Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

69 of 76 people found the following review helpful
on November 12, 2002
Peoples' data-processing capabilities are limited. In the information-dense world people are unable to critically review all the information they receive. In order to be adequate to the situation, they resort to so-called heuristics, simple cues or rules for solving the problem. Heuristics are based on peoples' previous experience in similar situations. Although relying on heuristics is sometimes a useful way of dealing with the onslaught of the decision-rich environment, basing our decisions primarily on heuristics can present some problems. First, heuristic cues that we possess may be false. Furthermore, a rule may be appropriate in certain situations but be misapplied in others. Another serious problem is that heuristics can be easily faked and manipulated. Knowledge of heuristics enables propagandists to control peoples' course of action.
The authors did a research of propaganda techniques and set four stratagems of persuasion:
1. You create favorable climate for the massage (called pre-persuasion). You subtly outline what picture has to be drawn in the end. Here you decide what way thoughts and perceptions of the audience will be shaped and channeled. Having established right basis for further discourse you secure the results you seek. At this stage you should identify some statements as axioms, i.e. `what everyone takes for granted' and `what everyone knows'. You attribute labels (positive or negative) to objects of further discussion, put black-or-white colors in non-disputable way. You use generalities to depict the situation - they are usually so ambiguous that you may change their meanings in the future. You use rumors and gossips.
2. You create a `source credibility', i.e. establish a favorable image in the eyes of the audience. The message must come from `experts' or `unbiased' and, of course, personally attractive communicators. Try to switch on the self-persuasion mechanism of the audience.
3. You create a message that focuses the target's attention and thoughts on exactly what you want them to think about. Research has identified at least five conditions that are likely lead to heuristics. Heuristics are most likely to be used when people do not have time to think carefully about the issue, when they are so overloaded with information that it becomes impossible to process it fully, or when they believe that the issues at stake are not very important. Heuristics are also used when people have little other knowledge or information on which to base a decision and when a given heuristics comes quickly to mind as they are confronted with a problem.
4. You create an emotion of the target that will help you channel thoughts of audience in right direction. Fear appeals are most effective when they raise high levels of fear and suggest a doable and effective responses (the authors also explain why sometimes fear does not work). Guilt: once we are filled with guilt, our thoughts and behavior are directed towards ridding ourselves of this feeling that's where propagandists take advantage of us. Feeling of obligation and indebtedness: large initial request and immediate concession by the requester invokes the norm of reciprocity -we concede. Feeling of commitment based on our desire to be self-consistent. For example, to `soften up' the target you make him involved in a much smaller aspect of the action. This serves to commit the individual to `the case'. Once people are thus committed, the likelihood of their complying with the larger request increases. Another way is to show uniqueness of the offer (scarcity sells). Use the `minimum group paradigm': You are on my side (never mind that I created the terms); now act like it and do what we say. Etc.
The book can be used by target audience to learn persuasion techniques and withstand or organize propaganda tricks. The book is entertaining, rich in vivid examples, and ... has everything to be a success in conveying authors' ideas. Instructive. Great read overall.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
40 of 44 people found the following review helpful
on March 1, 2000
This is an excellent book which explains how the media, demagogues, politicains and marketers are able to gain compliance from their various publics. The use of lab studies and real world examples bring both theory and practice together. I have used this book for a class in propaganda since its first edition, and without fail students rave about the book in their course evaluations. It is a well-written book devoid of educationalese. This is an important book that provides the reader with genuine insight into a world of total propaganda and how as "cognitive misers" we allow ourselves to be manipulated.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
36 of 40 people found the following review helpful
on May 15, 1999
If you want advice on how to be an effective and honest communicator, Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson have written an entire book about it, Age of Propaganda: the everyday use and abuse of persuasion (265 pages. W.H. Freeman and Company). Pratkanis and Aronson give their own accounts of how propaganda impacted their childhood. Aronson recalls how he felt about the "evil Germans" and "sneaky Japanese" while growing up in the 1940s. Pratkanis lost his naïveté when the Watergate scandal broke. He would later come to the realization that all politicians lie and cheat. The two authors attempt to educate the reader regarding propaganda and persuasion. Their goal is have the reader able to identify devices used, what makes them effective, and how to counteract their effectiveness without becoming a pessimist. All the chapters were enlightening; some stood out more than others and were able to give good "heads up" advice. The authors give the reader the inside track on how advertisers promote their products, a "buyer beware" sort of infomercial. Companies use words such as new, quick, easy, improved, now, suddenly, amazing, and introducing to sell their products. The authors further expose merchants by explaining how they make certain brands more accessible than others by placing them at eye level. Additionally, the consumer is informed that ads using animals, babies, or sex sell the product more successfully than advertisers that use cartoons or historical figures. The buyer is also cautioned on how merchants place products at the end of a supermarket aisle or near the checkout aisle; this strategy catches the consumer's eye and lures them into the "I gotta have it, can't live without it" frame of mind. The authors introduce the reader to a sociologist named David Phillips; the sociologist has made predictions which have been startlingly accurate. For one of his predictions, he had gathered information regarding deaths, which occurred after heavyweight championships. His research uncovered this information: homicide rates rose significantly after 3 to 4 days following a fight. He was also able to conclude that the victims were similar to the fighter beaten in the bout. For example, if a white male was beaten, then murders of young white males increased. The same was true if it was a black opponent. Many people believe the media plays a role in the actions of some people, but no thought is given to how a boxing match could have such an impact on the homicide rate. This study is eerie, yet fascinating. Pratkanis and Aronson inform the reader that instilling fear is often the way we are persuaded to act on an idea. Life insurance agents use fear in order that we purchase policies to "protect our loved ones." Doctors use fear to insure that we take out medication. Even dentists show graphic pictures of rotting teeth so that we will floss and brush daily. The book was informative and enlightening. It makes one stop and think about how society is constantly being persuaded to think and act the way we do, in a conformist mode. The authors accomplish their goal by enabling the reader to identify devices used and either "go with the flow" or "not be taken for a ride."
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
42 of 49 people found the following review helpful
This insightful book explores the profound differences in decision-making over the last 2,500 years. Despite a penchant for social science jargon, the authors successfully translate a tremendous amount of current communications research on the creation and maintainance of belief systems into an accessible book. "Age of Propaganda" documents the rise of advertising, the decline of genuine public discourse, and the inherent dangers of ten second soundbites in determining our desires, needs, and goals. Further, they detail the unique difficulties in making a "rational" decision in a fast-paced, message-dense, mass-media culture. This provocative and disturbing book also paints a potentially bleak picture for America's democratic traditions. Fortunately, the authors provide readers with "an arsenal" of intellectual tools to decode messages and protect ourselves. As the authors conclude, "we must depend on our own knowledge of propaganda tactics and our own efforts to treat important issues as if they were truly important."
1111 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
44 of 52 people found the following review helpful
This book was a real bother! I usually read a 300 page book in about two hours and am used to reading through them quickly and getting onto the next one. This book was so fascinating that I slowed down to make sure that I got every bit of information out of it that was available.
This book should be required reading for everyone who wants to know how they are being influenced by the marketing people, unscrupulous sales people, cult leaders, governments and others promoters of influence. It is a thorough course in how to spot an attempt to manipulate you and how you can analyse the situation to see if it is really something you want or not.
It has some of the most complete advice on how to examine an item and how to respond of any book on influence that I have read. On the "A" list of must-read books.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
23 of 26 people found the following review helpful
Reading this book brought to mind a famous quote by Daniel Webster. It goes something like this: "If all my possessions were taken from me, with one exception, I would choose to keep the power of my words, for by it I would soon regain all the rest."
If you're interested in learning more about the power words and their ability to pursuade and influence, this is absolutely required reading.
The authors refer you to dozens of modern day examples and scientific studies - showing you what techniques work, and why. Many of the most effective secrets of persuasion used by government, corporations, and perhaps even your boss, are all revealed.
Be forewarned, however: You'll never look at a TV commercial, newspaper, magazine, or public official the same way again (I hope). Read it, and spread the word.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
8 of 10 people found the following review helpful
on December 16, 2006
I am writing a thesis for a my master's on myths, and relating that to propaganda, which led me to this book.

I can't say enough great things about this book. I relates all of the ideas to everyday occurances common to the "layman".

This book is great for research, and also just to learn how the world is really ran.

Get it.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful
on June 17, 2009
I used to laboriously collect information I found on media influence. Age of Propaganda contains such a vast array of examples of the deplorable use of propaganda; arguably the cause of many of our woes as a society, that I now rely heavily on this book for research.

The chapters Words of Influence and Pictures in Our Heads are worth the price of the book alone. But it goes much further than that; examining emotional contagion, fear and guilt in advertising and even the psychology behind cults.

The latter subject is my one criticism of this book; I believe the stories of David Koresh were fabricated to demonize a group which was, simply put, massacred by perhaps not evil, but certainly clueless and inoperant government agents.

There are twenty one pages of references, so the contention by some that the book isn't backed up by enough evidence seems to me utterly misguided.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful
on July 25, 2011
Though Elliot Arronson's 'The Social Animal' is an incredible book, and clearly paved the way, 'Age of Propaganda' is the single best, most consumeable book out there. It reads like a gripping novel, and engages the reader through use of examples from popular culture and well-known news stories.
The book is very easy to understand and relate to, which is perhaps why it works so well.

I have bought this book several times over the past ten or so years, and given it as a gift to friends interested in Psychology and pratical applications of Psych.
Every person I have given it to has not been dissapointed, and has eventually thanked me for the book.
I'm up to 12 different friends.

As I have bought the book many times, I have noticed that every version of the book is a little different. It took comparing a few different versions with my friends, but, I noticed that Pratkanis actually changes and updates the examples in the book.
This is presumably to help the book stay more relevant - it's a brilliant idea.

My only criticism of "Age of Propaganda" is the raw power of the work; after reading it, I felt that it could be used as a tool to defend against following blindly - or just as easially the reverse.
It's heady stuff, and, after you read it, you may think what I thought: "Wow - I wouldn't want this falling into the wrong hands."

Lastly - other reviews have mentioned a political agenda within this book - and - that is plainly false. While there are political examples (they are popular culture and news), they are used to explain specific social-psych techniques at work - and nothing more. Having read the book several times with several different editions, I have not noticed any political agenda or theme and I have seen several different sides of the political spectrum used as examples of technique. Further, as the examples are constantly changing, many of those comments and other reviews about 'political agenda' no longer even apply - as the examples have been updated with new political figures, presidents, political parties, and soforth.

The only agenda I have seen is the constant message throughout the editions:
"You don't have to be cynical - but be more skeptical."
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
10 of 15 people found the following review helpful
on August 23, 2007
here are my notes

The successful persuasion tactic is one that directs and channels thoughts so that the target thinks in a manner agreeable to the communicator's point of view; the successful tactic disrupts any negative thoughts and promotes positive thoughts bout the proposed course of action.

Two routes to persuasion - peripheral and central
Peripheral - a message recipient devotes little attention and effort to processing a communication. Persuasion is determined by simple cues, such as the attractiveness of the communicator, whether or not the people around you agree with the position presented, the pleasure or pain associated with agreeing with the position, or whether a reason is given for complying with the request.
Central - a message recipient engages in a careful and thoughtful consideration of the true merits of the information presented. The person may actively argue against the message, may want to know the answer to additional questions, or may seek out new information. The persuasiveness of the message is determined by how well it can stand up to this scrutiny.
What determines which route to persuasion will be adopted? - the recipient's motivation to think about the message - the personal relevance of the issue. * we are cognitive misers, forever trying to conserve our cognitive energy, we adopt the strategies of the peripheral route for simplifying complex problems.

Rationalization trap = first intentionally arouse feelings of dissonance by threatening self esteem, for example, making the person feel guilty about something, by arousing feelings of shame or inadequacy, or by making the person look like a hypocrite or someone who does not honor his or her word. Next, offer a solution, one way of reducing this dissonance, by complying with whatever request the propagandist has in mind. The way to reduce that guilt, eliminate that shame, honor that commitment, and restore your feeling of adequacy is to give to that charity, buy that car, hate that enemy, or vote for that leader.

Almost every war in modern times has been accompanied by characterizations of the enemy as less than human. Dehumanization succeeds in resolving any dissonance that may be aroused by our cruelty toward our enemies. However, watch out; the more we justify our cruelty, the easier it becomes. The rationalization trap becomes an escalating spiral: "I committed an act of cruelty; I justified this act by believing that the victim deserved it. If the victim deserved that cruelty, well maybe they deserve more and maybe I am just the one to give it to them.

Four stratagems of influence
The first is to take control of the situation and establish a favorable climate for your message, a process we call pre-persuasion. Pre-persuasion refers to how the issue is structured and how the decision is framed. If fully successful, pre-persuasion establishes "what everyone knows" and "what everyone takes for granted" By cleverly establishing how an issue is defined and discussed, however, a communicator can influence cognitive responses and obtain consent without even appearing to be attempting to persuade us. Next, the communicator needs to establish a favorable image in the eyes of the audience. We call this stratagem source credibility. In other words, the communicator needs to appear likable or authoritative or trustworthy or possessed of any other attribute that would facilitate persuasion. The third stratagem is to construct and deliver a message that focuses the targets' attention and thoughts on exactly what the communicator wants them to think about - for example, by distracting the targets' attention on a vivid and powerful image, or even by inducing the target to persuade themselves. Finally, effective influence controls emotions of the target and follows a simple rule: Arouse an emotion that just happens to be the desired course of action. In such situations, the target becomes preoccupied with dealing with the emotion, complying with the request in hopes of escaping a negative emotion or maintaining a positive one.

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world view and mental habits proper to the reader, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak have been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought - should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.
Language, words, labels, categories organize our realities and serve to divide up the world into neat little packages and to imply the range of appropriate courses of action to take. Words have the power to pre-persuade. It defines our reality, our thoughts, our feelings, our imagination and thus influence our behavior.

Agenda setting is of great importance in maintaining power - by determining what issues will be discussed and when, what criteria will be used to resolve disputes, who will sit on what committees, and, which information will be widely disseminated and which will be selectively ignored.

Defining the issue as "losing something" was more persuasive than stating it in terms of a gain
Never ask a question for which you don't know the answer. Never ask a question that doesn't get the answer you want.

Card stacking - the order in which questions are asked and the order in which information is received can distort and bias the decision making process.
Question asking can be a powerful persuasion device because questions structure our decision making process. They do this by directing our thoughts about the issues at hand and by implicitly specifying the range of possible answers.

Context makes a difference, judgment is relative, not absolute. Depending on the context, objects and alternatives can be made to look better or worse. Often we do not pay much attention to the influence of context, must less question the validity of the alternatives presented.

One of the important tasks of media research is to keep tabs on the "reputation and credibility" of public figures. Advertisers want to know which figures are most believable, who is most liked by the public. The answers to such questions determine the figures value as a spokesperson for the advertiser's product. Credibility has become a commodity not only to be feigned but also to be bought and sold on the open market.

Advertisers know that we believe what we believe and buy what we buy in the service of self image. They imbue their products with a "personality". To claim the desired persona, all we need to do is to purchase and display the right products.

Communicators can make themselves seem trustworthy by apparently acting against their own self interest. If we are led to believe that communicators have nothing to gain and perhaps even something to lose by convincing us, we will trust them and they will be more effective.

When the message conflicted with their expectations, listeners perceived the communicator as being more sincere and they were more persuaded by his statement

Not only do we tend to take more notice to unexpected events, but we also attribute more credibility to speakers who appear to resist the pressures of their colleagues and who take stands in opposition to their backgrounds.

Another way of increasing the perception of credibility: The apparent trustworthiness of a person can be increased and the apparent bias of the message deceased if the audience is absolutely certain the person is not trying to influence them.

Specific advice for making yourself likable: say what the audience thinks (which you can find out through polling), make others feel comfortable, and control the atmosphere (the situation) for your best advantage.

For increasing credibility - set easy initial goals and then declare victory (this will create the perception that you are a strong leader); use setting to support image; choose the negatives that will be written about you; and understand how people see things, then appeal to what they prefer.
Float an idea without attribution (that is, circulate a rumor). If everyone likes the idea, then claim it as your own. If it gets shot down, then deny your campaign ever said it. In this manner, you can always be sure to say exactly what everyone wants to hear. Another piece of advice: make sure you appear consistent in the media. And the best way to do this? Just say a few things over and over again (that way, you don't contradict yourself)

Credibility is manufactured, not earned. Credibility is created by carefully managing the situation so that the communicator, looks just the way he or she is supposed to look - likeable, credible, strong, expert, or whatever image is needed at the time.

Models are effective for two primary reasons. First they teach new behavior. Second we behave like our model because we believe the rewards received by a model for a given behavior will also come to us. It serves as a cue to indicate that a certain behavior is legitimate and appropriate. It can shape and twist our understanding of what is right and wrong. A model is most effective when he or she is high in prestige, power, and status, is rewarded for performing the behavior to be learned, provides useful information on how to perform the behavior, and is personally attractive and competent in facing life's problems - the model is a credible and attractive source.

Confidence of the speaker - the more self assured and confident a communicator appears, the more likely that we well accept what is said - low rates of speech error, an authoritative tone of voice, and a steady body posture, are positively related to persuasion.

Load a speech with the "correct" symbols and buzzwords as a means of informing the recipient that the message is acceptable and worthwhile.

Heuristic - a simple cue or rule for solving a problem
Five conditions that are most likely to lead to heuristic rather than rational decision making
1 When we do not have time to think carefully about an issue
2 When we are overloaded with information that it becomes impossible to process fully
3 When we believe that the issues at stake are not very important
4 When we have little other knowledge or information on which to base a decision
5 When a given heuristic comes quickly to mind as we are confronted with a problem

Self generated persuasion - getting someone to role play an opponent's position, or by asking a person to imagine adopting a course of action - is one of the most effective persuasion tactics ever identified. It gains its power from providing subtle social cues and directions that ask the target of influence, in effect, to think up as many positive cognitive responses about the issue as you can and, if you do happen to come up with some counter arguments, to be ready to refute them. The resulting message will come from a source that you almost always consider credible, trustworthy, respected, and liked - yourself. The act of generating arguments is an act of commitment to the cause. After all, they're your ideas, aren't they?

Vivid messages affect our cognitive responses in at least four possible ways
Attracts attention - it helps the communication stand out in the message dense environment
It can make information more concrete and personal
Its appeal directs and focuses thought on the issues and arguments that the communicator feels are most important
It can make the material more memorable. This is especially important if we do not reach an immediate conclusion but base our later judgments on information that comes readily to mind.

Frequent repetition of an advertisement helps to meet multiple marketing objectives in a cost efficient manner. Repeatedly exposing consumers to an ad is a good way to introduce a new product or to remind customers of the value of an older brand. Often, repeat exposure is an unintended consequence of attempting to present an ad to multiple target audiences (the members of which may overlap). With the high cost of creating and producing new advertising ideas and slogans, its makes sense to stick with proven winners.

The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious. In the long run only he will achieve basic results in influencing public opinion who is able to reduce problems to the simplest terms and who has the courage to keep forever repeating them in this simplified form despite the objections of intellectuals.

Advertisers know that repeated exposure can leas to what is known as "wear out" - when an ad loses its effectiveness because consumers find repeated exposures to be tedious and annoying. Wear-out effects are most likely to occur with ads that attract much attention, such as humorous ads and informational messages. Advertisers attempt to eliminate wear-out by using a technique known as "repetition with variation". In this technique, the same information or theme is repeated many times, but the presentation format is varied.

If you don't have anything to say, sing it. In other words, a mild distraction can disrupt counter arguing and increase the effectiveness of a persuasive message. A lively song can make us happy and thus help use think happy thoughts about a product. At other times the song may get stuck in our head, reminding us of the brand name. At still other times a catchy song or a big production number can attract our attention to the ad so that we don't change the channel or go to the bathroom and we at least hear the advertisers message.
The trick for the advertiser is to provide just enough of a distraction to disrupt counter arguing but not so much that it eliminates the reception of the message.
Distraction increases the effectiveness of weak arguments (because it disrupted counter arguing) but decreases the impact of strong arguments (because it disrupted the ability to pay close attention to the cogent argument being made).

People are less able to develop counter arguments to a time compressed message and that time compressing a message consisting of strong arguments reduced persuasion whereas it increases the persuasive impact of a message containing weak arguments.

Most of us have a strong desire to be correct - to have "the right" opinions and to perform reasonable actions. When someone disagrees with us, it makes us feel uncomfortable because it suggests our opinions or actions may be wrong or based on misinformation. The greater the disagreement, the greater the discomfort.
But this does not necessarily mean the members of an audience will change their opinion.
There are at least four ways in which the members of an audience can reduce their discomfort:
1 Change their opinion
2 Induce the communicator to change his or her opinion
3 Seek support for their original opinion by finding other people who share their views, in spite of what the communicator says
4 Derogate the communicator - convince themselves the communicator is stupid or immoral - and thereby invalidate that person's position.

One sided or two sided argument
If a communicator mentions the opposition's arguments, it might indicate that he or she is an objective, fair minded person; this could enhance the speaker's trustworthiness and thus increase his or her effectiveness. On the other hand, if a communicator so much as mentions the arguments on the other side of the issue, it might suggest to the audience that the issue is a controversial one; this could confuse members of the audience, make them vacillate, induce them to search for counter arguments, and ultimately reduce the persuasiveness of the communication.
It depends to some extend on how well informed the audience is and on the audience's initial opinions on the issue. The more informed the members of the audience are, the less likely they are to be persuaded by an argument that brings out the important opposing arguments and then attempts to refute them. This makes sense: a well informed person is more likely to know some of the counter arguments; when the communicator avoids mentioning these, the knowledgeable members of the audience are likely to conclude that the communicator is either unfair or unable to refute such arguments. On the other hand, an uninformed person is less apt to know of the existence of opposing arguments. If the counter argument is ignored, the less informed members of the audience are persuaded; if the counter argument is presented, they might get confused.
Another factor is the partisanship of the audience. If a member of the audience is already predisposed to believe the communicator's argument, a one sided presentation has a greater impact on his or her opinion than a two sided presentation. If, however, a member of the audience is leaning in the opposite direction, then a two sided refutation argument is more persuasive.
The more frightened a person is by a communication, the more likely he or she is to take positive preventive action. Fear can be a powerful motivating psychological force, channeling all our thoughts and energies toward removing the threat so that we don't think about much else.

People who had a reasonably good opinion of themselves were the ones most likely to be moved by high degrees of fear arousal. People with low opinions of themselves were the least likely to take immediate action when confronted with a communication arousing a great deal of fear - but after a delay, they behaved very much like the subjects with high self esteem. People who have a low opinion of themselves may have difficulty coping with threats to themselves. A high fear communication overwhelms them and makes them feel like crawling into bed and pulling the covers up over their heads. Low or moderate fear is something they can more easily deal with at the moment they experience it. But, given time - that is, if it is not essential they act immediately - they will be more likely to act if the message truly scared the hell out of them.

If the recipients of fear appeal perceive that there is no way to cope effectively with the threat, they are not likely to respond to the appeal but will just bury their heads in the stand.

In sum, a fear appeal is more effective when
It scares the hell out of people
It offers a specific recommendation for overcoming the fear arousing threat
The recommended action is perceived as effective for reducing the threat
The message recipient believes that he or she can perform the recommended action
The recipient's attention is first focused on the painful fear. In such a frightened state it is difficult to think about anything other than getting rid of the fear. Next, the propagandist offers a way to get rid of that fear - a simple, doable response that just happens to be what the propagandist wanted you to do all along.

Creating granfalloons - proud and meaningless association of human beings.
People acted as if those who shared their meaningless label were their good friends and close kin. They indicated that they liked those who shared their label. They allocated more money and reward to those group members who shared their label and did so in a competitive manner.
What makes a granfalloon tick - two psychological processes, one cognitive and one motivational. The knowledge that "I'm in this group" is used to divide up and make sense of the world. Differences between groups are exaggerated, whereas similarities among members of the granfalloon are emphasized in the secure knowledge that "this is what our type does." One serious consequence is that out group members are dehumanized; they are represented in our mind by a simple, often derogatory label, as opposed to unique individuals. It is a lot easier to abuse an abstraction. Second, social groups are a source of self esteem and pride. To obtain the self esteem the group has to offer, members come to defend the group and adopt its symbols, rituals, and beliefs.
Herein lies the secret to the persuasiveness of the granfalloon. If the professional persuader can get us to accept his or her granfalloon, then we have a ready made way to make sense of our lives - the propagandist's way - and as our self esteem becomes increasingly linked to these groups, we have a strong motivation to defend the group and to go to great lengths proudly to adopt its customs. What the propagandist is really saying is: "You are on my side (never mind that I created the teams); now act like it and do what we say."
Sometimes granfalloons come ready made. Each group is associated with a certain self image and lifestyle. Products are given a "personality" that fits the image of the target market; this advertising then goes on to create further the image of each granfalloon by specifying what needs to be done to maintain a certain image.
Shared emotion and feeling can also create a granfalloon. A sense of oneness with others can be produced by sharing a fun time, a sad situation, or a harrowing experience.

Co option tactic - subtly to change a person's granfalloon - corporation gives active critic a new position, often highly visible but without real power within the organization. Gradually, the critic becomes increasingly isolated from old "activist" friends and increasingly dependent on the corporation for material resources and a sense of identity. The opposition is defused as ties with the old granfalloon are dissolved.

Guilt - the feeling that we are responsible for something wrong whether real or imaginary - leads to compliance
Why it works
Sympathy, or feeling sorry for the victim
Restitution, or feeling the need to compensate for the wrongdoing
Generalized guilt, or the desire to repair a self image tarnished by a transgression
When we feel guilty we typically pay little attention to the cogency of an argument, to the merits of a suggested course of action. Instead, our thoughts and actions are directed to removing the feeling of guilt - to somehow making thing right or doing the right thing. We fall into the rationalization trap.

Commitment can be self perpetuating, resulting in an escalating commitment to an often failing course of action. Once a small commitment is made, it sets the stage for ever increasing commitments. The original behavior needs to be justified, so attitudes are changed; this change in attitudes influences future decisions and behavior. The result is a seemingly irrational commitment to a poor business plan, a purchase that makes no sense, a war that has no realistic objectives, or an arms race gone out of control.

When made to feel like a hypocrite, these people found the one sure way to restore their feelings of integrity: to begin to practice what they were preaching. If we are not made starkly aware of our hypocrisy, we all share the tendency to push the hypocritical behavior out of sight and do nothing about it.

When we discover that a commodity is scarce or may be unavailable, one of first inferences is that is must also be desirable. Why else would it be so rare? We tend to use a simple rule, or heuristic: If it is rare, if it is unavailable, then it must be valuable.
Scarcity and unavailability can do more than just make an object appear more desirable. When a phantom alternative is present, it can also result in a change in the perception, evaluation, and ultimate choice of the available options.
The presence of an attractive phantom made the other options look less attractive - a contrast effect similar in nature to, but opposite in direction from, that found with decoys. Second a phantom changed the relative importance given to the criteria for making a decision. Specifically, the attribute on which the phantom was superior was rated as most important for making the decision.
Owning an object that is scarce for or unavailable to everyone else is a means of defining one's self: "I am unique and special because I won something that no one else (or at least not many) has been able to obtain." Just hearing about a phantom may induce worry and concern: "If they bring out a better product, I'll be stuck with this thing. Maybe I should wait."
Phantom trap - fixation - focus attention on the scarce or unavailable item By concentrating on the scarce or unavailable, we may forget or overlook the possible. The presence of an attractive but currently unavailable object can focus our attention and resources on obtaining the desired prize. Settling for less than the phantom becomes a conflict that can only be resolved by "strength of willpower," a test that many of us often fail.
In many cases, phantom fixation can be a waste of time and energy, especially when the phantom is really a "red herring" of sorts - a truly unavailable option.
Consumer catch 22 carousel - obtaining a scarce and rare product adds to one's self image as a unique and special person. Manufacturers know this and design and market their products accordingly. If the marketer does a good job of creating a perception of the product as unique, then you desire and acquire it. But the catch is, so does everyone else; suddenly you are no longer an original. Instead of acquiring a product that makes you unique, you have obtained one that makes you just like everyone else. This further heightens the need for uniqueness, and off we go in an endless pursuit of the next faddish phantom. Once we begin using material goods to define ourselves, we are doomed to be on an endless treadmill of dissatisfaction.

Selectivity of news - without some form of censorship, propaganda is impossible. In order to conduct propaganda there must be some barrier between the public and the event. Access to the real environment must be limited, before anyone can create a pseudo environment that he thinks wise or desirable. For while people who have direct access can misconceive what they see, no one else can decide how they shall misconceive it, unless he can decide where they shall look, and at what.

Everyday news - selection of news
News reporters typically work beats - they are assigned a group of institutions to cover. This immediately injects one source of bias into news coverage - something that happens off or between beats has a lower chance of being covered unless it is a major disaster or other spectacular event. Off beat stories rarely are covered and aren't considered news.
Most reporters are on a deadline; they must prepare a given number of stories by a certain time regardless of what is happening. In order to meet their deadlines, reporters place a premium on sources that can be easily contacted and trusted. This also creates bias in at least two ways. First, the reporter develops a routine for covering a story - ignoring potentially relevant avenues of investigation. Second, the reporter's routine results in the same type of people appearing on the news repeatedly.
Increasingly, reporters work for a corporation. This concentration of ownership results pressure on the reporter; certain stories are encouraged or not encouraged depending on their implications for the parent corporation. More subtly, however, corporate ownership biases programming and coverage.
As difficult as these pressures may seen, the journalist faces one more pressure that may mean her or his livelihood - the ability of the news story to hold the audience's attention. All television programming, including the evening news, must strive for profits - and that translates into securing ratings and viewers that will attract advertising dollars. And what induces people to watch the news concludes that most viewers want to be amused and diverted; being informed is only a secondary motive for watching. To guarantee high ratings and revenues, mass media content tends to be agreeable and to require little effort on the part of consumers, while still being arousing, emotionally engaging, and above all entertaining.
What makes a great news story? Stories that
Are new and timely
Involve conflict or scandal
Concern strange and unusual happenings
Happen to familiar or famous people
Are capable of being made dramatic and personal
Are simple to convey in a short space or time
Contain visual elements
Fit a theme that is currently prominent in the news or society
The result of this itch for entertainment is sound bite and photo op news - a montage of brief visual images that play to the crowd. Each event and every idea must be part of a dramatic story amply illustrated with visual displays. Stories that are easily dramatized and visualized are readily covered. More complex issues receive little attention unless they can be made concrete and visual.

As one's confidence is weakened, a person becomes less prone to listen to arguments against his or her beliefs. Thus the very people you most want to convince and whose opinion might be the most susceptible to being changed are the ones least likely to continue to expose themselves to a communication designed for that purpose.

People tend to acquire information mostly about things that they find of interest and tend to avoid information that does not agree with their beliefs. Should someone find that they have been unavoidably exposed to uninteresting and disagreeable information, a common response is to distort and reinterpret that information, thus ignoring its implications for updating beliefs and attitudes.

The use of entertaining programs to disseminate a point of view has been successful in achieving high audience ratings and in changing people's attitudes and behaviors. Not appearing to be explicit attempts at persuasion, they should arouse little resistance, inhibiting the formation of counter arguments by distracting the audience. Most importantly, people will probably watch them without switching channels.

Information campaigns can succeed if they follow these simple rules:
Make the program entertaining
Do not directly attack a viewer's attitude and beliefs

Effective propaganda relies on heuristics and appeals to the emotions.
Its propaganda's effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and to a very limited degree at the so called intellect. We must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public. The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, by their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.

AND much more. Its very informative. I highly recommend this book.
11 commentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.