Public Opinion Through New Media

The issue: In Herbert Asher’s book, Polling and the Public, he talks about different types of sampling techniques and how they are used when generating a sample or a poll.

Major strength: Ashes major strength in this chapter is when he talks about response rates and all the new ways they are coming up with to get people to respond to polls. I found it interesting that people are more likely to contribute to a mail in poll then they are to a telephone poll. As humans we have it ingrained in us that when you answer the phone and it is a polltaker or telemarketer our attitude immediately changes and we either hang-up immediately or yell at them for calling. With mail in polls we are able to do the poll on our own time and not immediately when someone calls. I believe this section really showed us how much time and effort goes into getting people to respond to polls. I had never realized the efforts and the studies that are done just to see how they can increase the response rate on polls. I really felt this section was very strong and eye opening.

Major weakness: The major weakness of this chapter is when they talk about telephone polling. I believe this is a stretch because they talk about the different dynamics that they can assume when someone has an unlisted number. He states that the numbers he got came from a 1996 study. Well after 1996 the cell phone came into play and categorizing people in this way became skewed data. I wish he had found a study that was done closer to the time of publication to this book and shown us what category unlisted numbers fall into now. This whole section shows us how telephone polling used to be done but it does not show us how it is now. I wish he would of gone into more detail about telephone poling in the twenty first century as opposed to just giving us studies done nine years before the book was printed.

Underlying assumption: The underlying assumption of sampling techniques is that they are always changing. With the introduction of the cellular phones, telephone polling was now not as accurate as it was before because most people have cell phones instead of landlines. They also cannot generalize the area that the phone number is coming from now since our cell phone numbers are not primarily based on the area we live in but by whom our provider is. Polling companies have had to research ways to get people to respond to polls now that there are so many ways for us to avoid being polled and for the data to be wrong. It is important for companies to get responses to these polls but it is growing so much harder for them based on our advancing society.

Provocative questions: Why are sampling techniques so important today? Since the invention of the cell phone and other things that cause data to be skewed, can polls really still be called accurate?

Why are humans more likely to be okay with a poll if it is presented to them on urgent paper or by email then they are when the polling people call and then can just take the poll right then?

The Issue: Cialdini discusses the authority principle, which says that individuals are influenced by the power of authority and in most cases they will be blindly obedient to the mere command of a higher authority.

Major Strengths: The chapter opens with an example of the power of authority pressure. Cialdini provides the research behind his assumptions and cites examples of when people consistently underestimated the power of the authority pressure. Another strength of this particular chapter was Cialdini’s ability to provide examples of the “allures and dangers of blind obedience.” Cialdini gives an explanation as to why we are so quick to blindly follow the lead of an authority figure. Cialdini says, “we don’t have to think, therefore we don’t”. He recognizes the convenience of automatic obedience and provides examples of when even the symbol of authority (clothing, trapping and titles) proves to be enough to influence the behavior of others.

Major Weakness: At the end of the chapter Cialdini gives the reader advice about how to defend against the detrimental effects of authority influence. Cialdini suggests asking two specific questions before reacting to authority: ”Is this authority truly an expert?” and “How truthful can we expect the expert to be?” In theory, asking these questions before blindly trusting an authority figure seems like a logical solution but I don’t think it really addresses the issue at hand. Cialdini admits a few sections earlier that the allure of the authority principle is that individuals don’t have to think or make a decision on their own. If this is true then asking people to think before they act is easier said then done. Cialdini in a way is breeding the reader to be overly cynical and almost paranoid because he only provided examples of when authority figures were making mistakes or causing harm.

Underlying Assumption: Cialdini implies that the authority principle is ingrained in us at an early age. We must be aware and able to recognize when it is appropriate to rely on authority and when it is not. Basically Cialdini warns us to be inquisitive and calculated in our reactions to authority in order to defend against the negative effects of authority influence.

Provocative Questions: Today we hear about the CEOs and leaders of big tech companies being 20 something unkempt college drop outs or women…How will this shift in the outward signs of power and authority effect Cialdini’s claims about authority influence? Is authority influence present in online social networks? Is it easier now for individuals to trigger influence online hiding behind the computer screen? How can authority influence be used to benefit our society? How will our impressions of authority change in this digital age? –Now people have access to more information online WebMD is a technology that puts the power in the hands of the user…How will these technologies effect our perception of authority in the future?

The issue : Cialdini states that figures who are perceived to have an authoritative position (either by appointment, dress or education) can more easily influence actions and decisions than a non-authoritative person.

Major strength:  This section explores several different types of authority. The type of trust placed within medical doctors and those with educated backgrounds is surprisingly similar to those with appreciate “fashion”. Most of the examples provided (i.e. doctor, professor, security guard) would be experiences the reader to could identify with and consider the theory.

Major weakness: For this section, Chaldini begins with a bit of a scare tactic regarding the Milgram study. The issue of authority to commit horrible acts is implied but never fully addressed in relation to the real world. This case doesn’t feel like it is fully explored and is an outlier from the rest of the examples due to its serious nature.

Underlying assumption:  Individuals will be easily persuaded by those they perceive to have authority and will be less likely to question their actions. Even if they do question the morality of their actions, they will still complete the assigned task.

Provocative questions:

Are we more likely to question authority now that we have access to more information? For example, does my ability to access WebMD, Wikipedia and scholarly texts reduce how likely I am to trust the information presented to me by doctors and educators?

How does this idea of authority relate to elected or appointed officials?
If I post a review on a website (such as Amazon or TripAdvisor), am I declaring myself an expert and should the public trust my opinion?
What modern symbols do we associate with authority and what symbols do we use against authority?

The issue: Cialdini talks about authority, the idea people will usually follow orders of someone that exhibits.

Major strength: Cialdini includes some excellent examples of authority, including Milgram’s study (which I learned about freshman year and still gives me chills when I read about it today) and people listening or giving more respect to those in the medical field because they are wearing a white coat or played one in a television show.

Major weakness: While Cialdini includes some fine examples, some are quite old – Milgram’s study in particular. It makes one wonder if things have changed over the decades. I also have a hard time believing that people would listen to someone’s recommendation because of a role that they played in a television show. Also, are automobiles really a sign of authority?

Underlying assumption: Given the choice, people would rather listen to an “authority figure” than their own common sense or logic.

Provocative questions: Do gender roles or age play any role in authority/the chance that one would listen to a perceived authority figure?

If Milgram’s test was performed again today, would the results be the same?

Since cars are considered a sign of authority, which cars are the most authoritative?

The Issue:  In this Chapter, Cialdini discusses Milgram’s studies on authority, which show that people tend to comply when there are “authority” figures present, no matter how ludicrous the order may be. Cialdini also alludes to the idea that perhaps authority, in this particular sense of the word, is granted too easily based on generalizing what a person is wearing, how they present themselves, and the titles by which they are addressed.

Major Strength:  Cialdini wastes no time getting to the meat of these theories and how crucial they can be. The reading starts like a bad dream, as Cialdini describes the scene of Milgram’s first study and then details the story of S. Brian Willson, a Vietnam veteran whose legs were both severed because of a train crew’s naive submission to their orders. Cialdini, albeit dramatically, perfectly illustrates the potential dangers of over-perceiving authority and blind obedience with these examples, as well as others more practical.

Major Weakness:  I may be alone (and/or dead wrong) on this, but the example of speaking with a professor was not a strong argument to me. While understanding that I’m not completely representative of public opinion, I can’t imagine naively submitting to one professor’s every word. My first instinct would be to ask what subject(s) he/she teaches, then it becomes more of an issue of credibility in regard to a few topics rather than authority.

Underlying Assumption:  The public tends to shut down into a blind obedience when receiving direction from a perceived authority figure, whether such perception is necessarily accurate or not.

Provocative Questions:  How much gray area is there between the issue of authority and credibility? I think, especially among the more aware of the public, a lot of examples can justifiably serve as both. I’m not sure how it could be tested, but I would like to see research that would dispute their relation. This theory is extreme, and the perspective offered can only be fully adopted by becoming an anarchist. Where would Cialdini draw the line?

The Issue: Robert Cialdini discusses the principles of authority and directed deference, a notion that states the majority responds in a more favorable, agreeable manner to perceived authority than the oridinary.

Major Strength: Cialdini is convinced. He’s convinced that authority rules and society blindly follows like lost puppies seeking the alpha male. He sells it, too! He has great examples and experiment results to back this belief. The Milgram study is a great example that supports the idea of directed deference. Despite the obvious outcome of harm, the majority of subjects continued with the acts requested by the lab-coated director. Against their better judgment, they followed – not so much blindly, though. That was obviously shown by the sweating, the clinching of hands, the fists to the head, etc. of those asking the questions. These actions intensify the belief that authority rules. The same can be said in other scenarios presented throughout the chapter, such as the examples simply drawn on the clothing and the titles. I feel like the major strength of his argument comes based on his analysis of several different scenarios; the deferment to actual authority without trusting ones own knowledge (ex. nurses not questioning orders by doctors) and on the other side of the coin, the con-artist approach (the stranger using titles or clothing to support their facade). The latter instantly brought to mind the life of Frank Abagnale, who was depicted in the book and movie Catch Me If You Can. Abagnale is a perfect example of this, as he portrayed himself, at a very young age and with great success, as an airline pilot, doctor, lawyer, etc. He made a living doing it before finally being caught. Proof is certainly there that the perception of authority results in a higher degree of compliance, and Cialdini supports this through countless examples.

Major Weakness: So, while Cialdini appears to blindly follow the authority in his representation of people falling mindlessly to the perceived expertise of people and scenarios, I think he fails miserably to acknowledge the population that does think for itself and questions commonsense triggers rather than being awestruck by a lab coat or business suit. I will give a couple examples: One, in the Sanka coffee commercial, I believe Cialdini and researchers are focusing on the wrong aspect in this instance, or not acknowledging it at all. I don’t think people necessarily follow because he was attached to the role of a doctor from a previous T.V. show, but rather his celebrity alone. Celebrities sell because of their popularity, not necessarily an authoritative position. I think if you place any well known actor in that spot, the result is the same. In contrast, you place a real doctor or researcher in front of the camera with their white-coat or blue scrubs claiming Sanka to be better for you and I bet there is far less success from the commercial. The focus needs to be on the celebrity of the scenario, not the perceived expertise.

Cialdini seems to eliminate other angles of thought when determining why people are following orders. The scenarios are so different I don’t think the same test can be administered across the board. Yes, in cases where someone is known to be more educated in an area, it makes sense that someone would more easily defer. That is true authority, or expertise rather, that is being measured. The lab coats aren’t being looked at in that instance. In the con-artist tests, it’s based on assumption that someone is knowledgeable rather than actual credentials supporting the case. I think they should be studied in two different ways.

I believe that contextual components are not taken into account when administering some of these studies.

Underlying Assumption: The underlying assumption seems to be that people don’t trust their own commonsense. While in some instances it was tested and proven to be the case, the context of the situation was as important as the lab coat or suit. I think the assumption is that people react the same way no matter the other variables.

Provocative Questions: When following the suited man across the street, are they mentally taking the approach that he’s an authoritative figure, or expert in the scenario, or simply labeling him more educated than the one walking across in the work shirt, thus capable of making a more informed decision? Not sure that anyone can really be an expert on whether or not you will get hit by a care or not. Obviously we’re talking about a simple, commonsense act in regards to – will I get hit by a car or won’t I? The point, however, is this a basis of authority or a sect of it, a societal notion that a person perceived to be more educated makes better decisions?

The Issue:  Cialdini’s discussion of Authority – or the idea that people tend to follow the orders or suggestions of someone that exhibits authority (through things such as title or clothes).

Major Strength:  The examples given in the text are incredibly shocking; yet also give a true idea of how the public acts when working with an authority figure.  The chapter gives a good description of authority and gives the reader a strong understanding of why the public listens to authority figures.

Major Weakness:  Many of studies Cialdini mentions in this chapter were conducted in the 1960’s or 1970’s.  While still important and interesting studies, they do not represent what authority might look like today.  For example, the study regarding Astrogen does not put into account gender roles.  In the 1960’s, when this research was conducted, women were less able (either through stereotypes, job role, etc.) to question a person of authority – especially if that person was male. And, at that time, the majority of nurses were females.  This gender gap alone could skew the study results, or at least beg the question of why the nurses listened to the “doctor.”

Underlying assumption:  The public puts great emphasis on authority figures and typically listens to what they say, whether it goes against our morals or not.

Provocative Questions: 

Has more recent research on authority been conducted? If so, is there a noticeable change?

Do the changes in gender roles, our view on the elderly, and our ability to vocally question authority without reprimand, change how we view authority figures?

The Issue: This chapter is about the power of authority figures and how everyday (non-sadistic) people can be persuaded into obeying an authority’s dictations regardless of cruelty inflicted onto others, or the sense behind an action.

Major Strength: Cialdini explains the power of authority and gives many examples of this phenomenon.  I like how Cialdini not only gives psychology experiments are examples, but also real life examples.  For instance, he talked about his professor friend who talked to people whenever he traveled.  Once the professor friend informed the people that he was a professor they instantly changed their speech and became dull and more grammatically correct just because of his title and assumed authority status.  I also found it fascinating that people tend to seem taller just because of their status or title.

Major Weakness: Cialdini starts off with a dramatized explanation of Milgram’s shock experiment. Although I was familiar with this experiment before, I was confused about the purpose of his dramatization.   I think if people were not familiar with the experiment the start of this chapter would have caused further confusion.  It seems unnecessary to place the participant as the shock receiver.  I don’t think it really had an educational value.   

Underlying Assumptions: Cialdini helps us prepare for con artists.  We’re informed to not just trust a person by their attire and title, that there can be a different meaning to their appearance.  Also, to not be intimidated by a higher authority and to go with gut feelings sometimes cause even though a doctor may think he knows what he’s doing – if you think otherwise you should check instead of blindly complying.

Questions:  Should we always question authority? How do we prevent ourselves from blindly complying with authority without over questioning every authorities move? How do we teach children to grow up to not always judge people’s credibility by appearance without inadvertently teaching them to disobey their teachers, doctors or other legitimate authority figures? We teach children to not judge a book by it’s cover, but somehow we still judge people wearing suits or driving a nice car differently than those with an average car.

The Issue:
Cialdini’s chapter on authority discusses how people’s behavior changes in regards to authority figures. Obedience has a lot to do with how people were raised to comply with those we see as authority figures. Authority can be shown through different symbols, like job title, clothing or cars, and people abide by these symbols without question.

Major Strength:
Authority is shown very strongly through the Milgram study. I appreciated that Cialdini discussed not only the basic premise of the study but also the variations that prove more strongly that authority is definitely a factor in our behaviors. What really stuck out to me is the example of obedience to doctors. Only after reading this is when I realized that I have fallen victim to this multiple times. I believe what my doctors say and have only questioned their authority very few times.

Major Weakness:
Something Cialdini mentions briefly in the doctor blind obedience situation is going to another doctor. However, there are many times that people are told to get a second opinion in regards to medical treatment. A lot of the time people do go get a second opinion. I think it would be interesting to study blind obedience in regards to how many times does someone follows through with getting a second opinion. If that second opinion differs with the first, which authority figure do they trust? Or do they go get a third opinion? How do they decide if one doctor is incorrect? Also, the entire time reading this it made me feel as though I need to be much more skeptical of people.

Underlying Assumption:
Obedience to authority is rooted in our upbringing, so Cialdini assumes that we need to question everyone who appears to be an authority figure.

Provocative Questions:
Authority is assigned to so many people in our lives – we allow people to show their authority over us and others allow us to show our authority over them. If this was not the case, and everyone questioned one another’s authority, would our society be able to function?

Are advertising/social media/pr campaigns more successful if they have someone of authority as a representative? (For example Dove uses real women where as Neutrogena uses celebrities – is one more effective? Are the celebrities seen as authority figures?)

The issue:  There is a strong pressure in our society for compliance with the requests of an authority than is instilled in us from an early age as part of socialization practices.  Society has a tendency to react through mindless obedience and respond to the symbol of authority in ways like titles, clothes, and trappings.  Society needs to be more aware about who the true experts are and their trustworthiness.

Major Strength:  A major strength of this reading is that Cialdini realizes that society’s actions aren’t those of unknowledgeable or uneducated individuals but that our reactions to authority are results of our upbringing.  He states on page 180, “we are trained from birth to believe that obedience to proper authority is right and disobedience is wrong.”  An individual’s actions are not judged by senselessness, harmfulness, injustice, or moral standards but by a command of authority that has been instilled in us.

Major Weakness:  Cialdini references several examples of pressure in our society for compliance with the requests of an authority figure.  However, many of his examples seem exaggerated or aged, therefore leaving loopholes and faults to be seen.  For example: Cialdini talked about the bank examiner scheme where con artists taking advantage of an elderly woman.  Upon reading this I thought back to our class discussion on answering the door.  As a class we came to the conclusion that in today’s society we are more hesitant to approach or answer the door especially if it is someone we do not know or are expecting.  If we see their presence as an inconvenience and take it as a sign that something is wrong, why then are people willing to not only allow the stranger in but also allow them to manhandle their finances.  In our digital age I would definitely be suspicious if I did not receive a prior phone call from my bank.  We trust that Cialdini has done his research and is telling us the truth about these research findings; however, I felt that within this section he limits the audiences’ critical thinking skills and dumbs them down to a level in which nobody can think rationally for himself or herself and that our actions are programed.     

Underlying Assumption:  I think a major underlying assumption is that the public genuinely thinks that authority figures like health professionals or police officials are innately good and have our best interest at heart.  What about those who choose to rebel against authority for the purpose of free will and to not be dictated/controlled by an agent chosen by society?

Provocative Questions:

1)   If society is supposed to ask itself “how truthful can we expect this expert to be?” than doesn’t this take away credibility and the authority of an official that we as a society decided that particular person deserves in recognition?

2)   Should we be taught early in life to question things and challenge the truthfulness of what is presented before us?