sure enough, before long, James is complaining about the unseasonably cool and wet weather that we're having at the moment.
"It just flies in the face of all that 'global warming' crapola, right?" says James.
Now, like the others I know a little bad weather in the short-term doesn't disprove a long-term trend. But, for whatever reason, I don't say anything and neither does anyone else.
He goes on: "Doesn't it just make you wonder what's really going on with all these environmental groups telling us we're ruining the planet and all the rest?"
The power of repetition
This is starting to get me going a little - I actually think humans are ruining the environment and causing global warming. Again, though, I'm lazy and only mumble a few words in disagreement. I half think James is just trying to wind us up to get the conversation going. Still, I let it go.There's no more talk on the subject until much later when I'm with one of the group on his own. We start on about global warming and the environment again. It soon becomes clear that he's been swayed by what James said earlier.
"Well no one really said anything against James and I just thought everyone agreed," he explains. "I thought you guys were all up to date with this sort of thing being scientific types?"
I explained to him that James' opinions probably bore no relation to what the rest of us thought - it's just we hadn't expressed our own opinions. I don't think he believed me, which was annoying. It seemed the simple act of one person expressing their opinion loudly and clearly in a group setting had convinced him we all felt the same way. Unfortunately, knowing that group, I saw nothing could be further from the truth.
Our strange brains
A study published recently in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology examined exactly this situation to test how people judge the distribution of opinion.The study, carried out by Kimberlee Weaver and colleagues, found we can tell that three different people expressing the same opinion better represents the group than one person expressing the same opinion three times - but not by much.
In fact, if one person in a group repeats the same opinion three times, it has 90% of the effect of three different people in that group expressing the same opinion. When you think about it, that is strange. Indeed, I'm not sure I'd even believe it if I hadn't already read many other psychology studies that point to the illogical and unreasonable ways our minds sometimes work.
Where does this effect come from? The authors argue it comes down to memory. Because repetition increases the accessibility of an opinion, we assume it has a high prevalence. In everyday life we are likely to hear the same opinion many times in different places. We then put all these together to judge the general mood of a group. When one person repeats their opinion, we simply over apply the rule.
Familiarity doesn't breed contempt
The theme of this research is something that has been known and used by advertisers and influencers for decades. Familiarity doesn't breed contempt at all, it breeds attraction. Making your voice heard is the only way to let others know what you think. Otherwise they will think you agree with the loudest person.Similarly, and more worryingly, when an opinion is repeatedly broadcast at us by the same organisation - think of a particular media conglomerate or an advertiser - we're likely to come to believe it represents the general opinion. That's despite the fact it is analogous to the same person repeating themselves over and over again.
So, next time James spouts off, I'll make a point of speaking up. And make sure I repeat myself. Several times.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
ReferenceWeaver, K., Garcia, S.M., Schwarz, N., & Miller, D.T. (2007) Inferring the popularity of an opinion from its familiarity: A repetitive voice can sound like a chorus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 821-833.
Labels: Persuasion
Achieving Rapport: Expressivity, Coordination and Flow
Rapport is important. We need rapport to influence others, to teach and learn, to achieve difficult tasks in groups and even to mate. The latest research reveals gaining rapport is not just about matching body language and being positive, the picture is actually much more complicated. Studies have shown that expressivity is actually one of the most important factors in rapport. An expressive person displays their emotions nonverbally to those around them. Those who are more expressive have been found to elicit greater levels of liking and rapport from others.
Expressivity
The interesting thing is that much research argues that it is not just the expression of positive emotions and states that is related to liking, but also the negative. There are, however, some conflicting findings in the research. Some find negative expressivity is related to liking, others not. This apparent confusion is explained by Tickle-Degnen (2006) in terms of the situation. For example, when talking with someone new it builds rapport to hide negative emotion. But when talking with a good friend, showing negative emotion builds rapport.
This also opens up the question of the dynamic nature of expressivity: how do changes in expressivity across time affect rapport? One effect discussed earlier in this series on nonverbal behaviour is synchrony. This study finds it's not so much copying each others body language that predicts rapport as whether it's in synchronisation. Patterns of synchronisation are actually set within rhythmic structures that interact and coordinate.
Coordination
While this research is interesting, the analysis from that study is extremely complicated - too complicated to provide a rule of thumb. Luckily other research suggests there's a shortcut for spotting nonverbal rhythms associated with rapport. This is based on how 'tight' the coordination is between individuals.
High 'tightness' in nonverbal behaviour can be seen when one person matches another very quickly. Studies have shown this is associated with anxiety and a forced attempt to gain rapport with someone else. This is the type of behaviour people often display when first meeting.
At the other extreme, very loose matching of nonverbal behaviour is associated with little rapport. It's at that intermediate level of nonverbal coordination where rapport is highest, when rhythms are neither too loose nor too tight.
Flow
One fascinating question Tickle-Degnen (2006) asks is what aspects of a situation make for high levels of rapport building between individuals? This question is interesting because instead of focussing on individual nonverbal behaviour, this puts the focus on the situation and which aspects of it lead to higher levels of rapport.
To get some purchase on this problem, Tickle-Degnen (2006) uses Csikszentmihalyi's idea of 'flow' - a state when we are operating at our peak, when we feel 'in the zone' (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). When playing sport this means the ball always goes exactly where we want, and in nonverbal behaviour it means we can establish rapport very quickly.
Csikszentmihalyi finds that reaching a 'flow' state tends to happen when people are involved in tasks that push them somewhat, but not beyond their abilities. Also, structured rather than unstructured tasks seem to support flow. What this suggests for flow in rapport is that it will develop more quickly when we are engaged in ability-stretching structured tasks with others.
Perhaps this explains why individuals involved in complicated tasks for which they are trained - say, two people at work - are able to establish rapport very quickly. In contrast, those in an unstructured situation not pushing their abilities - say, two people at a party - can take much longer to achieve rapport.
Achieving rapport
These are, of course, only a few of the factors involved in developing rapport. There are still many, many questions to be answered. For example, how does rapport building relate to our motivations in particular encounters? What effect do different cultural contexts (cf. with cultural differences in nonverbal behaviour) or even computer mediated communication have on rapport building (cf. research on emoticons and capitalisation)?
All these questions and more remain to be answered, but the conclusion we can draw from the latest research is that rapport is not all down to slavishly copying body language and being positive. The picture is much more complicated.
Not only can the communication of negative emotion be important in rapport building, but nonverbal behaviour needs to be coordinated to just the right degree. Finally, there are certain situations in which we can get into the 'rapport zone' when we are at the top of our interpersonal games.
» This post is part of a series on nonverbal behaviour.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References - Click here to toggle visibilityLabels: Nonverbal, Persuasion
Communicating Persuasively: Email or Face-to-Face?
Our intuitive understanding is that face-to-face communication is the most persuasive. In reality, of course, it's not always possible to meet in person, so email wins out. How, then, do people react to persuasion attempts over email? Persuasion research has uncovered fascinating effects: that men seem more responsive to email because it bypasses their competitive tendencies (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2002). Women, however, may respond better in face-to-face encounters because they are more 'relationship-minded'. But is this finding just a gender stereotype?
Gender stereotypes
Guadagno and Cialdini explain their results in terms of expectations about social roles. Cultural stereotypes have it that men are task-oriented whereas women are relationship-oriented. So, when put in a situation where relationships were important i.e. face-to-face, women tend to follow the cultural stereotype. Similarly, as men are often viewed as more competitive, when they face each other they tend to be more competitive and so less open to persuasion.
Practically, what this research is suggesting is that email could provide a way of side-stepping men's competitive tendencies. But, this research doesn't consider the effects of pre-existing relationships. After all, we react differently to friends than strangers.
In an upcoming article, however, to be published in the journal 'Computers and Human Behaviour', Guadagno and Cialdini (2007) examine the effect of relationships. The problem for researchers is how to manipulate people's relationships experimentally to effectively test the differences. Guadagno and Cialdini use the concept of 'oneness'.
Oneness
Oneness refers to the idea of an interconnected identity. The closer two people feel, the more helping the other person is like helping themselves. So oneness can promote altruistic behaviour. Oneness can also be seen in terms of the classic in-group out-group dichotomy in social psychology. People show a positive bias towards other people who are in the same notional group as themselves: e.g. work colleagues.
Oneness was very simply manipulated in Guadagno and Cialdini's study by encouraging strangers to view each other in one of two ways. In the first manipulation two strangers were shown fictional results of a questionnaire they had completed which showed they had identical personalities. In the second, the fictional results showed they had completely different personalities. In this way, the first groups 'oneness' was encouraged, while in the second it was discouraged.
Then, as had been done in the previous study, participants attempted to persuade each other.
Results
The researchers found that when there were low levels of oneness between men, email was a more effective way to communicate. Conversely, for women, higher levels of oneness made face-to-face encounters significantly more persuasive.
How can these results be explained? Women may not generally be easily persuaded over email because there is less opportunity to form relationships from which attitude changes can be built. Men, however, tend to be less competitive over email and are better able to concentrate on arguments presented, rather than being distracted by seeing the other man as a threat.
Male-female interaction
Bear in mind that this study is ironing out the spectrum of differences amongst both men and women. In other words, clearly not all women are always relationship-focussed and not all men are always task-focussed. It seems an obvious point but it's a mistake often made in mainstream media presentation of psychology research.
Additionally, one of the drawbacks of the study was that it only concentrated on same-sex communication. Although, I would suggest it's better not to think of this study in terms of men and women but in terms of individual relationships.
So, if you want to persuade someone with whom you have a competitive relationship - whatever your and their gender - email might be a better choice. On the other hand, if your persuasion attempt is aimed at someone with whom you have a more cooperative relationship, face-to-face could be a better choice. Unfortunately, it isn't always possible to see someone face-to-face, so it's very useful to be aware of the processes operating in both face-to-face and online interactions.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References - Click here to toggle visibilityLabels: Email, Persuasion