Effect of Biases on Persuasive

Question: Discuss about the Effect of Biases on Persuasive Communication. Answer: Introduction: Natural hazards have started to threaten the residential safety and stability in several countries. Every year the frequency of natural disasters is escalating due to the trans-global urbanization and the residents are paying dearly for the unplanned developmental measures. The last year experienced destruction worth $175 billion all due to natural disasters. Strategic preparation has become an all time necessity to minimize the risks and cope with the consequences (Blaikie et al., 2014). Psychological input: Psychological support has emerged as an integral element of disaster management program. Studies suggest that more than 70-90% of people are not persuaded by disaster preparation alerts they receive and that inevitably increases the scale of destruction (Blaikie et al., 2014). This report aims to evaluate how psychological input regarding social cognitive biases and persuasive communication theories can develop persuasive strategies that can influence better public engagement. Types of cognitive biases: A cognitive bias can be defined as a systematic pattern that influences deviation from rationality. Normalization bias urges people to deprecate both the possibility of a hazard and its possible consequences. Unrealistic Optimism is another common bias that leads an individual to believe that they are at a comparatively lesser risk of negative impact than others are (Keating et al., 2014). Effect of cognitive biases: The highest number of unnecessary deaths in a disaster is caused by normalcy bias, which makes it one of the deadliest biases. It causes the individuals to drastically underestimate the aftermath of a catastrophe by creating a cognitive dissonance in the subconscious of the individuals, which then drives them to eliminate it by either refusal or denial (Petty, Ostrom Brock, 2014). For example when people refuse to evacuate even when there is eminent threat, it defeats the purpose of disaster planning. Dispositional optimism is a result of irrational and unrealistic perception of a situation that may affect an individual directly or indirectly (Keating et al., 2014). Optimistic bias often leads to faulty procession of risk related information by individuals, which inescapably intervenes with the safety measures taken by the disaster management task force. Overcoming cognitive biases: The best method to combat the biases is to apply theories of persuasive communication of social psychology. The term persuasion refers to ways of influencing the perception and behavior of individuals, utilizing an appeal to their emotion (Gutteling, 2015). The theories are based on different rational models, designed to influence people to behave in the predictable ways (Blaikie et al., 2014). The response to a disaster depends on the understanding of the impending risks, which is linked to the conflicting hopes and beliefs of individuals. The principles of persuasive communication state that it is impossible to generate adequate response in the mass by just delivering the alert message when the mass is in denial (Petty, Ostrom Brock, 2014). In order to generate appropriate awareness the message needs to target their perception of risk and grab the attention of the people by a clear, assertive and informative message so that they realize the extent of destruction their ill judgment can provoke (Gutteling, 2015). Conclusion: Natural disasters are characterized by their element of surprise; hence, there will always be destruction. The purpose of disaster management is to minimize the scale of destruction as much as possible. The entire process of risk management depends on the cooperation of the public and when biased perception influences better judgment of the public, it defeats that purpose. As a social psychologist, I can conclude that the underlying cause for these biases are lack of clear understanding in the general public and lack of transparency from the authoritys end. Application of persuasive principles is the only way to bridge the gap and create awareness in the general mass so that they understand the continuous threat of hazards they live in. References Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., Wisner, B. (2014).At risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters. Routledge. Fischhoff, B. (2013).Risk analysis and human behavior(Vol. 26). Routledge. Gutteling, J. M. (2015).Risk communication. John Wiley Sons, Inc.. Keating, A., Campbell, K., Mechler, R., Michel?Kerjan, E., Mochizuki, J., Kunreuther, H., ... Williges, K. (2014). Operationalizing resilience against natural disaster risk: Opportunities, barriers and a way forward.Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance. Petty, R., Ostrom, T. M., Brock, T. C. (2014).Cognitive responses in persuasion. Psychology Press.