Questions related to Persuasion
Discipline is highly ambivalent in schools. Its military and un-liberal connotations, its anti-pedagogic conceptions in practice i.e. imposed to the degree of psychological violence have made the concept highly unattractive in policy makers.
However, persuasion and academic interest as factors are not sufficient to solve the issues discipline is supposed to be a prefered approach.
Authentic co-existence refers to a type of teacher leardership that brings the goods via a relationship that is authentic, in both demanding comformity on some issues, communication, including academic and general socialization.
I collected data to pilot test four different persuasive messages. I had each participant answer the same questions (Likert scale) after viewing each message. Therefore, to compare the difference between scores I ran a repeated measure ANOVA but split the data by stimulus to compare the scores of each message. However, since I split the data, my Mauchly's Test of Sphericity shows four lines, each with a different significance level. A line for each message.
When reporting the results, do I report each Mauchly's test?? Two are significant (assumption violated) and two are not (assumption not violated). Looking for some insight on how / what to report.
I'm struggling to find a scale to susceptibility to 4 persuasion areas of PSD model. Just find the STPS based on Cialdini's Principles and a research paper by Oinas-Kukkonen itself that enlightened me about the influence between susceptibility to Cialdini's Principles on PSD areas.
Thanks in advance to anybody will just answer me in some way.
I am in a search of psychological theories and research that can give a greater perspective on why failed persuasion attempts happen.
Five Simple Tips to Increase Your Citation Number
- Write a strong and persuasive article.
- Submit your manuscript to the most respected appropriate journal.
- Write an effective title.
- Write a clear abstract so that your article is appropriately indexed and easy to find.
- Choose your key words carefully (use tools such as using MeSH on Demand to find the best terms)
Examples of some other contemporary theories related to Aristotelian will also needed.
I am currently developing the study design for my Master thesis about the effectiveness of nudge interventions (" choice architecture").
I am interested in whether nudges can promote the attitude towards and intention to do physical activity. Therefore, I plan to show participants different ads with a varying degree of nudge/message intensity. There are many different nudges such as setting a default option, reporting values of the social, making information visible etc.
However, I have trouble classifying these nudges into low-moderate- and high intensity/persuasiveness messages/nudges/interventions.
Does anyone of you have any suggestions on how I can vary the degrees of intensity of nudges.
I haven't really been able to find much useful literature.
Your help is very much appreciated.
I am looking forward to your answers. :)
For decades, scholars and think tanks have debated the effectiveness of aid in reducing poverty. In this debate, we will build on previous arguments about the effectiveness and value of aid, but focus on its role in disaster risk reduction and post-disaster reconstruction and recovery.
Scholars, think-tanks, celebrities, and politicians have claimed aid is crucial to prevent famines, diseases, and deaths. They argue that donors’ money can be used to solve basic problems in areas like sanitation, vaccination, education, housing, and infrastructure. Aid can also be used to fund monitoring activities and learn from interventions. More importantly, they contend that traditional markets alone cannot resolve housing and infrastructure deficits. They note that the poor are often stuck in feedback loops that economists call “poverty traps.” In other words, millions are poor precisely because they live in poverty. Slum dwellers, for instance, find it difficult to escape poverty because they pay proportionally more for services and infrastructure than wealthier citizens. Foreign aid is needed to break these vicious cycles and replace them with virtuous ones that make vulnerable people more resilient. For defenders, the real problem is lack of funds, not present mechanisms of aid. From their view, people use criticisms of aid merely as excuses to justify not donating money.
On the other hand, critics often find too much money is “wasted” on aid. For them, initiatives seldom produce positive long-term change and—in many cases—even create more damaging than desirable results. They contend that donors’ money is spent on band-aid solutions that rarely have long-term impacts. They argue that aid is largely controlled by political agendas, feeds on forms of neo-colonialism, focuses too much on technology transfer, creates dependency, and bypasses legitimate governments and authorities. They contend that aid is often based on centralized schemes produced by over-confident and idealistic decision-makers with little knowledge of what is needed “on the ground.” For them, aid is often driven by ideology, and lacks the performance incentives and accountability mechanisms found in competitive (and typically “more efficient”) markets.
For this debate, we have invited two internationally recognized experts in humanitarian assistance and interventions to defend each viewpoint.
Our panellists will present their most persuasive arguments over the next ten days, but the outcome of the debate rests in your hands. Don’t hesitate to vote immediately—you can always change your mind. Better yet, once you have cast your vote, add your voice to the debate and explain your decision.
Vote and participate here: https://oddebates.com/
“Even by conservative estimates, the average person is exposed to 300 to 400 persuasive messages a day from the mass media alone (Aaker & Myers, 1987; Ries & Trout, 1981) (Rosselli, Skelly, & Mackie, 1995, p. 163).” That was the 80’s and 90’s. Imagine how many persuasive appeals we get each day now! This quote and quip are how I begin teaching the topic of Persuasion in Social Psychology. What I’m wondering is, do we have any estimates for how many persuasive appeals the average person experiences daily in more recent times? Intuitively, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s 10 times as many. But I don’t know and I’m hoping you have some insight. ~ Kevin
I am writing a conference paper on Linguistic persuasion as a strategy to conflict resolution in Nigeria. On the literature concerning linguistic persuasion, I found numerous literature on communication persuasion. please clarify me on this sociolinguistic issues.
As part of his critique on capitalism, Marx made a number of interesting and persuasive points about human connectiveness and relationship with objects. To me, these seem as convincing as say Attachment Theory, which was perhaps influenced by Marx.
There are a number of such theories (Freud and Jung to name early ones) that sprung originally from German and Austrian universities, some concerned with understanding the mind others with altering personality. To your mind, which ones are the most persuasive?
Right after the 2016 US election, we heard a lot about the "echo chamber" that saw a lot of people talking about issues in social media, but mostly to people of similar beliefs.
Why did neither side have much success persuading people of conflicting beliefs and what should we do differently in the future?
What can we learn about future political persuasion?
See more thoughts here:
I came across an interesting study from two decades ago where people were polled on issues of the day for if they supported or opposed various policies (e.g., affirmative action in college admissions). After participants responded indicating their support or opposition, the phone interviewer presented a single sentence key point for the other opposite side. The dependent measure was if the participants changed their minds. Visser & Krosnick (1998) were primarily interested in how much people could be persuaded as a function of age. They found a U-shaped function where people were more persuadable in 20’s and 80’s, but not so easily persuaded in their 50’s and 60’s. What I find most striking is that the majority of people were persuaded in most age groups, and over 40% of those in their 50’s and 60’s changed their mind. I’m wondering if anyone has conducted a study with a similar design in more recent years? It would be fascinating to compare the percents persuaded more recently, given the rise of partisan news and the internet. ~ Kevin
Visser, P. S. & Krosnick, J. A. (1998). Development of attitude strength over the life cycle: surge and decline. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 75(6), 1389-1410.
Currently I am investigating the effect of online persuasion claims (categorical variable with 3 levels) and consumer star rating (categorical variable with 2 levels) on booking intention (continuous variable measured in 7 point likert scale), i.e Two categorical independent variables and 1 continuous dependent variable. Online persuasion claims has three levels: limited availability claim, product popularity claim and no claim.
In order to determine how many remaining rooms induce scarcity and how many rooms booked in 24h induce popularity, I plan to design a pretest. That pretest is a slightly different version of another pretest conducted in a study, yet authors did not report how they selected the stimuli at the end in a detailed way.
I plan to create 10 different versions of limited availability claim and 10 different version of product popularity claim and show all of them randomly to the participants and then decide on the numbers to be presented in the actual experiment. I am puzzled about what to ask the participants after they are exposed to each claim.
1. Please indicate the level of the perceived scarcity of the hotel room in the ad. (1-Extremely Low 7-Extremely High)
2. Please indicate the level of the perceived popularity of the hotel room in the ad. (1-Extremely Low 7-Extremely High)
Do you think these questions are to the point? Is there a rule for doing pretests?
Moreover, do you suggest any method to analyze the responses? Do you think intuition is enough?
Behaviour change (earlier: "persuasive") technologies are informed and partly explained by various psychological behavioural theories (papers by Fogg, Hekler, Carver...). On the other hand, in the philosophy of mind there is ongoing discussion of various attitudes, including the "paradigmatic pair": beliefs <> desires, which are supposedly distinguished by their opposite "direction of fit", and also by their revision conditions (Humberstone, Archer...). Apparently, the two lines of research are relevant to each other. Surprisingly, I have not been able to identify any work which would explicitly admit this and make use of the similarities. Is anybody aware of such source?
Mindfulness as raising awareness on the present moment non-judgmentally. It is about paying full attention(firing all cylinders) on an object in one's working memory. Since you do it non-judgementally, without an urgency to rush through (that is very much time insensitive manner), your mind is calm and relaxed (all senses, thoughts, emotions/feelings, actions/behaviours etc. are in harmony/synchrony), possibly helping to form new neural networks of knowledge, forming as many connections as possible in a coherent, meaningful manner. That is, one is able to identify new relationships with a flexible/open mind (being creative and insightful without being hampered by stereotypes) among pieces of knowledge held in working memory. Consequently, it should help creating lasting (long-term) memories. Further, a characterising ability of mindfulness practices is the development of self-awareness or self-knowledge. With this self-knowledge, one not only understands oneself better but also, using it as a reference, he/she tends to understand others better (possible more empathically.
An interesting development at GOOGLE. It has a program called GOOGLE Talks on Emotional Intelligence/Healthy Minds/Empathy/Compassion/Personal Growth/Optimal Performance/Productivity etc. (The tech giant invites leading researchers in related areas to talk to their employees to direct them to personal growth leading to productivity)
Jon Kabat-Zinn (Professor of Medicine who introduced mindfulness practices to mainstream medicine) on "Mindfulness Meditation"
While I am aware of many ways in which websites and online services can fail, or appear uncomfortable to use, I am looking for specific manifestations of unpleasant design in the digital domain. My definition of unpleasant design is that which promotes social control through discomfort, pain, and persuasion. It raises the value of a product or its surroundings by preventing specific use scenarios such as sleeping on a park bench or loitering in a shopping mall. Unpleasant Design is not about the failure to make beautiful products but about successfully excluding certain social groups and restricting certain uses of objects.
Taking these into account, can there be such a thing as digital unpleasant design? Does anyone have an experience that would be relevant to share in this context? Which websites and online services come to mind when thinking of unpleasant design? Any feedback or suggestion is welcome!
I am especially interested in the meaning of these presumptions regardin electronic seals an timestamps in UK and Irish Law.
Do they shift the burden of proof?
What kind evidence has to be presented to rebut them?
Are they in effect more like prima facie evidence or is their power of persuasion higher?
Can somebody point me to work on this topic or more general informations on statutory presumptions that might be applicable here?
People have different ways in receiving messages, perceiving situations, and deciding on things. Ethos Logos and Pathos (termed by aristotle) may be likened to a persuading technique (for example emotional versus rational type). Withal, I hypothesize that there are some people who are persuaded more effectively through Emotional statements to elicit behavioral change, some more convinced with rational/logical statements, and some who are more convinced when people in lab coats (credential people) talk to them. I'm trying to find similar or related researches to such topic (possibly in the area of personality and/or counseling), hoping to expand my knowledge in this research idea.
The ways these two terms are used in literature have confused me. How are they similar or different? Thank you very much.
I am writing a paper on the 'ethics of persuasive technology' and am looking for examples of coercive or deceptive technology. I have read the papers and books on the subject and seen their examples. The problem with the published examples is they are not recent. What I am looking for is up-to-date examples that you may have encountered or become aware of, in the last 6-12 months. The examples will be used in the paper as a warning.
We are working on a study in which participants wrote persuasively about an event from their lives. I know there is literature on how writing persuasively about a topic can actually change the mind of the person writing and would love to include this in our paper. However, I am having a hard time tracking down these references and would be very grateful to anyone who could point me in the right direction. Any guidance would be appreciated!
I'm doing a survey of articles and experts whose research has touched on the ways people move from having some kind of realization (sudden epiphany or slow and gradual are fine) to taking action to change their lives. I'm particularly interested both in the internal dynamics (how people motivate themselves and then actually take action) and external parties (people who play a role either in the person obtaining the self-knowledge or helping to accomplish the change).
The "change" that takes place can be of any significance ranging from seemingly small (e.g. estranged friends/family who pick up the phone and call the other party) to very large (e.g. Nelson Mandela moving from being a militant to a peace activist).
If you can point me to any relevant people or articles I would be grateful. I am even interested in popular culture examples (e.g. movies showing this dynamic). Thanks in advance for taking the time.
The question in other words is that even having clear cut academic definitions of Advertising, Propaganda ,Marketing , and Persuasion, it is very hard to differentiate them from Public Relations practices.Any tips?
I recently read about Bruke's theory and found it interesting to learn more about particularly in research perspective. It will be a great help if anyone can provide any article or other literature to enhance my understanding of the theory.
The WT is reported as having one of the highest turnovers of active members of any religion. This warrants some type of investigation into its organisation.
Would like to administer one of Moos's organisational questionnaires online. The WT discourages their active members from participating in any research so the plan would be to recruit ex/inactive-jehovah witnesses, who are numerous online.
I'm a Ph.D (info tech). I prefer to keep my own beliefs private and am not looking for a religious based discussion. Having said that, I would like to work with a Psychology major for this project, to aid in ethical methodology design, data interpretation and co-authoring the findings.
I need papers that show how to manipulate or induce modifications in regulatory focus. The original theory (Higgins, 1997) states that momentary regulatory focus can be primed or induced and I'm searching for the wider number of methods to do it. Any suggestions?
Explain strategies that can be used to resist harmful or unwanted persuasion, while remaining open and flexible to alternative perspectives and new information.
Some people say that a great speech is one that changes your heart and mind. We could talk about Demosthenes (Third Philippic), Martin Luther King (I have a dream), John F. Kennedy (Inauguration address) or Nelson Mandela (I am prepared to die), among others. Which one is your favourite?
According to prospect theory, several small losses should have a strongest emotional impact than a single big loss of the same amount. On the other hand, persuasion practice shows that is often effective to split big losses/expenses into small pieces (e.g. buy the subscription, it costs like a coffee per day). What do you think about this apparent inconsistency? How would you explain the difference to your students?
We are starting a Master's course on Experiencing Persuasive Environments. Most examples are persuasive objects, but we are looking for persuasive environments. The pianostairs example of theFuntheory.com is a clear and nice example. Anyone knows any other nice examples (e.g. on Youtube, Vimeo, or pictures)?
We are doing a research project on using games to study how people can be seduced to display more cooperative or more competitive behaviour.