Persuasive Wording

This week I chose to discuss the Effects of Question Wording on Responses.  This is important to me because I am in an Intro to Psychology class and in groups we had to design surveys to conduct.  Writing an efficient survey is more difficult than I first thought.  You don’t want to lead the participants to an answer or dissuade them from answering a certain way either.  To do this you must stay away from slanted questions.  A slanted question, as according to the text, is “a question that is written to elicit a particular response.”  For example, most people might be put off by the wording of the following question and therefore answer in a way inconsistent with their true values:

A slanted question:

“Do you believe there should be an amendment to the Constitution protecting the life of the unborn child, or shouldn’t there be such an amendment?”

A better phrasing for the same topic:

“Do you believe there should be an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting abortions, or shouldn’t there be such an amendment?”

The slanted question received 50% of the populations support whereas the second version received only 29%.  Although the topic of the question is the same, the emphasis of each is on different aspects, one on the right of a fetus, and the other on the rights of the mothers to have an abortion. 

So next time you participate in a survey, carefully read the questions and see if your answers are influenced by the wording of the survey. 

Antonia Novello vs Joe Camel

Dr. Novello, former United States Surgeon General from Puerto Rico :) , used cause-and-effect form of inductive reasoning when seeking a solution to the problem of increased smoking among children and teens.  First, she observed that the numbers of teen and children smokers increased dramatically upon the creation of Joe Camel, for Camel brand cigarettes which targeted youth in 1988. To figure out what she could do to stop this drastic increase, she needed to determine the relationship between Joe Camel and smoking rates.  She did this by evaluating the positive correlation between children and teens smoking and the Joe Camel advertisements.  Positive correlation is when the incidence of one event (children and teens smoking) increases when the second one (Joe Camel advertisements) increases. Using that example of cause-and-effect inductive reasoning, she sought a ban on cigarette and alcohol advertisements that targeted youth as well as increasing education on the harmful effects. 

Inductive Reasoning or Dangerous Reasoning?

Inductive arguments only determine that the conclusion is probably true, whereas, deductive arguments claim that the conclusion must be true. 

An example of my own inductive reasoning happened yesterday morning.  I was cleaning my room upstairs and I heard my little Chihuahua mix barking his head off.  He usually barks when people walk into the garage.  I muted my T.V. so that I could listen to what was going on, I then heard the door from my garage that leads into the house trying to open.  My heart jumped and I looked out of my window but didn’t see any cars so I started to get a little worried.  I walked downstairs thinking someone could be trying to break in or it could be my boyfriend.  He has, on many occasions, shown up through the side door to surprise me.  However, this day was different.  I had been texting him and calling him all morning but no response, so I assumed he was still sleeping.  I cautiously walked down the stairs and out the front door, all while thinking I may have to call the cops. Sure enough, as I looked around the corner, I saw the back of his car.  I instantly knew it was him trying to surprise me at the door and when I saw him I told him that I almost called the cops on him and we both had a quick laugh.   

Inductive reasoning breakdown:

Premise one:  Someone was trying to come in through my garage door.

Premise two: My boyfriend sometimes tried to come in through the garage door to try to surprise me. 

Conclusion: It is probably my boyfriend trying to surprise me by coming in the side of the house.

Since inductive reasoning only leads to a conlcusion that is PROBABLY true, my reasoning could have led me to great danger.  I generalized that the garage door trying to open was most likely my boyfriend but in the event that someone was really trying to break in, my generalization would have been a BIG mistake. 

Leadership

As defined by The Essential Guide to Group Communication text, leadership is “the exercise of interpersonal influence toward the attainment of goals.”  Four typical leadership styles are as follows: authoritarian, consultative, participative, and laissez-faire.  Authoritarian leaders control group activities without any input from other members.  The leader simply tells the group what is going to happen, thus frequently causing lower commitment to the task at hand.  Second is the consultative leader; this leader makes decisions based on the thoughts of the other members.  Many group members tend to get frustrated with this type of leadership because they feel their input is overlooked.  The next leadership style is participative.  This type of leader works with the other members to reach decisions through guidance, not control.  The last style of leadership is laissez-faire leadership.  This is when a group does not necessarily have an identifiable leader. 

The above four leadership styles each have their benefits and consequences.  However, as we all were taught from a young age, sharing is key!!  Sharing leadership in small groups happens spontaneously; a leader will emerge other than the known leader.  This is the best way to work in groups because the more skilled members in a certain aspect step up and lead the group in certain tasks. 

Capital Punishment

“Sister Helen Prejean maintains that the death penalty is a violation of human dignity and is contrary to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, ‘who taught us to not to return hate for hate and evil for evil’.”

First, let me say that I am not a religious person, so please forgive me if I make any mistakes.  I think that the death penalty should not be implemented in the United States.  Not only is it very costly, but it is not right for the state to end anyone’s life.  It seems weird to me that religious people would be more likely to support the death penalty because the scriptural passage mentioned above says not to return hate for hate.  Capital punishment is exactly that; what can be more hateful that killing another human being??? I understand that people would like to get revenge, but nothing can be done to change the past.   

Deductive argument:

Capital punishment is an act that returns hate for hate, i.e. killing a killer.

Jesus of Nazareth taught us that the return of hate for hate and evil for evil is wrong.

Therefore, capital punishment is wrong. 

Clouded Judgment

“Sherlock Holmes tells Watson that when it comes to the art of reasoning, many people rely on opinion and unsupported assumptions” rather than “undeniable fact.”  This is very true because when trying to reason, whether it is your experiences or the experiences of others, you subconsciously rule out some aspects and place emphasis on others.  Also, when gathering information about an issue, you may read reports or listen to stories, and this also removes you from the truth.  The purpose of these reports or stories may be to strictly provide information but perceptions vary from person to person and therefore, the information will not be an entirely accurate description of the issue at hand. 

This is a major issue when anyone asks for relationship advice.  My friend regularly tells me the bad things that go on in her relationship.  From arguments to rumors, I’ve heard it all! When she asks me for advice I cannot reason properly because I have only heard her side of the story.  Her interpretation of what happens is definitely different from his.  She leaves out the mean things she does and emphasizes the bad he does.  So the important thing to take away from Sherlock Holmes’ quote to Watson is that it is important to get your information from multiple sources to avoid reasoning that is clouded with and based on opinions and unsupported assumptions. 

Communication Apprehension

I must admit, I suffer from communication apprehension, the fear or anxiety associated with real of anticipated communication with another person or persons, just like roughly 20% of the population.  I, however, seem to have communication apprehension only when I am speaking to or in front of the entire class.  The text, The Essential Guide to Group Communication, lists some issues that communication apprehension brings to group communication.  First of all, group members see you as nervous or less dominant.  Second, you are seen as being less task oriented and less socially attractive.  Further, it is unlikely that you will be seen as a leader amongst the group and most importantly, your contributions are seen to be less valuable. 

There are a few simple ways to address these issues and improve your communication in groups if you experience this debilitating anxiety.  First, take a few deep breaths to help reduce your anxiety.  A second way to reduce your anxiety is to motivate yourself.  You can easily do this by telling yourself “I am going to be awesome and they’re going to appreciate what I have to say.” Another simple key to reducing your anxiety is to practice your speech or prepare yourself for the interaction.  This was you will have an idea of what to say and you will be able to maintain your cool.    

A Boyfriend Over Dignity?

When I read the question about having to stand my ground on an issue despite risking losing a close friend or a job, one issue immediately flew into my mind.  I have been debating sharing this topic with everyone but I finally decided to just go with it; this is anonymous, right? :)

Here goes nothing.  This past summer I was drinking with three, now ex, friends. As we all may know from experience or observation, reasoning and rationality and all else goes out the window for some people, and let me just say, I had never been that kind of drunk in my life.  However, this night was completely different than every other experience I have ever had.  To get to the point, I ended up totaling my car in the process of driving home and it turns out that night I had cheated on my boyfriend of 4 years. 

I’ve heard that girls who regret things in the morning pretend not to know what happened because they were drunk, but in this situation I really had no idea.  I knew right away that something was different and I had to tell my boyfriend I might have done something.  He demanded that I find out exactly what happened so I had to contact my friends I was with and ask what happened.  After the truth came out, that I had indeed cheated on him, he was understandably furious.  He wanted to literally kill everyone who was there that night because they all knew I was with him, they let the cheating happen and did nothing to stop me from driving home. 

However, I knew the blame was not solely on them; I do feel extremely guilty and responsible. I knew that if I let him get his revenge on them that I would never feel right about myself again.  I was facing losing my boyfriend or giving into him and losing my sense of morality.  I knew I had to stick up for myself despite the pressure he put on me to “get them back.”  This may seem like an easy decision to many but for me it wasn’t that easy.  I had become the bad person and he acted like everything would be okay if I just gave him the information.  I love him so much and the temptation of giving into him was there but my critical-thinking kept my opinions strong.  He could have gotten thrown into jail or even prison if he let his anger get the best of him and it would’ve been my fault.  Then, not only would I feel guilty about cheating, I would feel guilty for allowing those people to get hurt and for him getting into trouble.      

We are still together and dealing with the problems I created.  Thanks to standing my ground, he thanks me for preventing more problems and I will never feel that guilt I could’ve so easily brought upon myself.

I hope you are not too quick to judge; it took a lot of courage to publish this post.   

Obama on Same Sex Marriage

President Barack Obama’s position on same-sex marriage is inconsistent with his beliefs in equal rights and opportunities for all people, regardless of their sexual orientation.  This is because if he truly believed in equal rights for all people, he would not oppose legalizing same-sex marriage on any level, including the federal level.  He seems to be on both sides of the issue because he does not flat out say that gay marriage is wrong; neither does he say it is right.  He supports some benefits but not all, which is hypocritical because not allowing for all the same benefits takes away the equality, which he supposedly believes in.  If gays deserve all the rights that heterosexual couples enjoy, why can’t they have the recognition of being a married couple on a federal level? Although I believe he is inconsistent with his view on equality, I am not saying that his position is inconsistent with his religious views.  In response to Nava and Dawidoff, I believe Obama would mention that within his upbringing as a religious man, he is supporting gay marriage to the fullest extent possible.  Also, by giving his support to civil unions and equal rights he truly wants equality for all people.