Trustworthy communicators are perceived as experts whose opinion can be relied upon. People who speak confidently, quickly, and look listeners in the eye are perceived by the latter as more trustworthy. The same can be said about communicators who defend a particular position, despite the fact that it contradicts their own interests. An outwardly attractive person is an effective communicator when it comes to issues affecting people’s tastes and personal values. Those messages that are associated with positive feelings are more convincing. People who are in a good mood are more likely to make impulsive, less deliberate decisions. Some fear-inspiring messages can also be convincing, because they are expressive and stick in the memory. The extent to which the point of view expressed in the message may differ from that already established by the audience depends on the extent to which the communicator enjoys trust. Whether a communicator should present the opponents’ point of view in his message or limit himself to presenting his own position depends on the audience’s preparedness, attitude to the content of the message and willingness to listen to counterarguments. If the audience already agrees with the communicator, is unaware of the counterarguments, and is unlikely to consider them in the future, one-way communication is most effective. If we are talking about an audience that either knows the problem well or does not share the position of the communicator, two-way communication is more effective. If a message consistently presents two points of view, which one is potentially more convincing — the one presented by the first, or the second? Most experimental data support the primacy effect.When some time passes between two presentations, the influence of the first one decreases; if the decision is made immediately after the second point of view is presented, which is fresh in memory, it is more likely that the novelty effect will manifest itself. The way of communication is equally important. The media can be effective when it comes to an unprincipled issue (for example, which of the two brands of aspirin should be bought) or something that is unknown to the mass audience (for example, the choice between two unfamiliar politicians). And one last thing. It is also important to whom the message is addressed. What does the audience think about when they perceive it? Is she leaning in his favor or considering counterarguments? The age of the audience also matters. Researchers who regularly conduct public opinion polls know that young people’s attitudes are less stable.

On March 22, 1997, Marshall Herff Applewhite and 37 of his followers decided that the time had come to leave their bodies — nothing more than “containers” — and transfer to an alien ship following Comet Hale-Bopp to the gates of paradise. They took phenobarbital, mixed it into pudding or applesauce, which they washed down with vodka, and put plastic bags on their heads to suffocate in their sleep. On the same day, a cottage exploded in the village of St. Casimir (French Canada), and 5 people died in the fire — the last of the 74 members of the Order of the Temple of the Sun; the rest of the members of this order, who lived in Canada, Switzerland and France, had already committed suicide. All of them hoped to be on the star Sirius, at a distance of 9 light-years from Earth. A question that worries many: what makes people abandon their previous beliefs and join the ranks of adherents of these sects? Is it possible to attribute their strange behavior to the fact that they are all strange personalities? Or is it an illustration of the general dynamics of social influence and persuasion? There are two things to keep in mind. First, we are dealing with the phenomenon of “hindsight.” This means that the principles of persuasion are used to explain after the fact any attention-grabbing and sometimes disturbing social phenomenon. Secondly, the answer to the question of why people believe in something does not tell us anything about the truth of their faith. These are logically unrelated things. The psychology of religion can explain why a believer believes in God and an atheist does not, but it cannot tell which of them is right. Explaining the causes of a belief does not mean answering the question of whether it is true. If someone, wanting to dissuade you, says: “You only believe that because…”, recall Archbishop William Temple’s response to the remark: “Of course, Archbishop, the fact is that you believe in what you believe in because you were raised that way.” To this, Temple replied: “It’s quite possible. The fact is, however, that your belief that my faith is the result of my upbringing is the result of your upbringing.” In recent decades, several sects— some sociologists also call them “new religious movements” — have gained great fame: Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church, Jim Jones’s People Temple, and David Koresh’s Branch of David Branch Davidians) and Marshall Applewhite’s Heaven’s Gate.The doctrine of Sang Myung Moon, which is a mixture of Christianity, anti-communism and the cult of Moon himself as the new messiah, has found adherents in different countries. In response to his call, “My desires must become your desires,” many people placed their incomes and themselves at the disposal of the Unification Church. How were they persuaded to do this? In 1978, the world was shocked by the news that 914 followers of Jim Jones who had traveled there with him from San Francisco had committed suicide in Guyana: they had drunk a grape drink containing tranquilizers, painkillers and a lethal dose of cyanide. In 1993, David Koresh, a half-educated man, using his hypnotic abilities and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, established control over one of the factions of the Branch of David sect. Gradually, the members of this faction lost their bank accounts and property. At the same time, Koresh urged men to abstain, while he himself slept with their wives and daughters; he even managed to convince 19 of his “wives” to bear him children. During the shootout that ensued after the police launched a siege of the building where Koresh and his supporters were staying, 6 members of the sect and 4 federal agents were killed. Koresh told his followers that they would die soon and go to heaven with him. When the police were about to send tanks and tear gas at the building, the building was set on fire, and 86 people died in the flames of the fire. Marshall Applewhite had little interest in the sex lives of his followers. Dismissed from two music schools for having homosexual relations with students, he castrated himself and persuaded 7 of the 17 male members of the sect who died with him to follow his example (Chua-Eoan, 1997; Gardner, 1997). In 1971, while recovering in a psychiatric hospital, Applewhite met a nurse and astrology fan, Bonnie Lou Nettles, who provided him, a persistent and charismatic “guru,” with a cosmological vision of “moving to the next level.” An emotional preacher, he urged his followers to give up relatives, sex life, drugs and personal money and promised them in return a journey to salvation on a spaceship. How is this even possible? What convinced these people to show such boundless, absolute devotion? Are dispositional explanations appropriate in this case, i.e. is it possible to put all the blame on the victims? Is it possible to dismiss them by saying that they are either “hello people” or ignorant fanatics? Or can the principles of conformity, submission, dissonance, beliefs, and group influence that we know explain such behavior and put these people on the same level as others who, in their own way, also experience the effects of these forces? Source: Myers D. “Social Psychology” Photo: saba.com