I'm not saying that Osama's face is absolutely going to pop into peoples visual cortex at the mere mention of a hurricane (you could be trained to
that extent actually). However, the idea is you learn to fear one as much as the other, and to certain degrees
as one in the same. The latter
is especially relevant with people who have no concept about any of this, while being open to suggestion.
From an evolutionary perspective, human emotions such as fear are usefully considered to be dispositions to action. That is, they may have evolved
from preparatory states evoked by threat cues, in which survival depended on delay or inhibition of overt behavior. In this sense, they derive from
the first stage of defense that is associated with vigilance and immobility, when the organism is automatically mobilized, primed to respond, but not
yet active. A measurable feature of this fear state is an exaggerated startle reflex to any suddenly imposed stimulus. It is an example of what
cognitive psychologists call ‘priming’. That is, a prior stimulus or state raises the activation level of an associated S-R event, for
example, as the prime ‘bread’ prompts a faster reaction time response to the word ‘butter’, or as a depressed person’s associations are
persistently affectively negative.
The idea is the more you're subtlely shown these 'matched pairs', over time, the more this effect will take hold or at least the increase the odds
of succesful conditioning. This is known as Reinforcement and touches on Operant Conditioning.
Originally posted by melatonin
Carrying on the psychological approach, repeating stimuli does lead to lessening of the emotional impact.
During a single session perhaps. And other things come into play such as if it is percieved as a legitimate threat.
Trials and testing aren't necessary.
Easy to say, unless you have actually had to develop conditioned responses in people or change pre-existing attitudes
They're associated being existential risks
Here's another way of looking at it in terms you might be used to:
the images in my example show destruction, fear, helplessness, desperation, and so on. All are linked as existential risks, each a boogeyman. All of
the above easing the association process. Ok, now here's your part: Thru the conditioned reflex concept, in light of the rest, each acts as a
positive feedback loop
in amplifying the others.
Then, in case if the subject is left/right based, there's always the "Sleeper Effect".
Persuasive messages are often accompanied by information that induces suspicions of invalidity. For instance, recipients of communications about a
political candidate may discount a message coming from a representative of the opponent party because they do not perceive the source of the message
as credible (e.g., Lariscy & Tinkham, 1999). Because the source of the political message serves as a discounting cue and temporarily decreases the
impact of the message, recipients may not be persuaded by the advocacy immediately after they receive the communication. Over time, however,
recipients of an otherwise influential message may recall the message but not the noncredible source and thus become more persuaded by the message at
that time than they were immediately following the communication. The term sleeper effect has been used to denote such a delayed increase in
persuasion observed when the discounting cue (e.g., noncredible source) becomes unavailable or “dissociated” from the communication in the memory
of the message recipients.
Next there's the Elaboration likelihood model
, which involves how information is processed.
The ELM distinguishes between two routes to persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route. Central route processes are those that require
a great deal of thought, and therefore are likely to predominate under conditions that promote high elaboration. Central route processes involve
careful scrutiny of a persuasive communication (e.g., a speech, an advertisement, etc.) to determine the merits of the arguments.
Peripheral route processes, on the other hand, do not involve elaboration of the message through extensive cognitive processing of the merits of the
actual argument presented. These processes often rely on environmental characteristics of the message, like the perceived credibility of the source,
quality of the way in which it is presented, the attractiveness of the source, or the catchy slogan that contains the message.
The two factors that most influence which route an individual will take in a persuasive situation are motivation (strong desire to process the
message) and ability (actually being capable of critical evaluation).
With my provided example it rides the razors edge. You see it's crisis material, meaning it increases the odds of "flight" instead of "fight".
Then with the helplessness and desperation (look at the way they reported the earthquake
) aspects it invokes emotional responses meaning it
lessens the ability to intellectually process the doomsday sequence. The result, it would seem, thanks to high odds of peripheral processing
is a softer cognitive substrate for eliciting the conditioned response.
Over enough time and repetition the 'collective unconcsciousness' of the subject will eventually wear down. Then there's the maybe one 3rd of the
population who believes in both forms of terror doomsday. Maybe they should ask themselves how they got that way.
Thus, most of the UK news (sky news) today is about a fire in a hotel that killed a few people. Then, we have the hurricane, followed by a
climate change protest. No earthquake at all. I suppose you could try to make connections between them as well.
Well, actually, which hurricane are you talking about? If it's the one over here I don't see why it's necessary to lump in there, being the UK and
all. But, here goes:
I'd help to see the the fire report, imagine if it was a fire caused by human error and they're reporting it as such, or simply throwing out the big
IF potentially for human error. I imagine if there was room for raw emotion to be reported on they would have, thus framing the viewer into an
irrational-emotional state. Next comes the hurricane report and big talk of WARM waters while throwing around IF's like in the clip I provided. Next
comes the global warming protests, where it seems likely they went ahead and mentoned things like whatever freak weather events have been in the
public eye, perhaps even something about Katrina. Am I gettng warm
If you just want to say that the news is attempting to keep people in a vigilant and fearful state, maybe...
Could also be a tried and tested approach to ratings.
That's surely the case, and it has been for decades. Haven't you read State of Fear?
I've just watched a section of news about the hurricane. That was followed by the sports news. Man City beat Man Utd.
But you're still thinking this would produce a conditioned response, i.e. associating negative with negative. It would just bolster an already
conditioned response, producing no real change.
I accept that terrorism and natural disasters are well-established as negative stimuli and concepts.
Reporting on our hurricane again? How many times are they going to bombard you guys with dramatic weather news from across "the pond"?
In any case, my news example deals with existential risks, which is what they are and they're associated by default for at least that reason alone.
So that should answer your repeated mentioning of them only being "negative" association. Again, they're existential risks.
I still liked that news, and you could mix it with 25 pieces about death and destruction. The footie news would still make me happy
Of course, because it's activating entirely different emotions and neural procceses. Watch alternatring terrorism and global-warming/natural-disaster
clips 24 times in a row and the processes involved have little difference, and whatever difference would blur over enough time, especially if the
'message' was subtle and unacknowledged.
But, you're attempting to go a tad further, no?
I can only speculate on how often pairings between these stressors occurs for the average consumer of Establishment Media, but hopefully some viewers
of this thread may take note and report back over time.
[edit on 19-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]
[edit on 19-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]