Craig R. Fox and Michael W. Morris: When Images Speak Louder than Words

by Craig R. Fox and Michael W. Morris [courtesy of Politics on HuffingtonPost.com]

George Clooney, who is an ardent supporter of Barack Obama, was asked what role he might play in the Obama campaign. Stung by the belief that by taking an active role he had hurt his father's 2004 campaign for Congress, which was portrayed by the media as "Hollywood versus the Heartland," Clooney reportedly responded, "I'll support [Obama] in any way I can, including staying at home and shutting my mouth." Is Clooney right to steer clear this time of overt campaign statements and explicit endorsement? If so are there other more subtle ways in which he can effectively support his candidate? Answers to these questions can be found in the science of information processing and persuasion.

A major insight from experimental psychology, confirmed in recent years by brain imaging studies, is that the human brain processes information in two distinct ways. The conscious system tends to process information through a series of deliberate and logical steps; it tends to be most active in processing verbal appeals. The unconscious system tends to process information through association and pattern recognition; it tends to be most active in processing images, nonverbal behavior, and the interaction of elements in a scene. Of course carefully chosen words can influence voters through the unconscious system (as when Republican pollster Frank Luntz recast the palatable estate tax as a repugnant "death tax"); likewise, images often reach voters in a conscious way (as when a pictograph of a donkey is used to symbolize the Democratic Party). To a greater extent, however, images are processed unconsciously and words consciously. When this happens, images can often speak louder than words. Recent studies suggest three ways in which this can happen.

1. Images influence voters' values.

Iconic images, richly laden with associations, are magnets of meaning in the unconscious mind. Presenting an iconic image can evoke a host of associated attitudes, feelings, and motivations just as inviting the most popular member of social network can draw a number of other members to an event.

Consider the American flag, an enduring symbol of national identity that has taken on particular resonance since 9/11. Barack Obama has been questioned for his decision not to wear an American flag pin on his lapel because he doesn't want a mere symbol to act as a "substitute for true patriotism."Certainly the flag factors into voters' judgments of Obama, but it does so partly by influencing how voters think about themselves. Experiments have found that fleeting exposure to the American flag increases the extent to which people endorse traditional American values such as individualism. Flags also evoke nationalistic identities and attitudes. For instance, Melissa Ferguson of Cornell University found that placing an American flag in the background of a room or subliminally flashing its image on a computer had the effect of making people who closely follow the news (during the current time of war) more aggressive. In another study, conducted in Israel the week before the 2006 General Election, repeated subliminal presentation of the Israeli flag not only led voters to express more mainstream Zionistic attitudes on a survey but also led them to later report voting for more centrist candidates. Apparently, flag images do more than merely signal a candidate's patriotism; they can actually make liberal voters more conservative.

Flags are just one of many visual elements used in staging of political performances. Like former actor Ronald Reagan, President Bush has carefully managed the settings for his appearances, from his now notorious "mission accomplished" landing on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln to the backdrops of his town hall meetings. At rallies after the Iowa Primary in January, Barack Obama was praised for featuring a phalanx of young and diverse supporters whereas Hillary Clinton was pilloried for featuring a familiar group of aging cronies. Do such visual backdrops really affect voter preferences? Marketing research suggests they can indeed to a surprising extent, again by tapping into implicit associations. For instance, Columbia University researchers Eric Johnson and Naomi Mandel found that the subtle background patterns in a web page affect the tradeoffs that consumers make in online shopping. When the background pattern featured images of pennies, most participants chose a less expensive (and less comfortable) couch, whereas when the background pattern featured clouds, most participants chose a more comfortable (and more expensive) couch. Consumers were unaware of being influenced and did not even remember seeing the background patterns.

Even the location of one's polling place can have a surprising affect on voting behavior. One study by University of Pennsylvania marketing professor Jonah Berger and his colleagues found that voters in Arizona's 2000 general election were more likely to support raising the state sales tax to support education if they had voted in schools compared to if they had voted in other locations.

2) Images enhance identification with a candidate.

The remaining crop of presidential hopefuls may be the most visually diverse ever and their images have been captured with recognizable icons on T-shirts, buttons, and yard signs for sale on campaign web sites and by third parties. Iconic campaign paraphernalia are nothing new--even George Washington's supporters wore buttons on their coats during the first inauguration of 1789. Paraphernalia can even be used to ridicule an opponent as when Bush supporters in 2004 distributed plastic sandals labeled "Kerry flip-flops." Campaign professionals understand that seeing a crowd of one's peers visibly displaying campaign materials has a powerful influence on undecided voters; a number of psychology studies have confirmed that people's decisions are affected by this "social proof" when they uncertain of how to act. For this reason, campaigns often make an effort to distribute carefully branded signs and buttons at televised campaign events--some even go as far as to discourage supporters from bringing home-made signs that might dilute the desired image.

What many political operatives fail to appreciate is the powerful influence of campaign pins, T-shirts, and lawn signs on the people who display them. In one study led by Duke University Marketing Professor Tanya Chartrand, students were asked whether they would be willing to wear a 1.5 inch pin with the American Heart Association logo and slogan on their backpacks; nearly all of them agreed. Two days later, a different experimenter approached the same participants and asked them whether they would be willing to volunteer three hours of their time to distribute brochures on heart disease prevention. This manipulation had a dramatic effect on compliance: students were twice as likely to volunteer their time if they had previously been asked to wear a pin, compared to a different group of students who had not been asked to wear the pin. This aspect of the psychology of commitment has been documented in many settings, and tends to be strongest when people have voluntarily and publicly displayed their support for a cause. In the words of Jeff Bleustein, CEO of Harley-Davidson, "It's one thing to have people buy your products, it's another for them to tattoo your name on their bodies." Thus, providing officially branded campaign paraphernalia to supporters may help them preach to the unconverted; however, to enhance the commitment of supports themselves it may be even more effective to encourage them to make and display their own T-shirts and signs.

3. Images are harder to resist than words.

Researchers have long known that people react against transparent attempts to manipulate them. Campaign surrogates will be most persuasive to the undecided if they are seen as having some authority to speak about politics. Whereas a respected politician such as Edward Kennedy can successfully influence his admirers by making speeches in support of Obama, a musician such as will.i.am can be more persuasive to his fans by setting Obama's own words to music. More generally, lectures about politics by celebrities tend to backfire (call this the "Dixie Chicks" effect). Because words are primarily processed through more conscious, analytic pathways, they are easier to resist than images that are processed through less conscious, intuitive associations.

Marketing research has found that "product placements" can have a significant impact on consumer product choices, especially when they are conveyed in a subtle way. A recent study by researchers at Toronto and Harvard found that consumers were 30% more likely to select a wide range of products and brands, from Mott's apple juice to Tide laundry detergent, if these products had been embedded in a recently viewed episode of Seinfeld. More interestingly, although consumers better recalled having been exposed to a product if it had been both seen and talked about in the episode than if it had been only seen or heard, participants were most likely to actually select the product if it had only been seen and least likely to select the product if it had been both seen and heard. Apparently, more explicit mention of the product causes consumers to resist the advertiser's more transparent attempt at persuasion.

Which brings us back to George Clooney's dilemma. Although he may be an attractive draw at a fundraising event, the research we have reviewed suggests that Mr. Clooney is right to steer clear of an overt endorsement or speeches in support of Senator Obama--many voters will react against such transparent attempts at persuasion on a topic for which he has little standing to speak. Instead, we suggest that Mr. Clooney can be an effective advocate if he shows his support for Senator Obama in more subtle ways, through example. A bumper sticker or T-shirt expressing support for Obama could be more persuasive to Clooney's fans than a speech articulating why they should vote for Obama. Better still if Clooney allows himself to be spotted by paparazzi displaying wordless images of Obama (e.g., those produced by 008themovement.com). In so doing, Mr. Clooney can leverage the intuitive route to persuasion, helping to transform Obama gear into a fashion statement. To the extent that voters follow his example in sporting similar paraphernalia, they will be converted just as college students were more likely to support heart disease prevention after wearing an American Heart Association pin.

In other words, George Clooney may be most valuable to Senator Obama not as a spokesperson or explicit endorser but rather as a site for the ultimate product placement.

Craig R. Fox, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Policy and Psychology at UCLA and is Coordinator of the Consortium of Behavioral Scientists (CoBS), a group of leading scientific authorities on human behavior who work to assist progressive political campaigns.

Michael W. Morris, Ph.D.,is Professor of Management and Psychology at Columbia University, Director of the Columbia Program on Social Intelligence, and a member of CoBS.