Februar 2000 Out in the Mountains 21

ORIENTATION OF THE SPECIES:

The Psychology of Persuasion (Or How to Win Support and Influence People)

BY LARRY RUDIGER

o matter

might feel about same-

sex marriage, I doubt
any of us were surprised by
Roman Catholic Bishop
Kenneth Angell’s recent pro-
nouncement.

Speaking for his flock, the
Bishop called for prohibition
ofany civil recognition of non-
heterosexual couples. “Gay
marriage” or domestic partner-
ships, Angeli wants none of it.
Given the prominence (by
sheer number and historical

influence) of his flock, this

may represent the largest vote
to date against the Supreme
Court’s recent ruling.

Even before Angell’s
announcement, I’ve watched
same-sex marriage sympathiz-
ers discuss and debate strategy.
These heated exchanges are

' supremely a matter of opinion,

though to my eyes not always
about what they seem.

Now, I have my own gut
feelings about these things, and
I’m the first to admit they color
how I might marshal evidence
— generally to conclusions that
map on my own convictions
quite neatly.

In prior articles, I’ve talked
about behavior genetics, which
mostly relies on self-reports of
specific behaviors to estimate
the heritability of more general
dispositions. But I am also
trained as a social psycholo-
gist, and it’s evidence from this
research tradition I’d like to
consider this time.

 

Mara Vijups, MD
Erin Rhoades, MD

NMC RURAL HEALTH SERVICES
Specializing in Family Practice
Caring for patients of all ages

SWANTON

868-2454

A L B U R G
797-4414

EN 0 S B U R G
933-5831

Zi

MC

..._..._.__.._..____.
NKDIWESIIRN Munu\L Cm-mi

 
Support OITITI

advertisers!

how one _

Smile, you’re on...

Social psychology is primar-
ily experimental. When a sin-
gle factor in a social situation is
predicted to have a strong
influence on most people’s
behavior, researchers test the
theory. They set up a classic
design, randomly assigning
subjects to experimental and
control conditions, measuring
their behavior, then comparing.
All else being equal, differ-
ences between the experimen-
tal and control groups can be
assumed to be the result of the
tested factor. Competing expla-
nations are ruled out based on
careful design, consistent
results when the procedure is
repeated, and logical similarity
to established findings.

These experiments often
resemble small plays on delib-
erately manufactured “sets,”
using “casts” of experimenters
(often costumed in white lab
coats) and other important sup-
porting players, called confed-
erates. These confederates typ-
ically pretend to also be partic-
ipating in the study. Of nine or
ten people in the room, some-
times only one is not in on the
act.

Often resembling Candid
Camera, these little dramas
have examined a wide range of
topics: aggression, obedience
to authority, response to stress.
Some intriguing work comes
from Italy, most notably from
Serge Moscovici. In his exper-
iments, experimenters and con-
federates put on an elaborate
show. A single participant is

surrounded by individuals he
assumes are just like him — in
most cases, a college student in
search of course credit or a lit-
tle money. The alleged goal of
the exercise: “unstructured”
discussion on a controversial
topic.

What the participant doesn’t
know is that it’s all heavily
rehearsed, and in the end,
rigged. Most in the group will
agree on the issue —the value of
comprehensive oral examina-
tions, the legal drinking age, or
other things college students
care about. But a minority will
disagree with the larger group
in various ways, and this is the
crux of Moscovici’s research.
Dissenters sometimes agree
with each other, presenting a
unified front; other times, they
are deeply divided.

That brings us to the results
most germane to our current
situation in Vermont: it seems
that a “unified front” minority
tends to have a greater influ-
ence on the real ,participant’s
opinion.

These results are consistent
with Moscovici’s observations
of Italy’s lively (and somewhat
chaotic) political landscape,
where many small parties vie
for power. Usually unable to
command a majority, they must
instead rely on techniques to
maximize their powers of per-
suasion.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch
The history of our country’s

civil rights movement presents

a similar example,_ vividly

13
«

described by Taylor Branch in
Parting The Waters. Though
there were serious disagree-
ments among factions seeking
political equity for African

  

the mind that it should, I would
suggest the following.

First, we’d be wise to recog-
nize a distinction between
communication and self-

Most in the ’US saw decidedly perhaps
artificially organized, cool-headed,
seemingly middle-class" citizens who just
happened to be black.

Americans, tactical considera-
tions prevailed. In general,
most in the US saw decidedly —
perhaps artificially — orga-
nized, cool-headed, seemingly
middle-class citizens who just
happened to be black. In other

words, the images suggested a,

somewhat idealized personifi-
cation of widely shared
American values.

Did this maneuver hide

behind-the-scenes disagree-
ment, not to mention the
“diversity” of African

Americans? Absolutely. Would
the results otherwise have been
different, particularly those
critical, early victories like the
Voting Rights Act? It is impos-
sible to know.

Similarly, it is impossible to
predict the most effective strat-
egy for securing any outcome
on same-sex marriage, which
may or may not resemble earli-
er civil rights efforts. However,
to the degree that empirical
evidence might bear on the
issue, and I am obviously of

expression. The latter almost
always feels good, enhancing
our sense of authenticity; it’s
appealing and often fun.

But to invoke a tired and
true example, there are proba-
bly few devout, traditional
Catholics who see the humor
and true affection for Mother
Church evidenced by the
Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence
—those outrageous San
Franciscan men who dress up
as nuns in flamboyant drag. Do
the good Sisters care? Probably
not.

But remember that Rosa
Parks did not spontaneously
decide to sit down on that fate-
ful bus. She had been carefully
selected: a hard-working, dig-
nified woman who could
become a potent symbol of the
injustice of oppression. Was,
say, a black man, recently
released from a prison sentence
for raping a white woman, as
entitled to civil rights? Of

fifilflllifiliiflii :2’: 23