We like to think that we can change people’s minds if only we can give them proper reasons, data and information which will then change their mind.
That doesn’t necessarily follow.
In fact, if we can get people to change their behavior they may change their minds to match the fact that they behave in a particular way.
I recently listened to an NPR podcast about how the media can change attitudes by first changing behaviors, subtly and somewhat unconsciously.
If our public behavior doesn’t match the way we believe, we experience discomfort (sometimes called “cognitive dissonance”). So, we adjust to bring those two (acts and beliefs) in harmony.
Rwanda had just concluded a genocidal war between two tribes. The Hutus had killed more than a million Tutsi. Although there was a truce, there was still lingering mistrust, little reconciliation and the prospect of further warfare.
An American professor, who had survived the Holocaust, hoped to prevent a new outbreak of conflict. So, he convinced the Rwandan government to try to persuade people to change their behaviors and attitudes toward one another. The vast majority of Rwandan’s listened to radio. The Rwandan government sponsored a soap-opera radio program with characters from two imaginary tribes. Scripts for the soap opera were deliberately created to emphasize three main premises:
Later, attitudes were again tested and there was much more congruence between beliefs and behaviors which was explained:
First, people who listened to the program concluded that the majority opinion (the “norm”) was consistent with the way the characters thought and behaved, even if audience members personally believed otherwise.
Second, audience member beliefs did not change immediately but they acted differently when they were convinced that the majority thought and believed differently -- they acted contrary to what they believed to avoid ostracism for having outlier attitudes. They didn’t reason they should behave differently for any reason other than to avoid being embarrassed for being different.
Third, acting differently in public than they believed in private caused them discomfort (dissonance), which over time caused them to change your viewpoints to conform with their conduct, which relieved them from their internal conflict.
The NPR program then showed how those principals could be applied in the United States. The speakers explained how the Supreme Court ruling in favor of same sex marriage would affect behaviors, and then attitudes about same sex marriage. The thought was that the Supreme Court ruling was a pronouncement that the prevalent view in the United States was to support same sex marriage – if one publicly said or did something inconsistent with that prevalent view, that person risked social ostracism. So, the prediction was that people who had opposed same sex marriage would reduce or eliminate their public opposition to avoid being treated as social outcasts. Once they change their public behavior, they would internally adjust their beliefs to conform to their conduct, i.e. in time people with “come around” to believe the way they behave.
My takeaway from the Rwandan experiment was a realization that media programming (Rwandan or American) could be specifically written to accomplish subliminal social engineering on a large scale. It would be psychologically-based, deliberately scripted, behavioral modification plan around in which every media episode was designed to convey those messages.
I also understood better why there is now so much emphasis on de-legitimizing the opposition in public discourse – it is a strong counter-measure. By attacking the legitimacy of a messenger, there is less belief that the message is the norm or prevalent view. So, if the Supreme Court makes a ruling but the Supreme Court is thought to be an illegitimate source of the majority view, people may act according the legal result but they don’t have to change their internal beliefs.
Using that construct of persuasion, you can see why it so important to define what the majority viewpoint is. It might explain why Republicans focused on de-legitimizing President Obama as not representative of the majority and why Democrats focus so much on de-legitimizing President Trump for that same reason. Even if a President had/has legitimate legal authority to do something, if compliance is viewed as being forced on the majority instead of reflective of the majority, then people can preserve their internal beliefs despite apparent different outward compliance – although they must outwardly comply, they can sabotage in “good conscience”.
That doesn’t necessarily follow.
In fact, if we can get people to change their behavior they may change their minds to match the fact that they behave in a particular way.
I recently listened to an NPR podcast about how the media can change attitudes by first changing behaviors, subtly and somewhat unconsciously.
If our public behavior doesn’t match the way we believe, we experience discomfort (sometimes called “cognitive dissonance”). So, we adjust to bring those two (acts and beliefs) in harmony.
Rwanda had just concluded a genocidal war between two tribes. The Hutus had killed more than a million Tutsi. Although there was a truce, there was still lingering mistrust, little reconciliation and the prospect of further warfare.
An American professor, who had survived the Holocaust, hoped to prevent a new outbreak of conflict. So, he convinced the Rwandan government to try to persuade people to change their behaviors and attitudes toward one another. The vast majority of Rwandan’s listened to radio. The Rwandan government sponsored a soap-opera radio program with characters from two imaginary tribes. Scripts for the soap opera were deliberately created to emphasize three main premises:
- Violence starts slowly;
- Bystanders attitudes and reactions matter; and
- Inter-tribal marriage reduces conflict.
Later, attitudes were again tested and there was much more congruence between beliefs and behaviors which was explained:
First, people who listened to the program concluded that the majority opinion (the “norm”) was consistent with the way the characters thought and behaved, even if audience members personally believed otherwise.
Second, audience member beliefs did not change immediately but they acted differently when they were convinced that the majority thought and believed differently -- they acted contrary to what they believed to avoid ostracism for having outlier attitudes. They didn’t reason they should behave differently for any reason other than to avoid being embarrassed for being different.
Third, acting differently in public than they believed in private caused them discomfort (dissonance), which over time caused them to change your viewpoints to conform with their conduct, which relieved them from their internal conflict.
The NPR program then showed how those principals could be applied in the United States. The speakers explained how the Supreme Court ruling in favor of same sex marriage would affect behaviors, and then attitudes about same sex marriage. The thought was that the Supreme Court ruling was a pronouncement that the prevalent view in the United States was to support same sex marriage – if one publicly said or did something inconsistent with that prevalent view, that person risked social ostracism. So, the prediction was that people who had opposed same sex marriage would reduce or eliminate their public opposition to avoid being treated as social outcasts. Once they change their public behavior, they would internally adjust their beliefs to conform to their conduct, i.e. in time people with “come around” to believe the way they behave.
My takeaway from the Rwandan experiment was a realization that media programming (Rwandan or American) could be specifically written to accomplish subliminal social engineering on a large scale. It would be psychologically-based, deliberately scripted, behavioral modification plan around in which every media episode was designed to convey those messages.
I also understood better why there is now so much emphasis on de-legitimizing the opposition in public discourse – it is a strong counter-measure. By attacking the legitimacy of a messenger, there is less belief that the message is the norm or prevalent view. So, if the Supreme Court makes a ruling but the Supreme Court is thought to be an illegitimate source of the majority view, people may act according the legal result but they don’t have to change their internal beliefs.
Using that construct of persuasion, you can see why it so important to define what the majority viewpoint is. It might explain why Republicans focused on de-legitimizing President Obama as not representative of the majority and why Democrats focus so much on de-legitimizing President Trump for that same reason. Even if a President had/has legitimate legal authority to do something, if compliance is viewed as being forced on the majority instead of reflective of the majority, then people can preserve their internal beliefs despite apparent different outward compliance – although they must outwardly comply, they can sabotage in “good conscience”.