Biased Processing with Shirley Sherrod
23rd July 2010
Among the many attributes the story of Shirley Sherrod, it stands as a strong example of Biased Processing, that High WATT Central Route approach that uses existing beliefs, expectations, and schema to understand Arguments, rather than following Arguments to conclusions.
On July 20, 2010, a conservative political website posted an edited version of a speech Ms. Sherrod had given to a meeting of the NAACP. This posting rather quickly came to the attention of the Secretary of the Agriculture, Tom Vilsack. He only watched the edited version of the speech and did nothing to obtain a copy of the entire speech. Based in part on that edited version, Vilsack asked for and received Ms. Sherrod’s resignation. Later, when Vilsack watched the entire speech, he changed his mind about Ms. Sherrod’s remarks, apologized for his hasty decision, and offered her a new job with the government.
Regardless of your political position on this event, I want you to focus on how people like Secretary Vilsack were thinking. I see it as a clear example of the ELM Bias Process. There’s no doubt that Vilsack was a High WATT seeker and processor of information about this event. He moved quickly over the course of a few hours to reach his decision once he saw the edited clip from the political website. He clearly sought information from other people about this event and had indirect contact with Ms. Sherrod through her supervisory chain. There’s no evidence at all that Vilsack was a Low WATT Peripheral Route processor ambling along looking for spangly Cues.
Yet, you can also clearly see that Vilsack did not look for all relevant Arguments (for example, he didn’t obtain a copy of the whole speech before he sought Sherrod’s resignation) and he used an existing set of beliefs (the credibility of his Cabinet agencies) to interpret the Arguments contained in the edited speech.
One of the great persuasion problems for any person is trying to understand when you are Objective and when you are Biased. While Objective Central Route processing does not guarantee you will find the persuasion “truth,” it is usually the best chance you’ve got. Rarely does Biased Central Route processing lead you to a clear eyed understanding. But how can you tell the difference between Objective and Biased?
The strongest indication is how self-relevant the issue or event is to you. If the event cuts to the core of your identity, your strongest beliefs and values, chances are you are Biased and you will make Arguments fit your existing beliefs rather than following the Arguments where they lead.
Another way to see this is with the Rule, All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere. I suspect that Mr. Vilsack was entirely sincere in this event and did not think strategically about it. He thought he was on a Truth Mission even though this is clearly a political event which means there’s a ton of ambiguity, disagreement, and conflict in the event – reasonable people will take different positions. An inSincere Persuasion approach rather than a Sincere Truth approach might have served Mr. Vilsack better.
When an event hits your hot buttons and moves you to Sincerity, be careful.