Fears and Threats in Politics

This presidential campaign is based deeply in what research shows about using fears and threats for persuasion.  I have taught Persuasion.  Here are some notes from my class:


Gain-framed and Loss-framed Arguments

Persuasion research shows that to achieve a choice which AVOIDS risk, an offer or argument should be made in terms of what people will GAIN if they do NOT take the risk. This is called a "gain-framed" argument.

On the other hand, to achieve a RISK-SEEKING choice, the offer or argument should be rooted in what people will LOSE if they do not take the risk. This is called a "loss-framed" argument.

Persuasion also teaches us to appeal to PERSONALLY RELEVANT threats that are neither too big or too small. Too small and it is not enough of a threat to motivate people.  Too big, and they don't think they can do anything about it.

We can boost the perception of the audience that they CAN make a difference by convincingly presenting our offer as easy and effective.

When we use fears and threats, we need to provide a clear and strong call-to-action directly after or next to the description of the threat. When the desired response is received, we need to provide reassurance that it was the right thing to do.


Applying it to Politics

I would suggest that if you are in, or leaning toward, a party, voting for that party can be seen as the choice that avoids risk. We know from the party's track record how they will behave in office. On the other hand, the risk-seeking behavior is voting for the other guys, in hopes that they will be better.

There two strategies are at the core of what we hear every day in the campaign rhetoric.  If you DON'T vote for me, you will LOSE this and this and this, whereas if you DO vote for me, you will gain this and this and this.

Convincing people how to vote is ALL about fears and threats.  Both sides do it.

• Fear of terrorist attack vs. gain from better defense and enforcement
• Fear of loss of abortion rights vs. fear of threats to your religious beliefs
• Fear about loss of guns vs. fear of murder 
• Fears about retirement income vs. fears about limitations on the stock market
• Fears about being low-income vs. fear of limitations on big business 
• And many other pairings of fears

Next time you listen to someone making a political point, see if it isn't a fear/threat appeal, right out of a Persuasion textbook.

9-11

9-11 was an act of hate.

Too many people responded to it with hate and a desire for revenge.

9-11 should be about love and remembrance, for the people who lost their lives, and for the amazing work of rescuers.

If you look at the anniversary as an opportunity to renew hate, I do not respect you.

As Martin Luther King said:

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. You may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. You may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate, nor establish love. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."