"America is addicted to wars of distraction"

In commercials and advertisements, the marketing committee’s main objective is to try and change the audience’s attitude towards a particular idea or product. According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model there are two routes to persuasion: central route and peripheral route. Majority of commercials are created in the peripheral route knowing that the audience may not always have the ability and motivation to listen to the message carefully, whereas the central route of persuasion deals with details and no distractions. Even though studies show that persuasion has longer effects through the central route, the main focus of advertisements are solely peripheral.  Why is this?

It’s built for our multitasking society. America is always on the go. That’s why they invented soup at hand, go-gurt and drive -thrus. Rarely is our society free from any distractions, whether we are mothers, students, or workers, we are never focused on one take. Especially, where I am from. Everything happens in a New York minute (which is more like 30 seconds).

The average person is exposed to 300-400 advertisements per day. They are posted on bus stops, in newspapers and even in our bathroom stalls. Companies had to come up with a quicker way to get our attention and change our attitude, and with our current pace, the central route was not the way.

In the peripheral route we are more persuaded by other cues such as attractiveness and expertise. Our eyes are brought to bright colors and celebrities. We even are more likely to believe the statistics that “4 out of 5 doctors agree.”

Given that we see about 300-400 advertisements at day, you would think we would spend more money on useless crap but the fact that our persuasion is strictly peripheral, we might be persuaded at the moment to buy their product but we are more likely the to forget about it the next second.

So next time, you see an advertisement in the bathroom stall, take the time and ability to be pay attention and read carefully so you can make an informed decision after all what else do you have to do in there?

“Hey Barbie, wanna go for a ride? Sure, Ken! Hop in…”

With the Post-Valentine’s Day feelings in there air, we tend to reflect on the couples in our lives. We model our relationships around the couples that we hold close to our heart, whether they are the hopeless romantics, such as Romeo and Juliet, or destined young lovers from Boy Meets World, Corey or Topanga.  Regardless of if your “model” couple is real, like Mom and Dad, or fictional, we can’t help but hold our relationships to the same esteem that we hold these “golden” couples.

On my way back to Penn State last weekend, I was in New York City ready to catch my bus, when something else caught my eye. It was the day before Valentine’s Day and there was Ken’s face up on a billboard proclaiming his undeniable love: “Barbie, I want you back.”

Now, for those of you who don’t remember Mattel’s famous doll couple Barbie and Ken “broke up” 48 hours before Valentine’s day in 2004 after their 43 year long companionship. They threw around cliché terms such as that they “needing some time alone” and that they would “remain friends.” But within a couple of months Mattel released Blaine on the market, the hot, young, fun-loving surfer boy who became Ken’s new competition.

For some, this public break-up posed for fake toys might just be a silly marketing scheme Mattel created but to others the split was heart breaking. With divorce rates soaring to over 50%, the young public now has a completely different view of marriage. Is the Barbie and Ken saga adding to this divorce epidemic or is it harmless fun? If Ken and Barbie can’t make it as a couple, who can? I’m torn between two worlds, thinking that this childish mock break-up is just a publicity stunt or the fact that the rumors are tainting the image of fidelity and devotion.

I couldn’t help but laugh at Ken up on that big billboard. He seemed like such a sad soul, begging and groveling for Barbie’s attention, as she was off for 6 years with a much younger version of “Malibu Ken.”

I’m stuck between the two extremes to figure out what the actual rhetoric behind this relationship is saying. But until, I make up my mind, I might as well jump on the bandwagon! I’m rooting for Team Ken! I think Mattel should come up with a new lover in his life…preferably a brunette ;) Come on Ken, you can do better!

"...less is more!"

Rhetorically, Michelle Obama is in an interesting predicament. As the first lady, many other women look to her for advice in many areas, such as motherhood, the environment, and even fashion (similarly as the American public did in the 1960s with Jackie O).  This thrusts her into the spotlight with the opportunity to express her concerns with certain issues. She often has to express her opinions on subjects that are  “touchy”. The exigence, however, is to do this in such a way that she does not come off as “preachy”. Not everybody, especially those in American society, like being told what to do.  It has to be tough being a mother in the limelight. Even more so when you’re dealing with the children of the white house. During an interview she was asked for her reflection on the thought, that if re-election occurs, her children would be in their teen years while her husband holds office. The First Lady pointed out that there are cases where the white house children have turned out to be great individuals, yet the threat and pressure that they won’t be still exists. With the pressure of being a mother in the public eye, Mrs. Obama needs to continue to provide her children with a normal childhood. She does this by keeping her house rules in place as she normally would if she was living more privately. One of her rules: no Facebook. When the interviewer asked her if her children were on Facebook, she mentioned that even if they were permitted by Secret Service (which they are not) she, ”was not a big fan of young kids having Facebook.” I think Mrs. Obama’s wording in this case is of particular interest. Rather than taking the opportunity to delve into the reasons why NO kids should be on Facebook, she explains her personal views for her own children. Motherhood is tricky, because no mother wants to be told they are raising their child the wrong way. Michelle Obama is able to get her beliefs across without shoving her opinion into society. Her reaction to this particular exigence is that she chose to say less, rather than more because in this case less is more (like Charmin). By stating her idea in a less arrogant way she can still suggest mothers reconsider their viewpoints without sounding as if she is chastising them as if they were her own children. It must be hard to have to be aware of the exigence that is presented in all of Civic Life. Afterall, politicians are human and may not always realize the power of exigence in every situation. In this case, I think she does a pretty decent job at harnessing the problem and providing a good resolution.

"...pride yourself as an independent thinker"

“On a scale from 0=very poor to 5=excellent, how well does this describe you?”

“You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic. “

We receive these types of analyses and feedbacks various times throughout our lives. We read them in horoscopes, after personality tests and even some fortune cookies give descriptions of our “unique” dispositions. (Today, my fortune told me I was a kind and generous person)

You may find your self to think, “Wow, this sounds so much like me…how does it know?” Turns out, we aren’t as “unique” as we want to believe we are. Bertram Forer performed the same experiment as above to a group of students and found an average rating to be 4.26. (I had given my own rating a 4.5) He called it the “Barnum Effect”.

I learned about this in my Social Psychology class and began to wonder why? I realized it was the way in which they said it. The statements above are so vague and generalized; that you’d have to be a robot not to have at least felt that way once. Using such words as “at times”, “tend” and “sometimes” the reader only has to think of one occasion where they have felt that way in order to feel as if this applies to them.

“You tend to be worrisome on the inside.”

Have you ever became nervous over your upcoming exam or that paper?

“You prefer a certain amount of change.”

Who really enjoys doing the same mundane things over and over again anyway?

“Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.”

Who did you want to be when you grew up, a baseball player or a movie star?

Now I’m not saying that these instances apply to everyone, but the majority of society has felt this way either once or twice. The degree and amount may differ but the feelings all stay the same. This selective word choice is the rhetoric that many astrologers and personality tests designers use. By being ambiguous in their description, the chance of persuading the reader to believe it applies to them increases. This technique can be found in many speeches and commercials in order to relate to the audience. The audience feels more at ease when they feel as if the speaker understands them. This Barnum Effect allows this to happen. You’d be much more apt to buy a product or believe an idea if you knew its intent was to aid the “specific type” of person you are. It’s tricky, I know. Hence why it was named after a circus owner.

I, for one, was pretty disappointed when I began to wonder if the term Virgo really did apply to me specifically. I decided to continue to delve into my shallow pleasures regardless!! But now, I’m just a little more cautious. I won’t break up with my boyfriend just because he’s an Aries or be suckered into buying a medicine that is suggested for someone who is “sometimes sad and tired.” So don’t feel guilty every time you check your horoscope or feel a sense of pride when you get a fortune cookie that says, “You’re a great person.” It’s just important to be aware of these techniques when it is related large-scale purposes such as products endorsements and politics. So, in the meantime, what’s your sign?

I Believe In Old-Fashioned Letters - Podcast

http://www.zshare.net/audio/86045097df67a4c4/

 

(2008)

 Dominic, Jenny, Me, Jenna, Stephanie, Lisa, Angela (missing cousin Kristen and brother Stephen)