Mass Media and society

Persuasion and the Media Two-Step Flow of Communication December 2010

Master program Communication and Advertising

Elisabeth Briant Lee (eds.Institute of Propaganda Analysis (New York) . Alfred McClung Lee.Propaganda research 1937 .) 7 techniques name calling glittering generalities transfer testimonials plain folks card stacking bandwagon .Hadley Cantril The Fine Art of Propaganda (1939).

Democracy) • Transfer = an attempt to make the subject view a certain item in the same way as they view another item. simply because such an important concept is involved (ex. ridicule etc. but are linked to highly valued concepts. or even to the party itself ) . they demand approval without thinking.Techniques • Name calling = the use of derogatory language or words that carry a negative connotation when describing an enemy (sarcasm. transfer is most often used to transfer blame or bad feelings from one politician to another of his friends or party members. to link the two in the subjects mind (in politics. When these words are used.) • Glittering generalities = words that have different positive meaning for individual subjects.

Bandwagon propaganda is. essentially. to join in because others are doing so as well. in or out of context. because more people have joined it . trying to convince the subject that one side is the winning side.Techniques • Testimonials = quotations or endorsements. which attempt to connect a famous or respectable person with a product or item • Plain folks = an attempt by the propagandist to convince the public that his views reflect those of the common person and that they are also working for the benefit of the common person • Card stacking = only presenting information that is positive to an idea or proposal and omitting information contrary to it • Bandwagon = an appeal to the subject to follow the crowd.

Penelope Cruz • Bonux The Inheritance .Let’s identify techniques • Generation Next (Pepsi Commercial) • Pepsi – Michael Jackson • Stella Artois – Pig • L`Oreal .

Triumph des Willens Frank Capra. Why We Fight • Reason: o o How to motivate soldiers to fight in the war? How to keep them motivated? .Persuasion • Context: The WW II (after Pearl Harbor) o o Leni Riefenstahl.

com/watch?v=UxGySNfu1C o&feature=player_embedded .com/watch?v=GcFuHGHfY wE&feature=related (0.Why We Fight • A series of 7 movies about the war in Europe • A counter-propaganda (a response to Leni Riefenstahl’sTriumph des Willens) http://www.

Experiments on Mass Communication (1949). D.Carl Hovland Carl Hovland was a psychologist working primarily at Yale University and the US Army during World War II who studied attitude change and persuasion. Sheffield . F. Lumsdaine. he conducted a team of psychologists and sociologists who were already working for the American army. Hovland. A. A.

seen as best medium to help accomplish a) Educational b) Motivational purposes (1) Shape beliefs and opinions i) War as a just cause ii) Confidence in own abilities iii) Integrity of allies (e. Britain) iv) Resentment of the enemy v) Military victory will make for a better world (2) Motivate people to enlist and serve . Film.Carl Hovland – Attitude research During WW2. Diverse and ignorant => a challenge 2.g. needed to train 15 million citizens into soldiers 1. then a relatively new medium.

Small effect on general attitudes 4.Hovland . But NO measurable effects on individuals' motivation to serve as soldiers (ultimate objectives) .Findings Findings fit hierarchy of effects model: knowledge -> attitude -> behavior 1. Influenced opinions and interpretations 3. Huge increase in soldiers' knowledge of the events leading to World War 2 2.

but more educated/intelligent audience expect two sides to a persuasive argument 2. lead to more attitude change with audience of lower education and intelligence 2. effect of source credibility . one-sided versus two-sided messages (2 radio broadcasts: a long and difficult war: pros vs.Hovland .sleeper effect . pros and cons) One-sided messages 1.research Designed field experiments on 1.

But differences between attitude change from higher.and lower-credibility sources disappear over time People tend to forget untrustworthiness of lowcredibility source over time 1. Greater immediate attitude change result from highercredibility sources 2.Sleeper effect Effect of source credibility is maximum at the time of communication but fades with passage of time 1. Remembering the message but not the dubious source .

Individual differences (e. Complexity of motivation: most difficult to change 3. Possibility of 'sleeper' effects . belief systems) 4.g.Hovland .Implications Research properly conducted. films well produced. but did not achieve all their goals 1. Contamination of control groups 2.

The People’s Choice. and Hazel Gaudet.Two Step Flow of Communication Paul Lazarsfeld Mathematician – quantitative analysis => change of direction: sociology The founder of Columbia University's Bureau for Applied Social Research Interested in media effects => quantitative analysis of media effects Paul Lazarsfeld. How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign (1944) – an analysis of 1940 election (panel studies) . Bernard Berelson.

reinforce .change .residence .activate .The People’s Choice Index of Political Predispositions .religion .age Effects of the campaign .social-economic status .

The People’s Choice .opinion leaders .two-step flow of communication .critics? .cross-pressures .bandwagon effect .selective exposure .group influence .

Questions? • About class project? • About persuasion theories? • About two-step flow of communication? .