How
to Influence Society: Cialdini’s Focus Theory
It’s a typical Wednesday afternoon. I hear my wife in the kitchen with the mail—papers ripping, her voice is getting heated. I leisurely investigate. I find was a pre-Election Day mailing sent by a Virginia based, politically conservative group. The mailing described my household’s voting habits for the last two elections (it only statedwhether we voted or did not vote). Perhaps more interestingly, the flyer listed the voting habits of all the neighbors on our block! Feeling less that my privacy was invaded, and more curious, I found that this VA based organization has been sending these mailings to key swing states. And the same organization will be sending out a follow up mailing noting the voting habits of the household for this year’s election. A quick Google search revealed that 1) voting habits are public record, so the mailings are not an infringement on privacy, and 2) that the VA based organization employed social psychologists to help them determine the most effective way to motivate people to vote. This all made me think of those billion dollar, questionably effective anti-smoking campaigns. R. Cialdini, Regents' Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Marketing at Arizona State University, who is best known for his work on persuasion and marketing, will be the topic of this entry. More specifically, we’ll look at a 2006 article titled, “Managing social norms for persuasive impact.”
Cialdini’s
Focus Theory is the, well, focus of this article. In its briefest form, the
theory states that social norms will influence behavior if and only if these
norms are made present, in consciousness, in “focus”. Further, there are two distinct
types of norms—each influences behavior differently since each type of norm
pulls from a different motivational source. The first, descriptive norms, refer
to behavior that is common to all. Knowing the norm for the larger social group
should theoretically enable to one to make better, quicker decisions regarding
behavior. The article gives the example of failed government sponsored
anti-drug campaigns (“Three million youths smoke!”). Injunctive norms, on the
other hand, refer to what is commonly approved. Motivation for these norms is
in the form of social
rewards or punishments.
The
article further comments on the power of negative vs. positive phrasing of
messages. Based on previous research, Cialdini et al. conclude that negatively
phrased messages received more impact than positively phrased ones. The present
investigation regarded the theft of petrified wood at the Petrified National
Forrest, and whether positive or negative and descriptive or injunction
messages would decrease theft. Utilizing
a large N of 2655 (more on the statistical problems associated
with a large sample below), the researchers placed a sign containing one of the
four message types for 2 hours, each with sign/message rotated so that each
sign would appear equally at each site. Along with the sign, 20 pieces of
petrified wood were also placed on the path. After two hours, the researchers
would count the wood, change the sign and begin again. Thus, in this 2x2
design, the independent variable was the sign/message and the dependent
variable was the amount of petrified wood that was either taken or not taken.
On
a general level, what is perhaps most interesting is the seemingly ubiquitous
application of this research. Take for instance the well-intentioned but often
highly heated debate I frequently hear: whether awareness and superlative media
coverage of, say, bullying
does more harm than good. Caildnini’s Focus Theory may just be able to settle
the above dispute.
The results
section describes how the participants rated the signs—significant receptivity of participants to the negatively worded injunctive
sign than to the positively worded injunctive statement (3.6 compared 2.9 on a
scale from 0 to 6, F(1, 71) = 27.61, p < .001). Likewise, significance was also
found for participants preference for the negatively worded descriptive norm as
compared to the positively worded descriptive norm (4.0 to 3.2, again on a
scale of o to 6; F(1, 71) = 12.79, p < .001). Although there is statistical significance,
still one would like to see more statistical significance than 0.8.
Naturally,
Cialdini et al. conclude that this supports their Focus Theory. Specifically,
they assert that a strong focus on injunctive normative information was
statistically more significant that a message of descriptive norms. Moreover, a
negatively worded statement produced greater effect than a positively worded
message. Above all, the researchers note, may be the use of both injunctive and
descriptive norms to influence societal behavior. Finally, Cialdini urges that
the effectiveness of negatively worded message need not necessarily predicate “offensive
or threatening” language. As the authors notes, “For example, ‘‘Please
don’t leave your campfire’’ seems no more coercive than ‘‘Please stay with your
campfire’’. Thus, our data should not be interpreted as recommending incivility
in the language of norms. They are better viewed as suggesting that, because negative
information seems to be processed more
fully than positive information (e.g., Baumeister et al., 2001; Smith &
Petty, 1996), recipients are more likely to focus on message content when the
message is negatively worded.
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Advanced
social psychology: The state of the science.
New York, NY US: Oxford University
Press.
Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D.
W., Rhoads, K., & Winter, P. L.
(2006). Managing social norms for
persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1(1), 3-15.
doi:10.1080/15534510500181459
John G. Kuna, Psy.D. and Associates Counseling
No comments:
Post a Comment