Prior to the 2003 Iraq War, a large majority of Americans, including many leaders, believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The surprise came after the war and after WMDs were not found

A public opinion poll found that 27% of Americans believed, incorrectly, that WMDs had been found. At one point, 22% even believed that Iraq used WMDs against US forces during the 2003 invasion.

Such misperceptions are not accidental, but result from perception management techniques that are used to shape and mold public opinion. Perception management is used in public diplomacy, public information programs, political campaigns, propaganda campaigns, or in military information operations and psychological operations.

This Special Report will explore the use of Weapons of Mass Perception and the murky world of PSYOPS. It's a fascinating subject that can help us understand how our own thoughts, percpetions, attitudes and behavior are formed and manipulated by the words we hear and the images we're shown.

Unfortunately, perception managment is more an art than a science and is prone to producing unintended, usually adverse, consequences. Like any weapon, the weapons of mass perception should be used judiciously and only by those with proper training, or under adult supervision.

The world is all too familiar with the results when used by men like Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels and it is naive to think it could never happen again. Perhaps it already is.

Perception Management

Introduction
Mass Perception & Perception Management
Terms of Reference
Why We Should Care
Mass Perception in the Marketplace
Perception Management in Action

Introduction

It’s not always easy and not often kind, but did you ever have to make up your mind? (Mama’s and Papas)

While the military can win a war, it cannot win the peace, or sustain the victory for long unless force is used to suppress dissent, or unless the people can be convinced to grant their consent to be governed. If the desired result of war or military intervention is regime change, it follows that the end state must be a situation wherein the host nation populace accepts and supports a new, possibly very different, government and new leaders. Ultimately then, war is a battle to win hearts and minds, a process that expands the traditional notion of power.

Power can be defined as the ability of A to getB to do something B would not otherwise do.

Hard Power can be defined as the ability of A to force B to do something B would not otherwise do.

Soft Power can be defined as the ability of A to convince B to do something B would not otherwise do.  

Parents know these concepts and most realize that while hard power may force a change in behavior, that the change is likely to be temporary; once force is removed the old behavior often returns. The only durable and lasting way to change behavior is to change attitudes as to which behavior is most beneficial. If a cause is just and right, why would lies or deception be needed to convince others? If the cause is unjust or wrong, how can deception convince people otherwise?

The Information Age has revolutionized the dynamics of international relations. Political leaders no longer have a monopoly on information and they have far less control over how and where information appears. Today, much diplomacy is and must be conducted in public, and leaders must be prepared to counter opposition arguments. Even the most closed, repressive societies can’t shelter their citizens from opposing viewpoints.

This new dynamic, open communication has altered traditional concepts of power. The first engagement in modern conflicts is the battle for public opinion; it is a unique form of asymmetric warfare, with very different elements of power, requiring new skills and tactics, many of which are foreign to the traditional military.

However, government and military leaders are only beginning to appreciate the potential and necessity for communication campaigns that support, or even lead diplomatic and military activities.

Conversely, the public is only now becoming aware of the possible consequences that can result from perception management programs gone wrong.

The focus of this monograph is the means of influencing mass perception of foreign audiences, referred to as International Public Information (IPI) and the issues surrounding this discipline.

Mass Perception and Perception Management

The concept is simple. Mass perception can be defined as the way that large numbers of people view and understand information. This certainly applies to consumer products and services, but for our purposes, discussion will be limited to information related to political news, events and policies.

Mass perception sounds a lot like public opinion, but there is a subtle difference. The public may have differing opinions about a particular issue. An opinion is neither, right or wrong. It’s how a person feels about something based on the available information, combined with their individual values or beliefs.

Perception is different. An individual’s perception can be right or wrong and proven to be so. For example: I’m color-blind and have purchased shirts thinking they were black only to be told they were dark blue, green and something called eggplant. These are physical perceptions, but the idea is similar. Mass perception involves mental and psychological perception, which becomes a bit more obscure and sometimes blurs the distinction between opinion and perception. This blurring is often intentional. If we can alter a person’s perception of supposed facts and information, we can shape or influence the opinions that result from those perceptions.

Psychological studies have shown that a group of people looking at two lines of different length can convince an unwitting participant that the shorter line is really longer. At first the subject resists, but over time can be forced to go along with the group’s conclusions until he finally accepts the incorrect perception. Imagine the possibilities when the facts and information are more complex.

The ability to manipulate mass perception has enormous ramifications in the realms of advertising, marketing, political campaigns, public diplomacy, public policy debates, lobbying, propaganda and military affairs.  People remember the “dot-com” boom and bust in the late 1990’s, but are only now becoming aware of the new “dot-con” boom, as con-men have escalated their efforts to manipulate mass perception.

Terms of Reference

Words and images are the fundamental weapons of mass perception. They are combined in different ways and disseminated by a variety of techniques to achieve specific objectives. The communication concepts have names that suggest their purposes, like: public diplomacy, international public information, propaganda, information warfare, information operations, and psychological operations. Among these concepts there are shades of difference between their definitions and large areas of overlap in their practice.

Perception Management (PM): Actions to convey and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning as well as to intelligence systems and leaders at all levels to influence official estimates, ultimately resulting in foreign behaviors and official actions favorable to the originator’s objectives. In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations security, cover and deception, and psychological operations. (Source: DOD)

Although PM is theoretically limited to foreign audiences, this may be an impractical limitation. False messages can easily bounce back to the domestic audience, or practitioners may ignore the limitation. The term suggests that an attempt is being made to alter or manipulate perception. Police know how difficult it is to interview eyewitnesses without getting distortions.

Propaganda: a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than to impartially provide information. It can also be defined as "a specific type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda." Some propaganda includes deliberate falsehoods. However the message does not have to be untrue to qualify as propaganda, but it may omit so many pertinent truths that it becomes highly misleading. (Wikipedia)

Political Diplomacy: private discussions and negotiations between government representatives. Representatives of adversary governments would negotiate in private and attempt to resolve their differences. Each side would report back to their citizens announcing success or developing public support for their negotiating positions, possibly including prospects for war. Leaders had a virtual monopoly on information and could use that information selectively and effectively to build support for their positions. Such activities may include elements of public diplomacy.

Public Diplomacy: the public communication of information and opinions by any interested party, public or private, seeking to influence public opinion. Government officials usually engage in both political and public diplomacy. The key difference is that one government may attempt to reach and influence the adversary’s citizens directly to undermine the adversary’s public support by providing contradictory information or viewpoints. Critics might call such communication propaganda.

“It involves not only shaping the message(s) that a country wishes to present abroad, but also analyzing and understanding the ways that the message is interpreted by diverse societies and developing the tools of listening and conversation as well as the tools of persuasion.” (Wikipedia)

International Public Information (IPI): This is an over-arching term, coined during the Clinton administration that encompasses most of the above techniques.

Information Operations (IO): This is a broad term for military information programs, including a variety of subordinate elements: civil affairs, public affairs, public diplomacy, and psychological operations. Under current US military doctrine IO also encompasses electronic warfare, computer network attack, and information security measures. These latter activities can be more appropriately characterized as elements of cyber-warfare, in that they relate more to technology than information content.

Psychological Operations (PSYOPS): Activities designed to convey selected information and indicators to specific foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to the originator's objectives.

Note: Because psyops sounds like covert ops, black ops, special ops, wet ops and so forth, many believe it is the realm of spies and spooks, when, in fact, most activities are considerably less dramatic. Practitioners of psyops can be called a “psywarriors,” but shouldn’t be called a “psycho-warriors.”

Why We Should Care

In many cases perception management distorts or manipulates our perception of information and facts needed to make informed and intelligent decisions about such vital matters as war and peace, life and death, and prosperity or adversity. Such decisions can be difficult in the best of cases. When people tamper with the process, decisions can be flawed and result in unintended consequences. Equally important, the ability to use perception management shifts the power of persuasion to those who are most skilled in these arts, providing an advantage to style over substance.

In the wake of 9/11, the US government launched a series of perception management campaigns to build public support for the Global War on Terror, to enhance homeland security and to invade Iraq.

A fundamental question is: were perception management programs really necessary, or were they done because leaders were addicted to a process that had previously served them well in political campaigns?

Whatever the motivations, the results have been startling and revolutionary. Recent perception management campaigns have changed the way Americans view such issues as:

The federal budget deficit…it’s okay

The national trade deficit…it’s okay

Personal liberties…a necessary sacrifice

Pre-emptive war…it’s okay

Torture and interrogation…it’s okay

Detention without trial…it’s okay

Secret witnesses…it’s okay

Government secrecy…it’s okay

“If you don’t believe in something, you’ll fall for anything.” This is not the America we grew up in and these are not the values that we were taught to be the cornerstones of liberty, justice, democracy and the American Way. President Bush assured the world that, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.” It was White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, who said, “It [9/11] forever changed the world." In retrospect, this comment was the opening salvo using weapons of mass perception.

The world did not change on September 11, 2001. Al-Qaeda and anti-American terrorists existed prior to that date and they had previously attacked targets inside he US, namely, the World Trade Center. What began to change were mass perceptions, which led to a willingness to change attitudes and behavior.

Mass Perception in the Marketplace

We’re told that cold-filtered beer is best, that the water makes the difference, that hops is the key ingredient, that one beer tastes great or is less filling and yet more people seem to conclude that beer in a red, white and blue can, delivered by a wagon, pulled by Clydesdale horses is best.

Mass Perception is a new lexicon for activities that shape and influence public opinion by altering perceptions of our reality. First, there are facts, but more important than the facts are the way that they’re perceived by large audiences If all members of the public were equally intelligent, equally educated and paid equal attention to news and information, public communication would be relatively simple and straightforward. But all people are not equal. In addition, many hold different opinions and attitudes that determine how they view and digest news and information. Were this not so, we might all drive the same brand of car, use the same soap, toothpaste and drink the same beer.

Imagine a place where large numbers of people live a two-story, suburban house, drive a Honda, aspire to drive a Lexus, fly on United Airlines, rent Hertz cars, stay at Marriot hotels, and dine at Olive Garden or Outback. One could argue that people with equal intelligence and information reached similar conclusions regarding the quality, price and value of similar competing products and services. Others might contend that certain companies have been more astute and effective in promoting a shared public image or perception of relatively similar alternatives, driven by advertising and marketing.

The trick is to employ a skillful combination of words, images, jingles and slogans that convey a consistent theme and repeat them over and over and over, until the public can recite along with you. Advertising professionals know the tricks to influence consumers and more recently political consultants have applied and adapted many of the same principles and techniques to shape political perceptions and opinion.

It’s not always easy and not often kind, but did you ever have to make up their mind? (Mattil)

The public has been described as a herd that needs to be led, while Americans have been called a nation of sheep. What could be more threatening to a traditional governing elite than a nation directed by its unwashed masses? The notion of real representative democracy is indeed a frightening prospect. Take a look around at your fellow citizens and ask if you really want a trial by your peers, drawn from the bottom of the gene pool.

Edward L. Bernay, known as the father of spin, wrote, "Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of.

This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.

In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind."

Bernay didn’t create the system; he simply acknowledged reality and became a pioneer in the art of perception management that facilitates domination by those who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses.

Perception Management In Action

American Perceptions After the Iraq War

In October 2003, The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and Knowledge Network conducted a public opinion poll analyzing American perceptions about the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Six months after the alleged end of combat, the poll looked at three key issues:

1. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction
2. Iraq’s connection to 9/11
3. World opinion supporting the US war.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Not surprisingly, a large majority of Americans, including many leaders, believed prior to the war that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The surprise came after the war and after WMDs were not found

The poll found that 27% of Americans believed, incorrectly, that WMDs had been found. At one point, 22% even believed that Iraq used WMDs against US forces during the 2003 invasion.

Iraq Connection to 9/11

Prior to the war 68% believed that Iraq played an important role in the attacks of 9/11, with 13% stating that conclusive evidence of Iraq’s role had been found.

Harris Interactive in June and August asked, “Do you believe clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found in Iraq or not?” In June 2003, 48 percent said that clear evidence had been found,

World Opinion Supporting US Invasion

Thirty-one percent expressed the mistaken assumption that world opinion was evenly split on the issue, and another 31 percent expressed the egregious misperception that the majority favored it. Only 35 percent perceived correctly that the majority of people opposed the decision to go to war with Iraq.

How Is This Possible?

On issues of great importance, involving life and death, huge financial costs, national honor and credibility a very large percentage of Americans had the facts wrong – a massive mass misperception. How can this happen?

The PIPA’s study concluded that misconceptions were a function of: 1) level of attention to the news, 2) source of news, and 3) political attitudes (planning to vote for George Bush).

According to the PIPA analysis, the most telling conclusion was that people planning to vote for George Bush were nearly 4 times more likely to hold misperceptions.

Next most important was a person’s source of network news. PIPA stated, “Fox [News] is the most consistently significant predictor of misperceptions.” In fact, regular Fox viewers were 2.0 times more likely to hold misconceptions, but Fox was not alone; CBS was a close second at 1.8 times the norm. Of least importance, yet a contributing factor was attentiveness.

It’s not that Americans are simply ignorant or inattentive sheep. Such misperceptions do not develop in a vacuum; they must be carefully and skillfully nurtured. The 31 May 2003 edition of theWashington Postran a front page headline saying, President Bush made the assertion that WMD had been found, “Bush: ‘We Found’ Banned Weapons.” People tend to believe their elected leaders. We want to believe or leaders and we want to believe that we’re told the truth. It’s easy to overlook the maxim that the first casualty of war is truth.

The fact is that President Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq. He and his people worked tirelessly and effectively to build support for the war using the media. The Bush administration willingly accepted the results of their public information campaign and made no effort to reverse or correct public misconceptions.

The CNN Effect: Bosnia & Kosovo

The term “CNN Effect” emerged after America’s Somalia misadventure and during the lead-up to war in Bosnia.  Americans and Europeans were reluctant to intervene in an internal conflict within the former Yugoslavia. President Clinton and European leaders were equally reluctant to get involved in a complex political conflict on challenging terrain with few prospects for a quick and satisfactory outcome. But as the weeks passed, reporters grew increasingly disturbed that the conflict had deteriorated into genocide.

As CNN’s coverage focused viewer attention on Bosnia, political leaders were forced to react by growing public concerns and calls for action. News reports reminded people that WWI began in this same region and that instability and conflict could soon spill over into adjacent mainland Europe. Coverage raised emotional involvement demanding protection of civilian victims. Ultimately, the constant coverage of the Bosnian genocide prompted military intervention by NATO forces. This was a unique and unprecedented response where a group of nations, acting without a UN resolution intervened in an internal conflict.

When the Yugoslav conflict eventually spilled over into Kosovo, CNN and the world media were once again in the forefront in influencing international intervention. Since then, the cable news industry has expanded. New cable news outlets like Fox, MSNBC and Al-Jazeera have reshaped the media marketplace, counter-balancing CNN’s influence but enhancing the overall media influence. 

Perhaps the most revolutionary development, however, is the emergence of the Internet. The Worldwide Web has opened the global media world to everyone and anyone, from private citizens anywhere to special interest groups and even terrorist and dissident groups. Suddenly, the ability to manage public perception is no longer a monopoly of the governing elites.

Case Study: Information Operations in the Iraq Wars

Coming Soon...

Case Study: Public Diplomacy - Prelude to Operation Iraqi Freedom

Case Study: Northern Ireland - 30 Years of Futility

The Techniques of Perception Management