[lit-ideas] Ah, confusion
- From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Anthro-L <ANTHRO-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 10:26:09 +0900
Wondered how some of us here might respond to the following:
>>>>>
Friday, October 5, 2007
*Our Bias Toward That Which Is False *
By Max Kalehoff
<http://mediapst.adbureau.net/adclick/acc_random=100587406/SITE=EMAIL/AREA=ONLINESPIN/AAMSZ=TOWER/GUID=100587406/QUAL=0>
Did you know that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in planning the Sept
11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and that most of the hijackers were Iraqi?
Of course, I'm joking. Saddam Hussein was *not *directly involved in
planning the Sept 11, terrorist attacks, and most of the hijackers were *not
* Iraqi. The problem with this counter of accurate information, however, is
that denials and clarifications can actually contribute to the resilience of
popular myths. This paradox is according to Shankar Vedantam at the *Washington
Post*, who recently published a fascinating
analysis<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300933_pf.html>
of
several recent psychological studies on falsehoods.
Here are highlights from his roundup:
*What's Most Easily Recalled Is Perceived As True*
Referencing a University of Michigan study, Vedantam notes that c ontrary to
conventional wisdom that people accept information in a deliberate manner,
the brain actually uses subconscious "rules of thumb" that can bias it into
thinking that false information is true. In experiments probing the
difference between believing falsehoods immediately and then days after
receiving correct information, long-term memories prove the most susceptible
to the bias of thinking that well-recalled false information is true.
Moreover, Vedantam adds, the mind's bias affects many people "who want to
believe the myth for their own reasons, or those who are only peripherally
interested and are less likely to invest the time and effort needed to
firmly grasp the facts."
*The Mind Is Not Good At Remembering Sources*
Vedantam highlights other research, including from Virginia Polytechnic
Institute, showing that hearing the same thing over and over again from one
source can have the same effect as hearing that thing from many diffe rent
people. By extension, people are not good at remembering which information
came from credible sources, or that information came from the same
untrustworthy source over and over again.
*Negations Disappear Over Time*
Citing experiments at Hebrew University, Vedantam points out that a
substantial number of people drop the "negation tag" of a denial over time
-- ultimately enforcing association with what one was trying to dissociate
with. This could explain why rumors or accusations continue to tarnish
people or brands even after such rumors are proven false. Consider an
exonerated man who always claimed he "did not rape," but forever is
associated with rape anyway.
*Conclusions For All Of Us In Marketing And Advertising*
Aside from my foundational interest in these psychological phenomena of
falsehoods, they have massive ramifications for marketing and advertising
practitioners. For one, they are important mental princ iples to consider
when strategizing communications and crafting messaging.
But they also force a question with ethical implications: Should we market
and communicate to fellow humans as logical, intelligent beings, or as
irrational and emotional mental sponges that often fail to grasp reality?
Without a doubt, we can spot everyday attempts to manipulate and play to
these mental principles around falsehoods. We often encounter them in
political messaging, or among sly public relations spokespeople, or in
highly competitive advertising scenarios. They typically are rife with
agendas and, successful or not, often have the unfortunate consequence of
leaving people feeling disgruntled or manipulated.
To be sure, these principles are not absolute rules. If they were, our world
would be overflowing with falsehoods. Rational and linear mental processing
is prevalent.
Finally, I have to ask: Will the Internet, over time, have any bearing on
how humans proces s falsehoods and counters of correct information? Surely,
our irrational human tendencies will not disappear; they're part of our DNA
and there's likely a good instinctual reason for them. But won't the
Internet's driving transparency, perpetual record of sources, sophisticated
systems of rating reputation, and easy access to information leave citizens
less room to fall for falsehoods? Or does the information age only equal
more information sources, ambiguity and confusion in which our mental biases
toward falsehoods will live on? Which case is it *not?*
Post your response to the public Online SPIN
blog.<http://blogs.mediapost.com/spin/?p=1141#comments>
See what others are saying on the Online SPIN
blog.<http://blogs.mediapost.com/spin/>
*Max Kalehoff is vice president of marketing for Nielsen BuzzMetrics, and
author ofAttentionMax.com <http://www.attentionmax.com/>*
>>>>>
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
