|
|
 |
|
|
Mind
games: Don't play on terrorists' turf
by Phil
Zimbardo,
Stanford University
(Originally published in
San Francisco Chronicle on November 4, 2001)
OK, class, today's lesson plan centers on mentally role-playing a
terrorist
whose
objective is to induce high levels of public anxiety, confusion, mental
exhaustion and sub-optimal information-processing. How would you, as a
hypothetical terrorist, go about this difficult task based on what
you have
learned from basic cognitive and social psychology?
First, cognitive or intellectual functioning are limited
resources within the
target population. Even smart people have difficulty doing two tasks well
at the same time. If one task requires effort, the second suffers.
Questions?
Sir, what else from our research about the public would help the
terrorist?
-- Optimal performance on simple tasks increases as arousal gets
higher, but it
deteriorates on complex tasks after a moderate level of arousal is exceeded.
-- Focused attention operates in a similar fashion, increasing as
we go from low to
moderate levels but decreasing with very high levels of arousal.
-- With high chronic arousal, one's attention to! peripheral cues
in the situation
is challenged by greater attention to highly salient central stimuli.
-- Emotion-arousing communications create anxiety, learned
helplessness and an
inability to function effectively in everyday activities -- unless
the target
population is also given specific, concrete channels of action that can be
performed to cope with the implied threat. Chronic levels of stress over
an extended time impair effective information processing and
rational decision-
making. You can also induce cognitive dissonance by insisting on hyper-vigilance
to terrorist attacks while at the same time advocating a return
to normal business.
-- Credible communicators, with high perceived authority based on
expertise and
trustworthiness, are most effective in getting audiences to follow
their persuasive
communications.
So, to achieve our terrorist's objectives, what is the working
"action plan"?
Have a credible authority, say an attorney general, issue a
communication to the
general public that is very highly arousing, about an imminent
danger to life
and well-being, likely to occur anywhere, at any time in the near future.
It should provide no hint about what the public might do to cope with
it, except to maintain high, sustained vigilance. And then, after demonstrating
that the public has tried to comply with that message by being on
chronic alert for days while no threat actually surfaces, have the credible
communicator reissue the same anxiety-arousing, performance-impairing
message.
Sir, what will happen then?
Any student of human nature would surely know the mental and
behavioral consequences
of such an improbable situation that our terrorist might help create.
The public will be! come chronically anxious, feel helpless to do anything
that might make a difference in reducing arousal and become unable to
channel that arousal in meaningful task performance. The public's vigilance
will actually suffer and probably get focused more narrowly on small
(irrelevant) things people can do something about, like cleaning
their homes,
shopping, buying handguns, eating comfort foods, downing 60 Cipro pills
or doing anything that provides an illusion of mastery and control.
They might feel guilty about not sustaining the recommended
vigilance to the vague
enemy threats, and also about not trusting government communicators.
But that just adds to their generalized arousal and creates
further insecurity,
mental exhaustion and limited constructive problem-solving.
But why would any responsible authority follow such a
counterproductive protocol?
If he or she knew of a credible enemy threat, why would an official
not simply alert law enforcement and intelligence agencies to be on super
alert and not repeatedly alarm the public? In the long run, doesn't
it impair
the public's ability and motivation to take constructive action when the
next situation arises that demands intelligent public response?
Another good question, class. Imagine that the news media are
constantly pressing
authorities to come clean, to say something, to say anything, to imply
that even in wartime, new media rules demand full disclosure. The media
mantra: "The public has a right to know everything; truth must
prevail over
national security and national mental health." Such is the
media's justification
to fill the vacuums in news cycles. Thus, our authority, even if he
or she might know all about the psychological research we have outlined
in today's le! sson, is trapped into going beyond alerting appropriate
agencies. The authority person spills the beans to the media -- and
everyone else.
All our shadowy terrorists have to do then is drop hints of
"credible" threats
of attacks wherever these might be detected by worldwide intelligence
forces. Think about it. The terrorists no longer even have to go
through the bother of an attack. They have been there, done that,
and so have
earned credibility. They can leave it to us to make ourselves crazy.
By publicizing
the terrorists' cause in this way, our media do their promotion for
free.
Obviously, playing such terrorist mind games -- on their terms --
should alert
us to the conditions that enable terrorism to continue to achieve clear
psychological goals and have the American people:
-- Lose their sense of personal security and trust.
-- Feel fearful, anxious and suspicious.
-- Experience disruption of usual lifestyle patterns.
-- Become hopeless about positive change.
-- And feel helpless about participating in trying to effect
solutions.
But isn't anthrax a real concern to Americans?
No, it has been limited to a few East Coast cities and a few
targets, and has
spread a bit further through mail contamination. The terrorists
likely were
unaware this could happen. The risk of getting sick or dying from anthrax
poisoning pales in comparison to the risk from auto accidents, the flu,
AIDS -- or even home accidents.
To increase health and well-being, there are a lot more
significant things to do
than dose down with Cipro: You might fasten your seat belt, don't drink
and drive, do take prescribed medicines, exercise regularly, don't smoke
and don't overeat. And while you're at it, take the time to build strong
social support networks in your neighborhood and among friends and family.
That is the single most important thing anyone can do to promote health
and well-being -- at the personal and at the community level.
We might also ask that the government appoint authoritative
spokes people who
can speak to specific public concerns -- without the present
confusion.
There should be regular follow-ups on informational Web sites
featuring answers
to frequently asked questions.
Our next assignment, class, is to develop an action plan for
counter-psychological terrorism designed to promote a set of
positive virtues in Americans:
resiliency, personal courage, feelings of genuine mastery and self
efficacy, trust in government and in each other, along with insights for
building vital social support networks and creating new priorities
that put
human relationships and national resolve before self-centered
material gain.
It's a tough assignment for sure, but I have faith that working collaboratively
with other students of human nature, you can help design such
an ambitious plan to put Americans back in charge of their lives and
of the
nation they love so much.
Next time, be sure to do your readings in positive psychology.
Thank you for your attention. Class dismissed.•
Back
to Op-Ed page...
| |
|
