<p>This is more of a persuasion/manipulation tactic I see mostly media outlets employ. Linking is the name I came up with to describe when something is intentionally associated with something else to change your perception of one of those things. This isn't an association fallacy where someone says that a quality of one thing must apply to another just because they both share a similar quality or belief. An example of an association fallacy ewould be that Jim has a mustache, Adolf Hitler also had a mustache, therefore Jim's a Nazi. It's a fallacy because it doesn't logically follow that mustaches are the connecting source of Nazism. No, the &quot;Linking&quot; trick is more of an irrelevant but true association to shift your judgment or perceptions on one of both of the things associated with each other. For example, saying Jim has a Hitler-style mustache. In this case Jim isn't explicitly being called a Nazi, he's just being associated with the founder of Nazism. Ultimately this is different from an association fallacy because an association fallacy is attempting to make an argument. Whereas &quot;Linking&quot; is simply stating it as a non-argument, usually in the form of an adjective or prior description, but with the hopes that others change their views on the subject, hence Jim being a Nazi.</p>
<p>For real world examples I'm going to have to jump into the world of media and politics. Please, let's not turn this into a political pow wow, let's keep it civil.</p>
<p>For example, CNBC had an article titled &quot;Trump-endorsed 'Sound of Freedom' has outgrossed 'Mission: Impossible,' 'The Flash'&quot;</p>
<p>The key words being &quot;Trump-endorsed&quot;. Although it's true that Trump did endorse the movie after its July 4th release, it wasn't necessary to mention that. By associating the movie with Trump, this would change how Democrats or non-Trump supporting Republicans and Independents would judge this movie. This is almost certainly being done on purpose. This is not an association fallacy because it's not attempting to connect dots where they don't exist. They are simply slapping one party-affiliated figure's name next to a movie so that members of the opposite party don't want to watch it.</p>
<p>Imagine if Fox News wrote a piece called &quot;the viewership rate of the Clinton-backed Madam Secretary TV series&quot; or &quot;the success of the Biden-watched Tiger King documentary.&quot; Hillary Clinton does like Madam Secretary and the Biden's did watch the Tiger King Documentary, but linking them to these forms of entertainment, when you're supposed to be covering the views or success of the show instead, will lead Republicans to not want to watch.</p>
<p>What I'm looking for is if there is a name for this persuasive/manipulation trick I've described. Also if any psychological/neuroscientific studies or research have been done on it. I know this is a bit of a long shot with this example, but I see this implemented by almost every media outlet in this country. So I'm curious.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-08-09T02:11:54.817Z
I imagine it has a name in media or advertising  jargon and perhaps NLP, but I'm unaware of it being a part of mainstream (science-based) psychology. Perhaps someone will enlighten us otherwise.
Jiminy Cricket.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-08-09T02:56:50.170Z
Hopefully, thanks for the comment anyway.
Jason Esposito
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-08-09T03:36:28.623Z
It seems like this is just the association fallacy version of an ad hominum from a psychology perspective. I also don't think the media are necessarily using the tactic you describe for the reasons you think: they probably just find that adding "Trump-endorsed" in the title of an article makes more people click on it to read it, which is often called "clickbait".
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-08-09T09:09:05.920Z
I think this would be considered rhetoric, which as you point out is distinct from argumentation. This is the field/domain I would be looking for an answer (a tag could be appropriate). From an argumentation perspective, one could argue the statement carries with it _implicit_ claims.
Steven Jeuris
<perception><bias>
The "Linking" Trick
Jason Esposito
# The "Linking" Trick

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-08-09)

This is more of a persuasion/manipulation tactic I see mostly media outlets employ. Linking is the name I came up with to describe when something is intentionally associated with something else to change your perception of one of those things. This isn't an association fallacy where someone says that a quality of one thing must apply to another just because they both share a similar quality or belief. An example of an association fallacy ewould be that Jim has a mustache, Adolf Hitler also had a mustache, therefore Jim's a Nazi. It's a fallacy because it doesn't logically follow that mustaches are the connecting source of Nazism. No, the "Linking" trick is more of an irrelevant but true association to shift your judgment or perceptions on one of both of the things associated with each other. For example, saying Jim has a Hitler-style mustache. In this case Jim isn't explicitly being called a Nazi, he's just being associated with the founder of Nazism. Ultimately this is different from an association fallacy because an association fallacy is attempting to make an argument. Whereas "Linking" is simply stating it as a non-argument, usually in the form of an adjective or prior description, but with the hopes that others change their views on the subject, hence Jim being a Nazi.

For real world examples I'm going to have to jump into the world of media and politics. Please, let's not turn this into a political pow wow, let's keep it civil.

For example, CNBC had an article titled "Trump-endorsed 'Sound of Freedom' has outgrossed 'Mission: Impossible,' 'The Flash'"

The key words being "Trump-endorsed". Although it's true that Trump did endorse the movie after its July 4th release, it wasn't necessary to mention that. By associating the movie with Trump, this would change how Democrats or non-Trump supporting Republicans and Independents would judge this movie. This is almost certainly being done on purpose. This is not an association fallacy because it's not attempting to connect dots where they don't exist. They are simply slapping one party-affiliated figure's name next to a movie so that members of the opposite party don't want to watch it.

Imagine if Fox News wrote a piece called "the viewership rate of the Clinton-backed Madam Secretary TV series" or "the success of the Biden-watched Tiger King documentary." Hillary Clinton does like Madam Secretary and the Biden's did watch the Tiger King Documentary, but linking them to these forms of entertainment, when you're supposed to be covering the views or success of the show instead, will lead Republicans to not want to watch.

What I'm looking for is if there is a name for this persuasive/manipulation trick I've described. Also if any psychological/neuroscientific studies or research have been done on it. I know this is a bit of a long shot with this example, but I see this implemented by almost every media outlet in this country. So I'm curious.

**Tags:** perception, bias

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I imagine it has a name in media or advertising  jargon and perhaps NLP, but I'm unaware of it being a part of mainstream (science-based) psychology. Perhaps someone will enlighten us otherwise.  
> **username_0**: Hopefully, thanks for the comment anyway.  
> **username_2**: It seems like this is just the association fallacy version of an ad hominum from a psychology perspective. I also don't think the media are necessarily using the tactic you describe for the reasons you think: they probably just find that adding "Trump-endorsed" in the title of an article makes more people click on it to read it, which is often called "clickbait".  
> **username_3**: I think this would be considered rhetoric, which as you point out is distinct from argumentation. This is the field/domain I would be looking for an answer (a tag could be appropriate). From an argumentation perspective, one could argue the statement carries with it _implicit_ claims.  

---

## 0 answers

