|
|
Post by krish97 on Apr 11, 2016 21:37:51 GMT
In the research article The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms the authors basically arrive to the conclusion that descriptive normative messages can cause some individuals to engage in constructive behaviors in reaction to their previous destructive behaviors, but can cause others to experience a boomerang effect in which they become more destructive having acknowledged their previously constructive behavior compared to the social norm. This boomerang effect, however, can be diminished as a result of injunctive messages.
The video below covers one of Dan Ariely’s speeches in which he talks about how individuals who consider themselves to be good also cheat a little bit, which ironically ends up causing more harm than big cheaters. Such individuals end up cheating because they can rationalize their reasons for being dishonest.
One of the reasons individuals can rationalize their dishonesty is because they believe they’re below the socially accepted norm for cheating or lying. Descriptive messages contained within society allow for such dishonesty to exist for many reasons, many of which are mentioned in the video. We can see that the descriptive messages act as “rationalizers” for individuals to enact a certain behavior.
However, from the video we also see that individuals begin to cheat less when reminded about moral codes, even if they’re not the ones they necessarily believe in. These can be seen as the injunctive messages that people need to prevent the boomerang effect described in the article.
Essentially, the point I’m trying to make, and the point I believe the video and the article is trying to make, is that we do bad things because we feel we’re on average less bad than other people (descriptive normative messages); however, our morality keeps us in check, reminding us why we shouldn’t rise to the average level of badness but instead firmly remain below it (injunctive messages).
So here’s my question to you: do you think we should advertise what the social norm is in order to prevent adverse behaviors (namely have statistic based ads to debunk misconceptions)? Or should we instead advertise moral reasons for why we shouldn’t behave adversely?
- Krish Kabra
|
|
|
|
Post by cliffordzhang on Apr 12, 2016 0:02:52 GMT
We should be dishonest and advertise the social norm as something SUPER below the standard for destructive behaviors  |
|
|
|
Post by krish97 on Apr 12, 2016 1:07:37 GMT
cliffordzhang Haha that ruins the whole point about being moral human beings! We'd essentially be lying to ourselves about what really happens, which would only make us more prone to falling victim to wrong doings.
|
|
|
|
Post by lilyzhuo on Apr 13, 2016 4:41:27 GMT
I think that having statistics-based ads to debunk misconceptions, in order to prevent adverse behaviors, won't necessarily motivate people enough to actually change their behavior, especially if they perceive that their behavior isn't that far above the norm - they will still be comforted by the fact that there are many people "above" them in immorality. Also, these ads would be fairly impractical, as the stats needed would be difficult to accurately obtain, and it would be impossible to obtain all the stats necessary to discourage people from every possible scenario where they can be immoral. On one hand, perhaps they would be able to extrapolate the data to other scenarios, but on the other hand, they may perceive the situation as being different enough that they can justify their adverse behavior. Thus, we should probably advertise moral reasons for why we shouldn't behave adversely, as a moral code is a more powerful motivating factor and all-encompassing.
|
|
dalia
New Member
Posts: 28 
|
Post by dalia on Apr 13, 2016 5:07:12 GMT
I think the video raises a really interesting point! Before watching it, I was leaning towards saying that statistics would be more effective since they have a more immediate effect on the viewer and usually do a good job grasping your attention. For example, I could spend hours explaining to someone how global warming or pollution have a negative impact and they still won't be moved if they aren't interested in the topic. On the other hand, if I present some shocking statistic like X number of children die every day from polluted water, and add some empathy inducing photos, you'll probably get the person's attention more effectively. Therefore, I thought that statistics would be a more efficient way than explaining the moral implications of cheating. However, the video made a really good point that would support advertising morals. (Sidenote: I liked how there was a UCLA study in there. Go bruins! ;P) I think one possible explanation is that mentioning morals may affect the person unconsciously, and hence make them refrain from cheating, while statistics aim at inducing voluntary actions. Therefore, I guess which marketing technique is chosen depends on the main goal/purpose behind it. Do we just want to reduce the amount of cheating, or do we want people to understand the implications and actively refrain from it. Notably, although recalling moral codes may reduce cheating, it may just be a short-term effect caused by the test subjects being primed to think about what's right or wrong. I think it would be interesting to see what the results of a study where there is a time gap or distraction between when morality is mentioned and the opportunity to cheat is presented.
|
|
bdang
New Member
Posts: 17 
|
Post by bdang on Apr 13, 2016 6:48:37 GMT
I do not believe that advertising that appeals to the social norms is the most effect way of getting a message across. Numbers can only have so much of an influence on an individual. I think advertisements that hit the morality factor and reach people's emotions would prove much more effective. I think people respond better when they can relate personally to a struggle/difficulty or at least can muster up a sense of empathy. For example, for me personally, the TV ads that show patients who are suffering from severe health complications due to smoking have a greater effect on me than say an advertisement that lists smoking death statistics. The ads invoke a sense of fear and carry a shock factor, which may lead people to act in a more ethical fashion out of fear, instead of because it is "right." If people are afraid of a potential consequence, they may be less likely to act out of line. It is a different approach, but could have some positive consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by krish97 on Apr 14, 2016 0:37:06 GMT
lilyzhuo I would definitely agree with that. These articles show that statistical advertising is only effective at reducing the range (standard deviation) of the distribution, that is to say more people will tend towards being at the "mean" behavior. The most efficient way to successfully reduce adverse behavior overall is definitely through injunctive messaging.
|
|
|
|
Post by krish97 on Apr 14, 2016 0:53:41 GMT
dalia It's great to hear that you enjoyed the video! Yes, I was definitely a little too excited when I heard UCLA as well! You raise a very interesting point as well, but I have this sort of counter thought - what if statistics were caused the "short-term effect" you explained, and moral reasoning (injunctive messaging) actually skewed a person's behavior in the long term since it changed their initial implicit attitude. I bring this point up since most of the statistics I read only remain in my short-term memory, and so my actions usually change only around the period of when I read the statistic. Only if the statistic has some deeper meaning or relation to me will it be attached to my long term memory, and so in this case it's actually the injunctive message that sticks long term.
|
|
|
|
Post by krish97 on Apr 14, 2016 0:57:08 GMT
bdang I agree with you too! Statistics are obviously beneficial at swaying people, but empathy is really what drives successful advertising. I think the reason we use statistics in such advertising is because they're easy to make and can target larger ranges on audiences. Empathy, on the other hand, is very personal and may not be successful simply because the ad could not target a larger audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 14, 2016 1:06:18 GMT
Y'all are intellectual rock stars. Let's pick this up tomorrow, for sure. Someone remind me if it slips my mind, please.
|
|
paola
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by paola on Apr 14, 2016 21:22:02 GMT
This thread brings up some very interesting and important points. Thanks for sharing this, Krish. Your questions make me think about a battle between the use of logos (reasoning, facts, proof) and the use of pathos (emotions, values). It has been proven that both are extremely effective when trying to appeal to a crowd. However, in this specific case, I think a statistics-based advertisement (use of logos) wouldn’t produce the most effective and appropriate change. To some people, numbers are just numbers. If one is really disinterested in the given topic, then those numbers won’t mean anything to that person. On the other hand, regardless of one’s interest in the given topic, emotion-inducing images/video clips/stories (the use of pathos) would capture the attention of all (if not, most) people.
I saw and continue to see the above effect first-hand in Singapore - where I grew up. The Singapore Government uses ethos very intelligently when selling cigarettes in its country. In an attempt to reduce smoking (an adverse activity), each cigarette package sold in Singapore includes a text warning (i.e. “Smoking causes a slow painful death” or “Tobacco smoke can kill babies”) and a warning image (i.e. an image of damaged organs, an image of open heart surgery). This is done so that when someone (be it a smoker or non-smoker) walks by the cashier, he or she is forced to see the health effects (in pictorial form) of these cigarette products. The images are awful and surely induce emotions in the passerby. I am certain that such images induce more emotions in the passerby than if the packages included a simple statistic about the negative effects of smoking.
So, to answer your question, I think that we should advertise moral reasons for why one should not behave adversely.
|
|
