Persuading people to take the right action

[Ned Bedinger]

wongword at ozemail.com.au wrote:
> The following text is an extract from: 
> http://www.scambusters.org/identitytheft2.html
> 
> Now if you were trying to persuade people 
 > to be careful would you use this approach
 > of focusing on the wrong action and describing
 > the correct action in a less prominent location?

I have to say that this site isn't one I'd recommend for a visit.

I think this sort of "expert advice" website probably doesn't have much 
effect on people not already thinking about security or understanding 
identity as a commodity.

As with conventional wisdom about tech writing, I think you'd find that 
some people respond and are attracted to the site's posture of authority 
and expertise, while others wouldn't take long to say "Forget you" to it.

I don't see any way to say that the site, as a representative of a style 
of danger warning, is effective or not. Some people will be attracted to 
it, some will be repelled, I think. It intrigued me long enough to read 
the seven headings, but I din't find much of anything that was 
interesting or informative.

What I did see is that the site selects for visitors who are not 
sophisticated about internet dangers and identity theft. Then I saw that 
the site could easily deliver some surreptitious payload of spyware to 
the bunnies who go clicking on all the links. Let that be a lesson to 
ya....


> Do you have any references about the desirability 
 > or otherwise of this type of warning?

No, but it brings topics to mind, especially things peripheral to the 
topic of "risk." For your question about warning types, one might look 
into topics around the 'perception of risk,' and factors that influence 
the perception of risk. Such topics should be all over the place 
(semiotics, economics, game theory, decision analysis, policy studies, 
motivation and behavior, learning theory, education, ...).

Your public library (or university library) reference desk might have 
someone on staff who would research it for you. They're free of charge. 
(But I'm sending you a bill).

BTW, I think you're on a right track when you contrast the prominence of 
the "Don't" and "Do" messages. You can't get someone to do the right 
thing by telling them what not to do, except as a matter of 
intervention, but you can use "Don't" to establish authority if you can 
attach consequences to it.

On the other hand, _learning_ thrives on _positive reinforcement_. Those 
three words are all you need for searching out reams and bushels of 
information on that subject.


> A recent study by the IBM Internet Security Systems 
 > X-Force found that in 2007, 19 of the top 20 companies
 > that were the supposed senders of phishing emails
 > were in the banking industry.

You've done your homework!  Good luck,

Ned Bedinger
doc at edwordsmith.com