Encyclopedia of Propaganda Techniques: Part 6

By Dr. Naomi WadePsychology

Encyclopedia of Propaganda Techniques: Part 6

Preemptive Strike

This technique most often involves the preemptive release of negative information. Its goal is to provoke a reaction from the opponent in advance and in a context that is more favorable for the initiator. Authorities frequently use this method to neutralize criticism of upcoming unpopular decisions. In such cases, officials themselves organize a “random” leak of negative information to stimulate public outrage. The purpose is to “let off steam” among dissatisfied citizens ahead of time. By the time “Day X” arrives, the fire of public anger has already died down. When the actual decision is made, people are too tired to protest and react to the authorities’ actions with indifference.

During elections, a typical example is the preemptive publication of compromising material that is relatively harmless for a particular candidate. This satisfies the electorate’s appetite for “scandal.” The aim is to reduce voters’ interest in such information. Later publications of much more damaging materials, possibly initiated by political opponents, will no longer attract much attention—the voters have already had their fill of “dirt” and no longer react to it.

The Poisonous Sandwich

This propaganda technique actively uses psychological influence through text structuring. It is always preferable not to lie, but to ensure that a person simply does not notice the “unwanted” truth. The communicator delivers a positive message sandwiched between a negative introduction and a negative conclusion. With certain skills and experience, the communicator can make the positive message almost disappear from the audience’s attention.

This is a very effective technique, often used by media outlets that claim to provide “objective coverage of events” and strive to create an image of “just the facts, nothing but the facts.” With this kind of event structuring, objectivity is formally maintained, but the effect of “unwanted” messages is diminished.

The opposite of this is the so-called “Sugar Sandwich,” where a negative message is masked by a positive introduction and a positive conclusion.

The techniques and methods described above are quite simple and very effective. So, we wish you success. But in what, exactly?

References

  1. Arkes, H. R., Boehm, L. E., & Xu, G. Determinants of judged validity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 1991, p. 576-605;
  2. Collon, M. Monopoly: L’OTAN à la conquête du monde. EPO, 2000
  3. Cialdini, R. B. Influence: Science and Practice. Allyn and Bacon, 2001
  4. Festinger, L., & Maccoby, N. On resistance to persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 1964, p. 359-366.
  5. Fuller, R. Effects of group laughter on responses to humorous materials: A replication and extension. Psychological Reports, 1974. p. 531-534.
  6. Hart, R. P. The Sound of Leadership. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987
  7. Hennigan, K., Heath, L., Wharton, J. D., Del Rosario, M., Cook, T. D., & Calder, B. Impact of the introduction of television on crime in the United States: Empirical findings and theoretical implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982
  8. Herzstein, R. E. The War That Hitler Won. New York: Paragon House, 1987, p. 31.
  9. Lippmann, W. Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1984
  10. Lockerbie, B., & Borrelli, S. A. Question wording and public support for Contra aid, 1983-1986. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1990, 54, p. 195-208.
  11. Iyengar, S. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago, 1991
  12. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. News That Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987
  13. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. The agenda setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 1972, p. 176-187.
  14. Petty, R. E., Wells, G. L., & Brock, T. C. Distraction can enhance and reduce yielding to propaganda: Thought disruption versus effort justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1976, p. 874-884
  15. Pfeffer, J. Power in Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1981
  16. Pratkanis, A. R. Propaganda and persuasion in the 1992 U.S. presidential election. 1993
  17. Pratkanis, A., & Aronson, E. Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion. W.H. Freeman & Company. New York, 2001
  18. Quoted in Dilenschneider, R. L. Power and Influence. New York: Prentice Hall, 1990
  19. Rogers, E. M., & Dealing, J. W. Agenda-setting research: Where has it been, where is it going? In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Beverly Hills, CA, 1988
  20. Zajonc, R. B. The attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (monograph supplement), 9, 1968, p. 1-27.
  21. Wiils, G. The CIA from Beginning to End, The New York Review of Books, January 22, 1976, p. 26.
  22. Bunich, I. Operation “Thunderstorm”. St. Petersburg, 1998, p. 189.
  23. Agee, F. Inside the CIA. Moscow, 1979
  24. Voitasik, L. The Psychology of Political Propaganda. Moscow, 1981
  25. Kara-Murza, S. Manipulation of Consciousness. “Oriyany”, Kyiv, 2000
  26. Lorenz, K. Aggression. “Progress”, Moscow, 1994
  27. Morozov, A. M. Psychological Warfare. Kyiv, 1996.
  28. Pocheptsov, G. Psychological Wars. “Refl-book”, Moscow, 1999
  29. Schiller, G. Mind Manipulators. Moscow, 1980
  30. Yakovlev, N. The CIA Against the USSR. “Pravda”, Moscow, 1983, pp. 139-141

Leave a Reply