Which Path to Persuasion Is Present in the Global Warming Case - Essay Example

QUESTIONS Which path(s) to persuasion are/is present in the global warming case? There are two paths of persuasion that has been used in the global warming case. These are central route persuasion and peripheral route persuasion. Central persuasion refers to a tactic where individuals are satisfied with the reasoning presented to them about a particular scenario (Richards, 2005). In this case, the global warming case provided adequate information and, therefore, managed to persuade people that they are bringing in more good than harm. For instance, the key players in this industry managed to shun fears of global warming by presenting information on how they are now producing low carbon emission through the use of new environmentally friendly technology. People are generally concerned about the effects of global warming to the environment. By assuring them that there are steps being taken to eradicate this problem, they are convinced that no more harm will be done to the environment if these new technology is embraced. By also deviating the focus on CO2 emissions being the main contributor to global warming and substituting that thought with that of the use of technology, central persuasion has been applied. Spin doctors in this case, carefully managed to change focus from carbon dioxide emissions by these large corporations, to the positive things they have achieved such as the use of new technology. Global ambassadors of environmental conservation such as Greenpeace, Suzuki and Al Gore employ the use of peripheral route of persuasion. Due to the positive contribution these big environmental activists bring in making the world a better place to live in, people tend have a liking towards them. This means that they are easily persuaded by whatever they advocate for, regardless of whether they understand their arguments or not. Al Gore for instance, appeals to many because of his good family values and achievements he has attained in the past such receiving the Nobel Peace Prize as well as a running twice for the presidency in his country. This definitely appeals more to the public, therefore, making him very persuasive. On the other hand, the hydrocarbon producing corporations are less likely to persuade people in their intents. This is so because they are mostly believed to be profit making businesses that care less about the welfare of other individuals. Complains by environmental activists about global warming and high carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, does not help any better since they continue to taint the image of such corporations. Given this reputation, it will be very difficult for these corporations to convince the public of their positive intent, not unless they embrace central route persuasion. In all these cases, people are not aware that they are being swayed psychologically to follow or agree to particular issues. They find themselves agreeing or disagreeing with particular concepts or persons that are determined by the paths of persuasion used. It is very crucial for such corporations to understand these methods of persuasion so as to better understand how the human psychology works. This in turn will affect the results of persuasion paths used, either positively or negatively. 2. How does the tobacco industry example fit into our understanding of impression management? Having a good impression about yourself or an organization is important in creating a good rapport. People tend to associate more with characters that are not tainted, or perceived to be tainted, for that matter. It is, therefore, very important to keep a good image, more so for businesses, so that they may survive in the business environment. Smoking of cigarettes had been proven to be harmful to one’s health in 1966, in the Unites States of America. It is for such a reason that the Surgeon General had recommended that cigarette packets carry warning labels to inform its consumers of the dangers of smoking. However, this new requirement by law would negatively affect business in the tobacco industry. Impression management was the most reasonable solution by the industry players to tackle this new menace. Impression management, therefore, is a means of attempting to convince or influence people on their perceptions towards a particular person or object (Richards, 2005). The tobacco industry applied this method by emphasizing on other positive things that the industry had done that impact of the general population. They started placing emphasis on their contribution towards sponsoring sports events and other artistic talents. They also provided funding for community development programs. Attention was soon diverted from the harm of tobacco use to the positive contribution this industry had brought to the general community. Contrary to most people’s expectation, the tobacco industry managed to display social responsibility and skillfully evade the damaging publicity it would have had with the health warning labels requirement. Impression management, therefore, is all about appeasing someone regardless of flaws one may have. Human beings tend to be sympathetic or blinded by the many good that individual or objects radiate, more so if such good tends to benefit them individually. For instance, these tobacco industry players knew that their image was already soiled by introduction of health warnings in packaging. However, by giving back to the community through the various charity events they sponsored, they made sure that majority of the people were part of them. This blinded the negatives that tobacco brought to human health since people were willing to pardon such harm, with the notion that they would get grants and other contributions from these companies. Good impression also depends on how and what you present before people. For instance, these tobacco players deliberately ignored publicizing health hazards of smoking tobacco and instead publicized their social corporate responsibilities. By doing this, people were focused on such positive impacts and forgot or were not aware of the negative effects of smoking tobacco. This means that the human mind is more impressed with what is presented to them than what is not, and how it is presented plays an important role in affecting their choices. 3. Is spin doctoring the same as propaganda or is it fundamentally different? Address the weapons of mass destruction in your answer. Spin doctoring and propaganda are fundamentally different. This is to mean that, spin doctoring share certain elements with propaganda but they are executed in different ways (Richards, 2005). For instance, spin doctoring aims at convincing or providing a different explanation of an event to influence the opinion of the general public. This means that the information given is often true. Propaganda, on the other hand, aims at swaying public opinion over a particular issue by providing false information in the pretext of being the blatant truth. In reference to the issue of presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the United States government employed the use spin doctoring to sway public opinion in their favor, therefore, justifying their invasion of Iraq. It had been believed that Saddam Hussein was making weapons of mass destruction; information that proved to be false. Spin doctors, however, managed to divert public attention and focus it towards the oppression Saddam had been placing on his people. If this new information had been false, then it would have been classified as propaganda. Spin doctoring is more believable than propaganda. Crucial evidence supporting spin doctored information is often provided so that the information given can be believed by the public. In the case of weapons of mass destruction, spin doctors used evidence of mass graves as proof to the public that indeed Saddam Hussein had been oppression his people, thus justifying their invasion of Iraq. Without their knowledge, the public will shift their attention to this new discovery, not knowing that the reason this information was given to them was to divert attention from the topic of weapons of mass destruction. However, in this case there has been an element of propaganda being applied. By invading Iraq in the pretext of finding weapons of mass destruction, the United States government had spread propaganda. It can never be known clearly whether this was a deliberate act to invade Iraq, or not, but the fact remains that they spread false information regarding the weapons of mass destruction. This is a classical act of propaganda. The general public believed this theory in the beginning, but when it soon became evident that there were not such weapons, the public were skeptical about that theory. Another aspect if importance to note is that unlike spin doctoring, propaganda is mostly used to create harm or hate towards a particular individual of element, while spin doctoring is used to foster public relations. In this case, the United States wanted to create enmity or hate by spreading false information about Iraq and their president, Saddam Hussein. This was meant to gather public support towards their cause to invade Iraq. In other words, propaganda was used to justify their cause in Iraq despite the falsehood behind such intelligence. Bibliography Richards, P. (2005). Be your own spin doctor: A practical guide to using the media. London: Politicos. Read More