The tools of propaganda are subtle, pervasive, and highly effective. Understanding these techniques empowers us as consumers of information, enabling us to question, analyse, and challenge the narratives presented to us. This post aims to unmask eleven common propaganda techniques used to manufacture consent.

Presenting ‘The Appeal to Authority’

This technique validates a claim or argument by referencing statements or endorsements from authority figures, experts, or celebrities (1)

In politics, the appeal to authority is a frequently used technique. For instance, consider the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The U.S. and UK governments asserted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, posing a significant threat to global security. They cited reports from their intelligence agencies, using the agencies' authoritative standing to validate their claims (12)

Then Secretary of State Colin Powell even presented evidence to the United Nations Security Council, showing photos, diagrams, and other pieces of information derived from "reliable sources" within the intelligence community (13). These appeals to authority were used to legitimize the subsequent military action in Iraq.

However, after the invasion, no substantial evidence of the alleged weapons of mass destruction was found, leading to significant controversy and criticism about the accuracy of the pre-war intelligence and the motives of the U.S. and UK governments (14)

Presenting ‘The Bandwagon Effect’

The bandwagon effect is a psychological phenomenon where individuals do or believe something primarily because others are doing it. Propagandists manipulate this desire to belong, shaping public sentiment (2)

In the political sphere, the "Bandwagon Effect" is often used to sway public opinion and mobilize support. For example, during election campaigns, political parties frequently publicize polls that portray their candidate as the front-runner. This strategy leverages the bandwagon effect, creating a perception that "everyone" is voting for their candidate, thereby encouraging undecided voters to do the same. The logic is simple - if a candidate is already winning, then they must be the preferable choice, leading more people to hop on the bandwagon (15)

A specific example can be seen in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Barack Obama's campaign effectively used the bandwagon effect with slogans like "Change We Can Believe In" and the "Yes We Can" chant, projecting a sense of momentum and widespread support that encouraged more people to join the movement (16)

However, it's crucial to remember that the popularity of a candidate, cause, or policy doesn't necessarily reflect its merit or efficacy. It's always important to research, understand, and critically evaluate before jumping on the bandwagon.

Cherry-Picking

Propagandists selectively present facts and statistics to paint a reality that favors their narrative, often ignoring or downplaying contradictory information (3)

"Cherry-picking" is a common technique used across various domains, from politics to science to media. It involves selecting and highlighting data or information that supports a particular viewpoint, while ignoring or downplaying contradicting evidence.

A clear example of this can be seen in the debate over climate change. Some climate change skeptics selectively cite short-term weather patterns or localized data to claim that global warming isn't occurring or isn't serious. For instance, they might point to a particularly cold winter in one region as "proof" against global warming. This is a classic case of cherry-picking because it ignores the broader, long-term trends that overwhelmingly show a rise in global temperatures (17)

Another example is political debates where politicians selectively use economic indicators to paint a positive or negative picture of the economy, depending on their agenda. A governing party might focus on positive statistics such as low unemployment rates, while ignoring negative indicators like increasing income inequality (18)

It's important to be aware of this technique and to strive for a comprehensive understanding of an issue, taking into account all relevant data and a variety of sources.

Presenting ‘Fear Appeal’

This technique exploits our primal instincts by creating scenarios that threaten our sense of security, presenting their action or viewpoint as the sole solution (4)

The "Fear Appeal" technique is commonly employed in political campaigns and public safety messages. It plays on people's fears to persuade them to adopt a particular viewpoint or take a certain action.

A notable example of this technique was the "Daisy" television advertisement from Lyndon B. Johnson's 1964 U.S. presidential campaign. The advertisement showed a little girl counting daisy petals, which then transitions into a countdown to a nuclear explosion, effectively associating Johnson's opponent, Barry Goldwater, with the fear of nuclear war. The advertisement ended with a voiceover, "Vote for President Johnson on November 3. The stakes are too high for you to stay home." By invoking the fear of nuclear disaster, the campaign attempted to position Johnson as the safer choice (19)

Another example can be seen in the rhetoric around the "War on Terror" following the events of September 11, 2001. The U.S. government used fear appeals about potential terrorist attacks to justify certain policies, like the USA PATRIOT Act, which significantly expanded surveillance powers (20)

While fear can be a powerful motivator, it's important to critically examine fear-based messages to avoid being manipulated into making decisions based on fear rather than fact.

All The Glittering Generalities

Propagandists use emotionally appealing, often vague words that carry positive connotations to stir strong emotions and make their cause seem righteous (5)

The technique of "Glittering Generalities" uses broadly appealing, yet often vague phrases to rally support. This technique is widely used in politics, advertising, and public relations.

In politics, an example can be seen in many campaign slogans. Barack Obama's 2008 campaign slogan "Change We Can Believe In" is a powerful example. The words "change" and "believe" carry strong positive connotations. They are, however, left undefined and open to interpretation. The slogan successfully stirred strong emotions among many voters, contributing to a sense of optimism and the righteousness of Obama's cause (21)

Another example comes from the world of advertising. Apple Inc.'s famous "Think Different" campaign is an instance of using glittering generalities. The words "Think Different" are inspiring but vague, prompting consumers to associate Apple products with innovation, creativity, and rebellion against the status quo (22)

While such slogans and campaigns can be inspiring, it's important to recognize the technique at play. We should always seek clarity on what such glittering terms specifically entail and evaluate whether the actions or products truly embody these values.

You’ve Been ‘Framing’

Framing involves presenting an issue or event from a specific perspective to influence public perception (6)

"Framing" is a pervasive technique used to shape our understanding of news, events, or issues by emphasizing specific aspects and downplaying others. It's widely used in media, politics, and advertising.

A classic example of framing in politics is the way different media outlets report on immigration. Some outlets might frame immigration as a security issue, focusing on instances of crime and emphasizing the need for tighter border controls. This can create a perception that immigrants are predominantly criminal or dangerous (23)

On the other hand, other outlets might frame immigration as a humanitarian or economic issue. They highlight stories of individuals and families seeking better lives or contributing positively to the economy, thus portraying immigration in a more positive light (24)

Both frames present a different aspect of the complex issue of immigration, influencing how the public perceives and understands it.

In advertising, a product might be framed as a necessity instead of a luxury, thus influencing consumers' perceived need for it. For example, smartphone companies often frame their latest devices as essential tools for modern life, focusing on features like productivity apps, health tracking, or security measures (25)

Understanding the concept of framing can help us become more discerning consumers of information. It's important to recognize that the way information is presented to us can significantly influence our perceptions and opinions.

Loaded Language

This technique uses words and phrases with strong emotional implications to influence an audience. The words chosen will often carry undertones that reinforce the propagandist's message (7)

The "Loaded Language" technique, involving the use of emotionally charged words or phrases to influence audiences, is prevalent in various domains, including politics.

In the context of the Brexit debate, an example from the "Remain" campaign is the phrase "Stronger Together." This slogan, infused with powerful emotions, implies unity, collective strength, and the potential benefits of collaboration. The phrase is meant to make the idea of staying in the EU appear advantageous and the logical choice for collective progress (26)

News media also extensively use loaded language to sway public sentiment about specific issues or individuals. For instance, the terms used to describe protesters – "freedom fighters" or "rebels" versus "insurgents" or "rioters" – can significantly influence public perception (27)

In advertising, emotionally charged phrases are often used to boost the appeal of products. For example, "melt in your mouth" for a chocolate advert, or "unleash the power" for a car advert, carry emotional implications influencing consumer behavior (28)

Recognizing the use of loaded language can help maintain a critical perspective when assessing messages, reminding us to examine how word choices might be designed to manipulate our emotions and beliefs.

Name-Calling

This is a classic technique where propagandists use derogatory language or labels to incite fears and arouse prejudice against their opponents (8)

"Name-Calling" is a commonly used propaganda technique across the spectrum of political beliefs and affiliations, and it's not confined to any one political orientation. It involves the use of derogatory language or labels to create a sense of fear and arouse prejudice against those labeled.

In the case of the "Antifa" movement, labels such as "fascists" or "racists" are often broadly applied to their opposition. These labels, loaded with strong negative connotations, serve to delegitimize and vilify their targets (29)

Additionally, labels such as "corporate puppets" or "elitists" are sometimes used to discredit individuals or groups within left-leaning circles who are seen as barriers to progressive goals or values (30)

These examples highlight the need to critically evaluate the language used in political discourse and to recognize when name-calling is being used as a propaganda technique. Such critical evaluation allows us to look beyond labels and seek a more nuanced understanding of the beliefs and actions of individuals and groups.

Oversimplification

Complex issues are often reduced to oversimplified dichotomies, presenting one side as good and the other as bad. This technique discourages critical thinking (9)

"Oversimplification" is a common technique used in propaganda where complex issues are reduced to simple binaries, often presented as one side being good and the other bad. This approach discourages critical thinking by implying that the situation is black and white, without acknowledging the nuances and complexities involved.

In politics, a classic example is the dichotomy often presented between "big government" vs. "small government." In this framing, proponents of small government often present it as synonymous with freedom and economic prosperity, while depicting big government as oppressive and stifling to economic growth (31) Conversely, those favoring big government may portray it as a force for societal good, providing necessary regulation and public services, and depict small government as neglectful of the public welfare.

In discussions about climate change, the debate is sometimes oversimplified to "economy" vs. "environment." Those prioritizing economic growth may argue that regulations intended to combat climate change are bad for business and employment, while environmental advocates may argue that ignoring climate change for the sake of short-term economic gains will lead to long-term, possibly irreversible, environmental damage (32)

These examples illustrate how the oversimplification of complex issues into binary terms can influence public perception and limit critical engagement with the nuances of these issues.

Scapegoating

By blaming a person or group for problems they didn't cause, propagandists can shift blame away from themselves or distract from more complex issues (10)

"Scapegoating" is a technique commonly used in propaganda where an individual or group is blamed for issues they did not necessarily cause. This tactic can be a way for propagandists to divert attention away from more intricate or contentious issues.

A pertinent example of this can be seen in the debate surrounding the correlation between violent video games and real-world aggression. For many years, violent video games have been scapegoated as the primary reason for aggression and violent behavior, especially among young people (33)

For instance, following mass shootings, it's not uncommon for political figures and media outlets to link these tragic events with the shooter's consumption of violent video games (34). This narrative, however, oversimplifies the multifaceted causes of such incidents, which are more accurately attributed to a complex interplay of individual, social, and structural factors.

Similarly, societal problems such as youth violence or school bullying have sometimes been blamed on violent media content, including video games and films (35). This oversimplification fails to acknowledge the broader set of factors that contribute to these issues, such as family environment, educational institutions, peer influence, and mental health.

These examples highlight the use of scapegoating as a tool to avoid addressing the complex nature of societal issues. Recognizing this technique allows for a more comprehensive analysis of these problems and contributes to more effective solutions.

Testimonials

Using testimonials, propagandists seek to connect on a personal level. This technique uses personal experiences or stories to support a cause or damage an opposing cause (11)

The technique of "Testimonials" has been extensively used in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. Governments, health organizations, and pharmaceutical companies have employed personal stories and experiences to emphasize the importance of preventive measures and vaccines (36)

For example, many public health campaigns have featured narratives from individuals who have survived COVID-19. These testimonials recount the severe toll of the virus on their health, urging others to adhere to public health guidelines (37)

In addition, testimonials from healthcare professionals have been instrumental in highlighting the intense strain on hospital resources and the psychological impact on frontline workers. These personal accounts are meant to humanize the crisis and encourage the public to take measures that reduce the burden on the healthcare system (38)

Moreover, endorsements from well-known individuals who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 have been used to foster confidence in the vaccination efforts. Public figures, from political leaders to celebrities, have publicly shared their experiences with the vaccine to promote its acceptance (39)

These instances demonstrate how testimonials can be employed to establish emotional connections, shape public perceptions, and motivate public behavior during a health crisis. Understanding this propaganda technique is crucial in discerning how personal narratives can influence our attitudes and actions.

References:

1: Pratkanis, A. R., & Aronson, E. (2001). Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. Henry Holt and Company.

2: Cialdini, R. B. (2006). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Harper Business.

3: Houghton, D. P. (2016). Political Psychology: Situations, Individuals, and Cases. Routledge.

4: Fritsche, I., Cohrs, J. C., Kessler, T., & Bauer, J. (2012). Global warming is breeding social conflict: The subtle impact of climate change threat on authoritarian tendencies. Journal of Environmental Psychology.

5: Lasswell, H. D. (1927). Propaganda Technique in the World War. MIT Press.

6: Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication.

7: Jowett, G. S., & O'Donnell, V. (2022). Propaganda & Persuasion. SAGE Publications, Inc.

8: Ellul, J. (1965). Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes. Vintage Books.

9: Delwiche, A. (2011). Propaganda and Democracy. Cambridge University Press.

10: Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology.

11: Boeyink, D. E., & White, C. H. (1995). Evaluating the Ethics of Deception in Journalism. Journal of Mass Media Ethics.

12. Blix, H. (2004). Disarming Iraq. Bloomsbury Publishing.

13. Powell, C. L. (2003). Remarks to the United Nations Security Council. US Department of State.

14. Cirincione, J., Wolfsthal, J. B., & Rajkumar, M. (2005). Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Threats. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

15: Nadeau, R., Cloutier, E., & Guay, J. H. (1993). New Evidence About the Existence of a Bandwagon Effect in the Opinion Formation Process. International Political Science Review.

16: Jackson, D. Z. (2008). Obama: Master of the bandwagon effect. Boston Globe.

17: Oreskes, N. (2004). Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science.

18. Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton University Press. ↩

19: Franz, M. M., & Ridout, T. N. (2010). Political Advertising and Persuasion in the 2004 and 2008 Presidential Elections. American Politics Research.

20: Huddy, L., Feldman, S., Taber, C., & Lahav, G. (2005). Threat, Anxiety, and Support of Antiterrorism Policies. American Journal of Political Science.

(21): West, D. M. (2010). Air Wars: Television Advertising and Social Media in Election Campaigns, 1952-2016. SAGE Publications.

(22): Segall, K. (2012). Insanely Simple: The Obsession That Drives Apple's Success. Penguin Books.

(23): Brader, T., Valentino, N. A., & Suhay, E. (2008). What Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and Immigration Threat. American Journal of Political Science.

(24): Batalova, J., & Fix, M. (2017). New Brain Gain: Rising Human Capital among Recent Immigrants to the United States. Migration Policy Institute.

(25): Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science.

(26): Clarke, H. D., Goodwin, M., & Whiteley, P. (2017). Brexit: Why Britain Voted to Leave the European Union. Cambridge University Press.

(27): Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication.

(28): Phillip, A. J., Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2012). The Elicitation Capabilities of Visual and Verbal Articulation of Imagery. Journal of Consumer Research.

(29): Bray, M. (2017). Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook. Melville House.

(30): Han, S. (2015). Theorizing New Social Media and the Politics of Connection: Convergence Culture and the Public Sphere. In The Handbook of Global Media and Communication Policy. Wiley-Blackwell.

(31): Pierson, P. (2015). The Scope and Nature of Political Science. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Science.

(32): Norgaard, K. M. (2011). Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. MIT Press.

(33): Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

(34): Markey, P. M., Markey, C. N., & French, J. E. (2015). Violent Video Games and Real-World Violence: Rhetoric Versus Data. Psychology of Popular Media Culture.

(35): Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Violent Video Games and the Supreme Court: Lessons for the scientific community in the wake of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. American Psychologist.

(36): Wakefield, M. A., Loken, B., & Hornik, R. C. (2010). Use of mass media campaigns to change health behaviour. The Lancet.

(37): World Health Organization. (2020). "Living proof: how survivors’ COVID-19 stories boost prevention measures".

(38): "Frontline health workers around the world tell their stories." UNICEF (2020).

(39): "COVID-19: Celebrities getting vaccinated and what it means for public health." Medical News Today (2021).

Stay tuned for the next in our series of blog posts and explore some real world examples of mass manipulation.