Cognitive Dissonance in American Voters

 I wasn't going to post this because I didn't want to ruin Trump's chances of winning. Or at least be accused of trying to do that. I do however find it amusing that any questioning of the man generates such hostile responses from people. I have been called a liberal troll, a never Trumper, a commie and a cook for questioning some of Trump's actions. For four years we sat and listened to this nonsense about a brilliant 4-D chess game and even now, some people are still making that claim. What we were ultimately left with after four years of Trump was a weakened second amendment and a voter base that was seemingly ok with the most constitutional president ever violating expost facto laws and making people a felon for owning a piece of plastic. That is the very definition of cognitive dissonance. 

Cognitive Dissonance in American Voters

 

 

This paper will focus on the attitudes of American voters in relation to their preferred candidate in the upcoming 2020 presidential election. Many American voters are fiercely partisan and will vote for the party they identify with whether the candidate in question truly espouses the values of the voters or not. American elections are known to be highly competitive, with focused messages meant to influence not only a party’s own political base, but what is believed to be the needs and desires of the American people. It is also a common belief of the American electorate that candidates will say what they need to get elected and do the exact opposite once in office. This paper will examine  the role that cognitive dissonance theory and confirmation bias plays in determining the actions of voters by comparing beliefs pertaining to their preferred candidate, the actions these candidates take after winning an election and why they are still largely supported.

 

Introduction

 

The 2020 presidential elections are among us. Americans are seemingly more polarized and divided than ever before in their support for their preferred political party. According to Edwards, (2017) the divide between Republicans and Democrats on fundamental issues concerning the governing of America is at a twenty-three-year high. Americans have become more ideologically rooted in their beliefs and less likely to share in each other’s respective views (Edwards, 2017). Issues like homosexual marriage, women’s rights, racial equality, marriage and family, abortion and religion are hot contentious issues which divide the two parties from an ideological perspective (Pew Research Center) Other issues like the right to keep and bear arms also keep Americans from coming together. The left’s support of gun control is reaching unprecedented levels (Godfrey, 2020). Gun control is a good example of partisan divide because in this writer’s opinion, the second amendment defines the responsibility required to maintain freedom. In America, the right to life is enshrined as a founding value, implying the responsibility to defend your life, is yours.  Unfortunately, neither candidate in the current election truly lives up to the values their voters believe in. For instance, Donald Trump, whether his voters want to admit it or not, has done more to advance gun control than President Obama by banning a devise known as a bump stock (Savage 2018). Joe Biden, despite his rhetoric on fairness and equality, helped write the crime bill that caused many of the problems he promises to fix today (Purdom, 2019). Despite these facts, Americans are still loyal to their preferred candidate, believing they have shared values. This type of partisanship results from voting for an individual’s preferred party over many years, based on experience and decision making that reflects the voter’s convictions (Fiorina, 1981). Cognitive dissonance theory and the idea of confirmation bias may explain this loyalty to American’s preferred political party, despite the obvious contradictions between promises and actions taken.

 

Defining Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a theory first proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957. The theory attempts to explain contradictions between a person’s attitudes and beliefs, and the way they may behave. In most cases, there is a steady consistency between behavior and beliefs (Festinger, 1957). There are times when the inconsistency is so great however, that as Festinger (1957) says, it demands the attention of social scientists because the behavior and the belief contrast so strongly.  It is the type of inconsistency in behavior that does not align with the person’s own beliefs, or knowledge pertaining to such a behavior that defines cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957).  Festinger (1957) uses smoking as an example. The smoker may know his or her own risk of contracting lung cancer may be great yet chooses to keep smoking. Cognitive dissonance occurs when the individual attempts to rationalize away their own blaring inconsistencies, due to the psychological discomfort the contradiction causes (Festinger, 1957).  

Dissonance occurs quiet frequently in most people, to some degree (Festinger, 1957). In most cases it is something that happens whenever an individual is faced with new information that conflicts with what they already know (Festinger, 1957). Dissonance is the knowledge that a particular behavior and the belief behind it are not aligned (Festinger, 1957) and there is some effort to reduce the discomfort. One of the methods in which people reduce this dissonance is to either change their opinions, or disregard the sources providing new information (Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955). This is something commonly seen in politics today. People cling so tightly to the political parties they align with that they often ignore any information that contradicts the reason they support them.

Dissonance, or psychological discomfort brought about by conflicting cognitive beliefs, has come to viewed as a state of arousal that effects the individual either positively, or negatively (Cooper & Fazio, 1984). When effected negatively, people become motivated to reduce feelings of discomfort (Fazio & Cooper, 1893). This is known as dissonance reduction (Elliot & Devine, 1994). The arousal and resulting discomfort are complete processes in cognitive dissonance (Elliot & Devine, 1994) which lead to the individual attempting to relieve the discomfort by coming up with discomfort reduction strategies (Elliot & Devine, 1994). According to Elliot & Devine (1994), the arousal theory put forth by Cooper & Fazio (1984), has been proven through various studies to be more accurate than dissonance as psychological discomfort alone. Though, in this writer’s opinion, it is difficult to differentiate between arousal and any other stimulus that may cause psychological discomfort. Arousal means to motivate one into action, or to be in an excited state. The psychological discomfort theory put forth by Festinger (1957) suggests that certain stimulus’, beliefs, or attitudes that conflict one another may cause discomfort. The discomfort itself could realistically be viewed as arousal if it causes one to seek ways to alleviate the discomfort.

It has been difficult to determine the effectiveness of dissonance reduction strategies when it comes to the psychological discomfort as motivation paradigm (Elliot & Devine, 1994). More studies have been conducted looking at the issue from the dissonance from arousal viewpoint (Elliot & Devine, 1994). It would be more effective, argue Elliot & Devine (1994) to use Festinger’s (1957) model because Cooper and Fazio’s (1984) theory of arousal does not provide for a direct role of reducing the arousal, only a direct role in the arousal itself, creating dissonance. Elliot & Devine (1994) also claim that Cooper & Fazio’s new look theory (1984), would likely lead to a reduction in arousal, but not discomfort. This is unclear because the arousal should be considered the discomfort. The arousal itself, in this writer’s opinion, should be viewed as the discomfort caused by inconsistencies between belief and action.

Stone & Cooper (2000) argue that a self-evaluation of an individual’s behavior is done against a standard of the individual’s personal values and beliefs. This is called the self-standards model (Stone & Cooper, 2000). It has been traditionally thought that an individual’s self-esteem plays a major role in dissonance reduction and even the initial arousal (Stone & Cooper, 2000). This thought has stemmed from the other predominant theories of dissonance which are the self-consistency and, the self- affirmation models (Stone & Cooper, 2000).

The self-consistency model argues that a person’s moral beliefs and attitudes come from the moral standards of the community in which they live, or surround themselves with (Thibodeau & Aronson, 1992). Cognitive dissonance in this model, adheres to the same standard definition of perceived conflictions between a behavior and belief. The defending of the behavior which contradicts a person’s morals is done to maintain a sense of self-competency (Thibodeau & Aronson, 1992). Stone & Cooper (2000) argue that an individual’s self-esteem regulates the way they deal with dissonance, or the arousal caused by behaviors that challenges their morality. For instance, a person with high self-esteem is more likely to feel the annoyance of behaving in a manner which calls in to question a deeply held conviction, whereas a person with low self-esteem may not even notice there is a conflict (Stone & Cooper, 2000).   

Self-affirmation theory proposes the same ideas as self-consistency, but refers to the theory of dissonance as information which contradicts an individual’s positive image of self, and the system they have developed internally which defines their values (Heine & Darrin, 1997). This is referred to as global self-integrity (Heine & Darrin, 1997). Unlike other models, self-affirmation model argues that a person can restore their sense of integrity quickly if the dissonance they are experiencing is completely unrelated to their sense of self (Steele, 1988). In other words, people can brush off feelings of dissonance if they have access to other aspects of self that reinforce their own positive self-image (Steele, 1988).

Major areas of study in cognitive dissonance

There are three major areas of study concerning cognitive dissonance (Bem 1967). Forced compliance, free choice, and exposure to information (Bem 1967). Each of these categories explores how the individual responds to the conflicting information within the given paradigm. Forced compliance is the idea that an individual is experiencing dissonance because he was forced to take a position or make a statement that contradicts his own personal beliefs (Bem, 1967). According to Bem (1967) this area of study contributed the most research to the theory of cognitive dissonance. Janis & King (1954), in their paper entitled “The influence of role playing on opinion change,” noted that when someone is forced to take on a differing opinion, particularly in a role-playing paradigm which emulates real life difficulties, opinions can be easily persuaded. A good example can be drawn from this writer’s own experience in a Master of Clinical Social Work degree program at the University of Oklahoma. An entire mock city was made, and the students played the role of poor and marginalized people who were all dependent on someone else to get them the things they needed and, to where they needed to go. The exercise could be described as one of the “psychodramatic techniques” (Janis & King, 1957, p. 211) developed for use in education programs. The goal of course, was to get the student to see the need of a welfare state. It has been found with techniques like these, that in many cases, the people playing roles in which they express views that counter their own, frequently change their positions (Janis & King, 1957).

From these studies of forced compliance, it has been determined that dissonance resolution can sometimes be reached by changing one’s opinions (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959).  Interestingly, there seems to be a relationship between the social pressure which may be exerted and or, the amount of reward or punishment that may be offered for compliance. In both cases, the tendency to change opinion was reduced when the reward/punishment or social pressure rises above the minimum needed to influence the opinion change (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). This suggests, in this writer’s opinion, that people are eager to fit in, and what may really be driving this opinion change is the need for social acceptance. These findings could possibly have strong implications for how strongly people hold onto their convictions.   

The next studies were referred to as the “free choice” studies (Bem, 1967 p. 193). These experiments revolved around the idea that rejected information that was viewed favorably, compared to accepted information that was viewed unfavorably resulted in the dissonance felt by the individual making the choices (Bem, 1967). To reduce this dissonance the individual then makes excuses for the positive aspects of the information he rejected, but views favorably (Bem, 1967.) Bem (1967) puts it simply by saying the individual will overemphasize, so to say, these positive feelings to justify them. This can lead to changes in opinion (Bem, 1967).

Schultz, Leveill & Lepper (1999) also argue that dissonance can be reduced between two choices by giving a higher appraisal to the alternative, while lessening stock in the first. This will be discussed later; however, it is a perfect explanation of cognitive dissonance in voting. Donald Trump was the alternative because he was the unknown wild card. A non-traditional player in the paradigm of left and right politics, whereas Hillary Clinton represented the system. Ironically, Schultz et al (1999), point out that greater dissonance results from the two choices being close in their desirability among the choosers. In terms of the 2016 election cycle this would suggest that neither candidate was desirable at any level because as this writer will demonstrate later, cognitive dissonance is high among the voters on both sides.

The final perspective discussed by Bem (1967) is the “exposure to information” perspective (Bem, 1967, p. 195). Exposure to information theory revolves around two main concepts (Bem, 1967). One, is examining the individual after being involuntarily exposed to alternative information (Bem, 1967). Two, is an individual’s enthusiasm in seeking out alternative information that contradicts their views, on their own (Bem, 1967). A study conducted by Bramel (1962) suggests that from the former perspective, there is a tendency to project feelings of dissonance onto others to reduce it in themselves. Bramel (1962) posits the idea that this is due to Freudian theories of defense mechanisms kicking in to protect the ego.

As far as the second perspective goes, Bem (1967) cites Freedman & Sears (1965) in saying there is no conclusive evidence which suggests there is a psychological tendency to avoid seeking information that contradicts one’s views. While it has been found that viewers of partisan media regularly seek out news that supports their beliefs, it is unknown if this is done to reduce dissonance (Metzger, Hartsell & Flanigan, 2015). Metzger et al, (2015) suggest that an alternative view is that news viewers see those programs that support their convictions as being more credible. The question this writer would ask is, what is the difference from a social science perspective? If a viewer finds one source as being less credible and chooses the other source because it is more aligned with his attitudes and worldview, isn’t that done to reduce dissonance? Wouldn’t the exposure to the information that is non-attitude friendly cause feelings of discomfort that would then cause the individual to seek new information to reduce those feelings?  It is important to note that there is no conclusive evidence in cognitive dissonance in relation to selective exposure because there have been no major studies done (Metzger et al, 2015).

Effort Justification

Effort justification is another aspect of cognitive dissonance that this writer finds to be the most relevant when it comes to American politics. There are aspects of this theory that bear a striking resemblance to some of B.F. Skinner’s ideas concerning operant conditioning as well. It is the idea that the effort put into achieving certain goals can serve as a dissonance reduction mechanism (Cooper & Axsom, 1982). When an individual exerts a high level of effort to achieve a goal that is not viewed as being worth that effort, the individual will give the goal a higher value to justify the effort (Cooper & Axsom, 1982). This justification of effort reduces the tension caused by the conflicting values of the effort and the goal one is trying to achieve (Cooper & Axsom, 1982). This is related to Festinger & Carlsmith’s (1959) ideas on rewards/punishments for compliance or the amount of social pressure, rising above the minimum needed to influence opinion.

Festinger (1961) conducted an experiment with some students who were told they were going to take a test. To sum it up simply, some were told they could use notes and others were told they could not. They were also told that not every student would take the test. Naturally, those who were not able to use the notes studied harder and put more effort into the exam. They also had a higher expectation that they were the ones who would be taking the exam; thus, placing higher value in their efforts. Festinger (1961) also noted that often, a lack of reward for great effort can produce misunderstood consequences.  For example, he notes there is a reversal of processes of sorts when someone exerts a great deal of effort towards some ordinary goal. The individual will give that ordinary goal a higher value just as if he were highly attracted to it in the first place, simply to justify the effort.

Correlations between Operant Conditioning and Cognitive Dissonance

How does any of this relate to B.F. Skinner and operant conditioning? This writer after all, did mention there are some similarities. B.F. Skinner has long been a proponent of punishment/reward behavior modification techniques. He believed that through environmental manipulation people’s attitudes and behaviors could be changed. Referring to Festinger & Carlsmith’s (1959) idea of forced compliance, it was theorized by this writer that a desire to fit in could be enough of a motivating factor to influence someone to change their opinion. Skinner (1973, p.91) states that people who get along together under the perceptions of what he refers to as social approval or disapproval, are more controlled than under a full-blown police state.

Another point that B.F. Skinner made that relates to the idea of effort justification is that people are easily controlled by the value of the product they support. “Those who work productively because of the reinforcing value of what they produce are under the sensitive and powerful control of the products” (Skinner, 1973 p. 91). This is nearly the same as Cooper & Axsom’s (1982) description of effort justification. The individual places higher value in a goal that was originally viewed as not being worth the effort if a great deal of work is being put in to obtain it. In this writer’s opinion, this phenomenon can be best explained through the facemask mandates taking place across the country in response to the so-called, Covid-19 pandemic.  There was a certain virtue attached to complying with the mandates, despite the contradictory information being released concerning the virus because the public was told wearing a mask will protect others. A good example of contradictory information is the CDC backtracking their claims that Covid is airborne (Ehley, 2020). People now believe there is a greater good attached to wearing a mask and they are emotionally invested in the idea that they are doing this to save humanity. The theory of effort justification would work in this case because there is so much contradictory information concerning the virus that it is unclear being forced to wear a mask is worth the effort. Therefore, a higher value is placed on the virus itself, and the damage that forced lockdowns caused to the economy, which in turn justifies the effort in wearing masks.

Confirmation Bias

One final theory that is worth discussing in relation to cognitive dissonance in American voters is the idea of confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the idea that people will generally view new information in a way that aligns with their current beliefs (Nickerson, 1998). Nickerson (1998) states that conformation bias occurs when one gathers evidence to support their research that supports the beliefs they held, before conducting the research. This is opposed to gathering evidence which also supports an opposing view and objectively testing one against the other to see which is true. Confirmation bias, according to Knobloch-Westerwick, Mothes & Polavin (2017), bears the same connotations as cognitive dissonance in the sense that attitudes are adapted to avoid psychological discomfort in receiving new information. It has been found that American voters will regularly seek out information that conforms to their beliefs about candidates while ignoring information that conflicts with their views (Knobloch-Westerwick, Mothes & Polavin, 2017). This of course, is something that goes both ways. Confirmation bias, or cognitive dissonance for that matter, are not partisan phenomenon but theories of human behavior that apply across the board.

Nickerson (1998) also notes that people may treat available evidence in a biased manner if they are motivated to defend a belief. In other words, if people are committed to the belief because they put a lot of faith and effort in its maintenance, they may be more likely to have a bias towards it. Nickerson (1998) also states that people that have no emotional attachment to any type of hypothesis may drive on in a biased manner, but claims there is nothing outside of being partial to our own opinions that accounts for this type of behavior.

Many of the studies conducted on confirmation bias according to Nickerson (1998) confirm that once a person takes a particular side on any issue, or decides to support any cause, they become rooted in that belief and committed to defending it. This is even the case before any alternative positions have been thoroughly examined (Nickerson, 1998). This concept can certainly be applied to partisan politics and the support people have for their chosen candidates even though they rarely live up to the ideals their voters believe they do. One study focused exclusively on the beliefs about the likability and social perceptions of a guest speaker at a college. It was found that the opinion of the speaker was favorable, largely since there were pre-formed opinions based on what the students had already heard about the speaker (Kelley, 1950).  This could be a useful study in explaining people’s refusal to look at the behavior of candidates that contradicts the voter’s values.

Evaluating the evidence

This portion of the paper will primarily focus on the events taking place in the current political climate while attempting to apply the theories previously discussed to the attitudes and beliefs of the American electorate. The writer will try to evaluate the actions taken by the current president/presidential candidates compared to the promises they have made, or the positions they hold, and the reactions of the voters from the perspective of cognitive dissonance and or, confirmation bias affecting the voters opinions.

The common belief is that American politics is made up of two conflicting ideologies which are struggling for dominance. This belief is bringing America closer and closer to the edge of societal chaos. As noted, American society is now more polarized on political issues than ever before (Edwards, 2017), and it is the ideological convictions of the two main political parties that are driving this election, as neither is particularly interested in the other’s views (Edwards, 2017).  Every election cycle Americans are seemingly convinced they are participating in the most important election of their lifetimes, and that a vote for their party is what is needed to save the nation from certain doom. Ironically, Saul Alinsky (1971) in the prologue to Rules for Radicals, stated that people can be brough to accept change they may never have otherwise if they are hopeless about their future. The last election cycles, Trump v. Clinton and the current one, Trump v. Biden sum this up perfectly.

In 2016, American conservatives were feeling hopeless. It was the opinion of many that eight years of Barrack Obama brought the country closer to socialism (Schlesinger, 2010). The 2016 presidential election was sold to the public as the most important in history as it was feared Hillary Clinton, who wrote her college thesis “There is only the fight” on Saul Alinsky’s community organizing methods, would pound the final nail in the coffin. In response, the right rallied around Donald Trump, whom they believed was a conservative republican. It could be theorized that conservatives were giving a higher value to Donald Trump based on their own ideas, or what they had heard about him being conservative. This is despite the evidence to the contrary.  Schultz, Leveill & Lepper’s (1999) assessment of dissonance reduction could be applied here in this writer’s opinion because greater dissonance resulted from the two choices not being completely desirable. It is this writer’s opinion that Donald Trump would never have been an accepted conservative candidate if the republicans did not perceive the nation to be in so much trouble at the end of Obama’s eight years.  A higher value was assigned to Trump because the alternative, from the perspective of the republican party, had no value so, it became an issue of Trump having to be elected to save the nation. Praising Trump served as giving a higher value to the alternative (Schultz, Leveill & Lepper’s 1999) because Clinton represented the system and four more years of the same. Theoretically speaking, Republicans became so hopeless in their future they accepted change they didn’t really understand, and they reduced this psychological discomfort, according to Schultz, Leveill & Lepper (1999) by placing higher moral value in Trump in order to justify their support.

The dissonance in voters seems to rest in their belief that we are a system of two political parties duking it out for dominance. Both parties believe that their respective world view reflects what is best for the nation. According to Bolstad, Dinas & Riera (2013) cognitive dissonance plays a role in voting from the perspective that dissonance reduction occurs as an individual’s evaluation of their preferred party continues to grow every time they cast a vote for them. They also noted that is a tendency that appears stronger in voters whose party won the election (pp. 432-433), and this was something not generally found in people who had no preference for any particular candidate (Bolstad, et al, 2013). Furthermore, Converse (1976) noted that a voter’s party preference is likely to be reinforced through experience and continuous voting for that party. These ideas could be applied alongside Schultz, Leveill & Lepper’s (1999) idea as neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton reflected the best of what the voters expected. By drawing on experience, and relating Donald Trump to Ronald Reagan, conservative voters reduced the dissonance by placing their faith in their experience and voted the way they did, simply because that is the way they always vote. Also, as Bolstad et al (2013) noted, the reinforced support for President Trump could be the result of dissonance being reduced through the winning of the election. They have been rewarded in their efforts of supporting Trump to the point that their support of him becomes unbreakable.

Perhaps the best example of cognitive dissonance in conservative voters is Donald Trump’s actions against the second amendment. Throughout President Obama’s eight years, and rightfully so as Democrats today promise to enact more gun control (Godfrey, 2020), conservatives feared he would take executive action banning certain firearms. This is theoretically, one of the reasons Donald Trump won the conservative vote. Since being in office, President Trump has enacted the Bump Stock ban via executive order (Savage 2018) and, shown open support for confiscating firearms from those deemed to be a danger to themselves or others without due process (Landers, 2018). This is known as a red flag law. Both actions have set dangerous precedents that set the stage for further unconstitutional actions against the second amendment.

The Bump Stock ban, for example, violated the constitution’s expost facto law by turning hundreds of thousands of American citizens into felons for failing to surrender a product that was previously deemed to be perfectly legal (Sullum, 2019). Expost facto law is the prohibition of enacting legislation that turns a once peaceful and legal activity, into a crime (Cornell Law School). Furthermore, the bump stock was illegally classified as a machine gun by the ATF (Sullum, 2019). Only congress can change laws, and the federal law concerning machine guns states that a machine gun is a one pull of the trigger for continuous fire mechanism (Sullum, 2019). Bump stocks do not even produce continuous fire under this definition (Sullum, 2019). They simply harness the recoil, allowing the shooter’s trigger finger to pull the trigger faster (Sullum, 2019). The weapon, therefore, is still operating in a semi-automatic mode. The bump stock itself does not even have a trigger of its own. Classifying an object with no trigger as a machine gun by illegally reinterpreting existing law sets a dangerous precedent that can possibly be acted on by any future president over any accessory.

This was an action that certainly caused dissonance in Trump voters. Many responded by saying he was simply giving the gun grabbers on the left a bone. Take this comment from Quora.com from a Trump supporter as an example of the overall attitude towards what would probably be considered an infringement had the Democrats done it. “I think it is a tactic to appease the liberals. You don’t need a bump stock to bump fire a semi-auto rifle as it can be done simply by holding the rifle in a certain way.” While this individual is correct about the device itself, he, like many others, are not looking at the information behind the ban and seeing the larger consequence. It could be argued under the theory of effort justification (Cooper & Axsom, 1982) that they are holding on to their belief that it was imperative for Trump to win, and his victory against Hillary Clinton represented a win for the second amendment; therefore, they will refuse to consider the possibility that the man may not be who they thought he was. Bem’s (1967) exposure to information theory fits well here also. This theory examines a willingness on the part of an individual to seek out alternative information on their own and, their reaction to being involuntarily exposed to alternative information (Bem, 1967). While there is no significant evidence of psychologically avoiding alternative views (Freedman & Sears 1965), there is a tendency to project the feelings of dissonance onto others to reduce them (Bramel 1962). This is something that is definitely occurring as questioning Trump’s ban on the device, while pointing out the potential consequences, has gotten this writer kicked out of several pro-gun Facebook groups and labeled as a “never Trumper.”

Red flag laws are another issue where there is obvious dissonance occurring in Trump voters. Red flag laws are an extremely dangerous precedent to set because they enable family members, friends or law enforcement officials to petition a judge to issue an extreme risk protection order against an individual who is deemed to be a threat (Williams, 2019). The individual in question does not have to be charged with a crime to have an order filed against them. Someone simply must suggest they may be a danger to themselves or others and have knowledge they possess firearms. Red flag laws, therefore, deny an individual their due process protection (Williams, 2019). Donald Trump, on live television, sitting with known anti-gun Senators like Diane Feinstein publicly stated his support for red flag laws by saying “Take the guns first, got through due process second” (Jackson, Shesgreen & Gaudiano, 2018). Trump also stated that he believed Republican congressman were “petrified of the NRA” while calling on congress to come up with a gun control bill (Jackson, Shesgreen & Gaudiano, 2018). One policy proposal that conservatives were willingly awaiting was a national conceal carry bill. This, according to Jackson, Shesgreen & Gaudiano (2018) was crushed in the same meeting.

 Here we have Donald Trump, whom the conservative base, most of which are gun owners, is rallying around under the belief that he will save the second amendment. In his own book, The America We Deserve, he states that he supports a ban on assault weapons and longer waiting periods to purchase a firearm (p. 102). Still, countless articles appear in social media, along with memes on Facebook, which depict Donald Trump as a second amendment warrior and, failing to vote for him spells certain doom for gun rights. Which it could; however, they appear to be doomed either way. This writer believes that Thibodeau & Aronson’s (1992) self-consistency model of cognitive dissonance applies here. Donald Trump loyalists are defending their support for him out of fear of realizing their own incompetency in judging him for who he was. They need to maintain the belief that their choice to support him was the correct one not for his sake, but for the maintenance of their own self-esteem (Stone & Cooper, 2000). The theory of effort justification (Cooper & Axsom, 1982) also works because there was so much hope in Donald Trump, and there still is, of being the one to return America to greatness that no one wants to face the possibility he will support policies opposed by his voters.

While gun control marks a huge policy issue that causes dissonance in conservative voters, it is not the only one. There are several others where Donald Trump supporters refuse to review available evidence suggesting the actions of their president directly contradict their values, and the things they believe he is doing. The debt is another example. Conservative are concerned with sound fiscal policy and Donald Trump has increased the national debt by 5.2 trillion dollars (Rodriguez, 2010). This is about the same rate that the debt grew under Obama as he also spent 5 trillion in his first three years in office (Rodriguez, 2020). Conservatives by and large, ignore this information. The theory of confirmation bias could fit here, in this writer’s opinion, as voters have attached themselves to the belief that voting for Trump was necessary to end spending. There has been a nonstop slew of propaganda from talking heads such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh discussing how great the economy is doing without mentioning the increase in the debt. Voters, therefore, attach themselves to this belief and defend it (Nickerson, 1998) while ignoring any evidence to the contrary. Nickerson (1998) argued that people would often defend their position when committed to a belief before even looking at any other position.

Cognitive dissonance exists in Democrat voters as well. This writer focused a great deal on Trump voters because as a conservative Republican who voted for Trump, he believes it is imperative to the cause of liberty that you question the person you voted for. One of the major issues of dissonance for Democrat voters lie in the issues of systematic racism and disproportionate rates of incarceration. Joe Biden is running his presidential campaign on the promise of ending it; however, he helped write the bill that arguably, contributed to it in the first place (Purdom, 2019). A bill no less signed by a Democrat president. There is some question as to what extent the bill itself contributed to larger incarcerations (Lopez, 2020) however, it is clear that at the time Biden supported measures that were tough on crime and the bill granted states the necessary money to enact tougher criminal reform penalties (Lopez, 2020). It has been argued that these penalties disproportionally led to higher rates of incarceration for minorities (Lopez, 2020).  Biden has also been exposed recently for something he said back in 1977 which indicates he was a supporter of segregation (Alic, 2019). According to Alic, (2019) Biden, a first term senator expressed concern of his children growing up in what he called, a racial jungle, over a desegregation issue concerning bussing. Furthermore, Biden’s latest gaff on live television where he said, “If you have a problem figuring out if you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black” shows his deep rooted racism (Bradner, Mucha & Saenz, 2010). Despite these inconsistencies, Democrat voters seem to believe that Biden best represents, and will fight for, racial equality. This election proves that voters are committed to the party despite blaring contradictions between promises and policies.

Final Discussion

Cognitive dissonance is the theory that explains contradictions between people’s beliefs and their behaviors (Festinger, 1957). This paper examined the different theories of cognitive dissonance by exploring the beliefs of, mostly conservative voters, and the promises made by the current Republican president, Donald Trump. Support remains high for President Trump among his voters despite the obvious contradictions between their values and the policy issues he has pushed. Particularly concerning the second amendment and spending. In this writer’s opinion Donald Trump is pushing the same policy items, especially concerning gun control, that would have been pursued by a Democrat president. This paper showed the potential consequences, for example, of the bump stock ban and red flag laws, and how they damage the constitutional protection of natural rights and how the general response is that the President is enacting some kind of strategy to discredit the Democrats. In this writer’s opinion, cognitive dissonance is occurring in voters across the political spectrum. Every four years Americans become fiercely committed to their chosen political candidates because they believe those candidates best reflect their values and convictions (Fiorina, 1981). Closely examining the actions of both parties, however, suggests that they are working together in many ways. Take the debt for example, Donald Trump increased it by 5 trillion, as did Obama (Rodriguez, 2020). The spending of other people’s money seems to be something that Republicans and Democrats agree on. It is also hard to imagine that Democrats who are supportive of gun control would disagree with the actions Trump has taken, except to the extent that perhaps they do not go far enough, fast enough. In this writer’s opinion, the greatest level of cognitive dissonance exists in the belief that there is two political party’s opposing one another when in fact, they are working together to achieve the larger policy objectives they agree on.

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies... is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies. (Quigley, 1966, p. 1247)

 

 

 

Works cited

Alic, H. (2019, July 15) 1977: Joe Biden worried bussing would lead to a racial jungle. Brietbart.com https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/15/1977-joe-biden-worried-busing-would-lead-to-a-racial-jungle/

Alinsky, S. Rules for Radicals. (1971) New York. Vintage books.

Bem, D. J. (1967) Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological review, 74(3), 183-200 http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Motivation/Bem_1967_Self_perception.pdf  

Bolstad, J., Dinas, E. & Riera, P. (2013) Tactical Voting and Party Preferences: A Test of Cognitive Dissonance Theory. Political Behavior, 35, 429–452. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1007/s11109-012-9205-1

Bradner, E., Mucha, S. & Saenz, A. (2020, May 22) If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black. CNN.com https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/politics/biden-charlamagne-tha-god-you-aint-black/index.html

Bramel, D. (1962) A dissonance theory approach to defensive projection. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 121-129. https://psycnet-apa-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/fulltext/1964-02755-001.pdf

Converse, P. E. (1976). The dynamics of party support: Cohort-analyzing party identification. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Cooper, J. & Fazio, R. (1984) A new look at dissonance theory. Advances in experimental social psychology, 17, 229-266 https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/273280/1- spdf-129607ee-dc5a-458f-9911-edb690f6c9c8&sid=b1ac2ca263a4b94110282fd7a9be881d35cdgxrqa&type=client

Cooper, J. & Axsom, D. (1982) Effort justification in psychotherapy. From Integrations of clinical and social psychology New York. Oxford University Press https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oEVmQXgFA0IC&oi=fnd&pg=PA214&dq=cognitive+dissonance+effort+justification+&ots=mPYRx5ivhd&sig=8xE3FFYu1KKWDL7z3HpokLwTRQY#v=onepage&q=cognitive%20dissonance%20effort%20justification&f=false

Edwards, A. L. (2017, October 5) The divide between Republicans and Democrats reach a record level. The HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/divide-republicans-democrats-record-level_n_59d6b92be4b072637c4301fd

Elliott, A., J. & Devine, P., G. (1994) On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of personality and social psychology, 67(3), 382-394. http://cftn.ca/sites/default/files/AcademicLiterature/On%20the%20Motivational%20Nature.pdf  

Ehley, B. (2020, September 21) CDC backtracks on warning that coronavirus is airborne. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/21/cdc-coronavirus-spread-airborne-419363

 

Expost Facto Laws. Legal information institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-9/clause-3/ex-post-facto-laws

Fazio, R. & Cooper, J. Arousal in the dissonance process. In Social psychophysiology: A source book. (1983) New York. Guilford Press.

Festinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance.  (1957) Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press

Festinger, L. (1961). The psychological effects of insufficient rewards. American Psychologist, 16(1), 1–11. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1037/h0045112

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203–210. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1037/h0041593

Fiorina, M. P. Retrospective voting in American Elections. (1981). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Freedman, J. L., & Sears, D. O. (1965) Selective exposure. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 57-97. J

Gender, family and marriage, same-sex marriage, and religion. (2019, December 17) Pew Research Center-Politics and Policy. Retrieved September 25, 2020 from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/12/17/5-gender-family-and-marriage-same-sex-marriage-and-religion/

Godfrey, E. (2020, August 20) Democrats’ unprecedented support for gun control. The Atlantic Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/08/democrats-unprecedented-support-gun-control-dnc/615514/

Heine, S., J., and Darrin R. L. (1997) Culture, dissonance, and self-affirmation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 23 (4) p. 389, https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/A19299670/BIC?u=vic_liberty&sid=BIC&xid=97d4e0b1.

Jackson, D., Shesgreen, D. & Gaudiano, N. (2018, February 28) Trump says take guns first and worry about ‘due process second’ in white house meeting. USA Today https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/28/trump-says-take-guns-first-and-worry-due-process-second-white-house-gun-meeting/381145002/

Janis, I. L., & King, B. T. (1954). The influence of role playing on opinion change. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49(2), 211–218. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1037/h0056957

Kelley, H. H. (1950). The warm-cold variable in first impressions of persons. Journal of Personality, 18, 431-39.

  Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Mothes, C., & Polavin, N. (2017) Confirmation bias, ingroup bias, and negativity bias in selective exposure to political information. Communication research, 00(0), 1-21. https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/u.osu.edu/dist/4/13821/files/2015/05/Confirmation-Bias-Ingroup-Bias-and-Negativity-Bias-in-Selective-Exposure-to-Political-Information-2i6hn5q.pdf  

Landers, E. (2019, February 28) Trump to lawmakers: ‘Take the guns first, go through due process second.’ Cnn.com https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/politics/due-process-donald-trump-second-amendment/index.html

Lopez, G. (2010, September 29) The controversial 1994 crime law that Joe Biden helped write, explained. Vox.com  https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/20/18677998/joe-biden-1994-crime-bill-law-mass-incarceration

Metzger, M. J., Hartsell, E. H. & Flanigan, A.J. (2015) Cognitive dissonance or credibility? A comparison for selective exposure to partisan news. Communications research, 47(1), 1-26 https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/0093650215613136

Nickerson, R.S. (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of general psychology, 2(2), 175-220 http://psy2.ucsd.edu/~mckenzie/nickersonConfirmationBias.pdf

Purdom, T., S. (2019, September 12). The crime-bill debate shows how short Americans’ memories are. The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/09/joe-biden-crime-bill-and-americans-short-memory/597547/   

Quigley, C. Tragedy and Hope: A history of the world in our time. (1966) New York. The Macmillan Company.

Quora.com What do conservatives think of Trump banning bump stocks? https://www.quora.com/What-do-conservatives-think-about-Trump-banning-bump-stocks

Rodriguez, E. (2020, May 14) National debt has increased 5.2 trillion during Trump’s 3 years as president.

Savage, C. (2018, December 18) Trump administration imposes ban on bump stocks. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks-ban.html

Schlesinger, R. (2010, March 24) Party of nuts: Poll shows GOP thinks Obama is a Muslim, Socialist. U.S. News https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/03/24/party-of-nuts-poll-shows-gop-thinks-obama-is-muslim-socialist

Shultz, T. R., Léveillé, E., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Free Choice and Cognitive Dissonance Revisited: Choosing “Lesser Evils” Versus “Greater Goods.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(1), 40–48. /10.1177/0146167299025001004

Skinner, B, F. Beyond freedom and dignity. (1971) Middlesex England: Penguin books ltd.

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261-302). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oNZ18G2D_qsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA261&dq=The+psychology+of+self-  

Stone, J. & Cooper, J. (2000) A self-standards model of cognitive dissonance. Journal of experimental social psychology, 37, 228-243 https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/science/article/pii/S002210310091446X?via%3Dihub

Sullum, J. (2019, March 28) Donald Trump’s Bump Stock ban turns peaceful gun owners into felons by fiat. Reason.com

Thibodeau, R., & Aronson, E. (1992). Taking a closer look: Reasserting the role of the self-concept in dissonance theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 591–602.

Trump, D. & Shiflett, D. The America we deserve. (2000) Los Angeles. Renaissance Books.

Williams, T. (2019, August 6) What are ‘red flag’ gun laws and how do they work? The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/us/red-flag-laws.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blatantly Obvious Voter Fraud, Q, and the Alinsky Method

 

For the past four years, President Trump’s biggest supporters have been enthralled by a mysterious, unidentifiable figure urging everyone to trust the plan. Known simply as Q, this figure seemingly had an answer for every event that took place in Washington D.C. This answer, in most cases, was that Trump was playing a brilliant game of 4-dimensional chess and, every move he makes, somehow exposes how corrupt the Democrats are. The overall message was that Trump’s dazzling strategy would result in the complete and total take down of the so called, deep state.  The only problem with this theory now, is that Trump was just defeated by the swamp he was supposed to outmaneuver. The same swamp no less, that relentlessly accused him of colluding with Russia to steal the election. What is really going on?

Everyone understands that the left is made up of Alinsky type radicals. The ends justify the means mentality is something that most people can interpret as the left doing whatever it takes to get their way.  Alinsky argued in Rules for Radicals, for example, that morality kept people from acting and doing what was necessary to affect change. A higher-level morality, according to Alinsky, was a willingness to corrupt yourself and sacrifice your own salvation, or your own principles for what the left considers the greater good. In other words, corrupting yourself in pursuit of collectivist goals is the moral standard in left wing politics. From this perspective, it is easy to understand their attempts to steal an election. They have no morals and are willing to cheat, lie and steal to win.

There is a darker, more overlooked side to the Alinsky method. One that has a social science application. Psychologists and other behaviorists, have understood the effects fear has on the human psyche for decades. The book Invasion from Mars: The Study of the Psychology of Panic by Hadley Cantril shows the extents in which behaviorists took advantage of people’s panicked reactions to a radio broadcast depicting an alien invasion.

Such rare occurrences provide opportunities for the social scientist to study mass behavior. They must be exploited when they come. Although the social scientist unfortunately cannot usually predict such situations and have his tools of investigation ready to analyze the phenomenon while it is still on the wing, he can begin his work before the effects of the crisis are over and memories are blurred. The situation created by the broadcast was one which shows us how the common man reacts in a time of stress and strain. It gives us insights into his intelligence, his anxieties, and his needs, which we could never get by tests or strictly experimental studies. The panic situation we have investigated had all the flavor of everyday life and, at the same time, provided a semi-experimental condition for research. In spite of the unique conditions giving rise to this particular panic, the writer has attempted to indicate throughout the study the pattern of the circumstances which, from a psychological point of view, might make this the prototype of any panic. (Cantril, 1940)

What is it that science understands about fear, that might be useful in persuading masses of people to behave in certain ways? They know that when presented with a frightening choice, a great sense of relief is experienced when presented with a less frightening scenario. This, in the sciences of persuasive communications, is called the fear-then-relief strategy, and it comes right out of a college textbook called the Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21^st century by Richard Perloff. According to the article Fear-then-relief: Mindlessness and cognitive deficits from the European Journal of Social Psychology, the relief experienced when realizing a fear stimulus was unfounded, and they have another choice, is so overwhelming and arousing, that people then associate that sense of arousal with whatever is creating the relief. In other words, it is possible that people are so relieved with the alternative that it becomes ingrained in their psyche as an absolute. For example, as a writer I have been critical of Donald Trump’s bump stock ban while many people do not question it at all. Looking at this through the fear-then-relief principle it is possible to argue, with the looming threat of gun control after the Las Vegas shooting, that supporters of Trump were so relieved that this was the only action taken. This principle, in theory could be applied to our elections in general. Looking at this from the perspective of voting for the lesser of two evils, Americans have for decades, accepted candidates that do not live up to American values simply because they are relieved the other guy did not win. A good example of this is the way Trump supporters continually asked people that questioned his actions if they would rather have Hillary, or Biden. Trump became unquestionable in their minds because his victory signified the averting of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

What does this have to do with Alinsky, or Q? Alinsky wrote that in order to affect social change, or start a social revolution if you will, people must be brought to a state of hopelessness in the current system if they are expected to accept something new.

Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system. (Alinsky, 1972)

This past week, Americans watched in dumbstruck awe as the Democrats brazenly engaged in voter fraud across the country. They were not even attempting to hide it. In fact, it was almost as if they wanted you to see it. If you are an individual that understands the left’s Alinsky radicalism, then it stands to reason that they are deliberately attempting to make you lose hope in our election system while making you demand change. As an example, this election fraud has already generated demands for a national I.D. card. Something that conservatives generally oppose.

This strategy of change is also referred to as the Hegelian Dialectic, or, the problem-reaction-solution strategy. It derives from Marxist thinking and entails the creation of a problem which demands a solution. The public is essentially manipulated into choosing an option that serves the goals of government.

This could be brushed off as some crazy conspiracy theory however, it must be noted that both Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton were trained Alinsky Organizers. Clinton, in particular, had a personal relationship with him and was offered a job at his Industrial Areas Foundation training center for organizers. She also wrote a 92 page college thesis on the Alinsky method entitled, There is only the fight.

Does this prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt? No, but it does raise some interesting questions into Donald Trump’s role in all of this, and even Q’s as well. Trump supporters questioned nothing the man did despite the overwhelming evidence showing what he did was different than what he said. The USMCA, for example was hailed as a brilliant remaking of a terrible trade agreement known as NAFTA. Many outlets reported USMCA was NAFTA on steroids, and would only serve to place American trade under global governing bodies. If you mentioned that to anyone you were labeled a troll or a “never Trumper.” Donald Trump’s education secretary signed the U.S. onto the United Nations sustainable development agenda, meaning our kids, in twenty years, will be trained climate change activists. You cannot mention this without being called a liberal or a democrat. The examples are just too many. Another one entails Donald Trump giving billions to Bill Gates for vaccine development after allegedly, withdrawing funds from the World Health Organization. Finally, Planned Parenthood is still receiving hundreds of millions from one of the supposedly, most pro-life administrations ever. Not to mention the fact that Trump signed every spending bill given to him, increasing the debt more than Obama. The point I am making is that Q was vey successful in getting people to follow along because the fear-then-relief principle was applied. People were so relieved that Hillary Clinton did not win after eight years of Obama, they put all their hopes into Donald Trump’s promise of arresting her and draining the swamp. The relief associated with this message rooted in, according to the science behind the principle, the non-questioning attitudes of many Trump voters.

If people will acknowledge that the left is willing to do anything, and that they are indeed employing Alinsky tactics, then what is being argued here is not out of the question. After all, Donald Trump and the Clintons have a long history.

As we watch in shock as the left blatantly steals this election, the question we must ask is why are they are making it so obvious? Even now, Q is still urging Trump voters to trust the plan. The latest theory is that the whole election was a sting operation and corruption would be exposed for all to see. Donald Trump will finally spring his masterplan, and the deep state will be defeated. What is more likely? Donald Trump being a hero and restoring integrity to American elections, or Americans being persuaded into accepting changes they don’t understand because our election system has been exposed as corrupt? If Trump did pull through after all of this and offers reforms to our voting system, would anyone question it? Of course, all of this is just a theory.

David earned his master's degree in professional writing from Liberty University and has a bachelor's degree in social work.

Forcing change through a well “framed” fear message.

 From my upcoming book

According to Perloff,[1] social scientists and philosophers have theorized for years about the best methods to craft a message to influence attitude and or, opinion change.  Returning to the previous section’s discussion on fear messages, a well framed argument will contain the element of fear but also a recommended course of action to alleviate that fear, or avert the potential danger causing it. Perloff states that “a fear-arousing message contains two basic elements: threat and efficacy information, or a problem and a solution. A message must first threaten the individual, convincing him or her that dangers lurk in the environment.”[2] The American media is infamous for presenting the news in a manner that suggests there is always a danger, and that freedom itself is a dangerous concept. There is always a problem, and a potential solution. This solution generally leads to less freedom for the individual and more control for the government.

This method of framing arguments bears striking similarity to something called the Hegelian Dialectic. This is based on dialectical materialism[3], which according to Ray Nunes, who was once chairman of the Worker’s Party in the 1990’s, is central to the Marxist push for social change. Dialectical materialism posits the idea that all progress is made through conflict, and, because matter existed before conscious thought, progress through conflicting matter has brought us to where we are. The Hegelian Dialectic[4] is based off the ideas of Georg Hegel and applied to Fredrick Engels and Karl Marx’s theories on communism. It is also known as the problem-reaction-solution strategy. The idea is to strike fear into the hearts of the masses, which would motivate them to demand change and, implement the solution which was already been predetermined.

---

[1] Perloff, R, M. The dynamics of persuasion: Communications and attitudes in the 21^st century (2017) New York. Routledge

 

[2] Perloff, R, M. The dynamics of persuasion: Communications and attitudes in the 21^st century (2017) New York. Routledge

 

[3] Nunes, R. Dialectical Materialism (https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/new-zealand/nunes-marx-mao/nunes-dialectical.pdf)

[4] Nightingale, Y.C. (2016, May 25) What is the Hegelian dialectic? https://christianobserver.net/what-is-the-hegelian-dialectic/

From my upcoming book

In my first book I described my personal experience being educated by the radical left. In my second, I tied the popular “world communist government” conspiracy theory to the sciences of human behavior. In my upcoming book, I am diving deeper in these behavioral sciences in an attempt to show that the global elite are indeed applying what they know about human behavior to governing in an attempt to influence and control our thoughts and behaviors. The following is a small excerpt from this upcoming book.

There is reason to speculate that the sciences of human behavior are being used to persuade or push the attitudes of the masses in certain directions. In the book The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century, Richard Perloff discusses the technique of fear then relief. [1] This is described as the persuader intentionally placing the persuade into a state of fear, then removing that fear and replacing it with a less frightening alternative. According to Perloff, this technique is effective because the sense of relief experienced when the fear is replaced is overwhelming and reinforcing. The sensation is associated with the following request for compliance. A good example would be the acceptance of Donald Trump’s bump stock ban. There was so much fear and anticipation of what types of gun bans might be implemented after the Parkland Florida shooting, that people were relieved the only action taken was the ban on bump stocks. According to Perloff, the association between relief and the following request for compliance can be so powerful, that people are often in a state of mindlessness and less attentive than normal. When it came to this seemingly useless piece of plastic, for instance, people completely ignored that the ATF illegally redefined the term machine gun in the existing gun control laws to include devices like bump stocks.

This technique could, in theory, be applied to elections in general. In America, the term the lesser of two evils is a commonly accepted theme used to explain the acceptance of a candidate that may not live up to our expectations. This is the fear then relief principle put into action. The election of Barrack Obama for example, was a sure win because people had become so weary and hopeless during the Bush years, that they were, like Alinsky said, willing to accept change they did not fully understand. The same could be applied in the 2016 election of Donald Trump as well. People were so overwhelmingly relieved that Hillary Clinton did not win that they have, as Perloff noted, become more susceptible to persuasive techniques and less attentive to what Donald Trump is doing, opposed to what he says. To avoid the impression of singling out Donald Trump, the technique worked the same with Obama. Liberal Democrats were so elated with the sensation of relief that they questioned nothing the man did because in their minds, they averted the disaster of another Republican winning the presidency. 

The effectiveness of the fear then relief strategy depends on how well the initial fear appeal is crafted. A message designed to invoke fear is done to scare people into changing their positions by showing the negative consequences for failing to do so.[2] Political campaigns are without a doubt structured around the idea that voting for the other guy will have negative consequences. Republicans and Democrats alike, effectively play on the fears of their voters, targeting the known values of their demographic. Democrats for example, know their voters are afraid of Republicans cutting welfare programs for the poor, so they craft their message to specifically invoke that fear by characterizing Republicans as selfish corporatists who only care about profit. Republicans do the same, capitalizing on Democrats attempts to pass gun control. Republicans talk a big game but do little of anything with substance when it comes to defending liberty.

Fear messages can be effective, but unfortunately for the people crafting them, they are not always. If for example, the issue does not resonate with the target audience the message will fall on deaf ears. People who are not into politics for example, are not generally persuaded by political campaigns and the messages revolving around them have little effect in swaying opinion. People who are rooted in their convictions are also less likely to be affected by fear messages. Interestingly, there is some evidence suggesting that persuaders are intentionally targeting what they refer to as, mindless people. For example, in an article entitled Fear-then-Relief: Mindlessness and cognitive deficits[3] the authors make the claim that people, when experiencing the relief of realizing the fear stimulus was unfounded, fall into a mindless, reactionary mode for a brief time where the arousal of the relief sensation makes them more susceptible to persuasive communications. Studies have shown, according to this article, that people, when experiencing the relief sensation are less likely to ask any questions pertaining to the following suggestions or requests for compliance. According to the authors, this suggests that a state of mindlessness is produced with the relief, making one more likely to simply go along with whatever requests may follow.

[1] Perloff, R, M. The dynamics of persuasion: Communications and attitudes in the 21st century (2017) New York. Routledge

[2]Perloff, R, M. The dynamics of persuasion: Communications and attitudes in the 21st century (2017) New York. Routledge

[3]Dolinski, D., Ciszek, M., Godlewski, K. & Zawadski, M. (2002) Fear-then-relief: Mindlessness and cognitive deficits. European journal of social psychology, 32(4) pp. 435-447

Deconstructing White Privilege and Exposing the Left's Racist Attitudes

 

In 2010 I was a student in Oklahoma’s Northeastern State University social work program. The first semester was known as the pre-social work semester, and the intent was to root out students who were not ideologically aligned with the profession. The class was asked to write a position paper on Peggy McIntosh’s essay White Male, White Privilege. Upon completion of our papers, students were asked to give a brief presentation discussing what they learned about their own racist attitudes. I watched in absolute amazement as the students, one by one, stood in front of their peers and went along with the program ̶ ̶ admitting that they were not aware of their own racism until reading Mcintosh’s essay. I refused to capitulate to such nonsense and was later told that I was not fit for the profession because of my oppositional attitude.

Social work, as a profession, is politically motivated. The primary purpose is advocating for social change which best helps the fields primary constituency (Gray, 1996). Dominated by the left, social workers believe that capitalism is the root cause of poverty, inequality and most importantly, racism.  Social workers are trained to view socialism as a core ideal of the profession while also viewing it as being a fundamentally correct worldview (Duarte, 2017). To effectively accomplish their goal, social workers need to “see society as a struggle between groups with competing interests” (Duarte, 2017) to deconstruct what they view as, systems of oppression.

The term hegemony refers to the power of a dominant group. Social workers, and the left in general, view white America as an oppressive system. There has been a mass awakening to the indoctrination taking place in our universities with the teaching of concepts like white privilege and critical race theory. CRT, as it has come to be known, defines racism in terms relating to social status and power. What used to be defined as a hatred for someone based on the color of their skin, or their nationality, is now a politicized term which equates racism to any dominant social structure. Advocates of CRT claim that our society is built for the benefit of white people and, for the purpose of perpetuating whiteness while leaving others behind or forcing them to conform. It stands to reason then, that if social workers intend on dismantling what they view as an oppressive power structure, they must deconstruct whiteness altogether.

This is what LCSW (Licensed Clinical Social Worker) Cristina Combs intends to do with her Twelve steps to recovery from whiteness program. Based on the tenets of white privilege philosophy and critical race theory, this twelve-step program attempts to break down the sickness (as they see it) of whiteness for the purpose of creating a more equitable world. Step one of course, is admitting you are racist. I watched my fellow classmates do this at NSU. Step two involves acknowledging that as a white person, you will never know what it is like to walk in the shoes of a person of color. Step three is understanding the need to be gentle with yourself as you come to grips with the horrible things you have done to perpetuate white supremacy. The whole thing reads like an alcoholics’ anonymous program where admitting you were wrong and weak is the first step to recovery.

In an article entitled Owning Whiteness: The Reinvention of Self and Practice, Blitz (2006) discusses the Helms racial identity model where whiteness is broken down into six distinct phases ̶ ̶ contact, disintegration, reintegration, pseudo-independence, immersion/emergence, and autonomy (Blitz, 2006). These phases start with a white person being aware of racial differences but being satisfied with the status quo (Blitz, 2006). The next phase involves the realization that there are social implications to whiteness which cause feelings of guilt (Blitz, 2006). The reintegration phase involves adopting the attitude that whites have it better than people of color and denying any responsibility for their own racism (Blitz, 2006). The next phases, which could be identified as recovery phases, involves white people becoming dependent on persons of color to help them define their racial identity (Blitz, 2006). Finally, white people who recover from whiteness (if you will) emerge with new ideas on morality, and how to approach discussions about how other white people deal with their own racism (Blitz, 2006).

There are some serious implications in the way the left, and those in the social work profession, (if it can be called that) are defining racism and systems of oppression. There is a stark contrast between the worldviews of the left and right. First, leftists are largely atheistic and hold a Darwinist view of man’s origins. Many of the beliefs associated with white supremacy can be traced back to evolutionary thinking. Francis Galton, according to the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, was an English psychologist who was related to Charles Darwin and shared many of his views concerning his theory of evolution. Galton, because he believed in evolutionary science, was convinced that Africans were inferior. Stating in his book “Tropical South Africa” that they had no independent will of their own, Galton believed that Africans needed leadership and preferred a life of servitude. This belief was later used to justify slavery. In fact, Africans who resisted slavery were considered mentally ill, as it was generally believed that blacks were incapable of self-care and freedom. This disease was referred to as Drapetomania and it is the root belief in what is driving the discussion of racism today.

The left argues that African Americans need the protection of the welfare state to give them an advantage in capitalist America, which they claim is a system of oppression. As mentioned earlier, for social workers to accomplish their mission, they need to see society as competing groups with a dominant social structure oppressing people of color for its own benefit. It is because they view white people as being superior that they feel the need to advocate for policy changes which they claim, will create a more equal footing in the first place. It is the very meaning behind Joe Biden’s slip of tongue when he said, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” Joe Biden believes that black people can not compete in white America and that they need his handouts to make it fair. The very idea that “whiteness” is something that must be de-constructed to make the world more fair is an admission that they believe white people are better and, they are self-projecting their own misguided feelings of guilt onto the rest of us. They are the one’s suffering from a mental illness. They are obsessed with the idea that white people are superior, and they need to make concessions in their pursuit of total equality. What they are really doing is creating and maintaining a steady stream of victimized people to keep a voter base and, justify their agenda.  

 

Blitz, L.V. (2006) Owning Whiteness: The Reinvention of Self and Practice. Journal of emotional abuse, 6(2) pp. 241-263

Combs, C. (N.K.D) Recovery from White Conditioning https://practicetransformation.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Recovery-from-White-Conditioning-PPT.pdf

Creating racism: Psychiatry’s betrayal. Citizens commission on human rights. http://www.cchrstl.org/documents/racism.pdf

Duarte, F (2017, February 6) Building a political agenda for social work. https://swhelper.org/2017/02/06/building-political-agenda-social-work/

Gray, M. (1996). Social work and politics. Social Work/ Maatskaplike Werk, 32 pp.1–8.

Gray, M., Van Rooyen, C. C., Gavin, R. & Gaha, J. (2002) The political participation of social workers. International journal of social welfare, 11, pp. 99-110.

McIntosh, P. (1988) White Privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack https://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/mcintosh.pdf

 

 

 

 

Inducing compliance in education: Persuading students to accept socialism

 

Most Americans are familiar with the term social change. It is recognized as a methodology used in our colleges, under the guise of critical theory, to convince young gullible kids that our country desperately needs, as Barrack Obama once put it, a fundamental transformation. There are an untold number of stories where conservative parents send their children to prestigious universities, only to realize when they come back, they have been thoroughly brainwashed into leftist thinking. Even in public elementary education, it is becoming evident that there is more of an indoctrination taking place than anything that resembles learning. The role education has taken in society has changed from one of creating free thinkers, to a system focused on changing attitudes and restructuring what it is viewed as the old world, into a new global society. To get people to go along, they must be persuaded into believing it is in their best interest. Sadly, most Americans are unaware that this has been taking place since before the beginning of the twentieth century.

Donald Trump recently made a big move by signing an executive order targeting the use of critical race theory in public schools. There is little doubt that the use of such a theory, which aims to teach young children that America is a racist nation, has contributed to the hatred and resentment many Americans feel towards their own country. Unfortunately, this will have little effect as they have been discretely shaping opinions and attitudes in schools for over one hundred years. The main goal has been training students into a socialized form of education, envisioned by John Dewey, where they sought to change the national morality and attitudes towards their country. The Progressive Education Association for example, was founded in 1919 (Iserbyt, p. 11) for such a purpose.  In 1927, according to Deliberate Dumbing Down of America author Charlotte Iserbyt (p.14) the state of Maine education commissioner, Augustus Thomas gave a speech in which he highlighted the process of change that would have to occur in education to bring about their new order.

If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration. The present international situation of mistrust and fear can only be corrected by a formula of equal status, continuously applied, to every phase of international contacts, until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands. This means that the world must await a long process of education and a building up of public conscience and an international morality, or, in other words, until there is a world-wide sentiment which will back up the modern conception of a world community. This brings us to the international mind, which is nothing more or less than the habit of thinking of foreign relations and business affecting the several countries of the civilized world as free co-operating equals.

The point is that for the past one hundred years or more, there has been a tremendous effort to research human behavior and what methods work best to persuade people to change their positions, and their attitudes. Many of these persuasion theories bare similarity to psychological doctrines, like operant conditioning. For instance, social exchange theory is primarily known for being a theory of economics in so far as it examines the relationship between individuals and what they are willing to pay in exchange for economic goods. In an article entitled Social Exchange Theory: An Integrative Approach to Social Conformity, published in The Psychological Bulletin 71(3), the authors note that when it comes to social behavior, social acceptance can be viewed as a “social good” which people will be willing to pay a price for. The price of course, is conforming to other’s viewpoints to feel accepted in a group of some kind. This bears resemblance to B.F. Skinner’s Beyond Freedom and Dignity when he states that social acceptance is a more powerful form of control than a police state.

The child who has learned what to say and how to behave in getting along with other people is under the control of social contingencies. People who get along together well under the mild contingencies of approval and disapproval are controlled as effectively as (and in many ways more effectively than) the citizens of a police state. Orthodoxy controls through the establishment of rules, but the mystic is no freer because the contingencies which have shaped his behavior are more personal or idiosyncratic. Those who work productively because of the reinforcing value of what they produce are under the sensitive and powerful control of the products. Those who learn in the natural environment are under a form of control as powerful as any control exerted by a teacher.

A theory called induced compliance posits the idea that positive or negative emotions, presented in association with information that contradicts one’s views, is a powerful factor in changing attitudes. In an article entitled Induced-Compliance Attitude Change: Once More with Feeling, published in The Journal of Experimental Psychology in 1979, the authors cited a study in which stimulants or tranquilizers were given to students while being asked to write essays that countered their typical beliefs. It was found that students who were given the stimulants were very easily persuaded to change their position. From this experiment, social scientists came to believe that when people are in a state of arousal, their attitudes and beliefs can be changed. How is this applied in the classroom? Charismatic teachers, skilled at trapping the attention of unsuspecting students, entertain them with meaningless jokes about parents or whatever, and then present information that is intended to sway their traditionally held beliefs. This is also known as values clarification education. It is in this state of arousal, where children are most likely to go along. Especially considering the theories mentioned earlier about wanting to be socially accepted.

A more recent article entitled Attitude Change: Persuasion and Social Influence reinforces the idea of social conformity as a change motivator. It highlights long held notions that social change can be affected when there are concerns about one’s self fitting in, feelings and beliefs being coherent and viewed in a favorable light, and maintaining positive relationships with others. In fact, the need to fit in can be such a strong driver of attitude change, it is not uncommon to see people change their positions primarily based on the company they are in.

These change strategies are employed against society everyday not only in education, but through any means of mass communications. The right works just as hard to persuade people as the left. Consider the concept of arousal influencing attitude change and apply it to Donald Trump’s bump stock ban. First, be honest and admit that if a democrat had done that conservatives would have opposed. Because the action was associated with a positive, arousal creating stimulus known as four-dimensional chess, people accepted the infringement against the second amendment in a passive, if not, positive way. Another example of persuasion, that was highly effective no less, was Barrack Obama insisting his views on homosexual marriage had evolved. When running for president, he was opposed because he knew the attitude of the country towards the controversial subject was not favorable. His charismatic attitude and positive character image were useful in persuading the American public to accept homosexual marriage because he claimed he had evolved to see it in a positive light. This is the same way they are presenting socialism, homosexuality, transgenderism, and even critical race theory in the classroom.

If we are going to get into the education system and make corrections, we must understand that the behaviorists have been researching human behavior for many decades. They know more about your behavior than you do. Their goal was to create an education system devoid of individuality and one that trains people to be subservient to the state. They have by far surpassed that goal and are very adept at persuading the masses into accepting things they may have never thought they would. Just look at every one wearing a face mask over a virus with .02 percent mortality rate.

 

Iserbyt, C. The Deliberate Dumbing down of America: A chronological Paper Trail. (1999) Ravena Ohio. Conscience Press.

Nord, W. R. (1969) Social exchange theory: An integrative approach to social conformity. Psychological bulletin 71 (3) pp. 173-208

Rhodewalt, F. & Comer, R. (1979) Induced compliance attitude change. Journal of experimental social psychology 15(1) pp. 35-47

Wood, W. (2000) Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual review of psychology. 51 (1) pp. 539-570

. 

The problematic science defining child sexual abuse and the normalization of pedophilia

 

The normalization of pedophilia is being pushed to the forefront of the American consciousness. Our schools are introducing children to sexually explicit education at earlier ages and television programing is taking the issue to new horizons with shows like the Netflix production of “Cuties.” People have argued for years that the normalization of homosexuality and legalization of gay marriage would be the catalyst for such a movement. The acceptance of these alternative lifestyles was introduced incrementally through subtle suggestions, and the portrayal of gay people as being righteous and upstanding while those opposed, bigoted and hateful. The same tactics are being used concerning pedophilia. The term, “minor attracted person” is being used to take away the negative connotations of sexual abuse against children. Disturbingly, the issue is being studied from a social science perspective, and academic journals are publishing findings which no doubt, are contributing to the movements claims that pedophilia is a normal sexual orientation. One such article is entitled “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples.”

This article examines studies from all around the globe attempting to pinpoint exactly what the effects of child sexual abuse (CSA) are on children. The common belief, which is undoubtedly true no matter what the studies claim, is that children suffer great trauma and long-lasting psychological problems from CSA. Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman are attempting to make the claim that the effects of CSA are not as traumatic as commonly believed and that in some cases, based on the studies cited in the article, other factors such as family environment and relationships with adults could contribute more to the psychological problems associated with CSA, than the act of sex itself. They also suggest that many methods in which CSA has been examined may be faulty by assuming every case involving sex with an underaged person is automatically considered abuse, which of course it should be. They compare a 5-year-old girl being forcefully molested by her father to a fifteen-year-old boy who may consensually agree to have sex with an unrelated adult. Of course, the five year is more likely to have long lasting psychological harm than the fifteen-year-old; however, that does not make it right. The implication being made here is that sexual abuse through a coercive act is more likely to cause harm while a consensual agreement to engage in sex with an adult does not. The article suggests that a fifteen-year-old boy agreeing to engage in sexual activity with an adult male is more of a violation of social norms than something that can be considered CSA. In which case, the issue is not something that can be studied as a case of causality because violating social norms is not known to cause psychological distress.

The problem they are attempting to rectify lies in the moral and legal definitions of CSA. They are claiming that there is a distinct difference between the two examples, and by classifying the fifteen year old boy as a case of CSA, the waters are being muddied on what actually constitutes CSA and how to determine what harm is caused. The article argues that classifying all cases of sexual activity with children as CSA is scientifically problematic because there is a difference between forceful and consensual acts. The term abuse itself, the article claims, is problematic because it does not differentiate between the violation of social norms and acts committed against a child’s will.

This is the biggest problem with science, there is no definite. Sex with children is wrong no matter which way you look at it. Unfortunately, social science journals are filled with bias. This writer is making no claims pertaining to the authors beliefs on child sexual abuse, only that there is a possibility of severe bias in any one of the studies used in this article. In fact, the article Bias in Research by Ana-Maria Simundic claims that many journals will not be published without positive findings. This means that if a study finds results not consistent with the beliefs of those conducting the study, the results will not be made public. If this is true, it is highly possible that the people publishing these findings are supportive of normalizing pedophilia.

Rind’s study concludes in a disturbing way. Not only is the claim made that there is no substantive evidence that CSA causes long lasting harm based on the methods traditionally used to define and study it ̶ ̶ there is the subtle suggestion that meaningful results can only be obtained by examining the young person’s willingness to participate in the sexual activity. If a young person perceives themselves as being a willing participant, then the encounter should only be labeled adult-child sex and not CSA. The only way to end child sexual abuse is to have a definite method of identifying what it is and holding people accountable whether a minor may have perceived themselves as being willing or not.