1. DGI Art | Whitmer | 8-07 National Security Programs Group | www.defensegroupinc.com | 202-223-8701 Social Cognitive Neuroscience of Persuasive Messaging Across Cultures (Project PEITHO) Preliminary Findings & Discussion Scott Gerwehr November 2007 Social Cognitive Neuroscience of Persuasive Messaging Across Cultures (Project PEITHO) Preliminary Findings & Discussion Scott Gerwehr November 2007

2. Overview  The Heilmeier Catechism  Methods & Findings  Study 1  the mechanisms of persuasion and attitude change  Study 2  the effect of initial attitude strength  the effect of message framing  predicting behavior from neural activity  Cultural similarities and differences are part of both studies  Next Steps  Research  Applications

3. What is the (difficult) problem?  Inter-Cultural Persuasion Is Increasingly Important  From the interpersonal to the national level  Many of the most serious national security challenges requires persuasion to play a major role amongst diverse cultures (e.g., SASO, countering AQ recruiting)  Our inter-cultural persuasion efforts are largely ineffective (see 2004 DSB report, Princeton report 2005, SG work for CIA FY04-05, etc.)  It Is Very Difficult to Persuade & Measure Attitude Change Across Cultural Boundaries  Challenges include language, credibility, vector, durability  Self-report of attitudes is biased (e.g., by impression management, dissonance reduction)  Observation of attitudes is indirect, and mediated/moderated by other variables (e.g., by social environment, observer biases)  The greatest danger is elucidated by cognitive response theory (Greenwald, 1968; Petty, 1981):  Failed persuasion attempts can polarize or harden attitudes, making future persuasion attempts that much more difficult

4. How is it solved today?  It Ain’t.  US efforts (from interpersonal to national) do not have the necessary science to support them, and suffer thereby  An Example of the Perils of Ineffective Communication...  US Instruments of Strategic Communication (such as Radio Sawa, Al Hurra TV, Hi magazine, etc.)  Are ineffective (US unfavorability with target audiences has grown worse since these instruments were fielded)  Are not consonant with scientific principles of social influence, much less influence across cultural boundaries  Have few or no legitimate metrics (e.g., ‘listenership’ is not a metric of attitude change)  Cost a great deal (Radio Sawa, al Hurra and Hi together cost $62M annually… Hi has been discontinued after $12M spent)

5. What is the new technical approach?  Neuroimaging of Social Cognition  Allows direct measurement of the brain, bypassing many artifacts and biases  Identification of brain structures and activity associated with message processing, attitude change, or resistance  Identification of consistent cultural differences (vs individual differences) in attitude change/persuasibility  Powerful correlations between cognitive and behavioral activity (integration of S, C, and N)  Identification of neural correlates of strong/weak attitudes, and trajectory (i.e., intermediate states) when persuaded (or not)  Identifying activity patterns and strength allow for pilot testing of persuasive messages (to identify desired “signature” response)

6. What is the impact, if successful?  Basic  First ever identification of the neural correlates of persuasion and attitude change  First ever identification of neural differences between persons of different cultures as relates to persuasion/attitude change  Applied  Creation of an integrated model for analysis of possible persuasion methods/messages  Greatly improved cross-cultural communications’ effects  Message and vector optimization before mass production/dissemination  Greatly improved accuracy in predicting the results of individual and mass persuasion (ours or others, such as AQ)  This has application in asset recruitment, interrogation, public diplomacy, strategic comms, PSYOP, deception, civil affairs, etc.  not to mention advertising, marketing, public health interventions, etc.

7. How will the program be organized?  DGI will manage, coordinate, and report to sponsor  DGI will also handle any emerging sensitive findings  Academic subcontractors (plus DGI) will run independent, parallel studies  Academic subs will run cross-cultural studies using established academic partnerships with other nations

8. How will intermediate results be generated?  Each study asks a particular question  Are there consistent differences between the neural activity patterns of collectivists (e.g., Koreans) and individualists (e.g., Caucasian Americans) when exposed to the same persuasive message?  What is the “signature” of attitude thaw? Of attitude crystallization?  Does the “signature” vary with forewarning? Source credibility? Initial attitude strength? Message framing? Affective component? Number and complexity of arguments?  What is the neural “trajectory” of attitude change?  etc.  As each independent, parallel effort completes a study, we will report it as both a basic and applied finding

9. Measuring Progress  Novel study findings  Useful study findings  Leverage-able study findings  Unlocking new avenues of discovery, interventions, etc.

10. What will it cost?  Our best guess (currently) is that we would be running at full steam at approximately $2M per year.  Neuroimaging in three to four sites (e.g., Jordan, Dubai, China, USA)  Studying indigenous and acculturating populations  Add epidemiologic/social network studies

11. DGI Art | Whitmer | 8-07 Methods & Findings

12. Scientific Objectives  First, to elucidate the basic machinery subserving persuasion and attitude change  Regions, networks, timing, intensity  Second, to identify cross-cultural differences in the functioning of that machinery (resulting from message framing)  Similarities and differences  Third, to correlate actual behavior change or inertia with observable neural activity  Fourth, to begin studying variables that affect persuasion outcomes (e.g., initial attitude strength)

13. Data Collection Pretest of Materials - persuasiveness, response distro - 300+ phrases, paras, video clips, etc. - scales adjusted Subjects Recruited - Koreans, Cauc. Americans - visitors, students, exch. students, etc. - Acculturation - Demographics - Metal - Attitudes -- 20 phrase objects -- 13 video objects - Experience/Knowledge - Cultural (individ/collect) - Personality Inventory - Mood State - Cultural Dimensions -- e.g., individ vs collect Stimulus 1 subject sees set of persuasive phrases in native language Stimulus 2 subject sees info about “lemphur”, then persuasive para (cognitive or affective) - Questionnaires repeated + eval of persuasiveness fMRI, 75 minutes Behavioral change measured (flossing, sunscreen use)

14. Data Analysis  Raw Data Is Pre-processed  smoothed, etc.  mapped onto generic brain  Individual Subject Analysis  Time (onset, duration)  Design matrix (e.g., affective vs cognitive arguments)  Analyses include multiple regressions, ANOVA, etc.  Group Analysis (Across Sample)  Similar activity noted  Coordinates provided by SPM, mapped into brain atlases  Contrasts between American and Korean groups noted

15. Study 1 Findings  45 scans total (31 used): Americans, Koreans  Analysis:  Phrases: Group level assessment used as regressor  “Lemphur”: Within subject comparison of second vs first PM exposure, subjective rating (“To what extent did your opinion of lemphurs change?”) used as regressor  Results:  Cleanest analysis: block level ratings of persuasiveness as regressor (Please rate the following paragraph…)  Three major brain networks implicated in Study 1 persuasion  Positive in TOM/social cognition areas: superior temporal sulcus, temporal poles, dorsomedial PFC)  Positive in controlled (deliberative) processing: ventrolateral PFC  Negative in insula  Phrases only: positive in memory areas: hippocampus, left inferior frontal cortex... may be an artifact of retaining instructions  Korean vs America patterns showed remarkable similarity!

16. American / Korean, ToM

17. American / Korean, Memory

18. American / Korean, VLPFC

19. Study 2 Description  Topics:  How does neural activity vary when the PM is either congruent or incongruent with preexisting attitudes?  What neural activity is the precursor to (i.e., predicts) smaller or greater amounts of attitude change?  How does message framing affect neural response and ultimate behavioral change (cf. existing cultural psychology studies)?  45 scans total  Stimuli:  Arguments for/against sunscreen and flossing behaviors  Subjects are followed up with in weekly increments to determine behavioral changes

20. DGI Art | Whitmer | 8-07 Next Steps

21. Research  Continued elucidation of basic mechanisms  Continued elucidation of cultural differences in both neural activity and correlated behavior.  Defining strong/weak attitudes and attitude change in neural terms  Defining resistance to attitude change in neural terms  Identify neural chronology of events in persuasion and attitude change or resistance  Study and prioritize the numerous variables known to affect persuasion (e.g., source credibility/trust, conformity, distraction, automaticity)  Identify correlations between neural processes (e.g., insular cortex activity) and physical processes (e.g., physiological or nonverbal activity)  Memes

22. Applications  “Neural focus groups”  Using brain imaging to pre-test PSYOP, strategic communications, asset recruitment methods, and adversary propaganda  e.g., insular activity and the “social intuitionist model” (Haidt & Joseph, 2004)  Identifying critical cross-cultural differences  in attention, comprehension, inference, acceptance, retention, etc.  in translation of attitude change to behavior (i.e., in prediction)  Memes

23. DGI Art | Whitmer | 8-07 Ancillary Slides

24. Methods  Two tasks  Phrases Task  Lemphur Task

25. Task 1: Phrases  In scanner: 100 phrases (20 topics)  Presented visually and auditorily  Instructions: read along and consider each phrase, will be asked questions later

26. Methods: In the Scanner  In scanner:  Phrases grouped by topic with general info first  Not explicitly asked to evaluate Blood donation is a process by which a blood donor voluntarily has blood drawn for storage in a blood bank or for subsequent use in a blood transfusion. The American Red Cross calls those who donate blood “blood heroes” due to their heroic contribution to those in need. Blood donation is something you can do on equal footing with the rich and famous — blood is something money can’t buy. Giving blood is the right thing to do. Arument: You should donate blood.

32. Phrases Task, cont’d  Following scanner session:  Viewed each series again  Rate each phrase individually (Persuasive, Emotional, Informational), and each group of phrases as a paragraph

33. Task 2: Lemphur  Induce positive, cognitive-basis attitude about fictional animal (the Lemphur)  Directly following attitude formation/induction, participants rate attitudes towards lemphurs

38. Lemphur Task, cont’d  Next, change attitude  Either affective (encounter with a lemphur), or cognitive (more from encyclopedia)  Re-rate (same words as after attitude formation)  Subjective rating of change

40. Lemphur Analyses  Have both “objective” measure of change (post-pre), and subjective (how much did your opinion change?).

41. Phrases (poscorr, Americans, ToM)

42. Phrases (poscorr, Koreans, ToM)

43. Phrases (poscorr, Americans, memory)

44. Phrases (poscorr, Koreans, Memory)

45. Phrases (poscorr,Americans, VLPFC)

46. Phrases (poscorr, Korean, VLPFC)

47. Phrases (negcorr, Americans, insula)

48. Phrases (negcorr, Koreans, Insula)