The purpose of this lesson is for you to review key concepts from Lesson 5 (Rhetorical Analysis) in EM SC 240N. I strongly encourage you to at least browse through Lesson 5 [1] of EM SC 240N, though that is not required.
By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:
To Read | Lesson 5 Online Content | You're here! |
---|---|---|
To Do |
|
|
If you have any general course questions, please post them to our HAVE A QUESTION discussion forum located under the Discussions tab in Canvas. I will check that discussion forum regularly to respond as appropriate. While you are there, feel free to post your own responses and comments if you are able to help out a classmate. If you have a question but would like to remain anonymous to the other students, email me through Canvas.
If you have something related to the material that you'd like to share, feel free to post to the Coffee Shop forum, also under the Discussions tab in Canvas.
Please read the following sentences, and think about the message(s) each one is giving you. Imagine that you don't know anything about the person who is making the statements other than what you read. Treat each example separately.
Each of these statements exhibits an attempt to convince you that solar panels are a good idea, but each in a different way. Think about the language devices employed in each of the sentences. What part of your psyche does it attempt to address? Is it logic, emotion, or something else? Are they obvious attempts to gain your agreement, or do they seem reasonable?
Each of these sentences uses a different rhetorical strategy. Rhetorical strategies are the subject of this lesson, specifically the rhetorical triangle. At the root of all of this is rhetoric, so let's start there. This is just a quick video introduction - no need to take any notes or anything like that.
Purdue University's Online Writing Lab [2] (OWL) provides a lot of publicly available resources that are designed to help students and others become better writers. They do not allow embedded videos, so please click on the link below if you'd like to watch.
Rhetoric/rhetorical arguments are designed to convince an audience of whatever the speaker is trying to say, or as Purdue OWL notes, it is "about using language in the most effective way." You most often hear this when referring to a politician, or at least someone acting politically or disingenuously, for example: "That speech was all rhetoric." When you hear or read this phrase, it is meant in a negative way and implies that the speaker was using language to trick the audience into believing the argument they were presenting. As noted in the video above, this negative connotation goes back centuries. But rhetoric has a few connotations, not all of them negative. It can refer to "the art of speaking or writing effectively," and "the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion." These two definitions do not necessarily connote deceit. But it can also mean "insincere or grandiloquent language" (Credit: Merriam-Webster [4]).
So, contrary to popular belief, rhetorical arguments are not always "insincere." That said, in this course, we are most concerned about seeing through rhetoric (rhetoric in the negative sense, that is) to evaluate arguments. Please note that rhetorical strategies can also be deployed visually - for example in images, photos, and video - and audibly. Advertisers do this all the time.
Rhetoric is used to persuade people, and there are three general strategies used to do this: ethos, pathos, and logos. Please watch the video as an introduction to these strategies. We will then go into more detail in each in the following lessons.
Purdue University has an excellent online writing lab. It has a lot of very helpful information, including how to use rhetorical strategies.
Ethos, pathos, and logos are rhetorical strategies, but these are not rhetorical devices. Rhetorical devices are specific methods that can be deployed to make a persuasive argument, whereas rhetorical strategies are general strategies. You have likely picked up on many of these devices when listening, reading, or speaking. Politicians are particularly fond of them. The "Mental Floss" website [7] goes over some of them. If you Google around, you will find more.
Two of the previous sources provide concise definitions of ethos:
Purdue provides the following examples of ways that you can establish ethos. I highlighted a few things that are most important to consider:
- Use only credible, reliable sources to build your argument and cite those sources properly.
- Respect the reader by stating the opposing position accurately.
- Establish common ground with your audience. Most of the time, this can be done by acknowledging values and beliefs shared by those on both sides of the argument.
- If appropriate for the assignment, disclose why you are interested in this topic or what personal experiences you have had with the topic.
- Organize your argument in a logical, easy to follow manner. You can use the Toulmin method of logic or a simple pattern such as chronological order, most general to the most detailed example, earliest to the most recent example, etc.
- Proofread the argument. Too many careless grammar mistakes cast doubt on your character as a writer.
Pathosethoslogos provides the following advice:
Ethos can be developed by choosing language that is appropriate for the audience and topic (also means choosing proper level of vocabulary), making yourself sound fair or unbiased, introducing your expertise or pedigree, and by using correct grammar and syntax."
There are many ways to establish ethos (credibility) with your audience. Some of the most common are listed above, but there are others. What it boils down to is that whether you are speaking, writing, or trying to communicate in any way, anything you do to try to convince your audience that you are a credible, reliable source of information, is ethos. Any time that someone is trying to establish credibility, they are using ethos.
Okay, now let's get back to our original examples. Which of these sentences relies the most on ethos, and why do you think so?
If you said the second example, then give yourself a pat on the back. The language used in that narrative is a clear attempt to establish the author's credibility, in a few ways.
Remember, any way that a speaker or writer can establish credibility and believability is ethos. There are myriad ways of doing this, including using appropriate language, citing legitimate sources of information, dressing appropriately, speaking/writing with confidence, avoiding grammatical and/or spelling errors, and more.
So, now that we have ethos figured out, here's a little curveball: Appeals to ethos can change from situation to situation, even if it is the same speaker or writer trying to convey the same message. The video below from our friends at Purdue University does a really good job of explaining this and goes over ethos in general as well.
The narrators sum up ethos nicely by stating that: "In every rhetorical situation, ethos means a quality that makes the speaker believable." This "quality" can and does change all the time. Even if you don't have the credentials that render you credible on the topic, you should do your best to establish credibility by doing things like using reliable sources, proper language, and so forth. You've probably heard the truism that as a speaker or writer you need to "know your audience." Establishing ethos is one of the reasons why. You want your audience to believe you, and ethos can help make that happen. Politicians are particularly (or notoriously, depending on whom you ask) good at doing this. An example of this can be seen below.
Notice the stark difference in physical appearance in the photos of Barack Obama above. What messages is he sending with regards to ethos? The left photo shows the classic "sleeves rolled up" look, which politicians use to speak to "regular folks," usually in public settings like fairs, construction sites (they'll also don a hard hat for this), local restaurants, and so on. The ethos-related messaging is something like: "Hey, I'm just a regular, hard-working guy like you. I understand your problems." But by wearing a dress shirt instead of, say, a polo shirt, an air of authority and professionalism is still presented.
The photo to the right presents a much different attempt at ethos. He is projecting an image of power and authority by wearing a suit and tie, being the only person in the shot, and sitting in a well-appointed office. Even his posture is different than the other photo. Note that both an American flag and flag with the Presidential Seal is in the background. Both project authority, among other things. Do you notice anything else in the background? Do the family pictures convey a message? This is a subtle reminder that he has a family with two young children, and thus is relatable (this is probably also an example of pathos).
It can be easy to view ethos as a way to "trick" audiences into being persuaded by someone. This can certainly happen and often does. This is a common problem with politicians, as they never want to appear not credible. But it is important for you to know that ethos can be legitimately established. Knowing as much as possible about the source of information is an important aspect of determining credibility. For example, if I want to know about drought conditions across the U.S. [12] I refer to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [13] since I know that monitoring water conditions is one of their focuses and that they are tasked with presenting an unbiased, scientific perspective. In short, I know that they are credible.
If the Administrator of NOAA [14](one had not been confirmed yet [15], as of September 2018) was to give a speech or write an article, (s)he would be remiss if (s)he did not let the audience know her/his position. (S)he has credibility, but still may need to establish ethos. Doing this does not mean that (s)he is trying "trick" anyone, but it does mean that (s)he is trying to strengthen her/his argument, which if you recall is the purpose of rhetoric. Ethos is only established if the audience thinks that you and/or your argument, is credible, and that can be done without being dishonest or "tricky" in any way.
Describe one specific example of something that could establish OR compromise ethos, depending on the audience.
Please watch the commercials below before continuing.
What was your reaction to each of these videos? Was your reaction to each similar in any way? Different? If you have not already, take a moment to think about how each commercial tried to persuade you through its emotional content.
Please click on the link below for an explanation of pathos.
As noted in the video, pathos can be defined as "the emotional quality of the speech or text that makes it persuasive to the audience." Though most often associated with sympathy, sadness or similar "sad" emotions, pathos can utilize the full range of human emotion, including anger, joy (e.g., through laughter or inspiration), frustration, suspicion, curiosity, scorn, repulsion, jealousy, desire, compassion, hope, love, and more.
Please take a few minutes and think about all the ways that the commercials at the top of the page attempt to elicit an emotional response. Do these attempts make the commercials more persuasive? Why or why not?
The McDonald's commercial uses one of advertising's favorite pathos tools - the baby [19]. Babies tend to elicit all kinds of positive emotions - e.g., happiness, sympathy, love, and compassion. When in doubt, find a way to put a baby (or puppy) in your advertisement! (No, seriously. Next time you see some advertisement, see how often a baby or puppy appears.) The commercial also uses humor and (for parents, anyway) empathy. Even the music evokes pathos. Note that the baby is essential to the plot of the commercial, but I submit that (s)he has absolutely nothing to say about whether or not I should eat at McDonald's. Pathos does not need to be logically consistent with the rest of the work. It is meant to play on the audience's emotion(s). This is one thing that distinguishes the first ad from the second.
The second ad uses kind of an odd mixture of suspense, dread, and humor to get its point across. The humorous aspect in and of itself has little connection to the product. (It should be noted that there is some humor in the first commercial as well, e.g., the girl hurriedly sliding over the counter in the middle of it.) However, the negative emotion created by the man's reaction to the cable bill and the woman's to the telemarketer could be said to have a direct connection to the real-life experience of issues related to cable TV. Of course, this is all seriously overdramatized (at least for me, but I suppose everyone reacts to their bills in their own way), but milder versions of the emotions expressed are not far-fetched.
The third ad uses pathos (sympathy, sadness, anger, etc.) to get its point across, but the pathos is very much consistent with the message of the video. Speaking for myself, the imagery used in the third video makes it much more impactful than an article providing statistics about how parents' behavior can negatively impact children. In other words, the pathos served its purpose.
I consider the pathos in the McDonald's ad to be "fake pathos," which was described in the video from Purdue. From my perspective, the McDonald's ad is a clear attempt at emotional manipulation (though I don't think they want the viewer to think that), and thus compromises the ethos of the company because it calls into question their credibility. Call me a cynic, but I don't think that the goal of making the ad was to spread joy and laughter. As the folks from Purdue mentioned, that is the risk you run if your pathos is not genuine. The Sony commercial is overdramatic, but it's so "over the top" that it's quite clear that it is done in jest and (again, speaking for myself) does not compromise ethos. Regardless of how genuine or fake the pathos is, it is still used to create an emotional response. To a large extent, the impact on ethos is subjective.
Pathos is the most commonly used rhetorical strategy in advertising (both print and video) because it is often relatively easy to do with imagery. See below for an interesting example from the World War II era.
Pathos can also be conveyed in writing. As noted in the video, this often boils down to word choice, in particular, adjective choice. In fact, word choice often provides the reader with insight into the motivations of a writer.
The two articles below are about the same issue - the revised "Clean Power Plan [21]" announced by the Obama Administration in August of 2015, which has since been revoked by the Trump Administration. This plan was designed to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants in an effort to "take real action on climate change" by requiring states to meet emissions standards set by the federal government. This would impact some states more than others - states who get a high percentage of their electricity from coal would be particularly impacted. As you can well imagine, this is not without controversy. When reading the articles below, pay special attention to word choices that can elicit emotion, especially when other, more neutral words could have been used. Note that both are from reputable websites, but that both are opinion pieces.
Here is another short article about the Clean Power Plan. See if you can pick up on any use of pathos from the author, or not.
Was pathos used by the author? The only instances of pathos are used to describe what other people are saying - e.g., "slashing jobs," "driving up prices" - the author himself writes dispassionately about the topic. This demonstrates good reporting, using more ethos and logos (see next section) to persuade the audience.
Add and/or change some words from the Time Magazine article to evoke more pathos in the following paragraph. Have some fun with it!:
"In a report released last week, public policy professor Marilyn Brown found that boosting renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power would reduce energy costs in the long run as they become more readily available. Even if energy costs did go up in the short run, she argued that would cause consumers to invest more in things like energy-efficient appliances, which would again lead to lower electricity bills over time."
Please note that I am not advocating one opinion over the other on this topic, nor am I saying that either of the authors is telling untruths. I am merely pointing out word choices that convey pathos. Perceptive readers will pick up on such word choices, which may compromise ethos. Pathos can be an effective persuasive technique, but generally only if the reader agrees with the author's arguments. As critical thinkers, you should be skeptical of anyone that uses pathos in such a way that appears to try and persuade you to believe one thing or another, whether or not you agree with the overall point.
Finally, back to the statements at the beginning of this lesson. Which one is most pathos-filled?
Of course, the last one is the correct choice. The use of children's suffering and in particular the use of the word "innocent" are both meant to elicit pity, and ultimately sympathy. Even if it is true, the statement is unnecessarily emotive. I could have just kept to the facts and stated that said power plant has been shown to cause asthma problems for children. This is a strong reason to be concerned. It is still an example of pathos but does not lay it on quite as thick.
Logos can be thought of as "the logical quality of a speech or text that makes it persuasive" (Credit: Purdue University Online Writing [26]Lab [27]). Often this is straightforward - when you read, hear or see an argument, ask yourself if it makes logical sense. Is the reasoning sound? Does the author make any unfounded conclusions? Is she confusing cause and effect or coincidence with causality? All of these can contribute to, or subtract from, logos.
The folks at the Purdue Online Writing Lab provide a good explanation of logos.
It is very important to note that logos is not necessarily how logical (sound) or accurate (true) the argument is. It is the attempt at logic made by the way the argument is structured. Of course, a sound and true argument is more likely to establish logos, but it depends on the perception of the audience. Examples of how to establish logos include:
In short, anything that appeals to the audience's sense of logic (as opposed to emotion or the author's credibility) is considered logos.
As noted in the reading above, two common ways of doing this are through inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning takes a specific example or examples, then assumes that a generalization can be made based on that example or those examples. In other words, inductive reasoning goes from the specific to the general. The following are examples of inductive reasoning:
Inductive reasoning can be correct or incorrect (the first example above is correct, and the other three are not, by the way) - it is up to the audience to determine whether or not the logic is valid. But inductive reasoning is an attempt at logos, irrespective of its validity. The persuasive effectiveness of logos depends on a myriad of factors and can change from audience to audience. The same goes for deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the application of a general belief, and applying it to a specific example, i.e., it goes from the general to the specific. Some examples of deductive reasoning are below:
Like inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning can be false (neither of the above statements can be verified, but they can certainly be false), even if they are sound. If I've seen hundreds of swans and they have all been white, then assuming that the next swan I will see will be white is sound reasoning based on my experience, but it may be false because there are other colors of swans out there. Again, it is up to the audience to determine whether or not the logic is sound and/or true, but it is an example of logos either way.
As is the case for pathos and ethos, the effectiveness of the rhetorical strategy depends on many factors, and can (in fact, often does) change from audience to audience. With logos, sometimes seemingly sound arguments are neither sound nor true. This is referred to as a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are encountered all of the time, and you may even use them, accidentally or otherwise. Logical fallacies will undermine your persuasiveness if they are found by the audience, and in turn, impact your ethos as well as your logos. The reading from Purdue linked to previously goes over some of these arguments and provides some examples. There are many possible strategies, sometimes known as "logical appeals," to making a logical argument. Some of them can be seen in the reading below.
Dr. George H. Williams, Associate Professor of English at the University of South Carolina, put together some good examples of logical strategies. Please read the "Logos" section in the reading below.
Given all of this, which of the examples below are the strongest attempt at logos? Do any of the other sentences exhibit logos?
The first sentence is a pretty weak attempt at persuasion. The second example is really just an opinion, with an attempt at ethos. You could say that some attempt was made at logos because the argument is structured in a logical way (self-introduction, demonstrates similarity to you, then offers an opinion). The fourth one is similar in logos to the second one - it has a logical structure - but it is much stronger on pathos. The third example is the strongest. The argument follows a logical flow of statements. Something of an "either/or" argument is presented when the speaker states that "there is no better way to save money and get clean electricity." It's subtle, but inductive and deductive reasoning is used. Because the speaker is happy with their work, it is assumed that everyone will be happy (inductive), including you (deductive).
If you make a true argument with impeccable logic, it will establish logos.
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) It depends
Watch the video below and see if you pick up on any rhetorical strategies.
So, what did you find?
This commercial is filled with pathos. The babies (are some children?) are meant to evoke happiness/warmth/etc. The song is jaunty and catchy - I don't know about you, but I actually like it. The imagery (other than the "bad" gas stations) is colored with pastels, giving it a very soft look. The BP gas pump is whistling(!) and the kids are smiling after they go to the BP station. There is a small attempt at humor at the end (the "baby" part of "gas stations, a little better, baby"). All of this is pathos.
The only thing I could detect was at the end when BP put its brand on the screen "Beyond Petroleum." This is a weak attempt at establishing credibility, and I imagine not purposeful. They do that at the end of every commercial. There is no scientific information or even scientific-sounding information. No people in lab coats or statistics cited. Really, very little in the way of ethos.
There is not much in the way of logos either. The story does have a logical progression - happy kids run out of gas, pass gas stations with inferior gas, kids refuse the "bad" gas, then find a BP station and end up happy and high-fiving. I know, this story is ridiculous on its face, but it does tell a story with some logic to the structure. BP is also saying that their gas is better, or at least a little better. You could also say that showing wind turbines at the end of the commercial is an attempt to associate renewable energy with BP, so perhaps the audience might think that BP supports wind turbines. This is a bit of a logical leap but could be considered logos.
There are a number of rhetorical strategies being deployed in this commercial, which to be honest, is to be expected. Please note that this is not meant to single out BP - as noted earlier in this lesson, print and video advertising is rife with rhetoric, pathos in particular. But is there anything that does not quite "sit right" with you when watching the video? Does it feel like part of the story is missing? Anything odd about an oil company using so much green imagery?
This article provides a good introduction to what greenwashing is and how to spot it. Please read before continuing.
Greenwashing can be thought of as:
So, why would a company spend the time and money to convey a green image, and risk being viewed as insincere? As you might have guessed, it's good for business. Investopedia notes that: "The general idea behind greenwashing is to create a benefit by appearing to be a green company, whether that benefit comes in the form of a higher stock price, more customers or favored partnerships with green organizations."
Being (or at least putting on the appearance of being) "green" or sustainable has become a very good marketing strategy. Think about all of the times you've seen the term "green" or "sustainable" associated with a product or process. It is happening in basically all sectors of the economy - food, energy, transportation, housing, business, cleaning products, events, sports stadiums, and even fashion. Business pursuing sustainability is not a bad thing. If we are going to achieve a sustainable future, the business community will have to be on board, if not leading the way. The problem is when a business is using sustainability more as a marketing ploy than a legitimate attempt at addressing sustainability.
So, how do you know if a company is making a legitimate attempt at addressing sustainability? In short: it's complicated. The folks in the Greenwashing Index offer some good suggestions on how to investigate claims (see the "How Do I Spot It?" section in the reading):
The best way to fight greenwashing is to become educated about sustainability and take the time to learn about companies.
The video below illustrates some facts about BP that could be found with a little research.
Even though BP is not directly making any claims other than being "a little better," the rhetorical strategies outlined above are used to indicate the company's "green-ness." To be fair, BP has been one of the more aggressive oil companies in regards to renewables. According to Bloomberg Business [32], they achieved their goal of investing $8 billion in renewables between 2005 and 2015. They heavily invested in wind farms, though they have recently put many of them up for sale. They had a solar division for decades, and only recently shut it down. They are still fairly heavily invested in biofuels. Whether or not it's wise for BP to invest in renewable energy may be debatable [33], but the point is that renewables are a tiny sliver of their business, so focusing marketing on that aspect is greenwashing.
You may be thinking "What are they supposed to do - advertise the negative climate change implications of their business?" That would be a fair question. But it is possible to be a little more reasonable in the message the company sends. If they oversell their "greenness," it is greenwashing.
This article from the Worldwatch Institute provides some examples of greenwashing, and some tips for how to avoid it.
Greenwashing is not only used by energy companies. Watch the ad below and see if you can pick up on any rhetorical strategies, and think about whether or not it is greenwashing (hint: think about what you know of the electricity industry from Lesson 1).
Okay, one more example. Once again, keep an eye out for rhetorical strategies.
You probably figured out that this last one is a parody (a pretty funny one, if you ask me). But it actually makes some really good points by bringing light to the touchstones that many advertisers put in their commercials to persuade you. Again, this is not meant to single out the petroleum and plastic industries, as these techniques are used by many companies. But it is the only parody video I know of.
Again, the best way to detect greenwashing is to learn as much as possible about sustainability and to research companies' claims. The best way to reduce the incidence of greenwashing is for consumers to push back against companies that do it. By "voting with your dollars" you hurt profits, which is a good way to get a company's attention.
Hopefully, it's pretty clear what greenwashing is, and how to spot it. But why does it matter? Of course, advertisers are not telling us the whole truth, and are just trying to get us to buy their products. After all, that is literally their job (the part about getting us to buy their stuff is, anyway). The main problem with greenwashing is that it can trick people into doing things that they think is promoting sustainability, but it is actually not, or worse - it is promoting things that are bad for sustainability.
Most often, the best way to address sustainability is to not buy anything at all. But given that it's nearly impossible to go through life without buying things and that consumer spending constitutes somewhere around 70% of U.S. GDP [35], making wise consumer choices is important. Greenwashing makes this much more difficult.
Why would a company risk being viewed as one that greenwashes?
Hopefully, by now you see that there are a number of rhetorical strategies available to help convince people of an argument. Though this can be seen as manipulative in many cases, often times it does not involve actual lying. But what is lying, exactly? Merriam Webster's online dictionary [37] provides two relevant definitions of a lie:
lie (intransitive verb)
- to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
- to create a false or misleading impression.
Seems pretty cut-and-dry, but for the purposes of this lesson, it is helpful to know that there are different types of lies. The three most commonly referred to are lies of commission, lies of omission, and lies of influence, aka character lies. The reading below neatly summarizes these and provides some examples.
These three types of lies are well-known, and there are many readings that illustrate them. This one from Vanessa Van Edwards is very concise and offers a number of examples. I suggest going through the examples she provides to test your understanding.
The three types of lies are as follows, as described in the reading above:
Now that you have a good idea of what each of these three types of lies entails, take a second to think about which type of lie fits which of Webster's definitions above.
Try and think back to the very brief "Economics 101" lesson that was part of the explanation for externalities. If you recall, I noted that most economic decisions are based on weighing the private benefit against private cost in an effort to maximize private benefit (remember the thrift store table?). This effectively summarizes the neoclassical economic model we've been using in the Western World for the past 150+ years, and it has changed very little in that time. When economics models people's decisions in this manner, the generic person in the model is often referred to as "Economic Man" or "homo economicus," the latter of which is an obvious play on the term homo sapiens. Economic Man was described by Craig Lambert in Harvard Magazine [39] thusly:
Economic Man makes logical, rational, self-interested decisions that weigh costs against benefits and maximize value and profit to himself. Economic Man is an intelligent, analytic, selfish creature who has perfect self-regulation in pursuit of his future goals and is unswayed by bodily states and feelings.
As Lambert says, this is the "standard model...that classical and neoclassical economics have used as a foundation for decades, if not centuries." Most economic models are based on this assumed behavior, but there is at least one major problem with this. Lambert sums up the problem concisely: "But Economic Man has one fatal flaw: he does not exist."
So what does he mean by this?
There are many more examples, as you will read below. But the question is, how do we include this type of irrational behavior into economic models? In a more general sense, it begs the question: "How can we explain such behaviors?" Enter Behavioral Economics. Some of the principles of Behavioral Economics are described below by Alain Samson in The Behavioral Economics Guide 2015 [40]. (I added the emphasis in bold.)
In last year's BE Guide, I described Behavioral Economics (BE) as the study of cognitive, social, and emotional influences on people's observable economic behavior. BE research uses psychological experimentation to develop theories about human decision making and has identified a range of biases. The field is trying to change the way economists think about people’s perceptions of value and expressed preferences. According to BE, people are not always self-interested, cost-benefit-calculating individuals with stable preferences, and many of our choices are not the result of careful deliberation. Instead, our thinking tends to be subject to insufficient knowledge, feedback, and processing capability, which often involves uncertainty and is affected by the context in which we make decisions. We are unconsciously influenced by readily available information in memory, automatically generated feelings, and salient information in the environment, and we also live in the moment, in that we tend to resist change, be poor predictors of future preferences, be subject to distorted memory, and be affected by physiological and emotional states. Finally, we are social animals with social preferences, such as those expressed in trust, altruism, reciprocity, and fairness, and we have a desire for self-consistency and a regard for social norms
It's worth noting that the 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to Richard Thaler, who is considered one of the fathers of Behavioral Economics. Here is an article from The Atlantic ("Richard Thaler Wins the Nobel in Economics for Killing Homo Economicus") [41]that explains some of his theories, if you are so inclined. These theories are starting to hit the mainstream!
Read the Introduction to the Behavioral Economics Guide 2015 by Dan Ariely. This can be found in the link below, and in Canvas in the Lesson 5 Module.
The Behavioral Economics Guide provides an excellent introduction to this topic, but the following sums it up pretty well:
- "...if people were simply perfectly rational creatures, life would be wonderful and simple. We would just have to give people the information they need to make good decisions, and they would immediately make the right decisions. People eat too much? Just give them calorie information and all will be well...People text and drive? Just let them know how dangerous it is. Kids drop out of school, doctors don’t wash their hands before checking their patients. Just explain to the kids why they should stay in school and tell the doctors why they should wash their hands. Sadly, life is not that simple and most of the problems we have in modern life are not due to lack of information, which is why our repeated attempts to improve behavior by providing additional information does little (at best) to make things better.
- There are lots of biases, and lots of ways we make mistakes, but two of the blind spots that surprise me most are the continuous belief in the rationality of people and of the markets. This surprises me particularly because even the people who seem to believe that rationality is a good way to describe individuals, societies and markets, feel very differently when you ask them specific questions about the people and institutions they know very well. On one hand, they can state all kinds of high order beliefs about the rationality of people, corporations, and societies, but then they share very different sentiments about their significant other, their mother-in-law (and I am sure that their significant other and mother-in-law also have crazy stories to share about them), and the organizations they work at.
The main thing Ariely is trying to get at here is that people make decisions that are irrational and/or are not good for their own well-being all of the time, and if you ask them they admit it. Yet, modern economic models assume that people always act rationally and in their own self-interest. He provides a lot of examples of this, including texting while driving, overconsumption of alcohol, overindulging in social media, over-eating and more. The point is that there are a lot of damaging behaviors that people engage in despite "knowing better." This is indicative of something being amiss in economic models.
You may be wondering how this all fits into this week's lesson. Okay, here goes: As it turns out, though the field of Behavioral Economics is only recently gaining steam in academics, and to a lesser extent public policy, advertisers have known about irrational behavior for decades. Though they did not call it Behavioral Economics, they have been using its principles to sell stuff to people. And if you ask the right person, they will openly acknowledge this.
Lucky for you, the good folks at Freakonomics Radio [43] have interviewed such a person, and some others familiar with this topic in a recent show. In a more general sense, Behavioral Economics provides insight into how people can be influenced to act irrationally, and even against their own interests. The applications go well beyond advertising! I'm looking at you, in particular, politics. If you have time, I strongly suggest listening to or reading the podcast in the box below. It's done in a really engaging way and is full of good information.
When reading or listening to the show below, pay special attention to the terms social norming, loss aversion, positivity, and perception of scarcity. Note this telling quote from one of the key players in this podcast, and who says it: "The problem with economics is that it’s designed for the perfectly rational, perfectly informed person possessed of infinite calculating ability. It isn’t really designed for the human brain as it is currently evolved."
In the podcast, Dubner interviews Rory Sutherland, vice chairman in the U.K. of Ogilvy and Maher, a global marketing and advertising firm. Sutherland is an avowed proponent of behavioral economics (BE) and makes it clear that the advertising agency has been using BE principles for decades, though they never had a specific name for it. The following are a few important elements from the podcast. (There is a LOT more good information, by the way!):
Hopefully, next time you are looking at advertisements, listening to politicians, or even just listening to others speak, you will pick up on techniques like social norming, loss aversion, positivity, and perception of scarcity.
By now you should be able to:
You have reached the end of Lesson 5! Double-check the to-do list on the Lesson 5 Overview page [47] to make sure you have completed all of the activities listed there before you begin Lesson 6.
Links
[1] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/emsc240/node/414
[2] https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIESu4yXco4
[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric
[5] http://pathosethoslogos.com/
[6] https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/establishing_arguments/rhetorical_strategies.html
[7] http://mentalfloss.com/article/60234/21-rhetorical-devices-explained
[8] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rhetorical_Triangle.jpg
[9] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxshtUjnZM0
[10] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Barack_Obama_in_New_Hampshire.jpg
[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#/media/File:President_Barack_Obama_speaking_in_the_Oval_Office_06-15-10.jpg
[12] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/nadm/
[13] http://www.noaa.gov/
[14] http://www.
[15] http://www.noaa.gov/topic-tags/noaa-administrator
[16] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/
[17] https://www.flickr.com/photos/jollyboy/1071649711
[18] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekHEUzpiEZw
[19] https://mom.me/baby/13814-50-best-baby-memes/item/1-parenting-truth/
[20] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ride_with_hitler.jpg
[21] http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants
[22] http://kiucenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/WSJ-Opinion-reClimate-change-putsch.pdf
[23] http://kiucenergy.com/2015/08/wsj-opinion-reclimate-change-putsch/
[24] http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/final-clean-power-plan-recognizes-strong-role-for-renewable-energy-in-cutting-emissions-0514#.VceKi_lVikp
[25] http://time.com/3986383/clean-power-plan-costs/
[26] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zCutT8QyJo
[27] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zCutT8QyJo
[28] http://georgehwilliams.pbworks.com/w/page/14266873/Ethos-Pathos-Logos-The-3-Rhetorical-Appeals
[29] https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/04/
[30] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/greenwashing.asp
[31] http://www.greenwashingindex.com/about-greenwashing/
[32] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-19/bp-ends-renewables-energy-target-after-8-3-billion-spend
[33] http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/21/its-ridiculous-to-expect-shell-and-bp-to-invest-in-green-energy/
[34] https://web.archive.org/web/20181013001914/http://blogs.worldwatch.org/greenwashing-green-products-trying-trick/
[35] https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/january-2012/dont-expect-consumer-spending-to-be-the-engine-of-economic-growth-it-once-was
[36] http://www.qscores.com
[37] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie
[38] http://www.scienceofpeople.com/2014/08/different-types-lies/
[39] http://harvardmagazine.com/2006/03/the-marketplace-of-perce.html
[40] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/emsc240/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.emsc240/files/The%20Behavioral%20Economics%20Guide%202015.pdf
[41] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/10/richard-thaler-nobel-economics/542400/
[42] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/emsc240/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.emsc240/files/The%20Behavioral%20Economics%20Guide%202015%20-%20Introduction.pdf
[43] http://freakonomics.com/
[44] http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-maddest-men-of-all-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
[45] http://freakonomics.com/2015/02/26/the-maddest-men-of-all-full-transcript/
[46] http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/SB/BehavioralChangeTheories/BehavioralChangeTheories7.html
[47] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/emsc470/812