ISSN 2312-5160

Current Issues of Mass Communication, 2016, no. 19, pp. 21-29

ISSN 2312-5160


Full text, PDF (in English)

Social Impact: Theories, Tools and Examples of Propaganda and Persuasive Statements used in Polish Elections of 2015

Aleksandra Synowiec *

Silesian University of Technology, Department of Applied Social Sciences, 2A Akademicka, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland

* Corresponding author’s e-mail address: aleksandra.synowiec[@]



Objectives. The purpose of presented study is to discuss the chosen theories, mechanisms and tools of social impact, which allow influencing individuals and groups, in reference to Polish election campaigns 2015. The effectiveness of media content influence on the recipient is considered with view to achieving the expected results, such as changes in behaviour, attitudes, etc. This issue is relevant in Poland and there is a need to analyse it.

Methodology. This study is both theoretical and empirical. Theoretical background includes considering the concept of social impact and the origins of shaping public opinion, inspired by the John Zaller’s classic work “The Nature and Origins of Public Opinion” (1992). The empirical contribution involves the content analysis of the set of examples from Polish presidential and parliamentary election campaigns of 2015.

Results and Conclusions. The techniques described and classified by the American Institute for Propaganda Analysis in the far 1937, were broadly used in Polish media within the 2015 presidential and parliamentary election campaigns. Referring to the classic examples of media impact, the author considers the relevance of the propaganda tools. Based on the analyses of the concrete election cases, a conclusion is substantiated that such old propaganda techniques as word games, false connections, special appeals, name calling and glittering generalities are still effectively used in the contemporary communication, despite the improving of people’s media literacy and competence.


KEYWORDS: social impact; propaganda techniques; persuasive statements.



  1. Pratkanis, A. & Aronson, E. (2003), Wiek propagandy. Uzywanie i naduzywanie perswazji na co dzien, Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe WN, Warszawa.
  2. Baran, S.J. & Davis, D.K. (2007), Teorie komunikowania masowego, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego, Kraków, 484 p.
  3. Wikipedia (2016), “Institute for Propaganda Analysis”, available at: (accessed 15 May 2016).
  4. Nieć, M. (2013), Komunikowanie polityczne w nowoczesnym państwie, Wolters Kluwer business, Warszawa, 312 p.
  5. Zaller, J.R. (1992), The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, University of California, Los Angeles, 382 p.
  6. Marks, K. (1951), Kapital. Krytyka ekonomii politycznej. Tom pierwszy, Książka i Wiedza, Warszawa, 854 p.
  7. Toffler, A. (1980), The Third Wave, Bantam Books, New York City, 544 p.
  8. Polityka (2015), “Ile hejtu w internecie? Kogo internauci nie lubią?”, available at:,1, (accessed 15 May 2016).
  9. Szulczewski, M. (1972), Propaganda polityczna. Zarys problematyki teoretycznej, Książka i Wiedza, Warszawa, 364 p.
  10. Radio TOK FM (2015), “Makowski o Beacie Szydło: Jej kampania manipuluje obrazami i faktami”, available at:,130517,18477360,makowski-o-beacie-szydlo-jej-kampania-manipuluje-obrazami.html (accessed 15 May 2016).
  11. Uniwersytet Warszawski (2016), “Podstawowe narzędzia propagandowe i ich praktyczne zastosowania”, available at: (accessed 15 May 2016).

Comments are closed.