As an undergraduate at Yale in the early 1960s, my mentor was a Professor of Psychology named Frederick Sheffield. Sheffield had a reputation as one of the most brilliant men the field and one of the leading statisticians in the field. As the years have passed, my appreciation of the man has continued to increase. While during the time that I knew him, he was involved in the study of animal behavior, perhaps his greatest contributions were in the field of social psychology.
During World War II, while he was a graduate student at Yale, he was assigned to a team of psychologists with the task of improving morale. Professor Sheffield told me that these were the best days of his life. When in a war zone he had a uniform with the rank of Colonel. He had a driver and huge resources at his disposal. And he felt his work that he did was important for his country.
The team was headed by Carl Hovland, a Yale Professor and also a brilliant psychologist. When I was at Yale, Professor Hovland had recently passed away at the age of 48. He was spoken of with great reverence in the psychology department. Toward the end of the war the team was tasked with finding the most effective way to persuade the troops that there was still hard work ahead. While Germany had been defeated, it was estimated that it would take as much as two years to defeat Japan.
The team designed two audio messages to persuade the troops: the first message, one-sided, presented only the arguments for a long war. Second message, two-sided, included a brief argument about how the war might be short, though the main point of the message was that the war would be long. Before the messages were deployed, they were tested in a controlled experiment. Eight platoons received the one-sided message, eight platoons received the two-sided message, and eight platoons, the control group, received no message at all. Both the one-sided message and the two-sided message were equally effective. Prior to receiving the message, about 37% of the soldiers believe it would be long. After receiving the message, about 59% of the two experimental groups believed the war would be long, while there was no change in the control group.
What is most interesting is the further analysis of the data. It turned out that for subjects who already believed the war would be long, the one-sided message was most effective. For subjects who believed the world would be short the two-sided message was most effective. Even more important was the interaction with education. For soldiers who had completed high school two-sided message was most effective. For soldiers who had not completed high school one-sided message was most effective.
One theory behind these findings was that when the opposing views were omitted, the audience would rehearse counterarguments while listening to the message. Of course people with more education would have better access to counterarguments and people initially opposed to the persuasive message would have counterarguments fresh in their mind. Thus these groups would be most likely to rehearse the counterarguments. I know that whenever I hear an aggressive, one-sided argument, I rehearse counterarguments vigorously. And I know that I am more likely to change my opinion when confronted with a more balanced two-sided presentation. When I am in a dialogue with someone who refuses to acknowledge counterarguments, I am very resistant to change.
The fact that this research is still influential over 60 years later is amazing. According to prominent scientist Roger Shepard in the Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences (only 50 years later): (http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/biomems/chovland.html)
Following Hovland's death, his attitude change program was characterized as "the largest single contribution [to the field of social communication] any man has made (Schramm, 1963, p. 5). Over thirty years later, it was still deemed "the biggest single force within psychology's communication-relevant attitude-change movement" (McGuire, 1996, p. 43), and as "the gold standard for research in social psychology" (Timothy Brock, personal communication of May 20, 1997). Zimbardo has suggested that the secret of the success of this program lay in Hovland's unique conceptual ability to decompose the complex relations between persuasive communications and attitude change in a way that rendered them susceptible to controlled laboratory experiments. Moreover, by "establishing a structural-sequential mode of the input-mediating-output variables and processes involved, Hovland anticipated the later information processing approach that proved so valuable in cognitive psychology (Zimbardo, personal communication of June 9, 1997).
Reference
Hovland, C. I., A. A. Lumsdaine, and F. D. Sheffield (1965). Experiments on Mass Communication. New York: Wiley.
During World War II, while he was a graduate student at Yale, he was assigned to a team of psychologists with the task of improving morale. Professor Sheffield told me that these were the best days of his life. When in a war zone he had a uniform with the rank of Colonel. He had a driver and huge resources at his disposal. And he felt his work that he did was important for his country.
The team was headed by Carl Hovland, a Yale Professor and also a brilliant psychologist. When I was at Yale, Professor Hovland had recently passed away at the age of 48. He was spoken of with great reverence in the psychology department. Toward the end of the war the team was tasked with finding the most effective way to persuade the troops that there was still hard work ahead. While Germany had been defeated, it was estimated that it would take as much as two years to defeat Japan.
The team designed two audio messages to persuade the troops: the first message, one-sided, presented only the arguments for a long war. Second message, two-sided, included a brief argument about how the war might be short, though the main point of the message was that the war would be long. Before the messages were deployed, they were tested in a controlled experiment. Eight platoons received the one-sided message, eight platoons received the two-sided message, and eight platoons, the control group, received no message at all. Both the one-sided message and the two-sided message were equally effective. Prior to receiving the message, about 37% of the soldiers believe it would be long. After receiving the message, about 59% of the two experimental groups believed the war would be long, while there was no change in the control group.
What is most interesting is the further analysis of the data. It turned out that for subjects who already believed the war would be long, the one-sided message was most effective. For subjects who believed the world would be short the two-sided message was most effective. Even more important was the interaction with education. For soldiers who had completed high school two-sided message was most effective. For soldiers who had not completed high school one-sided message was most effective.
One theory behind these findings was that when the opposing views were omitted, the audience would rehearse counterarguments while listening to the message. Of course people with more education would have better access to counterarguments and people initially opposed to the persuasive message would have counterarguments fresh in their mind. Thus these groups would be most likely to rehearse the counterarguments. I know that whenever I hear an aggressive, one-sided argument, I rehearse counterarguments vigorously. And I know that I am more likely to change my opinion when confronted with a more balanced two-sided presentation. When I am in a dialogue with someone who refuses to acknowledge counterarguments, I am very resistant to change.
The fact that this research is still influential over 60 years later is amazing. According to prominent scientist Roger Shepard in the Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences (only 50 years later): (http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/biomems/chovland.html)
Following Hovland's death, his attitude change program was characterized as "the largest single contribution [to the field of social communication] any man has made (Schramm, 1963, p. 5). Over thirty years later, it was still deemed "the biggest single force within psychology's communication-relevant attitude-change movement" (McGuire, 1996, p. 43), and as "the gold standard for research in social psychology" (Timothy Brock, personal communication of May 20, 1997). Zimbardo has suggested that the secret of the success of this program lay in Hovland's unique conceptual ability to decompose the complex relations between persuasive communications and attitude change in a way that rendered them susceptible to controlled laboratory experiments. Moreover, by "establishing a structural-sequential mode of the input-mediating-output variables and processes involved, Hovland anticipated the later information processing approach that proved so valuable in cognitive psychology (Zimbardo, personal communication of June 9, 1997).
Reference
Hovland, C. I., A. A. Lumsdaine, and F. D. Sheffield (1965). Experiments on Mass Communication. New York: Wiley.
RSS Feed
