In the segment, the topic of motivation comes up, particularly in regard to behavior change. In it, Jones is perplexed that such level-headed gun laws, supported by the majority of Coloradans, would/could result in such dire consequences for the Senator who proposed the legislation. Jones takes to the streets, and finds many people who supported the measure, but who failed to vote in the recall election. The one's that voted in the recall election, it seemed, comprised of the roughly 20% who were against the measures in the first place.
This isn't the first instant something like this has happened. In my home state of Arizona in 2008, we passed legislation with an overwhelming majority that stated it would be illegal to pass any form of anti-lgbt legislation, including making gay marriage illegal. Although it did not make gay marriage legal, it was at least stated that you could not make it illegal. Many right-wing groups rallied against this, and tried twice in future elections to reverse the measure, utilizing tactics such as confusing re-wording (which almost worked) and general rabbel-rousing.
And it's frustrating. Most people after voting for a measure and seeing it pass, generally move on and consider the mission accomplished. Most constituents don't realize that after passing a law or any other form of legislation requires follow-through to ensure the safety and protection of that measure. Just because it was agreed upon and it passes doesn't make it immune to repeal or reversal.
This is the issue that Jones was trying to hit on. His general question referred to why, if so many people supported the gun safety laws in the first place, was this recall successful. The answer he got was simple. The people weren't angry. They weren't threatened. After it passed, essentially, they forgot about it.
Coming back to messaging, then, what efforts could legislators, politicians or activist groups employ to ensure the success of campaigns, or debunking motions that are contrary to public opinion and will? It seems like we are bombarded by messaging during election time, but when it comes to the laws and motions that actually affect our daily life and well-being, the majority of citizens are ignorant to what is going on. You pretty much have to go out of your way to look up and research these issues independently, unless your willing to listen to a canvasser proselytize to you and ask for a signature for some petition. It seems to me in this modern age of technology and advanced communication and media methods, there would and should be a system of regular reporting and bringing the information to the masses that is accessible.
Touching on motivation, a statement in the segment suggested that people are more motivated by negative emotion, such as anger and fear. Do you agree with this? Or is it mostly the flaw in our presentation and media that lend to the characteristic that people really only know what's going on and get behind issues when something is brought to their attention that threatens their ideology, status or existence?
I found this article titled "Irrational Emotions or Emotional Wisdom? The Evolutionary Psychology of Emotions and Behavior." by Martie G. Haselton of UCLA Center for Behavior Evolution and Culture and Timothy Ketelaar of New Mexico State University's Department of Psychology. In it, they state that Anger as a motivating factor "is a response to experiencing a transgression... attempting to deter it through action against the source" (2005). Disgust is another motivation factor identified, closely related to anger, but defined as "a response to a potential contaminant... motivat[ing] distancing from the source" (2005). They therefor suggest that an Anger response increases Risk-taking while a Disgust response tends to decrease it. With that in mind, how could that affect campaigns and messages in terms of motivating a behavioral or attitude change?
This isn't the first instant something like this has happened. In my home state of Arizona in 2008, we passed legislation with an overwhelming majority that stated it would be illegal to pass any form of anti-lgbt legislation, including making gay marriage illegal. Although it did not make gay marriage legal, it was at least stated that you could not make it illegal. Many right-wing groups rallied against this, and tried twice in future elections to reverse the measure, utilizing tactics such as confusing re-wording (which almost worked) and general rabbel-rousing.
And it's frustrating. Most people after voting for a measure and seeing it pass, generally move on and consider the mission accomplished. Most constituents don't realize that after passing a law or any other form of legislation requires follow-through to ensure the safety and protection of that measure. Just because it was agreed upon and it passes doesn't make it immune to repeal or reversal.
This is the issue that Jones was trying to hit on. His general question referred to why, if so many people supported the gun safety laws in the first place, was this recall successful. The answer he got was simple. The people weren't angry. They weren't threatened. After it passed, essentially, they forgot about it.
Coming back to messaging, then, what efforts could legislators, politicians or activist groups employ to ensure the success of campaigns, or debunking motions that are contrary to public opinion and will? It seems like we are bombarded by messaging during election time, but when it comes to the laws and motions that actually affect our daily life and well-being, the majority of citizens are ignorant to what is going on. You pretty much have to go out of your way to look up and research these issues independently, unless your willing to listen to a canvasser proselytize to you and ask for a signature for some petition. It seems to me in this modern age of technology and advanced communication and media methods, there would and should be a system of regular reporting and bringing the information to the masses that is accessible.
Touching on motivation, a statement in the segment suggested that people are more motivated by negative emotion, such as anger and fear. Do you agree with this? Or is it mostly the flaw in our presentation and media that lend to the characteristic that people really only know what's going on and get behind issues when something is brought to their attention that threatens their ideology, status or existence?
I found this article titled "Irrational Emotions or Emotional Wisdom? The Evolutionary Psychology of Emotions and Behavior." by Martie G. Haselton of UCLA Center for Behavior Evolution and Culture and Timothy Ketelaar of New Mexico State University's Department of Psychology. In it, they state that Anger as a motivating factor "is a response to experiencing a transgression... attempting to deter it through action against the source" (2005). Disgust is another motivation factor identified, closely related to anger, but defined as "a response to a potential contaminant... motivat[ing] distancing from the source" (2005). They therefor suggest that an Anger response increases Risk-taking while a Disgust response tends to decrease it. With that in mind, how could that affect campaigns and messages in terms of motivating a behavioral or attitude change?
No comments:
Post a Comment