<link>

Does the gossip study explain why negative ads work? I think it goes a long way. Evolution didn'tt shape the mind to function in a world of 30-second TV ads. It shaped us to function in tribes. The darkest arts of political ad-making consist of identifying and manipulating these now-dysfunctional dispositions. We play on your machismo, your fears of other races, and your tendency to believe smears. God 0, Darwin 1, Cynicism 2.

I suggested on another board yesterday that this study probably explains the popularity of conservative media.

darkest arts of political ad-making: Aim for the emotional response

Under the "12 Kinds of Advertisements" that Slate offered a few months back: #10

What, no link? Anse, dude, how can we check it out if there's no link?

I think the truth (forgive the pun) of the matter is self-evident. If truth and facts worked more than gossip and hearsay - then politicians wouldn't use smear campaigns (despite what Anse thinks Republicans aren't the only ones who employ smear campaigns).

If gossip and hearsay were ineffective or less effective, commonly employed tactics used in debates wouldn't be employed. I don't just mean political debates, but even debates seen here in the Fray.

I think the premise that people rely on hearsay more than facts is true, and I think it's true because very few of us are in possession of "the facts". We have a general understanding, perhaps first hand experience, but situational facts are often found very wanting. Moreover, how you interpret a fact isn't necessarily the same as how I interpret a fact.

I frequently find myself repeating, as fact, things I've been told by third parties, or read once on a website a few months or a few years ago. Have I followed up on this information? No, not usually; but that doesn't stop me from perpetuating it under the guise of solid fact, or (I'm pretty sure) my listeners from embracing and redistributing it as such. It probably doesn't help that I "round up" my information source a little--so that a piece of information someone imparted to me becomes, when passed on, something I read in "a study." The best part of it is--sometimes, a few weeks or months or even years later, my friends will repeat these same facts back to me, as facts they have "read" in a study or serious article!

This is just an example of misattribution, a very common pyschological phenomona. NPR's On the Media had a great bit about this recently. They pointed out that even a denial is subject to this. So, yeah if feeds right into slimy attack ads and a candidates response can feed the ad too.

Myself and some others have observed that preferring facts to gossip is a trait of loners. That makes sense, since the more extroverted a person is the more they will want to believe other people's opinions instead of data. It's a matter of personality. It's the same for credulity in general. The more social you are, the more susceptible you are to groupthink.

I know this because I belong to the 1% or so of the population on whom conventional advertising doesn't work. The best way to get me to buy your product is with an infomercial.

Saletan:

...Evolution didn't shape the mind to function in a world of 30-second TV ads. It shaped us to function in tribes. The darkest arts of political ad-making consist of identifying and manipulating these now-dysfunctional dispositions...

The Army used to call this 'rumor control'. If you choose to trust no one then you are isolated, surrounded and controlled. If you choose to ally with the rumor you are in a crowd and controlled by the rumor.

The beauty of rumor is that it has a 'hit and run' quality. No discussion is possible. Tribes and political parties look the same in the context of Iraq's politics. Are we so different?

I think the whole thing says a lot about what social creatures we are. What people tell you about other people socially is overriding personal experience or "unbiased" observation.

In a way, for everyday purposes, it matters much more whether you agree with your peers or their gossip or gang up with them on issues of what to buy/be/do/who to hate/what to think than if that behavior is logically justifiable. If you don't appear to cooperate with others, or agree with the group, you lose a lot of leeway - going against the gossip becomes your word vs. theirs. Regardless of whether "your word" is based on experience, it's inherently a challenge to the other person. Everyone who has ever worked with others has seen situations where the dominant personality or most agreeable personality wins over the most logical action.

Certainly, anything that validates a fear we have or creates the idea of a group that we can or should join ("everybody thinks so") is very powerful. And as soon as an individual converts contrary evidence into a different position, it's back to my word vs. yours. At the level of my evidence vs. your evidence, it becomes a power struggle. Agreeing with someone who has evidence and is showing power (by having a tv ad) confers power on you by proxy, power by being part of a group.

I think there's definitely some built-in credulity for any gossip - if you're telling me this, you must know something; if you're telling me this, it must be based on something (like prior experience); if you're in a position to tell me this, you must have power; if you have power, I have an interest in not challenging you outright AND an interest in allying myself with you by agreeing. Naturally, this would be especially effective in situations when you're stating something I've tended to agree with or think about - if I already think that group x is a little dodgy, then you come along and say that group x is very bad and here's why...