Persuasion: The Sleeper Effect. How to change attitudes months after a persuasive message is delivered. In the 1940s during WWII, the US Department of War wanted to know if their propaganda films were really working. So they carried out a series of experimental studies into how they affected soldier’s attitudes. The complacent assumption was that the films should easily influence the average GI. Producers and psychologists alike expected to see a huge shift in attitudes towards the war after they were viewed. What they found was nothing of the sort and the results came as a bitter blow to propagandists everywhere. While the films were informative and did strengthen some existing attitudes, experiments showed they were extremely unlikely to make soldiers more optimistic about the war in general (Hovland et al, 1949).
In retrospect this should have come as little surprise since the soldiers knew these were propaganda films designed to change their attitudes, so their defenses were up. Big impact Image credit: Thomas Lieser. How speech patterns sway opinions. 15 May 2011Last updated at 00:33 The research could help businesses get their message across The best way to persuade someone to do as you wish is to speak moderately quickly, pause frequently and not be too animated, US researchers suggest.
The study analysed just under 1,400 calls trying to persuade people to take part in phone surveys. Those who spoke very fast, did not pause or were too animated were least successful. A UK language expert said it showed "it's not about what you say, but how you say it". The University of Michigan Institute of Social Research study used recordings of introductory calls made by 100 male and female telephone interviewers at the institute.
They looked at the interviewers' speech rates, fluency, and pitch, and then at how successful they were in convincing people to participate in the survey. 'Too scripted' Continue reading the main story “Start Quote End QuoteDr Rachael-Anne Knight,City University, London The team suggested the second group sounded "too scripted". Mean girls and queen bees: Females threatened by social exclusion will reject others first. Many studies have suggested that males tend to be more physically and verbally aggressive than females. According to a new study, to be published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, it may not be the case that women are less competitive than men -- they may just be using a different strategy to come out ahead.
Specifically, women may rely more on indirect forms of aggression, such as social exclusion. To investigate how men and women respond when faced with a social threat, psychological scientist Joyce F. Benenson of Emmanuel College and Harvard University, along with her colleagues, asked volunteers to play a game against two hypothetical partners in which they accumulated points for money. Volunteers had the option of playing by themselves (compete-alone option), forming an alliance with one of the opponents, or cooperating with both of the opponents (in this strategy, they would avoid competition but split profits three ways). When You Negotiate, Don’t Argue. There are lots of opportunities for negotiation these days. Bargain hunters wander through weekend garage sales and haggle with the sellers. Car buyers have to settle on a final price for a car with a dealer.
House hunters send proposals back-and-forth trying to decide on a selling price for a house. There is a lot of interesting psychology in these negotiations. The first thing that happens in most negotiations is that either the buyer or the seller makes an offer. In the case of a negotiation, we know that people try to buy low and sell high. The key question is how much that offer should be adjusted. This issue was addressed by Yossi Maaravi, Yoav Gonzach, and Asya Pazy in a paper in the August, 2011 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . Maaravi, Gonzach, and Pazy argued that when people hear an argument in favor of the initial offer, they think of counter-arguments. They supported this view in a number of studies.
What does this mean for you? Breaking rules makes you seem powerful. When people have power, they act the part. Powerful people smile less, interrupt others, and speak in a louder voice. When people do not respect the basic rules of social behavior, they lead others to believe that they have power, according to a study in the current Social Psychological and Personality Science. People with power have a very different experience of the world than people without it.
The powerful have fewer rules to follow, and they live in environments of money, knowledge and support. People without power live with threats of punishment and firm limits according to the research team lead by Gerben Van Kleef of the University of Amsterdam. People read about a visitor to an office who took a cup of employee coffee without asking or about a bookkeeper that bent accounting rules. Acting rudely also leads people to see power. What happens when people interact with a rule breaker?