In
2006, Al Gore released a documentary film, called 'An Inconvenient Truth,' in which he outlined the dangers of
global warning, aiming to educate the public about the climate crisis and the
potential consequences of our behaviour.
It
was considered to be a very influential documentary and throughout his
presentation he used many persuasive techniques to change the opinions of his
audience. One way in which he does
this, is by arousing a feeling of fear into the public. With the use of shocking images that
are believed to have exaggerated the extent of the problem, he makes his
audience believe the situation is far worse and more real than anyone
imagined. The use of ‘fear appeal’
is argued to be successful in changing attitudes when the plea invokes fear and
outlines a plausible way to overcome this fear by changing behaviour; in
this instance, by doing something as simple as recycling (Pratkanis, 2007). As well as arousing fear, the photos
Gore used shocked and stunned audiences and a study by Dahl, Frankenberger
& Manchanda (2003) found that using shock tactics in an advert enhances
attention, increases memory, and more often leads to a change in behaviour.
Gore
also uses guilt to try and change the public’s attitude and behaviour by
emphasizing how this was an avoidable problem that was caused by our irresponsible behaviour.
Therefore, it is our duty to stop global warming from getting even
worse. Even the trailer for the movie
uses the guilt tactic with the statement ‘If you love your planet, if you love
your children, you have to see this film.’ This implies that if you do not watch the film and listen to
its message, you do not love your children or care about their survival or the
planet they live in, thereby laying on a ‘guilt-trip’ if they do not watch the
film.
Gore
also uses a scientific basis to support his argument and draws inferences from
peer-reviewed scientific articles.
He had previously been campaigning for a change in behaviour to prevent
climate change, and with his knowledge on the subject, he presented himself
as an expert-unknowing public altercast.
Research has shown that when an ‘expert’ presents a message, it is more
likely to be accepted as the truth as the general public feel they have inferior
knowledge on the subject. Moore
(1921) found that the opinion of an expert was more influential than that of an
average individual in causing a change in a decision.
One
of the most effective techniques Gore used was inducing a misleading inference
in regards to the relationship between global warming and hurricane
Katrina. The destruction caused by Katrina was still
prominently in the forefront of most Americans’ minds and Gore reminded them about the
devastation it caused and explained how global warming will cause devastation on a much
greater scale. He
implies that global warning was the cause of the hurricane without explicitly
saying so, as there is no evidence to support this claim – but the mere
implication plants the idea into the minds of his audience, making his
technique effective in influencing a change in behaviour as the public would
want to prevent anything that might bring about another ‘Katrina.’ Research supporting this technique has
been found in a study conducted by Harris (1977) as participants were
unable to discriminate between explicitly stated claims about products and claims
that were only implied. Therefore,
consumers falsely assumed a relationship existed between two statements when they
were presented together.
Dahl, D. W., Frankenberger, K. D. & Manchanda, R. V. (2003). Does it Pay to Shock? Reactions to Shocking and Nonshocking Advertising Content among University Students. Journal of Advertising Research, September 43, 268-280.
Harris, R. J. (1977). Comprehension of pragmatic implications in advertising. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 603-608.
Moore, H. T. (1921). The comparative influence of majority and expert opinion. American Journal of Psychology, 32, 16-20.
Pratkanis (2007). The science of social influence: Advances and future progress. Psychology Press.
gore uses fear, guilt, inferences while distorting and presenting misleading science, admitted by the writer/analyst, all to convince people of something that is not factual. yup. nothing but bunk. this is also called propaganda.
ReplyDelete