Psychologists as Political Analysts? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Supple Cow · 07-31-2004, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Talking about death can raise people's need for psychological security, the researchers report in studies to be published in the December issue of the journal Psychological Science and the September issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

"There are people all over who are claiming every time Bush is in trouble he generates fear by declaring an imminent threat," said Sheldon Solomon of Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York, who worked on the study.

"We are saying this is psychologically useful," said Solomon.

Psychologically useful!

The idea that Bush might have psychologists rather than speech writers putting the words in his mouth is rather unnerving after reading about how effectively this psychological approach works. Although, I wonder if psychologists are a standard component of the average political administration and just aren't mentioned very often. That would explain Nixon's brilliant use of a cute, little dog named Checkers in his 1952 speech.

Rodney · 07-31-2004, 06:09 PM

Any competent politician who has the guts to go nose-to-nose with voters and the public outside of a well-scripted media event is by necessity a pretty good lay psychologist. Of course, all the qualifiers I've put down here disqualify about 3/4 of the people in higher public office today!

nanofever · 07-31-2004, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Supple Cow
Study: Fear shapes voters' views (LINK)

Psychologically useful!

The idea that Bush might have psychologists rather than speech writers putting the words in his mouth is rather unnerving after reading about how effectively this psychological approach works. Although, I wonder if psychologists are a standard component of the average political administration and just aren't mentioned very often. That would explain Nixon's brilliant use of a cute, little dog named Checkers in his 1952 speech.

I would add to the discussion, but I really can't think of anything to add as this article/thread falls under the "New study suggests water is wet" category.

Supple Cow · 07-31-2004, 07:13 PM

Yes, water is wet, but the interesting part was the actual study and you had to click the link and read the whole thing to get that part. I wasn't going to post the whole thing, but here is some of it:

Quote:

For their first study, Solomon, Greenberg and colleagues asked students to think about either their own death or a neutral topic.

They then read the campaign statements of three hypothetical candidates for governor, each with a different leadership style. One was charismatic, said Solomon.

"That was a person who declared our country to be great and the people in it to be special," Solomon, who worked on the study, said in a telephone interview.

The others were task-oriented -- focusing on the job to be done -- or relationship-oriented -- with a "let's get it done together" style, Solomon said.

...

The students who thought about death were much more likely to choose the charismatic leader, they found. Only four out of about 100 chose that imaginary leader when thinking about exams, but 30 did after thinking about death.

Quote:

In one we asked half the people to think about the September 11 attacks, or to think about watching TV," Solomon said. "What we found was staggering."

When asked to think about television, the 100 or so volunteers did not approve of Bush or his policies in Iraq. But when asked to think about Sept. 11 first and then asked about their attitudes to Bush, another 100 volunteers had very different reactions.

"They had a very strong approval of President Bush and his policy in Iraq," Solomon said.

Solomon, a social psychologist who specializes in terrorism, said it was very rare for a person's opinions to differ so strongly depending on the situation.

I think these results say a lot more than the headline suggests, particularly in the second study. I'm equally suspicious of television and the Bush administration. I think it's a dangerous attitude to believe that America is an inherently safe place, but that seems to be the general consensus based on the people in the study, who seemed to be unaffected by thoughts of danger after thinking about a neutral topic like television.

hammer4all · 07-31-2004, 11:17 PM

Indeed, Noam Chomsky often argues that the right-wing is constantly using fear as their main tactic for wining elections, while suppressing the social and especially the economic issues that most people disagree with them on. I think it makes a lot of sense: fear of black people, fear of immigrants, fear of drugs, fear of gays, and fear of terrorists and other enemies about to destroy us. It's a constant theme.

Quote:

[...]

The same observations have been made by many others. That’s convenient for people like us: we can just quote the mainstream instead of giving controversial analyses. The Carnegie Endowment Senior Associate I quoted before writes that Bush and Co. are following “the classic modern strategy of an endangered right-wing oligarchy, which is to divert mass discontent into nationalism," inspired by fear of enemies about to destroy us. That strategy is of critical importance if the "radical nationalists" setting policy in Washington hope to advance their announced plan for "unilateral world domination through absolute military superiority," while conducting a major assault against the interests of the large majority of the domestic population.

For the elections, the strategy worked, barely. The Fall 2002 election was won by a small number of votes, but enough to hand Congress to the executive. Analyses of the election found that voters maintained their opposition to the administration on social and economic issues, but suppressed these issues in favor of security concerns, which typically lead to support for the figure in authority – the brave cowboy who must ride to our rescue, just in time.

As history shows, it is all too easy for unscrupulous leaders to terrify the public, with consequences that have not been attractive. That is the natural method to divert attention from the fact that tax cuts for the rich and other devices are undermining prospects for a decent life for large majority of the population, and for future generations. When the presidential campaign begins, Republican strategists surely do not want people to be asking questions about their pensions, jobs, health care, and other such matters. Rather, they should be praising their heroic leader for rescuing them from imminent destruction by a foe of colossal power, and marching on to confront the next powerful force bent on our destruction. It could be Iran, or conflicts in the Andean countries: there are lots of good choices, as long as the targets are defenseless.

These ideas are second nature to the current political leaders, most of them recycled from the Reagan administration. They are replaying a familiar script: drive the country into deficit so as to be able to undermine social programs, declare a “war on terror” (as they did in 1981) and conjure up one devil after another to frighten the population into obedience. In the `80s it was Libyan hit-men prowling the streets of Washington to assassinate our leader, then the Nicaraguan army only two-days march from Texas, a threat to survival so severe that Reagan had to declare a national emergency. Or an airfield in Grenada that the Russians were going to use to bomb us (if they could find it on a map); Arab terrorists seeking to kill Americans everywhere while Qaddafi plans to “expel America from the world,” so Reagan wailed. Or Hispanic narcotraffickers seeking to destroy the youth; and on, and on.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...40&ItemID=2938

ubertuber · 08-01-2004, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever
I would add to the discussion, but I really can't think of anything to add...

Kind of says it all, doesn't it?

I don't disagree that using psychological manipulation seems dishonest, but I wonder if it would be worrysome if Bush was saying all of the same stuff but without the psychological motivation... I mean, is it the message or the motivation that is scary? Does it remain scary if you believe it even knowing the motivation for him using this method? Part of me thinks that this study is a fancy way of recognizing that all political messages have two components: the message and the intended effect, and those may not be congruent.

ARTelevision · 08-01-2004, 04:54 PM

Yes. Both sides use the same tactics and have the same level of professional studies - their rhetoric is targeted toward various demographics. Democrats play fear on Race issues, etc.

Do you really suppose that focus group studies, psychological research, and every other scientific/behavioral method of manipulation is not used by some major political party?

Stompy · 08-02-2004, 04:56 AM

I don't know why people are afraid after 9/11... well, I mean I guess I could give a smart assed answer and say "because most of the population are sheep", but really, I think most people live too much of a sheltered life.

I could see being a bit concerned if you lived in a major city like NYC, but if you're from some no-name down in the middle of Kentucky and you're afraid of terrorists, you have a bit of a problem and are probably very easily persuaded by what others say to you

Man, I really wish people would snap out of it..

Any time Bush uses 9/11 as a way to get ahead, I just chuckle. I mean, even if you're pro-Bush, you gotta admit that he didn't really do much during it all. Yeah, he visisted ground zero, gave a few speeches, and gave the generals the "okay" to bomb Afghanistan, but really, IMO, anyone else could've done that. I don't see why he feels he's special just because it happened while he was president.

08-01-2004, 04:54 PM	#7 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Yes. Both sides use the same tactics and have the same level of professional studies - their rhetoric is targeted toward various demographics. Democrats play fear on Race issues, etc. Do you really suppose that focus group studies, psychological research, and every other scientific/behavioral method of manipulation is not used by some major political party? __________________ create evolution

08-02-2004, 04:56 AM	#8 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	I don't know why people are afraid after 9/11... well, I mean I guess I could give a smart assed answer and say "because most of the population are sheep", but really, I think most people live too much of a sheltered life. I could see being a bit concerned if you lived in a major city like NYC, but if you're from some no-name down in the middle of Kentucky and you're afraid of terrorists, you have a bit of a problem and are probably very easily persuaded by what others say to you Man, I really wish people would snap out of it.. Any time Bush uses 9/11 as a way to get ahead, I just chuckle. I mean, even if you're pro-Bush, you gotta admit that he didn't really do much during it all. Yeah, he visisted ground zero, gave a few speeches, and gave the generals the "okay" to bomb Afghanistan, but really, IMO, anyone else could've done that. I don't see why he feels he's special just because it happened while he was president. __________________ I love lamp. Last edited by Stompy; 08-02-2004 at 04:58 AM..

07-31-2004, 06:09 PM	#2 (permalink)
Rodney Observant Ruminant Location: Rich Wannabe Hippie Town	Any competent politician who has the guts to go nose-to-nose with voters and the public outside of a well-scripted media event is by necessity a pretty good lay psychologist. Of course, all the qualifiers I've put down here disqualify about 3/4 of the people in higher public office today!