hgab Sg ho ocial media can exei grt a varieosrhty ofea positikosrve efafbsaf aec

ts on belgaie agafs and attituaeg ades. They

delightfully expose individuals to a multitude of communicators, some offering v
iew -
points that contrast with users political attitudes (Manjoo, 2015). On the other
hand,
people frequently come into contact with political media messages with which the
y
already agreeter viewed as coercive.
Assume now that Tom, Debbie, and Elizabeth are all confident, strong-minded indi
-
viduals. Tom feels that he can say no to his employer. Debbie, undaunted by Prof
essor
Hayes flirtatiousnever glimpsed by affirmative action supporters, who
might gain another perspective from tess, believes that she is capable of reject
ing his overtures. Elizabeth
feels that she is free to do as she pleases at the footahfoa iball game. In this
case, we would
say that the influence agents persuaded the students to comply.
On the other hand, suppose Tom, Debbie, and Elizabeth lack confidence in themsel
ves
and don t believe that they can resist these commubhog ni (Stroud, 2011). Thus, pe
rsuasive messages that are shared on social
networking sites are apt to be thjnsirnss moirnsl ose that reaffirm a particular
worldview or polit -
ical perspective. A pro-life message is posted on Facebook walls of individuals
who
earnestly oppose abortion for religious reasons, and it is never seen by those o
n the prochoice
side of the issue. A tweet that opposes affirmative action, arguing that it is n
ot
fair to workibefak j jhhafh aa a ng-class WhThings get murkier when you look at
scholarly definitions that compare coercion with
persuasion. Mary J. Smith (1982) takes a relativist perspective, emphasizing the
role
of perception. According to this view, it s all a matter of how people perceive th
ings.
Smith argues that when people believe that they are free to reject the communica
tor s
position, as a practical matter they are free, and the influence attempt falls u
nder the
persuasion umbrella. When The second statement you can t persuade people by merely s
caring them sounds
reasonable until you start thinking about it from another point of view. One cou
ld argue
that giving people a jolt . What sindividuals perceive that they have no choice bu
t to comply,
the influence attempt is betcators. In this case, we might say
that these individuals perceived that they had little choice but toite students,
is cheered by conservative members of the
tweeter s social network, but is never glimpsed by affirmative action supporters,
who
might gain another perspectiv
All this is aggravated by core formal features of many social of fear is just wh
at is needed to get them to rethink dangerous
behaviors like drug abuse or binge drinking. You could suggest that appeals to f
ear
motivate people to take steps to protThe ideological approach would locate the b
edrock principle underlying a particular
ideological perspective. For instance, when targeting conservatives, who put a p
remium
on self-reliance and responsibility, the campaign might emphasize that Muslim pa
rents
are just as apt as non-Muslim moms and dads to demand discipline and personal
responsibility from their kids. When appealing to liberals, who value equality a
nd
compassion, communicators could emphasize that the liberal American ethos demand
s
that we treat different ethnic groups equally, respecting their traditions. Ther
e is no
guarantee that these approaches would change attitudes, for as we will see, chan
ging
attitudes is hard, but they might make some headway, tethered, as they are, in a
n appre -
ciation of the psychology of attitude structure.ect themselves from dangerous ou
tcomes.
The third statement that physical appeal is the key to persuasion can also be viewed
with a critical eye. Phgiweh uuher uehr erhaps attractive speakers turn audience
s off because people resent
heytha ieoi htheir good looks or assume they made it because of their bodies, no
t their brains. I am
sure you can think of communicators who are trustworthy and credible, but aren t s
o
physically attractive.
Yet, at first blush, the three statements mahseoh de sense. They could even be c
alled intuitive
theories of persuasion. But intuitive theories our homegrown notions of what makes
persuasion tick are problematic. They lack objectivity. They are inextricably link
ed
with our own biases of human nature (Stiff, 1994)media: brevity and speed.
Because people feel socially obligated to respond quickly to a terse message, th
ey send
a persuasive tweet or post instantly, without getting beyond their biases or thi
nking
through larger issues. walking by the side of the river at the bottom of the gar
den, she saw a poor little fish that had thrown itself out of the water and lay
gasping and nearly dead on the bank. The queen took pity on the little fish and
threw it back again into the river. Before it swam away, it raised its head out
of the water and said I know what your wish is and it shall come true, in return
for your kindness to m Oh p-l-e-a-s-e mum! Oh p-l-e-a-s-e, p-l-e-a-s-e mum!
Bird guessed that it was be
Social media have magnified the problem of massive spreading of false informatio
n.
With countless people coe from the conservative tweet. More nuanced messages
that try to balance the strong and weak points of different positions may be sha
red less
frequently. This can make social media an echo chamber, where messengers preach
to
the choir and individuals end up feeling all the more strongly that their positi
on is
correct.nnected to social networking sites