The Fast/Slow War Rhetoric Response Test:
Design, Pilot Test and Analysis
Thomas Fernandez
Psyc E-1502
Harvard University Extension School
Prof. Jack Demick, Ronda Page, Jose Arce
December 15th, 2021
© Copyright Thomas Fernandez 2021
Table of Contents
Introduction
Literature Review
Hypotheses
Method
Participants
Tasks and Measures
Results
Validity
Reliability
Discussion
Implications
Limitations
Future Research
Conclusion
References
Appendix A: Transcript of the FAST/SLOW WRRT
Appendix B: Transcript of the Coping Strategy Test
Appendix C: Breakdown of Responses
Introduction
When witnessing a powerful, compelling public speech demanding an extreme sacrifice, how confident can a person be in their ability to say “No”?
An individual’s capacity to decline, or even stand up to, commanding rhetoric is key for the survival of any democracy. Understanding the nature of this kind of willpower is essential for its protection within a free society, as well as for understanding the workings of the broader phenomenon of persuasion. Finding ways to precisely measure this trait, therefore, is fundamental.
To that end, this paper proposes, and tests, a preliminary assessment technique called “The Fast/Slow War Rhetoric Response Test,” which is designed to measure two constructs – each measuring a different version of a trait described in this paper as “willpower confidence.” This trait is defined as an individual’s confidence in their ability to retain their willpower in the face of powerful public rhetoric. Two constructs are envisioned for the trait of “willpower confidence” because current theory on persuasion suggests that the human brain processes arguments via two cognitive routes (Hall, et al., 2009): fast, nearly automatic, heuristic thinking and slow, critical deliberation (Hall, et al., 2009). The act of maintaining willpower within each of these processing routes is therefore hypothesized to involve similar, but not identical, mental functions.
Under the assessment technique, subjects are asked to read segments of notable wartime or battle speeches from Western history selected for their prominence and for their perceived compulsive power (this last characteristic is admittedly rather subjective). After each segment, the reader is asked to answer one of two different questions, and depending on the question, to answer it either immediately, a FAST question, or to take some time to deliberate, a SLOW question. The FAST question, “How much effort would it take for you to say “No”?” is designed to measure willpower confidence in the fast, heuristic mode of thinking, while the SLOW question “How many counterarguments could you generate to this speech?” is intended to measure willpower confidence in the slow, deliberative mode.
I believe this technique, and its underlying constructs, are necessary because there are few tests out there focusing on persuasion, and none on responses to public political rhetoric. Moreover, the construct, with its holistic approach to willpower, addresses several challenges currently afflicting efforts to explain willpower and persuasion. The first involves ongoing challenges to the control resource theory, with its construct of ego-depletion, developed by Baumeister et al. (1998). Under this model, willpower is like a muscle that can gradually become exhausted (Baumeister et al., 1998), or a resource that can be depleted (Baumeister et al., 1998). Many scales have been developed gauging willpower under this model (Tang et al., 2016; Salmon et al., 2014; Englert & Wolff, 2018), but recently the concept has been under debate due to the replicability crisis. Meta-analyses (Friese et al., 2019; Inzlicht & Friese, 2019) indicate that – at the very least – additional factors are necessary to explain the phenomenon. Pinpointing other factors remains a challenge due to the complexity of the subject matter. Work is ongoing to pinpoint the exact cognitive processes (Albarracin, 2002), and the underlying brain areas (Yomogida et al., 2017), related to persuasion.
Consequently, I took the approach of treating willpower as a phenomenon that does involve, in part, an ego-depletable resource, but also other potential factors such as self-efficacy; logic; language processing and problem solving, that help mitigate this depletion of ego. In other words, I am treating willpower as a combination of both ego-depletable resource and assorted coping mechanisms that protect this mental resource; such that saying “No” to a compelling speech demanding an extreme sacrifice is as much an act of problem-solving and managing the pressurized situation as it is of stubborn willpower. That is why I chose the “Coping Strategy Test” from the Life Paths Research Measurement Packet (Hamby, et al., 2013) instead of ego-depletion tests as the benchmark for validity. It is also why I selected the two broad, gestalt-like self-evaluation questions for the test, instead of narrowly focused cognitive aptitude items, in the hope that this trait is “greater than the sum” of its few known cognitive parts.
If proven valid, and further refined, this test could serve as an assessment tool for experiments involving persuasion. For example, it could serve as a means for gauging willpower baselines for subjects before experimental manipulation, and then measuring changes in their willpower after the manipulation. Government agencies could use the test to assess employee vulnerability to propaganda. Public forum stakeholders could use it to gauge the indoctrinating power of polarizing rhetoric. Speechwriters and public speakers could also use the test to assess the compulsive power of their rhetorical strategies.
Literature Review
The foundation for the idea of “willpower confidence” comes from the resource control model and its key construct of ego depletion. Baumeister et al. (1998) developed this model, arguing that self-control is like a muscle, or a limited energy reserve, that gets tired or depleted after repeated exertions of self-control (Baumeister et al., 1998) – a phenomenon they named ego-depletion. As an individual burns through their self-control reserves, for example by suppressing one’s urge to eat candies or holding back anger, it becomes harder to exert such control in later tasks, such as solving difficult puzzles (Baumeister et al., 1998). These reserves can deplete until they are effectively exhausted, leaving the individual in a state of very low self-control, and passivity, until these reserves have been recharged (Baumeister et al., 1998).
Findings from hundreds of research studies have generated support for the theory in relation to numerous tasks and situations (Hagger et al., 2010), including physical exercises, academics, and financial discipline (Hagger et al., 2010). However, ego depletion was later challenged by some researchers due to psychology’s ongoing replication controversy (Friese et al., 2019). Meta-analyses of hundreds of articles (Friese et al., 2019) have proven inconclusive on the replication question (Friese et al., 2019), but this research, as well as that of Inzlicht & Friese (2019), make the argument that ego depletion alone, even if it is viable, cannot be the sole driver of willpower (Inzlicht & Friese, 2019).
Consequently, researchers have worked to develop ego-depletion scales that also account for other factors. Tang et al. (2016) developed a test, called the Ego Displacement Source Scale (EDS-S) that focuses on 11 factors, including thought suppression; impulse control; emotional control; challenging task; compulsive task; decision making; social distress; self-preservation; procrastination; unfilled goals and habits changing (Tang et al., 2016). Salmon et al. (2014) developed a scale, called the Depletion Sensitivity Scale (DSS) to measure the rates at which different people experience ego-depletion. This scale assumes that individuals differ in their ego “endurance,” which is defined by several factors, including impulsivity, fatigue and beliefs about willpower (Salmon, et al., 2014). Englert and Wolff (2018), developed a scale, the Ego-Depletion Manipulation Check, to gauge a person’s efficacy in self-control manipulation (Englert & Wolff, 2018).
Research indicates that confidence and self-efficacy are important elements in self-control and ego-depletion. Dubner (2016) found that perception of one’s willpower, essentially, one’s confidence in one’s self-control, was key in asserting self-control. If one doesn’t believe they have enough willpower, they have limited motivation to try (Dubner, 2016). Zhang et al., (2021) have found that self-efficacy is important in replenishing ego-depletion in the face of cyberbullying, while Schmeichel & Vohs (2009) found that self-affirming one’s core values also helps to counteract ego depletion. Another important factor in mitigating ego-depletion is experience with the activity in which the subject is asserting their willpower (Muraven et al., 1999).
Surprisingly, not a lot of work has been done to connect the construct of ego-depletion with persuasion or vulnerability to persuasion. The literature review for this paper found only one scale making such a connection, the Susceptibility to Persuasion Scale, developed by Modic and Lea (2013). Further, no scales were found tying ego-depletion to political rhetoric or public speaking. However, one researcher, Cholbi (1996), does make a theoretical connection between ego-depletion and political manipulation. He argues that “those with the ability to harness ego-depletion” (Cholbi, 1996, P. 203) can manipulate others by constructing “choice environments” and situations so that targets, made vulnerable by ego-depletion, are more likely to make the decisions their would-be manipulators want them to make (Cholbi, 1996, P. 203).
Another important insight for the test came from research about both fast and slow thinking. Research shows that both fast, heuristic thinking and slow, critical deliberation play roles in major decisions, including politics and voting (Hall, et al., 2009), and that propagandists and social media designers take advantage of the differences between the two different kinds of thinking (Weinmann, et al., 2016). Essentially, individuals take part in fast, heuristic thinking when they experience cognitive overload, are distracted or tired, are rushed or feel that the subject at hand isn’t important enough (Hall et al., 2009). When individuals are in this mode of thinking, which is, of course, fast as well as effortless, automatic and emotional, they are more susceptible to shallow cues like prejudices, biases, attractiveness of speakers (Hall et al., 2009). Individuals take the second cognitive route, the slow, critical and deliberative mode of thinking, when they have the time and cognitive resources to do so or feel that the subject is important enough to require such deliberation (Hall et al., 2009). When they take this route, they are more open to evidence and logic (Hall et al., 2009). Aside from these insights into fast and slow thinking, there remain a great many mysteries regarding the cognitive science of persuasion. Research is still being conducted on pinpointing the exact cognitive processes (Albarracin, 2002) and the brain areas (Yomogida et al., 2017), related to this phenomenon. At this stage, comprehensive tests with multiple items breaking down persuasion into component cognitive processes is not possible.
Hypotheses
With the trait of willpower confidence theorized to consist of both a depletable mental resource and assorted coping skills, four hypotheses have been made for this pilot test and its two constructs:
- The constructs for both FAST and SLOW willpower confidence will be at least moderately correlated with the Coping Strategy Test.
- Subjects with higher levels of education will score, on average, higher than those with lower education levels on both kinds of willpower confidence.
- Subjects with greater levels of experience with public speaking will score, on average, higher than those with lesser experience on both kinds of willpower confidence.
- As subjects progress through both tests, they will score, on average, lower on later items compared to earlier items due to ego depletion.
- A certain number of participants might not finish the test, due to the cumulative effects of ego-depletion.
Method
The project first involved a month-long design and research phase. During this phase, three things occurred. First, the research for the Literature Review was conducted. Second, a pool of speechwriters and journalists were consulted over the design of the constructs and the selection of the speech segments. Then software package candidates for the survey delivery system were investigated, ultimately leading to the selection of the Alchemer platform for the construction and distribution of the test. The system costs $300 for a year’s subscription but offered numerous design and data reporting options that were valuable for this project. I also intend to use this system for my upcoming thesis project.
The Fast/Slow War Rhetoric Response Test (WRRT) was then input into the Alchemer system – a process that took roughly two days. First, an introduction page, with an explanation of the test and its goals, was built. This introduction also gave the directions on how to take the test, as well as the Coping Strategy Test, which came immediately after in the system. After the introduction, a demographics page was built. Immediately after this page came the pilot test. The test was input such that each page focused entirely on a single question item: first a FAST question, followed by a SLOW question, and so on, alternating. The final version of the test consisted of 16 items, eight FAST questions and eight SLOW questions. Full documentation of the test’s content can be found in Appendix A. Following immediately after the WRRT came the Coping Strategy Test, all 13 items administered on a single page to prevent test fatigue. After this second test came a Thank You page. Full documentation of the Coping test’s content can be found in Appendix B.
After the Alchemer survey package was constructed, it was given a pilot test amongst the original pool of consulting speechwriters and journalists, as well as amongst close family members and friends during the week of Thanksgiving, specifically from November 23rd to November 29th. Each member of this group of 15 was given a URL that led them directly to the test system. After taking the test, they provided input on the test’s design, leading to two major changes. First, the number of total question items for the WRRT was cut down from 20 to 16, with questions of each type being cut down 10 to eight. Second, certain items from the Demographics page were cut out, including profession and income. My pool of consulting speechwriters and journalists instigated this change to my Demographics page due to the nature of my professional networks. Professionally, I am a ghostwriter of speeches for academics and government officials in various countries. As such, all my clients rely on my discretion to never reveal that I worked for them. Any possible clues to such, including even moderately vague Demographics questions, would dissuade them from participating within the test, and could possibly cost me their business relationship. Hence, the obscuring of many demographic questions.
After this pilot phase, the survey package was released amongst my social media contacts on Facebook and LinkedIn, and other assorted contacts by mail, on Monday, December 28th. The requests on Facebook and Linkedin requested help for a “psychometrics project conducted for graduate psychology program at the Harvard University Extension School” with some pilot pleasantries and the URL link to the Alchemer survey package. The next day, a similar request was posted on a LinkedIn Speechwriters’ network, the Leadership Communications Roundtable. Reminders of the request, again with the Achemer link, were posted on Friday, December 3rd, on Facebook, LinkedIn and the Leadership Communications Roundtable LinkedIn grouping. These reminders also included a deadline for participation, Monday, December 6th. On that date, the test was closed to new participants and the results data was analyzed and correlated through Thursday, December 9th.
Participants
My participant pool was largely dictated by convenience, centered around my Facebook and LinkedIn networks plus an additional twenty or so friends or former colleagues contacted via email. My Facebook network of contacts, since it is almost entirely familial and social, runs the gamut in terms of a demographic characteristics. My LinkedIn network is somewhat, although not entirely, weighted more towards professionals with graduate school educations in fields such as journalism, speechwriting, law, among others.
During the two-week outreach effort, thirty-eight ended up participating within the test. Two participants quit before inputting any demographic information. The demographics for the other thirty-six are as follows:
Table 1:
All Participants
0-18 25-40 40-55 55-70 70+
Age Range 2 (5.6%) 8 (22.2%) 11 (30.6%) 11 (30.6%) 4 (11.1%)
Male Female Rather Not Answer
Gender 18 (50.0%) 14 (38.9%) 4 (11.1%)
High School College Graduate/Terminal Degree MD/PHD
Education 2 (5.6%) 11 (30.6%) 18 (50.0%) 5 (13.9%)
None Occasionally Regularly (Hobby) Professionally
Public Speaking 12 (33.3%) 9 (25.0%) 5 (13.9%) 10 (27.8%)
Tasks and Measures
The participants were given two different types of questions: one set of questions described as “FAST” and another set described as “SLOW.” Each question involved reading a segment from a notable inspirational wartime or battle-focused speech from Western History, and then answering either a “FAST” or “SLOW” question. Participants were asked to assume that each speech represented a high-commitment request, implicit or explicit. Answers were input by clicking into software “button” options, of which there were six, ranging in scores from “0” to “5.” Participants were not able to go forward in the test without inputting an answer for each question. The specific meanings for each of the options different depending on the question. The software only allowed the participants to select one option. Participants were asked to answer eight “FAST” and eight “SLOW” questions, in alternating order.
“FAST” QUESTIONS
For the “FAST” questions, participants were asked, after reading the speech segment, to quickly respond to the following prompt:
“How Much Effort Would It Take for You to Say “No”?”
The participants were asked to answer this prompt by rating on a scale from “0” to “5” just how much effort it would take them to say “No” to the featured speaker and their request.
Each rating had the following meaning:
A “0” meant that it would take no effort at all to turn down the request to take part in the war activity.
A “1” meant that it would take a minimal amount of effort to turn down the request.
A “2” meant that it would take a mild amount of effort to turn down the request.
A “3” meant that it would take a moderate amount of effort to turn down the request.
A “4” meant that it would take a heavy amount of effort to turn down the request.
A ”5” meant that it would take an extreme amount of effort to turn down the request.
“SLOW” QUESTIONS
For the “SLOW” questions, the participants were asked to take their time to answer the following prompt:
“How Many Counterarguments Can You Generate to This Speech?”
Participants for this question were given the additional instruction:
“You don’t need to list all of your counterarguments in this question. Rather it is to see whether, off the top of your head, you can come up with critiques or challenges to the speech segment you are reading, like “Well, that’s not a good enough reason to go to battle,” or “the speaker doesn’t make sense here.” The goal is to see how critical you are willing to be in the face of powerful persuasive public rhetoric. For these particular prompts, please guess the number of counterarguments you think you can generate.”
The participants were asked to answer this prompt by rating on a scale from “0” to “5” how many counterarguments they could make in response to the speaker’s request.
Each rating had the following meaning:
A “0” meant the participant had “No Counterarguments”
A “1” meant the participant had “At Least One Counterargument”
A “2” meant the participant had “At Least Two Counterarguments”
A “3” meant the participant had “At Least Three Counterarguments”
A “4” meant the participant had “At Least Four Counterarguments”
A “5”meant that participant had “Five or more Counterarguments”
To prevent confusion, the page for each question was noted at the top as either “This is a Fast Question” or “This is a Slow Question.“
Results
Ultimately, 38 subjects started the test, and 24 completed it. The full item analysis of the test questions can be found in Appendix C. For all analyses related to group averages and reliability and validity correlations, the rating scores for each participant were added together to form total scores for FAST (Raw), SLOW and COPING. Because the FAST (Raw) scores run in a different direction compared to the SLOW scores – greater willpower confidence in FAST (Raw) is signified by lower numbers while it is signified by higher numbers in SLOW – these scores were reversed in direction by subtracting them from 5. These new scores, designated FAST (Rev), were included in all scoring tables and used to generate “Avg New TOTAL” scores (compared to the “Avg. Total” scores that used the “Avg FAST (Raw)” scores. They were also used in the analysis equations for reliability and validity.
Group Averages
There were linear relationships between education and FAST and SLOW scores: as education rose, the subject’s FAST score went down, and the SLOW score rose. All other relationships in scoring averages, including the relation between total WRRT scores and education, were curvilinear. For example, in the demographic of education, (Table 2), total willpower confidence scores (reversed FAST scores plus SLOW scores) rose from high school to college, where it peaked, then declining amidst graduate degree holders and dropping amongst holders of PhDs. In the demographic of public speaking experience (Table 3), the highest scores were found amongst those with no speaking experience, dropping amongst occasional public speakers, rising again amongst regular speakers, before plummeting again amongst professionals. For the demographic of age (Table 4), willpower confidence was highest amongst the youngest, 0-18 years, and then steadily decreased in each category through 55-70-years, before rising slightly in the 70+ category. In the category of gender (Table 5), males scored slightly higher than females, and those who preferred not to answer scored in between them.
Table 2:
EDUCATION All High School College Graduate PhD
Avg FAST (Raw) 16.3 12.5 14 17.4 25.6
Avg SLOW 8.7 5 8.5 9.3 12.2
Avg TOTAL 25 17.5 22.5 26.7 37.8
Avg COPING 23.2 16.5 24.2 24.6 28.4
Avg FAST (Rev) 23.7 27.5 26 22.6 14.4
Avg New TOTAL 32.4 32.5 34.5 31.9 26.6
Note: The “All” column in this table signifies the average of ALL the participants, no matter the demographics.
Table 3:
PUBLIC SPEAKING None Occasional Regularly Professional
Avg FAST (Raw) 11.8 20.3 18.2 17.9
Avg SLOW 7.1 10.1 9.6 9
Avg TOTAL 18.9 30.4 27.8 31.1
Avg COPING 19.4 33.1 22.2 24.1
Avg FAST (Rev) 28.2 19.7 21.8 19.6
AVG New TOTAL 35.3 29.8 31.4 28.6
Table 4:
AGE 0-18 18-25 25-40 40-55 55-70 70+
Avg FAST (Raw) 16.5 0 15.4 15.2 20.9 20.5
Avg SLOW 16.5 0 9.9 10 8.3 8.5
Avg TOTAL 25 0 23.4 25.2 29.2 29
Avg COPING 34 0 18.4 22.2 30.9 28.8
Avg FAST (Rev) 23.5 0 26.5 24.8 19.1 19.5
Avg New TOTAL 40 0 36.4 34.8 27.4 28
Table 5:
GENDER MALE FEMALE PREFER NOT TO ANSWER
Avg FAST (Raw) 17.1 18.1 14.8
Avg SLOW 10 8.9 6.5
Avg TOTAL 27.1 27.1 21.3
Avg COPING 24.9 26.1 17.3
Avg FAST (Rev) 22.9 21.9 25.3
Avg New TOTAL 32.9 30.8 31.8
Completion Data:
There were 14 subjects who started the test but did not complete it. Two subjects left without inputting any demographic data. Out of the 12 who did, half were male; half went to graduate school and half had no public speaking experience at all.
Table 6:
Participants Who Did Not Complete the Test (N=14, for breakdown data below, N=12)
Two did not input any data at all. The breakdown below is for the 12 participants who input at least some data.
0-18 25-40 40-55 55-70 70+
Age Range 0 (0.0%) 4 (33.3%) 4 (33.3%) 3 (25.0%) 1 (8.3%)
Male Female Rather Not Answer
Gender 6 (50.0%) 4 (33.3%) 2 (16.7%)
High School College Graduate/Terminal Degree MD/PHD
Education 1 (8.3%) 4 (33.3%) 6 (50.0%) 1 (8.3%)
None Occasionally Regularly (Hobby) Professionally
Public Speaking 6 (50.0%) 1 (8.3%) 2 (16.7%) 3 (25.0%)
Table 7:
Locations Where Participants Left the Test
Left Before Inputting Any Info 2
Left After Inputting the Demographic Data 3
Left After Question 1 1
Left After Question 2 3
Left After Question 7 1
Left After Question 8 2
Left After Question 9 1
Left After Question 10 1
Scoring Trends:
There is no discernible linear path of scoring movement for the FAST scale. There appears to be a rough discernible trend of scoring decreases for the SLOW scale (Table 8).
Table 8:
Score Progression Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8
FAST Total Scores (Reversed) 100 115 119 110 99 133 110 114
SLOW Total Scores 51 33 35 50 51 33 36 23
Validity:
The FAST questions, when their scores were reversed in direction by subtraction from 5, demonstrated a strong inverse correlation to the Coping Strategy Test: 0.85, N=38, with a P-Value < .00001. The result is significant at p < .05.
The SLOW questions demonstrated a moderate correlation to the Coping Strategy Test: 0.56, N=38, with a P-Value of 0.000273. The result is significant at p < .05.
Data from partially completed tests was included because I believed they fit within the theoretical parameters of the constructs.
Reliability:
Split-Half Reliability was tested for the WRRT by correlating the first half (consisting of 8 questions) with the second half (also consisting of questions).
The test demonstrated a Split-Half Reliability Correlation: 0.84, N=38, with the P-Value < .00001. The result is significant at p < .05.
Data from partially completed tests was included because I believed they fit within the theoretical parameters of the constructs.
Discussion
The FAST/SLOW War Rhetoric Response Test turned out to be a frustrating, albeit still promising, near-miss. The strong reliability and validity correlations hint that the test indeed reflects something. However, the complex partial confirmations of most of the study’s hypotheses demonstrate that the phenomena reflected by the test is more complicated than anticipated – requiring further refinement, and greater precision, in the test’s constructs and assessment items.
Indeed, few of the test’s results were straightforward. The moderate correlation between the SLOW questions and the Coping Strategy Test was expected, but the strong inverse correlation between the FAST questions and Coping was a surprise. The curvilinear, instead of linear, relationships between willpower confidence and the variables of education (with regards to total WRRT scores), speaking experience and age indicate that there are other factors unaccounted for within the design of the constructs. The existence of partial completions helps support the idea that ego-depletion has a role in willpower confidence, but the sheer number of these partials complicates the picture and creates problems with statistical significance. The fact that the item scores did not decrease linearly over time also hurts this model – or could be a sign that the items were not equal in difficulty.
Nonetheless, the results do offer some interesting insights.
Implications
The correlation between the SLOW questions and the Coping Strategy Test indicates that the constructs in these tests likely share common elements. Maybe the act of maintaining confidence in one’s willpower while slowly deliberating over compelling arguments requires similar mechanisms and thinking strategies to those involved with coping in difficult circumstances.
The strong inverse correlation between the FAST questions and the Coping Strategy Test is hard to interpret. When you maintain confidence in your willpower while conducting fast, heuristic thinking, do you engage in mental activity different from coping? Instead of looking for new perspectives or finding ways to adjust to circumstances, maintaining willpower in fast-thinking situations might require simple stubborn strength of will.
The linear relationship between education and FAST and SLOW scores was expected. The higher the education, the higher the SLOW score and the lower the FAST score. This hints that education gives a subject more of the cognitive tools needed to maintain willpower in the face of deliberative rhetoric, and less of whatever is needed to maintain willpower in fast heuristic situations.
The curvilinear relationships between test scores and the variables of speaking experience and age hint at other factors that may impact willpower confidence. Moreover, total WRRT scores, summing SLOW with reversed FAST scores, also demonstrated a curvilinear relationship with education as well. With regards to education, subjects with college degrees scored the highest total scores, and then these scores decreased with subjects who earned graduate degrees or PhDs. Because higher degrees tend to expose people to a greater variety of opinions, and critical thinking, they might also spur greater humility. Meanwhile, the youngest subjects, and those with the least amount of speaking experience, scored the highest in willpower confidence. Lack of experience might spare subjects from information that would conflict with their self-estimations.
The fact that test scores did not decrease linearly over time indicates that there are many other factors at play in willpower confidence besides simple ego-depletion that were not accounted for in the design of the constructs.
Limitations
The test’s limitations are certainly numerous, but they provide interesting opportunities for better capturing the nuances of this subtle phenomenon.
The Gestalt-like Approach and the Precision of the Constructs and Tasks
It is likely that the broadness of the construct, and of the questions, hurt the test’s robustness. It would have benefitted from more precision. For example, was “willpower confidence” the right construct after all? Would it have been better conceptualized as “ego strength perception,” “ego resilience,” “ego awareness” or something else? Each alternate conceptualization would have involved different component traits such as self-awareness, ideation, reactance and so on. These alternate component traits might have better accounted for the targeted phenomenon and improved the test’s receptivity. The question, of course, would be which conceptualization, and which component traits. A similar question could be asked about the tasks. Were self-reports on needed effort or guesstimates of counterargument capacity the best ways to operationalize these constructs? What would have been better alternates? Would the test have benefitted from more than just two kinds of tasks?
Comparability of the Items
The speech segments were selected by a panel via the predominant criteria of prominence in history and overall “compelling” power. These highly subjective standards likely led to a selection of speeches, that while all notable, have very little in common in terms of rhetorical technique and persuasion strategy. Consequently, there is probably no oranges-to-oranges comparability amongst the items in terms of “compelling” power or other impact on the subject. This inability for exact comparisons probably limited many of the analyses, such as finding relationships between scores and age, education or speaking experience, or the relationship between scores and time. It may be possible that the speech segments differed so much in their persuasive impact on the subjects that their respective items were gauging different phenomena. I might have been administering more than one kind of test without knowing it.
Representation and Variety of Speeches
This limitation is obvious. All the speeches were macho and focused on war or battle and came from Western History. All, but one, had been delivered (and presumably written) by men. All were white, except perhaps for Hannibal. This appalling lack of representation undoubtedly limited the resonance, and relevance, of the speeches for many test subjects. The excuse, admittedly poor, for such horrific underrepresentation was that I was aiming for the most compelling, most pressurized, and the most demanding speeches requiring the highest potential sacrifice. War-related speeches seemed to be the best example of such rhetoric and the most readily available were speeches from Western History. Attempts were made to find speeches from Latin American history, such as those of Simon Bolivar, and other countries such Shaka Zulu of the Zulu Kingdom or Mao Zedong of the People’s Republic of China, but all of these suffered in terms of quality of translation. Whatever the excuses, the test was poorly represented, and this without a doubt negatively impacted the test’s cultural validity and robustness.
Participation and Issue of Completions
Participation and partial completions were key limitations of the study, threatening the statistical significance of the test results. Despite the recruitment campaigns on three fronts, Facebook, LinkedIn and email contacts, only 38 people ended up taking the test, with 24 going all the way to the end. The 14 who quit the test before its end left at different points, with two leaving without inputting any demographic information at all. Some partial completions were hypothesized, as an indicator of some subjects succumbing to early ego-depletion from the challenge of exerting willpower against these powerful speeches, but the large percentage raises questions about the test. Were all the partial completions the result of ego-depletion, or could they have been caused by issues related to the design or technology requirements of the test? Could it be that some subjects tried to take the test via cellphone and found it too inconvenient? Was the reading requirement too onerous for busy subjects? Some left before they complete the Coping Strategy Test, creating issues scoring for validity correlation. Armed with this experience, future versions of the test might feature the Coping Strategy Test, or any other validity tests, to be administered first to capture more data from potential quitters.
Tests for Validity
I still believe that the Coping Strategy Test was an excellent choice for a validity test, but I think that future studies of this test should include other scales as well. I still believe that the coping process, or its component problem-solving skills, are important factors in the maintenance of self-control and willpower, but other factors are clearly at play here as well. These other factors were not captured, leading to many of the surprises in the test results. If would be valuable to conduct additional validity studies involving other scales related to the phenomena of ego-depletion, grit, persuasion, and language processing to try to capture what was missed in this first study.
Future Research
FAST versus SLOW
Work needs to be done regarding the test and its efforts to measure willpower maintenance in the two different thinking routes: fast, heuristic, and slow, deliberative. Versions of the test could be administered to test subjects before, and after, they experience experimental manipulations impacting their cognitive processes in both routes. This way data could be collected to better pinpoint the relation between the test and these different cognitive functions, and these insights could help refine both constructs.
Broader Toolkit, Variety and Representation
There are many opportunities to broaden the tasks, the subject matter, and the representation of the test. Instead of randomly taking segments from historical speeches with undetermined rhetorical profiles, it would be valuable to write/build banks of items with predetermined characteristics. One could develop sets of segments featuring heavy use of metaphor, or alliteration, allusion, or symbolism, and so on. In this way, all of items within the set would be comparable to one another and would allow for more precise testing. To-be-sure, such banks of targeted test items could become rather large given the number of strategies and rhetorical devices in use by speechwriters. A researcher need not inflict all these tests on a particular set of subjects at one time. Instead, a researcher could pick and choose amongst the test banks to customize an assessment instrument meeting their specific needs at the time: for example, a test bank for assessing vulnerability to polarizing propaganda.
The subject matter of speech segments could be expanded from just war speeches. There could be items, or entire test banks, devoted to commencement speeches; funeral orations; legislator arguments for proposed laws; political convention speeches and State of the Union addresses, even executive speeches at investor conferences or TED Talks. And instead of having the subject try to imagine saying “No,” or guesstimating counterarguments, other tasks could include whether they would BUY or SELL the idea promoted by the speaker or whether they would invest in the speaker’s idea, with different quantized money amounts, and so on.
Of course, the test would benefit greatly featuring items of speeches from different countries, cultures, as well as different genders of performers. Researchers could administer the test in different languages, as well as different cultures, to explore linguistic factors, and to see how well the willpower constructs play out under different customs and traditions.
Greater Alignment with Cognitive Science
More work is needed to pinpoint the specific cognitive processes involved with willpower and persuasion to better refine the constructs and the assessment strategies. Incorporating versions of this test in various cognitive experiments and neurological studies will provide valuable insights on the building blocks of these phenomena.
Alternate Testing Experiences
This version of the test had subjects read segments of speeches; it would be interesting to administer the test with the subjects listening to recordings or watching videos of the featured speeches. This will open the test up to even more potential factors, such as body language, kinesics, paralanguage, and chronemics, among others.
Conclusion
Maintaining one’s willpower in the face of aggressive persuasion is becoming increasingly vital as more and more interested parties vie for influence in our increasingly interconnected societies. Understanding the nature of this phenomenon requires precise measurement. The FAST/SLOW War Rhetoric Response Test represents a promising near-miss in just such an endeavor. Evidence shows that the test, and its two constructs, do reflect something of the components underlying the phenomenon of willpower in the face of persuasion. However, the results from the pilot test show complex, sometimes surprising, data— indicating that the constructs need significantly more refinement. Broadening the test in terms of tasks, types of speeches, and types of speakers would good first steps towards helping the test reach its full potential.
REFERENCES
Albarracin, D. (2002). “Cognition in Persuasion: An Analysis of Information Processing in Response to Persuasive Communications.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 61-130). Academic Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). “Ego Depletion: Is the Active Self a Limited Resource?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252.
Cholbi, M. (1996). “The Implications of Ego Depletion for the Ethics and Politics of Manipulation. Philosophical.” Quarterly, 33(1), 44.
Dubner, D. (2016). “Willpower and Ego Depletion: Useful Constructs?” Counseling & Wellness: A Professional Counseling Journal, 5.
Englert, C., & Wolff, W. (2015). “Ego Depletion and Persistent Performance in a Cycling Task.” International Journal of Sport Psychology, 6(1425), 137-151. doi:10.7352/IJSP2015.46.137
Friese, M., Loschelder, D. D., Gieseler, K., Frankenbach, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2019). “Is Ego Depletion Real? An Analysis of Arguments.” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(2), 107-131.
Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2010). “Ego Depletion and the Strength Model of Self-Control: a Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 495.
Hall, C. C., Goren, A., Chaiken, S., & Todorov, A. (2009). “Shallow Cues with Deep Effects: Trait Judgments from Faces and Voting Decisions. The Political psychology of democratic citizenship, 1, 583-605.
Hamby, S., Grych, J., & Banyard, V. L. (2013). “The Coping Strategy Test.” Life Paths Research Measurement Packet. Sewanee, TN: Life Paths Research Program.
Inzlicht, M., & Friese, M. (2019). “The Past, Present, and Future of Ego Depletion.” Social Psychology.
Modic, D., & Lea, S. E. (2013). “Scam Compliance and the Psychology of Persuasion.” Available at SSRN 2364464.
Muraven, M., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1999). “Longitudinal Improvement of Self-Regulation through Practice: Building Self-Control Strength through Repeated Exercise.” The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(4), 446-457.
Salmon, S. J., Adriaanse, M. A., De Vet, E., Fennis, B. M., & De Ridder, D. T. (2014). “When the going gets tough, who keeps going? Depletion Sensitivity Moderates the Ego-Depletion Effect.” Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 647.
Schmeichel, B. J., & Vohs, K. (2009). Self-affirmation and self-control: Affirming core values counteracts ego depletion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 770–782. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014635
Tang, Y.-C., Gao, W.-B., Wang, J.-W., & Wang, L.-G. (2016). “Development of the Ego Depletion Source Scale and the Psychometric Evaluation in Postgraduates.” Chinese Mental Health Journal, 30(11), 851–857.
Weinmann, M., Schneider, C., & Vom Brocke, J. (2016). “Digital Nudging.” Business & Information Systems Engineering, 58(6), 433-436.
Yomogida, Y., Matsumoto, M., Aoki, R., Sugiura, A., Phillips, A. and Matsumoto, K. (2017) “The Neural Basis of Changing Social Norms through Persuasion.” Scientific Reports 7, no. 1: 16295-15.
Zhang, Z., Xiao, H., Zhang, L., & Zheng, J. (2021). “Linking Cyberbullying to Job Strain: Roles of Ego Depletion and Self-Efficacy.” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 1-18.
Appendix A: Transcript of the FAST/SLOW War Rhetoric Response Test
Page 1:
Welcome to the Fast/Slow War Rhetoric Response Test – A Prototype Psychometric Test
Thank you for taking part in this pilot of the Fast/Slow War Rhetoric Response Test, a psychometrics project conducted within the psychology program of the Harvard University Extension School.
This is a prototype test that will gauge your responses to text segments from some of the most famous motivational war speeches in European and American History. Many of these speeches are what you would call declaration of war speeches, while others simply try to motivate an audience to take part in a battle, or simply to fight. What they all have in common is there is a request, explicit or implicit, made of the audience to take part in a high-risk, high-commitment, aggressive activity. At any rate, assume the speaker is trying to motivate you to take part in a war-like activity.
What we are asking you to do is to read 16-segments of these famous speeches and imagine for a few seconds that you are part of the audience listening to this speech.
Then you will be asked one of two types of questions for each segment:
FAST QUESTIONS:
Eight of these questions will ask you to quickly respond to the following prompt:
How Much Effort Would It Take for You to Say “No”?
As quickly as possible after reading the prompt, rate on a scale from 0 to 5 how much effort would it take for you to say “NO” to the speakers and their request.
For example:
A “0” would mean that it would take no effort for you at all to turn down the request to take part in the war activity.
A “1” would mean that it would take a minimal amount of effort to turn down the request.
A “2” would mean that it would take a mild amount of effort to turn down the request.
A “3” would mean that it would take a moderate amount of effort to turn down the request.
A “4” would mean that it would take a heavy amount of effort to turn down the request.
A ”5” would mean that it would take an extreme amount of effort to turn down the request.
SLOW QUESTIONS:
Eight of these questions will ask you to take a few additional seconds to respond to this prompt:
How Many Counterarguments Can You Generate to This Speech?
You don’t need to list all of your counterarguments in this question. Rather it is to see whether, off the top of your head, you can come up with critiques or challenges to the speech segment you are reading, like “Well, that’s not a good enough reason to go to battle,” or “the speaker doesn’t make sense here.” The goal is to see how critical you are willing to be in the face of powerful persuasive public rhetoric.
For these particular prompts, please guess the number of counterarguments you think you can generate:
No Counterarguments
At Least One Counterargument
At Least Two Counterargument
At Least Three Counterarguments
At Least Four Counterarguments
Five or more Counterarguments
To help, each segment will be noted at the top as “This is a Fast Question” or “This is a Slow Question.“
This is not a test of whether you are a passivist or a proponent of armed conflict. We recognize how emotional and controversial this subject can be. Instead, this is a test of your confidence level in responding to these segments of powerfully worded demands for high-risk activity. Persuasion is a powerful driver of behavior in our society; this test is attempt at understanding how we respond to this social force.
Please be honest, the data gathered is completely anonymous.
Also, at the beginning, the test will gather some basic demographic information so we can better understand the results.
After this test, you will be asked to complete a quick questionnaire about cognitive coping strategies. This quick questionnaire is important because it will help us measure the validity of the Fast/Slow War Rhetoric Response Test.
The data gathered will be analyzed anonymously and the results will be posted within 6 to 8 weeks.
Thank you again, very much.
Page 2: Demographics
- What is Your Age Range?
0-18
18-25
25-40
40-55
55-70
70+
- What is your gender?
Male
Female
Rather not answer
- What is your education level?
High School
College
Graduate School, including terminal professional degrees
PHD/MD
- Do you teach, write speechs or take part in any public speaking?
None
Occasionally
Regularly as a Hobby or part of Leisure Activity
Professionally
Page 3: Speech Segment 1
THIS IS A FAST QUESTION
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills.
We shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
From the text transcript of Winston Churchill’s We Shall Fight on the Beaches speech, delivered before the House of Commons at London, UK – June 4, 1940.
How Much Effort Would It Take for You to Say “No”?
- No Effort
- Minimal Effort
- Mild Effort
- Moderate Effort
- Heavy Effort
- Extreme Effort
Page 4: Speech Segment 2
THIS IS A SLOW QUESTION
There are, it may be many months of fiery trial and sacrifice ahead of us. It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war, into the most terrible and disastrous of all wars, civilization itself seeming to be in the balance.
But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts,-for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own Governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.
To such a task we can dedicate our Eves and our fortunes, every thing that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured.
From the transcript of Woodrow Wilson’s “War Message,” delivered at Washington D.C. – April 2, 1917.
How Many Counterarguments Could You Generate to This Question?
No Counterarguments
At Least One Counterargument
At Least Two Counterargument
At Least Three Counterarguments
At Least Four Counterarguments
Five or more Counterarguments
Page 5: Speech Segment 3
THIS IS A FAST QUESTION
If you give in, you will immediately be confronted with some greater demand, since they will think that you gave way on this point through fear. But if you take a firm stand you will make it clear to them that they have to treat you properly as equals. . . .
We must realize too, that, both for cities and for individuals, it is from the greatest dangers that the greatest glory is to be won. When our fathers stood against the Persians they had no such resources as we have now . . .
We must live up to the standard they set: we must resist our enemies in any and every way, and try to leave to those who come after us an Athens that is as great as ever.
From text of Pericles to the Athenian Assembly, 432 BC, from “The History of the Peloponnesian War.”
How Much Effort Would It Take for You to Say “No”?
- No Effort
- Minimal Effort
- Mild Effort
- Moderate Effort
- Heavy Effort
- Extreme Effort
Page 6: Speech Segment 4
THIS IS A SLOW QUESTION
On the right and left two seas enclose you, without your possessing even a single ship for escape. The river Po around you, the Po larger and more impetuous than the Rhone; the Alps behind, scarcely passed by you when fresh and vigorous, hem you in.
Here, soldiers, where you have first met the enemy, you must conquer or die; and the same fortune which has imposed the necessity of fighting holds out to you, if victorious, rewards than which men are not wont to desire greater, even from the immortal gods
Hannibal’s Address to His Troops, 218 BC, from “Histories, Book 3,” by Polybius.
How Many Counterarguments Could You Generate to This Question?
No Counterarguments
At Least One Counterargument
At Least Two Counterargument
At Least Three Counterarguments
At Least Four Counterarguments
Five or more Counterarguments
Page 7: Speech Segment 5
THIS IS A FAST QUESTION
We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit ourselves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear.
I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honor and my blood, even in the dust.
Queen Elizabeth I, Tilbury Speech rallying her navy against the Spanish Armada, July 1588
How Much Effort Would It Take for You to Say “No”?
- No Effort
- Minimal Effort
- Mild Effort
- Moderate Effort
- Heavy Effort
- Extreme Effort
Page 8: Speech Segment 6
THIS IS A SLOW QUESTION
The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of a brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer, or to die.
Our own, our country’s honour call upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion; and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world.
Let us, then rely on the goodness of our cause, and the aid of the Supreme Being, in whose hands victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble actions.
The eyes of all our countrymen are now upon us, and we shall have their blessings and praises, if happily we are the instruments of saving them from the tyranny mediated against them.
General Washington to his troops just before the battle of Long Island, August 26, 1776.
How Many Counterarguments Could You Generate to This Question?
No Counterarguments
At Least One Counterargument
At Least Two Counterargument
At Least Three Counterarguments
At Least Four Counterarguments
Five or more Counterarguments
Page 9: Speech Segment 7
THIS IS A FAST QUESTION
Soldiers: When we began our march, one department of France was in the hands of the enemy. Consternation pervaded the south of the Republic. You advanced. Joy and Hope in our country have succeeded to consternation and fear.
The enemy, terror-struck, seeks only to regain his frontiers. You have taken his hospitals, his magazines, his reserve parks. The first act of the campaign is finished. Millions of men address you in strains of praise. But shall we allow our audacious enemies to violate with impunity the territory of the Republic?
Will you permit the army to escape which has carried terror into your families? You will not. March, then, to meet him. Tear from his brows the laurels he has won. Teach the world that a malediction attends those that violate the territory of the Great People. The result of our efforts will be unclouded glory, and a durable peace.
Proclamation by Napoleon Bonaparte to his troops before the Battle at Marengo, June 14, 1800.
How Much Effort Would It Take to Say “No”?
- No Effort
- Minimal Effort
- Mild Effort
- Moderate Effort
- Heavy Effort
- Extreme Effort
Page 10: Speech Segment 8
THIS IS A SLOW QUESTION
The defense of Egypt lies here at Alamein and on the Ruweisat Ridge. What is the use of digging trenches in the Delta? It is quite useless. If we lose this position, we lose Egypt; all of the fighting troops now in the Delta must come here at once, and will.
Here we will stand and fight; there will be no further withdrawal. I have ordered that all plans and instructions dealing with further withdrawals are to be burnt, and at once. We will stand and fight here.
If we cannot stay here alive, then let us stay here dead.
Speech by General Sir Bernard Montgomery upon seizing command of the 8th Army on August 12, 1942, before heading off to battle against General Erwin Rommel.
How Many Counterarguments Could You Generate to This Question?
No Counterarguments
At Least One Counterargument
At Least Two Counterargument
At Least Three Counterarguments
At Least Four Counterarguments
Five or more Counterarguments
Page 11: Speech Segment 9
THIS IS A FAST QUESTION
You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.
In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the eliminations of Nazi tyranny over oppressed people of Europe, and the security for ourselves in a free world.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower ordering the Normandy Invasion, June 6, 1944.
How Much Effort Would It Take to Say “No”?
- No Effort
- Minimal Effort
- Mild Effort
- Moderate Effort
- Heavy Effort
- Extreme Effort
Page 12: Speech Segment 10
THIS IS A SLOW QUESTION
There will be some complaints that we’re pushing our people too hard. I don’t give a damn about such complaints. I believe that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder we push, the more Germans we kill.
The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing harder means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that. My men don’t surrender. I don’t want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he is hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight.
That’s not just @#$%^&*! either. I want men like the lieutenant in Libya who, with a Luger against his chest, swept aside the gun with his hand, jerked his helmet off with the other and busted the hell out of the Boche with the helmet. Then he picked up the gun and he killed another German. All this time the man had a bullet through his lung. That’s a man for you!
General George Patton’s Speech to the 3rd Army, May 31, 1944
How Many Counterarguments Could You Generate to This Question?
No Counterarguments
At Least One Counterargument
At Least Two Counterargument
At Least Three Counterarguments
At Least Four Counterarguments
Five or more Counterarguments
Page 13: Speech Segment 11
THIS IS A FAST QUESTION
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.
The St Crispin’s Day speech, delivered by the character Henry V in William Shakespeare‘s history play Henry V, Act IV Scene iii(3) 18–67
How Much Effort Would It Take to Say “No”?
- No Effort
- Minimal Effort
- Mild Effort
- Moderate Effort
- Heavy Effort
- Extreme Effort
Page 14: Speech Segment 12
THIS IS A SLOW QUESTION
The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are; but it is the one most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world.
The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.
Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right; not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere, and, we hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved.
President John F. Kennedy Address to the Nation during the Cuban Missile Crisis, October 22nd, 1962.
How Many Counterarguments Could You Generate to This Question?
No Counterarguments
At Least One Counterargument
At Least Two Counterargument
At Least Three Counterarguments
At Least Four Counterarguments
Five or more Counterarguments
Page 15: Speech Segment 13
THIS IS A FAST QUESTION
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!
The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” Speech, delivered at St. John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 1775.
How Much Effort Would It Take to Say “No”?
- No Effort
- Minimal Effort
- Mild Effort
- Moderate Effort
- Heavy Effort
- Extreme Effort
Page 16: Speech Segment 14
THIS IS A SLOW QUESTION
Is it not, therefore, shameful that a people accustomed to be conquered, a people ignorant of war, a people even without arrows, should proceed in order of battle against you, my brave men? Is it not a shame that King Harold, perjured as he was in your presence, should dare to show his face to you?
It is amazing to me that you have been allowed to see those who, by a horrible crime, beheaded your relations and Alfred my kinsman, and that their own heads are still on their shoulders.
Raise your standards, my brave men, and set neither measure nor limit to your merited rage. May the lightning of your glory be seen and the thunders of your onset heard from east to west, and be ye the avengers of noble blood.
William the Conqueror, “Be Ye the Avengers of Noble Blood,” Battle of Hastings, October 14th, 1066
How Many Counterarguments Could You Generate to This Question?
No Counterarguments
At Least One Counterargument
At Least Two Counterargument
At Least Three Counterarguments
At Least Four Counterarguments
Five or more Counterarguments
Page 17: Speech Segment 15
THIS IS A FAST QUESTION
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Teddy Roosevelt, “The Man in the Arena Speech,”April 23, 1910.
How Much Effort Would It Take to Say “No”?
- No Effort
- Minimal Effort
- Mild Effort
- Moderate Effort
- Heavy Effort
- Extreme Effort
Page 18: Speech Segment 16
THIS IS A SLOW QUESTION
But has the last word been said? Must hope disappear? Is defeat final? No!
Believe me, I speak to you with full knowledge of the facts and tell you that nothing is lost for France. The same means that overcame us can bring us to a day of victory. For France is not alone! She is not alone! She is not alone! She has a vast Empire behind her. She can align with the British Empire that holds the sea and continues the fight. She can, like England, use without limit the immense industry of United States.
This war is not limited to the unfortunate territory of our country. This war is not finished by the battle of France. This war is a world wide war. All the faults, all the delays, all the suffering, do not prevent there to be, in the world, all the necessary means to one day crush our enemies.
General Charles de Gaulle, “Appeal of June 18,” delivered on June 18th, 1940.
How Many Counterarguments Can You Generate to This Question?
No Counterarguments
At Least One Counterargument
At Least Two Counterargument
At Least Three Counterarguments
At Least Four Counterarguments
Five or more Counterarguments
Page 19:
Thank you for taking part in the pilot for the Fast/Slow War Rhetoric Response Test, a graduate psychometric project conducted for the Harvard University Extension School. Your response is very important in the development of new research tools for understanding the psychological phenomenon of persuasion.
Appendix B: Transcript of the Coping Strategy Test
The Coping Strategy Test
Hamby, Grych, & Banyard, 2013, Coping Strategy Test, Partially adapted from: Holahan & Moos, 1987; Spitzberg & Copach, 2008
This coping questionnaire assesses cognitive, emotional, and behavioral methods of dealing with problems.
- When dealing with a problem, I spend time trying to understand what happened.
1 Not True About Me
2 A Little True About Me
3 Somewhat True About Me
4 Mostly True About Me
- When dealing with a problem, I try to see the positive side of the situation.
1 Not True About Me
2 A Little True About Me
3 Somewhat True About Me
4 Mostly True About Me
- When dealing with a problem, I try to step back from the problem and think about it from a different point of view.
1 Not True About Me
2 A Little True About Me
3 Somewhat True About Me
4 Mostly True About Me
- When dealing with a problem, I consider several alternatives for handling the problem.
1 Not True About Me
2 A Little True About Me
3 Somewhat True About Me
4 Mostly True About Me
- When dealing with a problem, I try to see the humor in it.
1 Not True About Me
2 A Little True About Me
3 Somewhat True About Me
4 Mostly True About Me
- When dealing with a problem, I think about what it might say about bigger lifestyle changes I need to make.
1 Not True About Me
2 A Little True About Me
3 Somewhat True About Me
4 Mostly True About Me
- When dealing with a problem, I often wait it out and see if it doesn’t take care of itself.
1 Not True About Me
2 A Little True About Me
3 Somewhat True About Me
4 Mostly True About Me
- When dealing with a problem, I often try to remember that the problem is not as serious as it seems.
1 Not True About Me
2 A Little True About Me
3 Somewhat True About Me
4 Mostly True About Me
- When dealing with a problem, I often use exercise, hobbies, or meditation to help me get through a tough time.
1 Not True About Me
2 A Little True About Me
3 Somewhat True About Me
4 Mostly True About Me
- When dealing with a problem, I make jokes about it or try to make light of it.
1 Not True About Me
2 A Little True About Me
3 Somewhat True About Me
4 Mostly True About Me
- When dealing with a problem, I make compromises.
1 Not True About Me
2 A Little True About Me
3 Somewhat True About Me
4 Mostly True About Me
- When dealing with a problem, I take steps to take better care of myself and my family for the future.
1 Not True About Me
2 A Little True About Me
3 Somewhat True About Me
4 Mostly True About Me
- When dealing with a problem, I work on making things better for the future by changing my habits, such as diet, exercise, budgeting, or staying in closer touch with people I care about.
1 Not True About Me
2 A Little True About Me
3 Somewhat True About Me
4 Mostly True About Me
Appendix C: Breakdown of Responses
Fast/Slow War Rhetoric Response Test
Response Breakdown
Type Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5
Question 1 FAST 33 6 (18.2%) 4 (12.1%) 4 (12.1%) 4 (12.1%) 9 (27.3%) 6 (18.2%)
Question 2 SLOW 32 7 (21.9%) 5 (15.6%) 10 (31.3%) 8 (25.0%) 1 (3.1%) 1 (3.1%)
Question 3 FAST 29 4 (13.8%) 2 (6.9%) 7 (24.1%) 5 (17.2%) 11 (37.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Question 4 SLOW 29 7 (24.1%) 10 (34.5%) 10 (34.5%) 2 (6.9%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Question 5 FAST 29 7 (24.1%) 2 (6.9%) 4 (13.8%) 7 (24.1%) 5 (17.2%) 4 (13.8%)
Question 6 SLOW 29 11 (37.9%) 9 (31.0%) 4 (13.8%) 3 (10.3%) 1 (3.4%) 1 (3.4%)
Question 7 FAST 29 4 (13.8%) 2 (6.9%) 4 (13.8%) 9 (31.0%) 7 (24.1%) 3 (10.3%)
Question 8 SLOW 28 7 (25.0%) 4 (14.3%) 6 (21.4%) 7 (25.0%) 2 (7.1%) 2 (7.1%)
Question 9 FAST 26 3 (11.5%) 2 (7.7%) 1 (3.8%) 1 (3.8%) 11 (42.3%) 8 (30.8%)
Question 10 SLOW 26 4 (15.4%) 5 (19.2%) 7 (26.9%) 6 (23.1%) 4 (15.4%) 0 (0.0%)
Question 11 FAST 25 5 (20.0%) 5 (20.0%) 3 (12.0%) 4 (16.0%) 6 (24.0%) 2 (8.0%)
Question 12 SLOW 25 11 (44.0%) 3 (12.0%) 6 (24.0%) 2 (8.0%) 3 (12.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Question 13 FAST 24 1 (4.2%) 2 (8.3%) 2 (8.3%) 7 (29.2%) 7 (29.2%) 5 (20.8%)
Question 14 SLOW 24 5 (20.8%) 6 (25.0%) 9 (37.5%) 4 (16.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Question 15 FAST 24 1 (4.2%) 1 (4.2%) 6 (25.0%) 5 (20.8%) 7 (29.2%) 4 (16.7%)
Question 16 SLOW 24 10 (41.7%) 6 (25.0%) 6 (25.0%) 1 (4.2%) 1 (4.2%) 0 (0.0%)
The Coping Strategy Test
Response Breakdown
No. Responses 1 2 3 4
Question 1 24 0 (0.0%) 3 (12.5%) 5 (20.8%) 16 (67.7%)
Question 2 24 1 (4.2%) 3 (12.5) 12 (50.0%) 8 (33.3%)
Question 3 24 1 (4.2%) 7 (29.2%) 7 (29.2%) 9 (37.5%)
Question 4 24 1 (4.2%) 2 (8.3%) 9 (37.5%) 12 (50.0%)
Question 5 24 5 (20.8%) 4 (16.7%) 7 (29.2%) 8 (33.3%)
Question 6 24 2 (8.3%) 5 (20.8%) 13 (54.2%) 4 (16.7%)
Question 7 24 7 (29.2%) 10 (41.7%) 7 (29.2%) 0 (0.0%)
Question 8 24 6 (25.0%) 8 (33.3%) 6 (25.0%) 4 (16.7%)
Question 9 24 6 (25.0%) 7 (29.2%) 5 (20.8%) 6 (25.0%)
Question 10 24 4 (16.7%) 8 (33.3%) 8 (33.3%) 4 (16.7%)
Question 11 24 1 (4.2%) 6 (25.0%) 13 (54.2%) 4 (16.7%)
Question 12 24 0 (0.0%) 4 (16.7%) 13 (54.2%) 7 (29.2%)
Question 13 24 1 (4.2%) 4 (16.7%) 13 (54.2%) 6 (25.0%)
Enchanted Loom Productions 