PSY FPX 5120 Assessment 1 Participating in Politics: Executive Summary

Student Name

Capella University

PSY FPX 5120 Social Psychology

Prof. Name:

Date

Executive Summary

Proposal Name: Maintaining integrity within voting.
Proposal Author: Madison Ovitt
Proposal Client: John Doe, Town Hall President
Proposal Stakeholders: All voters
Proposal Due Date: June 14th, 2022

Objectives:

The right to participate in government and have our voices heard is fundamental to all humans. However, maintaining the integrity of voting for what an individual believes is morally correct is a constant challenge due to the various influences surrounding them. Developing guidelines for voting, such as avoiding social and mainstream media, is necessary to ensure that voters form their opinions as free from social influence as possible. Historically, both social influences and media have significantly influenced individuals, persuading them to act in a particular way. This is linked to social perception and how we view ourselves, others, and the information in our environment. Our social perception directly correlates with what we consume in the media and how we base our voting decisions. A 2010 study found that advertising, social, and media influences directly impacted political self-expression (cite).

The goal of this proposal is to suggest interventions and strategies that reduce the influence of social media on voters, ensuring that their decisions are based on personal free choice. This is essential not only for the voters and the subjects of their vote but also for maintaining proper social perception, which is connected to voting behavior (attribution theory). Social and media influences are often biased and sometimes disseminate false information. When casting a vote, it is critical to focus on moral values without being swayed by multiple biased opinions.

The proposed solution is to hire a team dedicated to providing only factual information about the subject or individual being voted on. This team will work to filter out social and media influences, promoting more informed and ethically guided votes. Though this method will not entirely eliminate the social and media factors influencing voters, it will significantly reduce the amount of false information, enabling voters to make decisions based on accurate information. The solution also proposes holding media sponsors and advertisers accountable for their content. A study in Germany demonstrated that accountability and consequences for misrepresenting topics positively affect voter decisions and choices overall.

Final Deliverable:

The final proposal sets forth guidelines that hold parties accountable for their social and media representation during voting and public debates. It is vital to refrain from sharing opinions with others during voting or debates until the actual day of voting. Persuading others to vote in a certain way can result in unfair and unethical voting practices. Therefore, setting guidelines and enforcing accountability for those who violate these guidelines is essential. This approach has proven effective in other countries. The first phase involves a social media team tasked with filtering and removing biased and false information. The second phase focuses on ensuring that the subject or individual being voted on accurately represents themselves. For instance, if a governor bribes voters via social media, the bribe post should not only be removed but also followed by consequences for both the individual and their advertising team. These measures aim to minimize biased opinions in voting, ensuring that voters rely on factual information.

Risks:

Filtering and reducing social media attributions may not prevent social influences from peers surrounding the voters.
The demand for filtering content could be so overwhelming that it becomes unattainable.
Those responsible for filtering media may impose their personal views, undermining the objective of the filtering process.
Enforcing consequences may prove difficult when trying to hold individuals accountable for their social and media representations.

Project Budget / Spending Estimate:

The budget for this proposal is still under consideration. However, compensating the team responsible for filtering social and media influences is crucial to maintaining the integrity of voting. Ensuring that voters are basing their decisions on factual information rather than biased sources will require significant resources. The compensation plan for the filtering team will be evaluated further as the project progresses.

Proposal Priorities:

Ensuring that all eligible voters can participate freely without any unfair advantage favoring either side of the subject or candidate.
Promoting fair and ethical voting practices that reflect the true will of the voters, resulting in a valid outcome.

Proposed Guidelines

Establishing guidelines based on research is key to ensuring that public debates and media coverage during voting are fair. The proposed solution involves multiple phases to ensure ethical and unbiased voting processes. These guidelines are grounded in proven theories and practices. Research shows that media attention and public opinion significantly contribute to good governance in public enterprises (Krause, 2015). A team dedicated to filtering social and media influences and enforcing accountability for violations of guidelines is an important first step toward maintaining unbiased media coverage. In some regions, such teams are referred to as transparency commissions (Krause, 2015).

The guidelines and enforcement measures include prohibiting biased opinions in advertisements or media coverage, banning bribery or persuasion, and ensuring that voters are not coerced into making decisions based on social or media influences. Accountability measures include removing biased content (ads, posters), imposing fines for repeated offenses, and potentially barring violators from participating in future elections or debates.The following graph demonstrates the influence of media on elections and voting, with increasing numbers, especially among younger demographics. These trends underscore the need for guidelines on the content consumed by voters. It is both unfair and unethical to use biased opinions to sway voter behavior.

Guidelines for Fair Public Debate

When establishing guidelines for fair voting and public debate, it is essential to manage and control the process while considering its impact on viewers. From a social perception perspective, the surrounding environment and peers significantly influence our choices and self-perception based on the information we consume. This proposed structure aims to eliminate false information and provide factual resources for decision-making, enabling voters to form their opinions based on facts rather than being swayed by biased views. In a debate, the goal is to present all sides so voters can evaluate the arguments and choose the most compelling one. The same guidelines for voting apply to debates; they should be fact-based rather than opinion-driven. This ensures that debates are fair and that decisions are made based on facts rather than subjective opinions.

When setting guidelines, it is important to consider both agenda-setting theory and attribution theory. Agenda-setting theory can be used ethically or unethically, depending on how the media presents information. Individuals prioritize different aspects based on personal importance, such as cost or long-term impact. Therefore, it is crucial to create guidelines that focus on the broader implications of the subject matter rather than on minor factors. Attribution theory helps us understand how the messages we convey influence voters’ perceptions and decisions.

References

Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., & Fowler, J. H. (2012). A 61-millionperson experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489(7415), 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11421

Capella University. (n.d.). Retrieved June 13, 2022, from https://courseroomc.capella.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/PSY-FPX/PSY-FPX5201/220100/Course_Files/cf_concept_paper_template.docx

Krause, T. (2015). A natural experiment on media attention and public enterprise accountability. Public Organization Review, 15(2), 297-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-014-0270-2

Protess, D. L., & McCombs, M. (Eds.). (1991). Agenda setting: Readings on media, public opinion and policymaking. Communication textbook series. Hillsdale: Erlbaum