Apostasy And The Sleeper Effect

[mapman]

I was reading on Wikipedia about the sleeper effect:

When people are normally exposed to a highly persuasive message (such as an engaging or persuasive television ad), their attitudes toward the advocacy of the message display a significant increase.

Over time, however, their newly formed attitudes seem to gravitate back toward the position held prior to receiving the message, almost as if they were never exposed to the communication in the first place. This pattern of normal decay in attitudes has been documented as the most frequently observed longitudinal pattern in persuasion research (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).

In contrast, some messages are often accompanied with a discounting cue (e.g., a message disclaimer, a low-credibility source) that would arouse a recipient’s suspicion of the validity of the message and suppress any attitude change that might occur with exposure to the message alone. Furthermore, when people are exposed to a persuasive message followed by a discounting cue, people tend to be more persuaded over time; this is referred to as the sleeper effect (Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Cook & Flay, 1978).

For example, in political campaigns during important elections, undecided voters often see negative advertisements about a party or candidate running for office. At the end of the advertisement, they also might notice that the opposing candidate paid for the advertisement. Presumably, this would make voters question the truthfulness of the advertisement, and consequently, they may not be initially persuaded. However, even though the source of the advertisement lacked credibility, voters will be more likely to be persuaded later (and ultimately, vote against the candidate in the advertisement).

This pattern of attitude change has puzzled social psychologists for nearly half a century, primarily due to its counter-intuitive nature and for its potential to aid in understanding attitude processes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). In addition, it has been the most widely studied phenomenon in persuasion research (Kumkale & Albarracín, 2004; see also Cook & Flay, 1978).

To summarize, the sleeper effect is where you are exposed to a message from a source you feel isn't reliable, but then later on you are more likely to believe the message.

I have noticed that there are people who apostatize after reading obviously anti-Mormon material despite previously believing that anti-Mormon material is not reliable.

I don't know very much about psychology, so I would like to hear people's opinions. Do you think that the sleeper effect is a reason people apostatize? If so, how can we stop people from falling prey to it?

(Please note that the truth of the message has nothing to do with the sleeper effect, just how reliable the source of the message is judged to be.)

[KevinG]

I wonder if this effect is more prominent when coupled with an uncomfortable situation or challenge associated with the original viewpoint. For example I have a friend who was very active defending the church on line until her personal life became very challenging, making it difficult to be active in church. She was immediately more receptive to anti-mormon information at that point.

In other words are we more likely to accept rationale after the fact when faced with a difficult circumstance?

[noel00]

So you cannot admit that someone in their own mind for no other reason, might come to the conclusion after studying both sides of the argument that the for example the BOM and BOA are not historical/true? My personal life is fine and I still reach the same conclusion? So far I have read the relevant articles in Dialogue, 1968. Nibley's apologetic writings, Ritner's article and Cook and Smith's analysis of the length of the scroll, I still come to the conclusion that the BOA is false. Some have shown that the internal information contained in the BOA was available to Smith. Some claim he received the book by revelation and yet entries in the DHC seem to indicate he believed he was translating. Oh boy the methods used in Mormon apologetic s makes you want to scream.

[DavidB]

i think over coming "anti" material is akin to overcoming the natural man.

The natural man needs cold hard demonstrable tangible facts to believe something. Concerning the Gospel the Spirit is the "fact" that "proves".

And so while someone has a strong testimony, when times get tough, the natural man begins to focus on the tangible, resulting in a gradual decline in the Spiritual witness as ones foundation.

[ERayR]

So you cannot admit that someone in their own mind for no other reason, might come to the conclusion after studying both sides of the argument that the for example the BOM and BOA are not historical/true? My personal life is fine and I still reach the same conclusion? So far I have read the relevant articles in Dialogue, 1968. Nibley's apologetic writings, Ritner's article and Cook and Smith's analysis of the length of the scroll, I still come to the conclusion that the BOA is false. Some have shown that the internal information contained in the BOA was available to Smith. Some claim he received the book by revelation and yet entries in the DHC seem to indicate he believed he was translating. Oh boy the methods used in Mormon apologetic s makes you want to scream.

Yes but you are exxxxxceptional.

[Libs]

i think over coming "anti" material is akin to overcoming the natural man.

The natural man needs cold hard demonstrable tangible facts to believe something. Concerning the Gospel the Spirit is the "fact" that "proves".

And so while someone has a strong testimony, when times get tough, the natural man begins to focus on the tangible, resulting in a gradual decline in the Spiritual witness as ones foundation.

I don't believe the "natural man" (or science/history, etc) should be in conflict with one's testimony...and really, for those who leave, that is the bottom line. They may have had a testimony, but it came in conflict with other very real information, causing cognitive dissonance. That's not to say that those two things cannot, once again, come into harmony, as in the case of Don Bradley, but sometimes that just doesn't happen.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Libs

[KevinG]

Noel - the subject is about subconscious processes. The observed phenomena that early introduction of information that one disagrees with over time will make them more receptive to the same information when it is presented later.

This is not a Mormon apologetic or any other kind of religious argument. The idea that material introduced over time has a convincing effect could explain why some people who have made their minds up on a subject can switch positions in time.

Libs - of course the natural man is in conflict all the time with spiritual things. We struggle to reconcile limited knowledge with guidance from eternal beings. We struggle to reconcile our desires with our better natures. This does not change the fact but underscores the fact that we are subject to the influences of our environment. In my opinion this is a great scientific illustration of why we need to nurture our testimonies and how our behavior (works) will influence our beliefs (faith).

Remember the parable of the two wolves that live inside us. One is a snarling beast and the other is a kind protector. The one that wins is the one we feed.

[Tacenda]

Noel - the subject is about subconscious processes. The observed phenomena that early introduction of information that one disagrees with over time will make them more receptive to the same information when it is presented later.

This is not a Mormon apologetic or any other kind of religious argument. The idea that material introduced over time has a convincing effect could explain why some people who have made their minds up on a subject can switch positions in time.

Libs - of course the natural man is in conflict all the time with spiritual things. We struggle to reconcile limited knowledge with guidance from eternal beings. We struggle to reconcile our desires with our better natures. This does not change the fact but underscores the fact that we are subject to the influences of our environment. In my opinion this is a great scientific illustration of why we need to nurture our testimonies and how our behavior (works) will influence our beliefs (faith).

Remember the parable of the two wolves that live inside us. One is a snarling beast and the other is a kind protector. The one that wins is the one we feed.

I think I'd make a good subject for testing the OP's hypothesis out. There was a time that I had a testimony that to me was inpenetrable. I use to wonder why the SS, Youth, Primary teachers encouraged through correlated lessons to always work on our testimonies. Because there wasn't anything that would change mine...but funny thing is in my late forties my testimony failed me. I thought it was the anti material that had truth that did it. But it happened during my parents illnesses and eventually their deaths, so close together. I started reading NDE's and my mind expanded outward. So I wonder if it's possible that their deaths did lead me to my present state of mind. Like what was stated on another post, that it could come from a trial.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

I think I'd make a good subject for testing the OP's hypothesis out. There was a time that I had a testimony that to me was inpenetrable. I use to wonder why the SS, Youth, Primary teachers encouraged through correlated lessons to always work on our testimonies. Because there wasn't anything that would change mine...but funny thing is in my late forties my testimony failed me. I thought it was the anti material that had truth that did it. But it happened during my parents illnesses and eventually their deaths, so close together. I started reading NDE's and my mind expanded outward. So I wonder if it's possible that their deaths did lead me to my present state of mind. Like what was stated on another post, that it could come from a trial.

We are today the sum of our choices up to today. What we became is the sum of what we are today and the choices we make in the future. We make the choices we do because it gives us something we want at the time.

[Libs]

Noel - the subject is about subconscious processes. The observed phenomena that early introduction of information that one disagrees with over time will make them more receptive to the same information when it is presented later.

This is not a Mormon apologetic or any other kind of religious argument. The idea that material introduced over time has a convincing effect could explain why some people who have made their minds up on a subject can switch positions in time.

Libs - of course the natural man is in conflict all the time with spiritual things. We struggle to reconcile limited knowledge with guidance from eternal beings. We struggle to reconcile our desires with our better natures. This does not change the fact but underscores the fact that we are subject to the influences of our environment. In my opinion this is a great scientific illustration of why we need to nurture our testimonies and how our behavior (works) will influence our beliefs (faith).

Remember the parable of the two wolves that live inside us. One is a snarling beast and the other is a kind protector. The one that wins is the one we feed.

Yes, I was thinking that I should not have stuck the term "natural man" in there, because the meaning of natural man is usually man, as he is, without God's direction (very worldly). The conflict that I am talking about is the one we, sometimes, have between what is, or appears to be, "real" (things that we can see/hear/taste/smell, or things we learn from science or infer from historical writings). Reality vs spirituality..and how they "sometimes" come into conflict.

As for the "sleeper effect", I suppose anything we come into contact with, not known before, instantly becomes a "possibility". We may reject it, at first, but if enough correlating evidence can be found, to make it more plausible, then at some point, we may accept that, which we never conceived of, as even a possibility.

I thought my testimony was indestructible. That was somewhat pride, on my part, although a part of it has, seemingly, been indestructible, even when my wish, at times, was to "finish the job".. It still keeps me hanging.

[mapman]

So you cannot admit that someone in their own mind for no other reason, might come to the conclusion after studying both sides of the argument that the for example the BOM and BOA are not historical/true? My personal life is fine and I still reach the same conclusion? So far I have read the relevant articles in Dialogue, 1968. Nibley's apologetic writings, Ritner's article and Cook and Smith's analysis of the length of the scroll, I still come to the conclusion that the BOA is false. Some have shown that the internal information contained in the BOA was available to Smith. Some claim he received the book by revelation and yet entries in the DHC seem to indicate he believed he was translating. Oh boy the methods used in Mormon apologetic s makes you want to scream.

I was trying to ask if people thought that it ever happens. I didn't say that it explains all apostasy. I think everyone can agree that the sleeper effect is a bad thing since it is choosing your beliefs (which may be rational) for irrational reasons.

[The Grimace]

I was reading on Wikipedia about the sleeper effect:

To summarize, the sleeper effect is where you are exposed to a message from a source you feel isn't reliable, but then later on you are more likely to believe the message.

I have noticed that there are people who apostatize after reading obviously anti-Mormon material despite previously believing that anti-Mormon material is not reliable.

I don't know very much about psychology, so I would like to hear people's opinions. Do you think that the sleeper effect is a reason people apostatize? If so, how can we stop people from falling prey to it?

(Please note that the truth of the message has nothing to do with the sleeper effect, just how reliable the source of the message is judged to be.)

If this effect can happen with so-called "anti" literature and exposure, can it also happen with pro-LDS and missionary-efforts to have the opposite effect?

Edited September 1, 2012 by The Grimace

[mapman]

If this effect can happen with so-called "anti" literature and exposure, can it also happen with pro-LDS and missionary-efforts to have the opposite effect?

I would think so.

[The Grimace]

I would think so.

Then it would stand to reason that the sleeper effect may be one reason that people join the church. Correct?

[mapman]

It could be, but missionaries tell converts to ask God if their message is true. I personally believe that God has answered the prayers of people who convert, but your mileage may vary. As I said before, you can come to the right conclusion through questionable means. This topic doesn't have anything to do with whether the gospel is true or not.

Edited September 1, 2012 by mapman

[The Grimace]

It could be, but missionaries tell converts to ask God if their message is true. I personally believe that God has answered the prayers of people who convert, but your mileage may vary.

Special pleading, my friend. One can't claim the sleeper effect may cause people to apostatize and then claim special circumstances that buoy up the opposite case. Unless you'd care to claim that sometimes God tells people that the Church is false.