Schema: a representation of a plan or theory in the form of an outline or model.
Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something; an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
I want to focus on the relationship of these two words. Primarily, the process one goes through to believe something. I posit that it is through the alignment of sensory inputs that sync, mess, or align with the person’s existing schema. If there is no ability to build on an existing model, that input is at the very most stored for later processing and at the very least completely ignored. That said, the way in which we influence others should be by aligning what we are conveying to be compatible to our targets current schema in order to get him or her to believe the desired message.
I will take a moment and call out the presupposition here: influencing action occurs only when one is regarded as a believable source, be it a person, publication or piece of content. The opposite can occur as well as the contrapositive (influence action based on being an unreliable source, not influencing action because not reliable). For this argument, I argue based on the perspective of a credible source of news or content, not a satire publication, and therefore the ideal is to spur action based on believability.
What if I told you I found this thing that makes you feel like you’re floating, like you’re far lighter that you are, that you can move forward without moving your body, that you move fastest by moving both your feet and arms? Would you believe me? Most likely yes, you would instantly identify my “finding” as swimming. Why? Because you’ve done it, seen it, or heard about it. But without that previous experience, it would seem not credible.
The procedure is actually quite simple. First, you arrange things into different groups. Of course, one pile may be sufficient depending on how much there is to do. If you have to go somewhere else due to lack of facilities, that is the next step; otherwise, you are pretty well set. It is important not to overdo things. That is, it is better to do too few things at once than too many. In the short run this may not seem important but complications can easily arise. A mistake can be expensive as well. At first, the whole procedure will seem complicated. Soon, however, it will become just another fact of life. It is difficult to foresee any end to the necessity for this task in the immediate future, but then one can never tell. After the procedure is completed one arranges the materials into different groups again. Then they can be put into their appropriate places. Eventually they will be used once more and the whole cycle will then have the be repeated. However, that is a part of life.Do you know what it is? This will probably be a lot more complicated to figure out unless you’ve heard about it before. Still unsure? This doesn’t resonate with you because it’s not making sense, it’s not aligning with any of your schema. Now, let me add this key piece of information: the procedure I’m talking about is “washing clothes.” Now with this bit of information, re-read the paragraph if you aren’t already doing and see how much sense it is all making.
You understand the descriptions because you have a mental model of swimming and washing clothes. The question becomes, at what point did all of this click for you? When did you know that was what I was describing? What recall was your brain making? What additional pieces of information could I add to the descriptions to draw stronger connections?
Now, what could I do once I’ve had your understanding, your belief in what I am describing? Could tapping into your schema allow me to present new and potentially manipulative pieces of information into them? Persuasive studies have demonstrated perhaps yes: commitment and consistency, authority, credibility, etc.
Story time: If one is an avid Disney fan, and she loves the movie Frozen, and she signs up for Frozen newsletter updates on Disney’s mobile site indicating her favorite character is Olaf the snowman. She receives an email congratulating her and telling her that if she allows a message to be sent to her Facebook and Twitter friends, she will receive exclusive content and an app for free about Olaf’s backstory in the woods, and it has a Disney logo on the bottom and looks like at quick glance it’s from a Disney email account. Will she get the content in exchange for the information?
What if out of the blue you received an email that said give me your credit card information for Olaf’s backstory? Who is Olaf? Why would you want a back-story? Why would you want to play a game? What do you think about spamming your friends on Facebook and Twitter? These may be some of the first questions popping up in your head. And I take it a step further, it involves a far greater schema: How do you view your “luck” when it comes to winning? How skeptical are you with fraud online? How much do you value online privacy? What is your view on personal information?
These questions range from the very specific such as “how much do you value content about Olaf” to very fundamental “”how much do you value personal private information.” All of these questions are wrapped into the simply deceiving decision to the question: do I click the button to allow access or not. It doesn’t take much to answer in the negative, the “no I’m not going to give my personal information.” At any point along the schema connections, you could have found something that didn’t align and therefore lead to rejecting, “I don’t care about Olaf” or “this email address is fake” or “nothing in life is ever free or won, there’s a catch, so I’m going to withhold.”
But how about the original girl who signed up for the newsletter? Has she essentially demonstrated her schema upfront and ready to be utilized to the fullest? She’s clearly watched Frozen, likes receiving email from Disney, is okay with giving some types of personal information, has a mobile device, and favorites the snowman character. Her schema is so well-mapped to receive an additional piece of stimulus to yield the reaction intended (obtain credit card information).
And that is content should be viewed. How much of what you are writing aligns with the reader’s current schema? Is it a base need that all humans are wired with, such as sex and danger. It matters not what society a person is in, those and other primal needs are inherent to one’s schema, to one’s survival and have a mass, worldwide appeal. But as the content’s coverage moves to more and more erudite topics, it looses its mass appeal in favor of those that have the most compatible existing schema. A CPA who focuses on FMV of level 3 securities in hedge funds will be far more receptive to the recent pronouncements of the PCAOB regarding valuation than a drama student at Julliard. But they might both be interested in hearing about Kim Kardashian’s butt.
Advertisers have been doing it for years, the most common schema to tap into is the date. We have this mental model that the world is divided into seven days for a week, 365 days a year. We go through Christmas together, New Years together, and various other holidays. Tapping into the mere fact that it is a particular date has allowed marketers to begin the schema building process, the funnel. Spring sale, winter blowout, new year clearance sale all tap into the shared experience of the world.
Luckily, marketers don’t have to wait for the year, season, or even day to bring the next one in order to tap into a base level schema. Now, current events and affairs has become the marketplace to tap into base schema, and that is the beauty of trending hashtags on places such as Facebook and Twitter. Now, beginning with that world affair, topic, hashtag–tapping into their schema–you add your voice (which provides value to the reader) and draw them into the funnel where you can add more of the schema.