Psychologia Platforma Obywatelska Bandwagon Effect i Media
Czy media używają Bandwagon effect aby Platforma Obywatelska wygrała?
Czy znacie jakieś inne psychologiczne chwyty?
Media ciągle nam mówią że Platforma Obywatelska wygrywa
Zasada podczepienia (
bandwagon effect). Jeśli nie wiesz co myśleć, zobacz, co myślą inni. Nazywana także owczym pędem czy mentalnością stada - czujemy się dobrze, kiedy wybór podzielają inni członkowie społeczności, zwłaszcza, kiedy zależy nam na ich akceptacji. Im więcej osób dokonało danego wyboru, tym większe prawdopodobieństwo, iż kolejna jednostka postąpi tak samo. Jest przyczyną wybierania złych polityków (głosujemy na partie, na które głosują inni), szałów zakupowych na dane produkty, pewnie nie bez znaczenia w wypadku mód i trendów. Częściowo odpowiada także za efekt sieciowy, który z kolei odpowiada za sukces ekonomiczny Microsoftu
http://zaozi.blogspot.com/2010/03/tak-ci-sie-tylko-wydaje-cz-i.html
„
bandwagon effect” – wyborca niezdecydowany głosuje na tych, którzy na pewno wygrają
„
under dog effect” - wyborca niezdecydowany głosuje na tych, którzy ostatnio zanotowali najwyższy wzrost poparcia
Efekt Silniejszego (
Bandwagon Effect) jest to zachowanie wynikające z ludzkiej psychologii i polegające na postępowaniu tak jak robią to inni. Ludzie wierzą, ze jeśli jakaś grupa osób zachowuje sie w podobny sposob, zachowanie takie musi byc słuszne i oni też robią podobnie. Zachowanie takie jest dosc dokladnie omawiane w psychologii i pociaga za soba wiele konsekwencji.
W ekonomi zachowanie to jest wykorzystywane w badaniu i manipulowaniu popytem i preferencjami konsumentow. Wiadomo powszechnie,ze klienci kupuja czesciej konkretne produkty badz marki tylko dlatego,ze inni tez tak robia. Takie zachowanie moze nawet zaklucac dzialanie mechanizmu rynkowego i prawa popytu i podazy, ktore mowia,ze konsumenci swe decyzje podejmuja w oparciu o cene i osobiste preferencje. (A. Colman 2003, s. 77)
Efekt silniejszego ma rowniez swe odzwierciedlenie w polityce. Tutaj przejawia sie on w dosc osobliwy sposob, albowiem wyborcy glosuja na tego kandydata, ktory jest promowany i przedstawiany jako ten, ktory ma wieksza sanse na wygrana. W rezultacie tacy glosujacy po wygranej ich kandydata rowniez staja sie niejako wygranymi. (A. Mehrabian 2000, s. 5)
http://mfiles.pl/pl/index.php/Efekt_silniejszego
Bandwagon effect
zachowanie części wyborców polegające na preferowaniu i przenoszeniu głosów na kandydata lub partię, dla których wzrasta poparcie w sondażach i mają największe szanse na wygraną. Motywem takiego zachowania jest zwykle chęć przyłączenia się do obozu zwycięskiego kandydata. Efekt ten może również dotyczyć osób, które obawiają się „zmarnowania głosu” z powodu udzielenia poparcia kandydatowi lub partii faktycznie przez nich preferowanych, ale nie mających szans na wygraną lub przekroczenie progu wyborczego.
Omawiane zjawisko zostało po raz pierwszy zaobserwowane już w XIX wieku, w Stanach Zjednoczonych, przy okazji rozmaitych wyborów na urzędy prezydenckie, gubernatorskie itp. Bandwagon effect został szerzej opisany w publikacji z 1944 roku, autorstwa socjologów Paula F. Lazarsfelda, Bernarda Berelsona i Hazela Gaudeta “The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign”. Autorzy publikacji analizowali wybory prezydenckie w Stanach Zjednoczonych z 1940 roku.
Kandydatem Partii Demokratycznej był wtedy aktualny prezydent Franklin D. Roosevelt, sprawujący swój urząd drugi raz z rzędu. Rywalem Roosevelta był kandydat Partii Republikańskiej Wendel Lewis Willkie. Wybory, zgodnie z oczekiwaniami społecznymi i prognozami ośrodków badań opinii publicznej, wygrał Franklin D. Roosevelt, który w ten sposób został wybrany na trzecią kadencję z rzędu. Był to precedens w dziejach Stanów Zjednoczonych; Roosvelt wygrał również, po raz czwarty, wybory prezydenckie w 1944. Był jedynym prezydentem Stanów Zjednoczonych, który sprawował swój urząd przez więcej niż dwie kadencje. W roku 1947 w Kongresie zgłoszona została XXII poprawka do Konstytucji Stanów Zjednoczonych (ratyfikowana w 1951), która oficjalnie ograniczyła możliwość sprawowania urzędu prezydenckiego przez tę samą osobę do dwóch kadencji.
http://dobrebadania.pl/slownik-badawczy.html?b=baza&szczegolowo=929
===========
Experts warn of 'bandwagon effect'
If John McCain’s supporters are hoping for a “Bradley effect” bounce on Election Day, some pollsters and strategists say they may have another thing coming.
Beware of the “bandwagon effect.”
While the Bradley effect posits that some white voters who tell pollsters that they will vote for a black candidate often have second thoughts in the voting booth, the “bandwagon effect” suggests that a small but significant number of persuadable voters will decide at the last minute to go with the winner.
As with the Bradley effect, the “bandwagon effect” is hard to measure or prove.
Pollster John Zogby is skeptical of the bandwagon theory and says voters always say it’s someone else who votes that way.
"'No, no, no, not me,'” he said they say. "’It's the stupid people across the street.’"
But it's not quite that simple.
Academics who have spent years researching the nexus of polling and voter behavior say that it takes a change in poll numbers to get voters jumping on board — or at least thinking about it. If the tide turns toward a candidate, persuadable — but previously unpersuaded — voters begin to ask what they’ve been missing.
"The original bandwagon theory is that people don't want to miss the party," said Samuel Popkin, a political scientist at the University of California at San Diego and the author of “The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns.”
"There will be somebody in the end who says, 'I don't want to vote for him because he's black, but McCain's going to lose so I'll vote for him to tell my grandkids I did,'" Popkin said.
But, he added: "I think what's more likely is if you see a poll that says people in your congressional district have changed, you're going to say, 'What's going on?' ... If you read in the paper [that] Obama's crowds are bigger than ever, his lead is growing, you think, 'I better double check. What have I missed? What's new that I didn't know?’”
Popkin said Obama's rise in the polls is just the kind of movement that would cause a voter to reevaluate, creating a positive feedback loop where more support begets more support. The reverse is true on John McCain's side: The more he drops, the more people reassess him.
On the other hand, if McCain surges in the polls in the last few days before the election, the bandwagon effect could have voters reconsidering and jumping off the Obama train.
Of course, voters are unpredictable, and a theory doesn’t always survive real-world tests.
To analyze the nuances of the bandwagon theory, Diana C. Mutz, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, presented study subjects with descriptions of candidates and then told them that they had varying levels of popularity. Told that a candidate was popular, the theoretical voters would explain the popularity by focusing on the candidate's strengths. "We naturally try to explain our environment," said Mutz.
Given the current environment, swing voters may now find themselves explaining to themselves why Obama seems so popular. The campaign is ready with the outlines of an answer: He's cool under pressure, represents change, etc.
To encourage the bandwagon effect, Popkin said that a campaign should send a signal to voters that others like them have made the change, too. One example: an ad for Republican candidate William Russell currently running in Democratic Rep. John P. Murtha's Pennsylvania district. In it, a woman says, "Dear Mr. Murtha. I've always voted for you, but not this time.”
Mutz said that in a "high information" race like this year’s presidential contest, voters are unlikely to jump mindlessly on a bandwagon.
However, she said that when people “learn of a candidate's popularity, they are prompted to reconsider their own views in light of the kinds of explanations for this popularity that they can obtain from their environments.”
If the explanation for a candidate’s rise lacks substance, she said, then it's unlikely to influence a voter. For example, she suggested that if voters perceive that Obama’s rise is due to a huge influx of money, they’re not likely to be persuaded. But if they sense that his surge is founded on a well-run campaign and a smooth temperament, then they might be.
If Obama were sinking in the polls, voters would be looking for negative characteristics about him — and positive ones about McCain — to explain that environment. The McCain campaign would be ready with both: Obama's too liberal, too inexperienced, etc., while McCain's a hero, a straight-talker and a leader.
Editors and reporters, being human, are not exempt from the phenomenon. When a candidate is surging, editors might lean toward assigning stories that explain the rise in popularity. A flagging candidate comes in for rougher treatment as reporters look to explain the new climate. As Obama has performed better in the polls, he's been on the receiving end of a significantly greater number of positive stories than McCain.
"Information about who is leading or gaining ground simply serves as a catalyst to cause people to mentally rehearse more positive arguments than they otherwise would have,” Mutz said.
“I’ve actually seen the opposite reaction,” said Republican strategist Ed Goeas. “Every time it seems like Obama’s definitely going to win, it narrows, almost like there’s a buyer’s remorse.”
While the politically savvy may scoff at the idea that people are voting based on popularity, Mutz says the notion of being influenced by others isn’t so unusual when taken out of the context of politics.
"It's not at all stupid to rely on consensus," she said. "If everyone's saying that a particular restaurant is horrible, are you going to insist on going there yourself? The idea that we shouldn't turn to others for help in decision making is kind of dumb in some ways."
Even if we won’t admit it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081030/pl_politico/15070
By providing information about voting intentions, opinion polls can sometimes influence the behavior of electors, and in his book The Broken Compass,
Peter Hitchens asserts that opinion polls are actually a device for influencing public opinion.[27] The various theories about how this happens can be split up into two groups:
bandwagon/underdog effects, and strategic ("tactical") voting.
A bandwagon effect occurs when the poll prompts voters to back the candidate shown to be winning in the poll. The idea that voters are susceptible to such effects is old, stemming at least from 1884;[28] reported that it was first used in a political cartoon in the magazine Puck in that year. It has also remained persistent in spite of a lack of empirical corroboration until the late 20th century. George Gallup spent much effort in vain trying to discredit this theory in his time by presenting empirical research. A recent meta-study of scientific research on this topic indicates that from the 1980s onward the Bandwagon effect is found more often by researchers.[29]
The opposite of the bandwagon effect is the underdog effect. It is often mentioned in the media. This occurs when people vote, out of sympathy, for the party perceived to be "losing" the elections. There is less empirical evidence for the existence of this effect than there is for the existence of the bandwagon effect.[29]
The second category of theories on how polls directly affect voting is called strategic or tactical voting. This theory is based on the idea that voters view the act of voting as a means of selecting a government. Thus they will sometimes not choose the candidate they prefer on ground of ideology or sympathy, but another, less-preferred, candidate from strategic considerations. An example can be found in the United Kingdom general election, 1997. As he was then a Cabinet Minister, Michael Portillo's constituency of Enfield Southgate was believed to be a safe seat but opinion polls showed the Labour candidate Stephen Twigg steadily gaining support, which may have prompted undecided voters or supporters of other parties to support Twigg in order to remove Portillo. Another example is the boomerang effect where the likely supporters of the candidate shown to be winning feel that chances are slim and that their vote is not required, thus allowing another candidate to win.
These effects indicate how opinion polls can directly affect political choices of the electorate. But directly or indirectly, other effects can be surveyed and analyzed on on all political parties. The form of media framing and party ideology shifts must also be taken under consideration. Opinion polling in some instances is a measure of cognitive bias, which is variably considered and handled appropriately in its various applications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll
Wiki2
Wykop2
Linki
Szukaj
Ekipa
Rejestracja
Zaloguj
