At this stage, the scores among the Liberals, both in general and for the will to be vaccinated, were constantly maintained in the 1980s, whatever happened. Ahn believes the stagnant figure could mean that liberal compliance was already on a “ceiling”, a high past that could not be improved. Or maybe they were less sensitive to disgust.
But among conservatives, provoking disgust changed intentions rather than showing people news about incentives or showing benign images. The overall compliance score was about 65 among those who saw disgusting images: 8 points more than those who saw hand photos and 9 points more than those who saw headlines about incentives. As for the willingness to get vaccinated, the average Conservative score was about 55 for those who saw dirty photos, 39 for those who saw regular photos, and 44 for those who learned about the incentives of vaccination.
“There’s something about the concretion,” Ahn says of the graphic images. He believes that images could be particularly useful when deployed to drive people at a specific time, such as putting up posters in public places: “When there is a ‘Please wear masks’ sign, there may be an image “of diseased toes or lungs.
But there is a big X-factor: no one knows how long the effects of disgust last. Ahn’s team did not test whether the participants in his study really did get vaccinated later or if your masking behavior or social distancing has changed.
Rozin suspects the feelings are fading. About 10 years ago, she did a similar study on freshmen and sophomores in her Psych Introductory class. He made freshmen read The omnivorous dilemma, a book about the food industry that challenges the business and ethics of eating meat. Second graders were not required to read it. And when asked, freshmen showed more concern for eating meat and trusting agricultural corporations. “It had an effect, but it didn’t last,” Rozin says. The following year, the self-reported concerns of the students themselves about the food industry fell to match those of freshmen who had not read the book. “That was reading a whole book, a really good book, and having a session with teachers talking about it,” he says, which should be more persuasive than just looking at a few pictures.
It’s also hard to know what images can be the majority persuasive. For example, violent images have often been used to show the public the human cost of war. “In the Vietnam War, the image of the person being shot in the street had a powerful effect,” Rozin says, referring to a photo of Nguyễn Văn Lém’s execution. “There were a lot of other bloody photos that didn’t work out. But some images become iconic. We don’t know how this happens. But it happens.”
As a result of the mass shootings, infographics and viral data have undoubtedly helped to gather public opinion for gun control. “The numbers don’t lie,” says Eric Patrick, who studies information design at Northwestern University. But, he says, “I think we’ve made the most of it with infographics and information design.” Perhaps visually showing the truth The number of armed violence would work, he says, but he is not entirely convinced it is worth it; he fears that it may further desensitize (or, conversely, traumatize) the public.