PROPAGANDA FOR CHANGE is a project created by the students of Behaviour Change (ps359) and Professor Thomas Hills@thomhills at the Psychology Department of the University of Warwick. This work was supported by funding from Warwick's Institute for Advanced Teaching and Learning.
Laugh tracks are examples of where social evidence has been purposely falsified. Many people including actors hate laugh tracks but TV executives still use it (Cialdini, 2007). Why? Studies show that using laugh tracks makes audiences laugh longer and more frequently when funny material is presented (Smyth & Fuller, 1972) and for them to rate the material as funnier (Fuller & Sheehy-Skeffinton, 1974). It works especially with poor jokes (Nosanchuk & Lightstone, 1974).
Canned laughter works because of social proof. We are used to taking others laughter as a cue, that we can be made to respond to the sound and not substance of the real thing. Weapons of influence consist of identifying fixed action patterns and exploiting them. i.e expensive = good, where price is the trigger to quality. Similarly, laughter has become a trigger feature.
So why do we behave according to other peoples’ actions? Pratkanis (2007) suggests it is because of the belief that ‘if others are doing it, it must be the correct thing to do’. Just like other principles of social Influence, social proof is an easy shortcutto determine how to behave but also makes us vulnerable to attacks by those who use this principle to their advantage.
“Since 95 % of people are imitators & only 5 % initiators, people are persuaded more by the actions of others than by any proof we can offer” (Cialdini, 2007). We see the behavior of other people as a guide for our own behavior. This is also exploited in bars or at church collections, salting the tip jars to give the impression that tipping is the norm.
The principle of social proof works best when the proof is given by the actions of many other people (Bandura, Grusec & Menlove, 1967). In this case, the laughter of lots of random people allows the principle to work. So you are laughing because others are laughing, even when it isn’t funny.
… What else do you do because of what others do?
References
Bandura, A., Grusec, J. E., & Menlove, F. L. (1967). Vicarious extinction of avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(1), 16.
Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion (pp. 90-91). New York: Collins.
Fuller, R. G., & Sheehy-Skeffington, A. (1974). Effects of group laughter on responses to humourous material, a replication and extension. Psychological Reports, 35(1), 531-534.
Nosanchuk, T. A., & Lightstone, J. (1974). Canned laughter and public and private conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(1), 153.
Pratkanis, A. R. (2007). The science of social influence: Advances and future progress. New York: Psychology Press.
Smyth, M. M., & Fuller, R. G. (1972). Effects of group laughter on responses to humorous material. Psychological Reports, 30(1), 132-134.
Image 1
Forever Lying: If it sounds too good
to be true, it probably is
Have you ever been offered an incredible business
proposition where you can make money from home? Where all you must do is sell fantastic
items such as dietary supplements or all curing aloe vera products? Chances
are, you have at very least seen one person bragging about their new-found lifestyle,
and how you’d be crazy not to join them on their business venture (see image 1).
It seems a little suspicious at first, perhaps even totally false, but seeing
as you know them personally you continue reading.
Image 2
Shouting from the rooftops, they broadcast how grateful they
are to be able to work from home or spend more time with their families. It
sounds perfect and you naturally wonder if you can get a piece of this pie. You
are at least willing to listen to some harmless advice from a friend. After
all, what could go wrong? Image 2 shows how the person highlighted in blue is ambushed
after the curious remark “you don’t half talk in riddles” identifies them as suitable
prey.
Image 3 Image 4
It seems that unless you are one of the first few members
(or know a lot of gullible people), not a lot could go right never mind wrong. The
companies that these people are selling on behalf of, are a form of Multi-Level
Marketing (MLM). MLM has been accused of being far too similar to the illegal
product-based pyramid scheme, which relies on each employee recruiting new
salespeople (Jackson, 2004). The key difference, is that MLMs offer a product
which can be purchased. This however, is a front. The real money comes from
recruiting other sellers to work underneath you. A percentage of the sales and future
recruitment from each team members goes to the person who recruited them from there
on in. This makes it necessary to bring other people on board to make money. You
may be thinking that doesn’t sound too bad. What if you knew that it was
mathematically impossible for everybody in a pyramid scheme to break even? Consider
this, if everybody had to recruit 10 people just to make their money back, then
by the 9th level, there would need to be 10 billion people
recruited. This statistic doesn’t appear to be stopping the growth of MLMs
however. New members more than likely do not fully understand the process or
overestimate their ability to recruit. To recruit friends and family is
beneficial to the representative, but what happens to the friends and family
underneath them? They are now part of the same scheme, and one whole level
worse off.
Image 5
The techniques used to recruit for MLMs are well
established, and training is even provided (Forever Living, 2017). So, what
gives MLM representatives even more persuasive power than a traditional
salesperson? The difference is that the target audience are people whom already
trust them such as friends and family. If you have noticed anybody within your
social media circle enthusiastically encouraging others to join them in their
fool-proof business model, then you may appreciate some information on how
these people are trained to exploit your trust. Although representatives can
use any techniques they so wish, here are a few common examples of how they
operate, and why they are so successful:
Rhetorical questions:
“Would you like to work from home?”
“Do you want to be able to make easy £££ without missing
your child grow up?”.
These are examples of rhetorical questions which are often
used to open a business opportunity pitch. This is an effective technique
according to the finding that they can increase the processing of a message,
making a strong argument even stronger (Ahluwalia & Burnkrant, 2004; Burnkrant
& Howard, 1984; Petty, Cacioppo, & Heesacker, 1981). Although not
explicitly used in Image 1, the hashtag #makemoneywhilstusleep is capable of
making people think in a similar fashion. For instance, seeing this hashtag
could cause the reader to consider whether they would like to earn money whilst
they slept.
Anticipatory regret: A
technique which can be used to persuade people is to emphasise the possibility
of future regret. “Act fast! Don’t wait!” is a common example of inducing
feelings of anticipatory regret. Image 1 contains an example of this with its #dontcomplicatelife hashtag. Studies
have shown that people are motivated to reduce future regret (Crawford,
McConnell, Lewis, & Sherman, 2002; Hayashi, 2008; Wong & Kwong, 2007). Therefore,
a good way to convince someone that they should comply, is to emphasise the
point that they will regret their decision if they do not.
Multiple sources:
When a person advertises the MLM ‘opportunity’ on a social network such as Facebook,
you will often find comments from other people they have supposedly recruited
(Image 2, 3, & 4). An open discussion about how great they are all feeling ensues.
When more people are saying it, the argument is considered stronger (Harkins
& Petty, 1981; Harkins & Petty, 1987; Moore, Mowen, & Reardon, 1994).
Image 5 shows how this works; a person explains that they want to know more as
they have seen lots of people posting about the opportunity. It appears then to
have been a successful hunt for the pack of MLM hyenas.
Jigsawing:
Although designed for use in the classroom to increase dependence on others to
succeed (thus eliminating racial cliques) (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes
& Snapp, 1978), there is a similar force at play in MLMs. The technique
aims to establish a common goal between people by promoting a supposed
interdependence. Just as it does in the classroom, performance can be increased
which is obviously beneficial for both parties (although disproportionately
more for the recruiter). The willingness of other representatives to comment on
how they love their ‘support’ and ‘family’ with the end goal of luring a new
recruit into the scheme is evidence of this camaraderie (Image 2, 3, & 4).
Celebrity
endorsement/attraction: It is not uncommon to see celebrity endorsements in
the advertising word. Celebrities have a persuasive effect (Silvera &
Austad, 2004), which makes it beneficial for companies to invest in popular
faces (Image 6). Credible endorsers (based upon attractiveness, expertise or
trustworthiness) can also increase the perceived credibility of a brand (Spry,
Pappu, & Cornwell, 2011). A similar phenomenon called the halo effect suggests that people consider attractive people to
be more moral, smarter and have more expertise in a subject (Nisbett &
Wilson, 1977). According to the elaboration likelihood model, these techniques are
most useful on an audience which is not motivated, meaning people are happy to
trust information without requiring too much convincing (Petty, Cacioppo, &
Schumann, 1983).
Image 6
After reading this, it is hoped that you shall be more
informed of the MLM business model and more cautious when reading of friends
and families ‘success’ stories. MLM have the potential to spread like a virus,
leaving people in financially worse states (Hoyle, 2016). This is made worse by
the fact that they were likely put into that position by people close to them
seeking to claw back their own losses.
The overarching message of this post, is to be wary of ‘friends’
proposing these ‘fantastic business opportunities’ to their nearest and dearest.
They need you to join up to make money for themselves, and by doing so, they
have knowingly lured you into the same cycle as them. Who needs enemies when
you have friends like these eh?
References
Ahluwalia,
R., & Burnkrant, R. E. (2004). Answering questions about questions: A
persuasion knowledge perspective for understanding the effects of rhetorical
questions. Journal of Consumer Research,
31, 26-42.
Aronson, E., Blaney,
N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
Burnkrant, R.
E., & Howard, D. J. (1984). Effects of the use of introductory rhetorical
questions versus statements on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1218-1230.
Crawford, M.
T., McConnell, A. R., Lewis, A. C., & Sherman, S. J. (2002). Reactance,
compliance, and anticipated regret. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 56-63.
Forever
Living. (2017). TRAINING. Retrieved
from https://foreverliving.com/page/training/usa/en.
Harkins, S. G.,
& Petty, R. E. (1981). The multiple source effect in persuasion: The
effects of distraction. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 627-635.
Harkins, S.
G., & Petty, R. E. (1987). Information utility and the multiple source
effect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 260-268.
Hayashi, T.
(2008). Regret aversion and opportunity dependence. Journal of Economic Theory, 139, 242-268.
Hoyle, A. (2016).
Can you really earn £350,000 a year
selling aloe vera? As thousands of women join a controversial home-selling
empire, read Candice's very cautionary tale. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3598017/Can-really-earn-350-000-year-selling-aloe-vera-thousands-women-join-controversial-home-selling-empire-read-Candice-s-cautionary-tale.html.
Moore, D. J.,
Mowen, J. C., & Reardon, R. (1994). Multiple sources in advertising
appeals: When product endorsers are paid by the advertising sponsor. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
22, 234-243.
Nisbett, R.
E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious
alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 250-256.
Petty, R. E.,
Cacioppo, J. T., & Heesacker, M. (1981). Effects of rhetorical questions on
persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 432-440.
Petty, R.E.,
Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to
advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10,
135-146.
Silvera, D.
H., & Austad, B. (2004). Factors predicting the effectiveness of celebrity
endorsement advertisements. European
Journal of Marketing, 38, 1509-1526.
Spry, A.,
Pappu, R., & Cornwell, T. B. (2011). Celebrity endorsement, brand
credibility and brand equity. European
Journal of Marketing, 45, 882-909.
Wong, K. F.
E., & Kwong, J. Y. Y. (2007). The role of anticipated regret in escalation
of commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 545-554.
They terk err jerbs!
As pictured above, Britain First claim to be “taking our
country back”. They are however using hatemongering and xenophobia to do so
(Snowdon, 2017). In the recent elections, groups such as Britain First, and the
political part UKIP garnered far more support than most people ever imagined
possible. In a worrying escalation of Islamophobia and racism, hate crimes have
soared (Khan & Watts, 2017). This is not purely a British problem, as the
US have also had a similar uprising under Donald Trump’s reign (Shugerman, 2017).
One major tactic used by groups (and presidents) to stir the
pot, is by feeding information to the public which causes something called psychological reactance. Psychological
reactance is the desire to fight against perceived threats to their freedom (Kornberg,
Linder, & Cooper, 1970). It happens when a person feels that they are being
backed into a corner and must thus react.
In the case of Britain First, UKIP and Donald Trump, their
campaigns were fuelled by claims that the opposition wanted to allow or refused
to curtail certain things such as increased immigration, funding of refugees
from suspect areas (Islamic countries) and the implementation of Sharia Law (Shariatmadari,
2017). This is a motivated approach to manipulate the public into furthering
their own agendas, often racist in nature (Lartey, 2018). The large spike in
psychological reactance can be accredited to these groups, seizing on
opportunities such as terrorism around the globe, preying on people’s fear. Awareness
is crucial, as these agendas have begun to morph into something capable of
erupting into full scale hate wars.
Kornberg, A.,
Linder, D., & Cooper, J. (1970). Understanding political behavior: The
relevance of reactance theory. Midwest
Journal of Political Science, 14, 131-138.
Shariatmadari,
D. (2017). Britain First may be fringe,
but its anti-Islam views aren’t. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/30/britain-first-anti-islam-far-right-muslims.
Shugerman, E.
(2017). KKK leader claims hate group has
grown at record pace since Trump became President. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kkk-trump-membership-rise-grown-record-pace-says-leader-chris-barker-a7905811.html.
Snowdon, K. (2017).
Britain First's Incorrect Use of Animal
Aid's 'Halal Slaughterhouse Footage' Slammed by Campaigners. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/britain-first-animal-aid-halal-slaughterhouse-footage_uk_596ccafce4b0d6341feaa299.
Ouch, right in the feels
Charitable organisations often use guilt inducing imagery or
wording (Hudson, 2013). A study by Basil, Ridgway and Basil (2006) found that
guilt appeals work in a way that induces a sense of responsibility in the
targeted audience. The same study found that responsibility can be increased by
activating pro-social norms. This was done by asking the person to make
donation decisions (whether they will or won’t donate) in the presence of
others. Another of this study’s findings was that empathy is a strong way to enhance
guilt appeals, without pushing so far as to create reactance (which causes the
person to withdraw).
There has been evidence to suggest that although this guilt
approach works, perhaps it is not the most effective method. According to Chang
(2014), the same advertisement which uses an egoistic message (“Giving makes
you happy”) is just as likely to gain donations as an altruistic one (“Your
contribution can help others lead a happier life”). Perhaps more surprisingly,
the egoistic messages provided significantly larger donations!
The UNICEF poster however, is far more interested in
inviting feelings of guilt. It does so by making us overtly aware of how
privileged we are in comparison to the poor young child with its punchy and
short message. As well as the wording, the image of a teary infant looking
straight at us as if pleading for help, is extremely hard to ignore.
Right then, did anybody see where I left my wallet?
References
Basil, D. Z.,
Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2006). Guilt appeals: The mediating effect
of responsibility. Psychology &
Marketing, 23, 1035.
Chang, C.
(2014). Guilt regulation: The relative effects of altruistic versus egoistic
appeals for charity advertising. Journal
of Advertising, 43, 211.
Hudson, S.
(2013). Are emotive appeals effective in
persuading people to give to charity? Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2013/sep/02/effective-emotive-appeals.
If you're someone who watches the occasional YouTube video I am sure I do not need to introduce you to the spectacularly pervasive plague, *sorry product of Grammarly to you. For the past year, I have seen no end to these unskippable beauties popping up just about every time I watch a video. Regardless of the product's actual utility, we need to talk about their advertising. It started with this:
No doubt YouTube's cookie monitoring software cottoned on to the fact I am another procrastinating student. And tailoring your ads to specific people certainly has its uses. As Cialdini (2009) points out, one of the tennants of scoial proof is that we are more likely to be persuaded by something when the people are similar to us. This is of course a useful adaptation and was probably evolutionarily selected for. No need for our ancestors to spend all those hours thinking about whether to eat a certain type of berry, just copy Steve.
In the present day then, producing an advert featuring students for students might seem like a smart idea right? Wrong.
In the Grammarly advertisements, they have deliberately attempted to feign social evidence to tap into our automatic processing. Fortunately for us, when advertisers are lazy about this, we can detect it (Cialdini, 2009). And as they say in their own commercials: 'With Grammarly, it's so easy'.
Straight away I had a twitch with this advert. The 'student' slides into view saying 'it's finals week... so i'll be writing papers'.
NO YOU WON'T. You're an actor and you'll be doing acty things. Also, if you were really a student you would never be talking that loudly, have you seen the kind of death stares you receive for whispering on Floor 4 of Warwick Library? The commercial is so obviously scripted it is almost painful.
Shout out to the 2.3 seconds our 'student' spends typing on her laptop in between a sentence. It must have been something good as her score shot up to 100.
Arguably my favourite moment is when our 'professor' takes one look at the assignment and instantly decides he won't need to check it for errors anymore. Don't you just love it when that happens?
It's frustrating to see someone deliberatley pretending to be a student and share my pain. However, rage levels hit the ozone layer when I saw another Grammarly advert with the same actress in- only this time she's a working professional:
Come on Grammarly you could at least try! This is the exact same lack of tact ued by Italian claquers at Opera performances hundreds of years ago (Cialdini, 2009).
In conclusion, Cialdini calls for people to 'aggressively counterattack' whenever we see advertisers attempting to decieve us in this way. As a fellow student (and this time I actually am) I implore you to join Cialdini's revolution!
P.S recency effects show it's wise to end on a positive so here is a parody advert for Grammarly that ironically, is actually more convicing. Enjoy :)
References:
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (Vol. 4). Boston, MA: Pearson education.
Online trolling is the practice of behaving in a deceptive
or disruptive manner on the internet with no apparent instrumental purpose
(Buckels, Trapnell and Paulhus, 2014). The term internet troll undoubtedly has different
meanings to different people. However, the portrayal of trolls in the mass
media provides a good demonstration of the “horn effect” in social psychology. According to Bishop (2014) your
average tabloid troll resembles the archetypal Disney villain, meaning that
their antisocial behavior i.e. trolling, is associated with a host of other
negative characteristics. Interestingly, a survey of 1215 Canadian Psychology
students (Buckels et al., 2014), found that trolling behaviors were positively
correlated with psychopathy and Machiavellianism, facets of the so called “dark
triad” a constellation of unfavorable personality variables (Furnham, Richards
and Paulhus, 2013). This of course means that for many people trolling
behavior may be indicative of a more global presentation of antisocial
behavior, so perhaps the media were right all along.
Conversely, the media representation of trolls may reflect a
propaganda technique, known as demonization
of the enemy in which the “enemy” is presented as a threatening and evil
aggressor with who has only malevolent objectives (Bond, 2007). The
conventional advice of the internet is characterized by the phrase “don’t feed
the trolls”, meaning that online troublemakers should be ignored rather than
argued with (see, Binns, 2012). The merits of this approach are, of course
debatable and infringe upon our desire for retribution (see, Cialdini, 2009).
However, research has shown time and again, that by legitimizing the dehumanization
of particular groups (regardless of their crimes), we run the risk of inciting
acts of aggression and violence (Zimbardo, 2003).
Self-serving biases, such as the better-than-average effect mean that few of us regard ourselves as
online trolls, and any behavior that would indicate otherwise is conveniently
forgotten or remembered only hazily (see, Alicke and Govorun, 2005; Kouchaki
and Gino, 2016). Anonymous polls suggest that more than ¼ of Americans have engaged
in trolling behavior, although the true figure is likely to be higher (Gammon,
2014). There is no way to defend the actions of online trolls, that is not the
aim of this post, I simply suggest that we examine some of our attitudes
towards trolls and reflect on the psychological processes that might be at
play.
References
Alicke, M. D., & Govorun, O. (2005). The
better-than-average effect. The self in social judgment, 1,
85-106.
Binns, A. (2012). DON'T FEED THE TROLLS! Managing
troublemakers in magazines' online communities. Journalism Practice, 6(4),
547-562.
Bishop, J. (2014). Representations of ‘trolls’ in mass
media communication: a review of media-texts and moral panics relating to
‘internet trolling’. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 10(1),
7-24.
Bond, M. (2007). The Most Dangerous Animal: Human nature
and the origins of war. New Scientist, 195(2619), 51.
Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L.
(2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and individual Differences,
67, 97-102.
Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of
persuasion. New York: Collins.
Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L.
(2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199-216.
Gammon, A.2014. Over a quarter of Americans have made malicious online
comments. YouGov, October 20, 2014.
Zimbardo,
P. G. (2004). A situationist perspective on the psychology of evil:
Understanding how good people are transformed into perpetrators. In A. Miller
(Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil
(pp. 21–50) New York: Guilford.
Journalist Oobah Butler demonstrated the power of social proof when his restaurant became the top restaurant on TripAdvisor - despite not existing. Using fake reviews written by friends and acquaintances, the restaurant soon received booking requests from around the globe.
Pratkanis (2007) explains how social consensus provides informational influence, or social proof, about what to do, as "if others are doing it, it must be correct". It also provides normative influence, as we want to fit in with the groups to which we belong.
As the "reviews" were written by people similar and relatable to those reading them, they are more likely to be believed than if they were written by a food critic or restaurant owner who is dissimilar to the audience (Cialdini, 2007). This can be explained by Festinger's (1954) social comparison theory, which describes how people are more likely to evaluate their opinions in comparison to people they are similar to. Finally, having multiple sources increases influence more than having multiple arguments from one source, leading to more persuasion when the arguments are strong (Harkins & Petty, 1981).
References
Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: Collins.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations, 7(2), 117-140.
Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1981). Effects of source magnification of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(3), 401.
Pratkanis, A. R. (2007). The science of social influence: Advances and future progress. New York: Psychology Press.
Growing up with a parent in the forces, I have learnt that military communities can resemble a second family. The above advert has widely criticized, with former officers such as Colonel Richard Kemp CBE, claiming that it neglects the very people who would be interested in joining. However, I believe that the advert taps into some key tactics used by compliance practitioners.
I have my own ideas about what these tactics are, but I would be intrigued to hear yours.
Please comment below using well justified and persuasive arguments to express your point of view.
"Although the world is full of suffering, it is also full of the overcoming of it." Helen Keller.
Imagine a world, where sighted volunteers
like you and I could help blind and visually impaired people, at the touch of a
button. This vision became a reality in January 2015, when Hans Jordan Wiberg, who is himself visually impaired, launched BeMyEyes.
BeMyEyes is a free smartphone app that
connects a network of over 60,000 blind and visually impaired users with some
800,000 sighted volunteers. The success of the community, as its supporters
like to call it, stems partially from fact that most people enjoy helping
others (Post, 2005). From a psychological standpoint, BeMyEyes has utilized
several of the weapons of influence identified in Cialdini's bestseller, "the
psychology of influence and persuasion” (Cialdini's, 2009).
One such weapon, is the principle of social
proof, i.e. we look towards similar others to determine the correct course of action
when facing uncertainty. A quick visit to the company’s website soon reveals a
plethora of glossy images of smartphone users and a bold display of volunteer
numbers. In the spirit of “Just ask”, perhaps the most powerful persuasive technique
in the psychological literature (see, Hills, 2014), the site also asks it’s
viewers to “Join the community”. The community in this case representing an altruistic
in-group made up of strangers just like you.
If this was not enough to sway the
unsuspecting reader, the site goes on to explain that the types of tasks that “You
as a sighted volunteer” could assist with. By presuming consent the requestor,
has quite surreptitiously increased the likelihood that you the reader, will go
on to download the app (see, Pratkanis, 2007). However, it is also possible that the
app’s major success story arises from the life of its inventor, Hans Jorgen
Wiberg, a 53 year old Dane, who after starting to lose his sight at the age of
25, went on to work and volunteer with the Danish Blind association. A role
which enabled him to become an authority on the needs of visually impaired allowing him to (with help) to influence and change a sighted world.
Post, S. G. (2005). Altruism,
happiness, and health: It’s good to be good. International journal of behavioral
medicine, 12(2), 66-77.
Pratkanis, A. R. (2007). Social influence
analysis: An index of tactics. In A. R. Pratkanis (Ed.), Frontiers of
social psychology. The science of social influence: Advances and future
progress (pp. 17-82). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.
