What is the solution to extreme divisiveness? 

What is the solution to extreme divisiveness? 

Oh, now you have stepped into one the greatest modern debates in political science.  Abramowitz versus Fiorina.  Sorting versus polarization –  and now we have calcification.  Let’s get ready to rumble!!!! 

In broad strokes, Morris Fiorina has argued for years that polarization is limited to the political class (elected officials and activists) and that a huge middle is hiding in plain sight. 

Alan Abramowitz countered argued – for years – that polarization has moved into the masses and that it is related / following polarization in the political class.

Sorting is a process where voters sort themselves into the “correct” parties and polarization is where partisans ascribe to more and more extreme positions. 

So, how bad is it? 

I think in our world, it is pretty bad.  I define our world as people that work in politics, work around elected officials, work with activists, read blog posts on politics.  You know – the political nerds of the world. 

Sorting

We have sorted.  A quick example, in the blue county that I live in there are 64 precincts.  At the county level, Alachua voted for Charlie Crist 57% versus Ron DeSantis 42%.  On average, a 15% spread. 

However, if we look at the precinct level….

In 80% of the precincts in Alachua County, the vote spread is more than 15%. 

In 74% of the precincts in Alachua County, the vote spread is more than 20%. 

Box plot of Absolute spread (Crist / DeSantis) in Alachua County, FL

In a quick box plot, we observe some real outliers.  In one precinct alone, the spread is 83%!  83%!   

The data isn’t easily available to explore all of Florida most recent returns, but in previous research using the precinct as the unit of analysis, the same rough pattern played out. 

In addition, almost 40% of parents would be very upset if a child married someone from a different party.

So, we, the voters, have sorted not only in ideology – but also geography – and now marriage.

And we recognized how critical others behavior is on our own. 

Polarization

Pew studies polarization in the United States and has one of the best gifs of the polarization. 

My hope is that they update it with new information. 

Elite Polarization

General Polarization

As you can see, political elites polarized first and the public trailed. It’s only gotten worse.

Yes, there is a large portion of the public that sits “in the middle” or not as extreme – but most of them are not politically engaged.   Don’t believe me?  Go to any Walmart and conduct an interrupt poll.  (Secret – a lot of people just aren’t that into us….)  

But of the politically engaged, polarization is pronounced, ugly and for some of us – at a truly unhealthy level. 

How we got here is beyond the scope of this blog post that is attempting to answer “What is the solution to extreme divisiveness?”

A deceptively simple question, but we have to agree on the unit of analysis.  Are we talking solution at a mass level or at an individual level? 

 

Mass Level

I believe firmly that social media isn’t the “cause” of our divisiveness – I think our human nature / behavior is, and social media is the gasoline that ignites and flames our worst passions. 

But to make it all the worst, social media companies knew what they were doing in “increasing engagement” was going to lead to more divisiveness.

“Our algorithms exploit the human brain’s attraction to divisiveness,” read a slide from a 2018 presentation (Facebook).

“If left unchecked,” it warned, Facebook would feed users “more and more divisive content in an effort to gain user attention & increase time on the platform.”

Unfortunately, these platforms are the perfect hack for our human brains / nature – especially the bad sides.

It is rare that I would argue for government regulation, but in this case, I am. 

I think it is critical that these platforms be held accountable for the bullshit on their platforms – bullshit they know is harmful, bullshit they know is divisive and most importantly bullshit they know is bullshit. 

I would say the same for cable news ‘opinion’ shows. 

In addition, I think we are going to need to figure out how to ‘save’ local journalism, but that is a longer post. 

Individual level

I think awareness is key.  None of us are immune from the toxic environment that we work in; and none of us are smart enough to outwit human nature. 

There are individual things you can do to minimize social media.  Turn it off, watch what you post, take responsibility for your own behavior. 

I did this about a year ago.  At some point, I loved posting explosive political content.  It was a jolt.  Let’s “debate”.  However, at some point I realized it was all bullshit and I was a participant in it.  So, now, I post pictures of my puppy, laments about Gator football, and other hobbies. 

This is Jackie-O – don’t you already feel better?

Funny thing happened on the way, I retrained the algorithms to show me Boxer puppies, people catching monster trouts, and other assorted silliness.  The political stuff – when I stopped – stopped being served to me as much. 

Additionally, I have been experimenting with information diets, literally starving myself of news content or turning it all off.    It is difficult, but I am also finding that ALL truly important news finds me – really, really quickly.  A call, an email, a text – I don’t want to brag – but I have yet to miss a “major news story.”

BUT, here is the most important suggestion to solving divisiveness at the individual level: scotch (or coffee if you don’t drink). 

We must seek out different people and form trusting relationships with them.  We must not allow ourselves to label the others as “evil” or even worse. We all need more circuit breakers.      

I will agree, some people are likely gone.  Gone into a dark place that we aren’t going to be able to form a relationship with.  Pick some one different.

My wife keeps me grounded (in more ways that I can count), and she is gasp….a member of the other party. 

She is my circuit breaker.

When I find myself enraged at the other side and on the verge of calling them all names – she appears and asks me to put the damn toilet seat down for the 1,000,000 time. It is literally impossible for me to hate her and her patience.

When elected officials call the others “animals” or when talking heads call the others “evil” or when political “leaders” swear the “left is out to murder us all”, my wife steps in and waves.

Each of us needs such a stop gap in our political dealings – especially if you work in the field.    

So here is the concrete suggestion – find someone on the “other” side to have a scotch or cup of coffee with and just have a natter.  (Maybe more pubs without wifi and tvs…..) 

It is critical we form a trusting relationship with an “other”(s) so that when you have the urge to start hating, you too have a circuit breaker. 

Conclusion

Divisiveness is all around us – it is rewarded financially; it is rewarded socially – one could argue it is a near currency in today’s public. 

Until government regulation and case law catches up, we need awareness that we are essentially on our own. 

And divisiveness is a strange game.  The only winning move – at the moment – is not to play and have a scotch.      

Blog Challenge: Will there ever be a “multi-party” system (i.e. 5-10 parties) or are we stuck here?

Blog Challenge: Will there ever be a “multi-party” system (i.e. 5-10 parties) or are we stuck here?

Will there ever be a “multi-party” system (i.e. 5-10 parties) or are we stuck here?

 

Short answer, we are stuck – at least for the foreseeable future.   

There are roughly three types of party government – single parties (China), two party (USA), and multi-party, where 3 or more parties have a legitimate shot at governing in whole or in a coalition (most of Europe).

As you know, the USA has a two-party system. 

Why? 

Well because the parties in power make the rules governing our elections.  And the two major parties, acting like the monopolies write the rules to keep and perpetuate their power. 

Ballot Access

Actually getting candidats on the ballot is difficult – more so in certain areas.

Access to the ballot requires filing fees and signature requirements.  These requirements vary state by state and by office.  Here is a 37 page summary document.  37 pages of ‘summary’!

A third party that wants to field a candidate in every congressional district across the country, we are talking millions of signatures and significant amounts of money.

Winner Take All Elections

In political science, there are few “laws”.

In almost every case as with most social science “it depends….” Is the beginning of most answers.

However, there is Duverger’s Law. 

Pssst…Meet Maurice Duverger – doesn’t this French political scientist look exactly like the type of guy that would pen a political science law?

I will paraphrase here (and his law is a bit more nuanced), but single member districts with first past the post elections – favor two party systems.    It’s a law!.

The very structure of American elections strongly favors two party rule.

Ideological Void

I will add a third reason.

In most cases, most people clamoring for a third party have few things in common other than rejecting both major parties. (I wrote a great post earlier about third parties in presidential elections)

Most independents act like closeted weak-partisan voters – meaning when pushed, their voting behavior mirrors a partisan voter (just don’t dare call them that).

To date, any third party that has put together a platform ends up being so absolute that they end up running goat sacrificing candidates.   Yeah, I am looking at you Libertarian Party.

Try it: write a platform and try to gain buy in.  It is so difficult, the GOP doesn’t even have one.  BAZINGA!

Conclusion

Without significant changes to the laws and regulations that govern elections, third parties will face nearly insurmountable obstacles – put in place by those that make and benefit from those exact laws and regulations.

One nascent change that is gaining a little  momentum is moving away from first past the post elections to rank choice voting.  We see this type of ballot in Maine, NYC, Alaska and few other places.    I am not a huge fan of the process, but you can learn more about it: https://www.rcvresources.org/how-it-works.

But it is also illustrative of the main point.  Those in power loathe to cede it to anyone, and will do all kinds of things to keep it. 

In Florida, Ranked Choice Voting was passed in Sarasota for local election via referendum.

Yeah, the State of Florida promptly and quickly banned it (Senate Bill 524)  for all elections in Florida with bi-partisan support.   

Best Books of 2022 for political practitioners

Introduction

So begins the 30 day blogging challenge.  My thought is to start with an easy one and ease into it.

A graduate student asked me what book I read this year that I would recommend to practitioners of political affairs.

Seeing that I have seeming spent a lifetime trying to understand how voters come to believe the things they do and how to affect that process, I spend a lot of time reading behavioral economic and psychology books.  This year was no exception.

However, I can’t decide between two books; therefore, you I will tell you about two book recommendations for practitioners of politics in 2022.

The Science of Story Telling :  Why Stories Make us Human and How to Tell Them Better

by Will Storr

Amazon.com: The Science of Storytelling: Why Stories Make Us Human and How  to Tell Them Better eBook : Storr, Will: Books

This is an exceptional, easy to access book written by journalist, Will Storr.  The Science of Story Telling is an exploration of story and the brain science behind why stories are so effective in persuasion.

For me, this is less of a how to book, and more of the brain science.  Understanding these psychological underpinnings are essential to what we do as political practitioners.    I have read it twice and marked it up extensively.

Non affiliate link:  https://www.amazon.com/Science-Storytelling-Stories-Human-Better/dp/1419743031

 

 

Intuitive Marketing: What Marketers Can Learn from Brain Science

By Stephen Genco

Intuitive Marketing: What Marketers Can Learn from Brain Science: Genco,  Stephen: 9780578576961: Amazon.com: Books

 

This is exceptional book by a Stanford Phd, Stephen Genco.  This one is a little bit more dense and academic, but if you want a great review of the body of social science surrounding brain science, this is the book.  I am on my second reading of this book.

If you forced me to recommend one book for the year, it would be this one.

Non-affiliate link:  https://www.amazon.com/Intuitive-Marketing-Marketers-Learn-Science/dp/0578563614

Conclusion

Spend any time in politics and you will rapidly come to understand that human behavior is messy, and I think we owe it to our clients to constantly improve.  As political practitioners whether that be in public relations, public affairs, campaign consulting, or policy, understanding how human beings come to believe the things they do and how to affect those processes will only help us serve our clients better.

Let me know your recommendations, or if when you read these, would love your thoughts.

Alachua County and Single Member Districts

Alachua County and Single Member Districts

Overview

For the most part, voters in Alachua County performed about as one would expect.

Of all campaigns that were partisan and county wide, Democrats averaged 58% and Republicans averaged 42% of the vote.  This is in-line with historic returns going back to 1996.

There were no major deviations, except for two things:

  • Republican Kay Abbitt won a school board race (in a primary, and that is a different post)
  • Single Member Districts (SMD), even with the controversial campaign, (also, also, also) passed.

It is SMD that I am interested in exploring.

Results

SMD passed with 51% of the vote. 

It passed with a slim margin of 2,567 votes or 51%, but SMD did +9% points ‘worse’ than the baseline Democrat partisan result in the county races (average of 42%). 

This is interesting.

Dem Performance and SMD No Votes Are Highly Correlated

If we plot precinct’s percentage returns of Democrat performance (I used Alford vs Eagle County Commission race as a baseline) on the x axis, the SMD NO vote on the Y axis, we observe the two votes are highly correlated (.943 Pearsons) with an R² of .889.   (A perfect correlation is 1.0).

If you voted Dem (on a county commission race), you likely voted ‘no’ on SMD.  Partisanship was a main driver.    

So, what happened? 

There are two main clusters of deviation from the fit line:

  • Precincts with high percentage of registered voters, A18-34.  (Defined as >=50%)
  • Precincts with high percentage of African American voters.  (Defined as >=30%)

Under-Performance

First we will explore under-performance, Democratic performance – No Vote on SMD.

On average, under-performance voting was 12%.  However, there are a two clusters of outliers with the highest being 29%.

Exploring the precincts that are ~2x the average:

 

Precinct Under-performance
13.0-Mt. Carmel Baptist Church* 0.29
31-J. Wayne Reitz Union^ 0.28
39.0-Doyle Conner Building^ 0.27
55.0-Gateway Christian Center* 0.25
40.0-Comfort Suites^ 0.23
33-Ironwood Golf Course* 0.23
59.0-Days Inn Hotel^ 0.23
44.0-Phillips Center for the Performing Arts^ 0.22
28-McPherson Recreation Center* 0.22
30-Greater Bethel A.M.E. Church* 0.21
7.0-Ignite Life Center^ 0.21
19.0-Springhill Baptist Church* 0.2
23.0-Florida Museum of Natural History* 0.2
43-Grace United Methodist Church* 0.2
36.0-Hilton UF Conference Center^ 0.2
25.0-SFC Blount Center^ 0.2

*Bold indicates AA precinct

^indicates student precinct

Voter Fatigue

As with most down ballot issues, we also look at fall-off or voter fatigue.  These are precincts that had voters that cast a vote in the County Commission campaign and for whatever reason didn’t cast a vote in SMD question.

On average, fall off / fatigue was 6%.  However, there are a couple of outliers with the highest being 21%.

So who didn’t make it down the ballot?  For the most part, they are precincts where younger voters comprise at least 50% of the registered voters.

As you can see 7 of the top 10 precincts that fell off are ‘student’ precincts (as defined by me as registration A18-34 >=50% of total registration).

 

Precinct Fatigue
31-J. Wayne Reitz Union^ 0.21
59.0-Days Inn Hotel^ 0.18
39.0-Doyle Conner Building^ 0.12
36.0-Hilton UF Conference Center^ 0.11
5.0-First Lutheran Church^ 0.11
44.0-Phillips Center for the Performing Arts^ 0.11
43-Grace United Methodist Church* 0.1
23.0-Florida Museum of Natural History^ 0.09
19.0-Springhill Baptist Church* 0.09
27-The Thomas Center* 0.08
12.0-Parkview Baptist Church* 0.08

*Bold indicates AA precinct

^indicates student precinct

Precincts comprised of younger voters experienced higher rates of voter fatigue for SMD.

 

Conclusions

So, what is the bigger “sin”?

Precinct under performance fall off
Average Average
other 7% 5%
aa 21% 7%
student 20% 11%
TOTAL 12% 6%

 

 

Voting and not making it all the way through the ballot? (students)

OR

Voting and breaking with your party? (African Americans)

Regardless, two ‘bases’ of the national Democrat party coalition under-performed at this  local issue :young voters and African American voters.

If you are looking for 1,300 votes to change an outcome, either one is a good option.  (Average size of AA precincts is~1000 votes cast, student precincts ~1100 votes cast)

However, which is a bigger ‘surprise’?  Students not casting a vote for a local issue that doesn’t affect them much – OR – African Americans breaking from their local party’s position?

Finally, what is the better campaign strategy?

Asymmetric warfare using a ‘trusted’ messenger of the NAACP?

OR

Attempting nothing but to ride a partisan advantage and trusting a newspaper with declining readership to carry the message?

Data download

If you are interested in the cleaned up datafile, please feel free to contact me. 

 

PART 4 – HOW TO USE DIGITAL MEDIA TO CHANGE MINDS

PART 4 – HOW TO USE DIGITAL MEDIA TO CHANGE MINDS

We spent time in part 1, part2 , and part3 in this series speaking about the difficulty in changing minds once formed. We also spent some time talking about the ‘deep work’ needed and how to change to change minds.
We have seen just how difficult it is to change minds and rare.

In writing those posts, I realized that is not what most people in our field are speaking of when they talk about “changing minds.”

(In fact, we may not want to affect your mind, opinion at all. We may be more interested in affecting your behavior. Does a political actor really care what you “think” as long as you vote or don’t vote this specific way?)

I have heard one researcher say to actually change minds, a relationship is required. In today’s politics, there are few relationships formed outside partisanship.

So, for the most part, we aren’t talking about changing minds at all.

What we really want to know about is…..propaganda.

Propagandathe techniques of mass persuasion.  The use of symbols and psychology to prey on prejudices and emotions with the intent of having the “recipient” come to think it is all their idea and adopt a position. 

We must return to our model of thinking.

We have two main systems – System 1 (fast, automatic) and System 2 (slow, deliberate).

digital media & our brains - the elephant and rider

I have used the metaphor of the rider and the elephant. Others have used other metaphors (the Gator and the Judge).

Regardless of what you call them, System 1 is continuously scanning, decided on what one will focus on, ignore, and / or use some sort of heuristic to process quickly. System 2 takes effort, requires one to slow down.

As a researcher said, “System 1 is judging all the time, and system 2 decides – but only sometimes” and I will add : “and rarely”.

THE BASIS OF MASS PUBLIC OPINION

John Zaller in his work, The Nature of Origins of Mass Opinion, expands on the important concept with 4 ‘axioms’:

1) reception – greater a person’s engagement with an issue, the more likely they will take in and seek out information.

2) resistance – people tend to resist arguments that are inconsistent with their political per-dispositions.

3) accessibility – the more recent consideration has been given the less time it takes to form a thought about the subject.

4) response – people form opinions and provide survey answers by averaging across everything that is immediately salient or accessible to them.

Said in a different way, most people who are into politics have their minds made up and seek out information to fortify their positions. Others, who aren’t into politics – are the most difficult to reach and yet the most persuadable – mostly by what they experience in their current environment.

Hate to break it to all of us in the political realm, most of the public just isn’t that into us. Most don’t think deeply about candidates, issues, or the use of political power.  They have other priorities. 

For the most part, in politics we aren’t doing the deep work to change hearts and minds, we are looking for those who agree or are inclined to agree with us – then motivating them. We are identifying those who don’t agree with us and unmotivating them.

Persuasion in this sense is less about changing minds or behavior, but rather on creating the environment then prompting you to act – creating the illusion the change was your idea all along.

One of the main concepts I have come to understand – System 1 is an always-on, giant threat detector. It is continuously scanning for anything that can injure, hurt, and/or kill us.

Our minds therefore our attention naturally gravitates towards deviations from the norm and any and all perceived threat(s). If there is no threat, no novelty, or no one/something we trust to interrupt the elephant, System 1, the elephant, just lumbers on. Our brains simply ignore most banal or routine things.

CONCLUSION

In summation, this means the processing of most political information is happening largely in System 1 using mental shortcuts – affecting this sytem – this is where the real power of persuasion lies.

Rarely is system 2 used (especially if it requires us to think against the groups we hold dear), like it or not, the main route of persuasion is through System 1, the playground of propaganda. 

COMING NEXT

The perfect propaganda recipe.

PART 4 – HOW TO USE DIGITAL MEDIA TO CHANGE MINDS

PART 3 – HOW TO CHANGE MINDS USING DIGITAL MEDIA? PERSUASION

We have finally arrived at part 3 of 3 on the topic of “How to Change Minds Using Digital Media? Persuasion.”

In Part 1 – we explored the formation of beliefs, values, and opinions.

In Part 2 – we explored the forces at work that attempt to sustain beliefs – both internal and external.

Finally, in part 3 we explore what it takes to actually persuade.

But first it is recap time:

  • Changing minds is extremely difficult.
  • Many competing forces are at work to form and shape beliefs.    These shift over time in importance and credibility.
  • Many competing forces are at work and have an interest – normally economic – in sustaining your beliefs.
  • Human brains are wired not to see things clearly, but to conserve energy and help us survive.  We are all subject to two tiered thinking (think rider and elephant), with most of our thinking on autopilot.
  • In politics, most people are on autopilot.  They aren’t motivate enough or don’t care enough to think deeply about politics, and this is the power of party ID.  If in general, I believe I share the same beliefs and values – I will look to cues mostly from party leaders and actual opinions become fungible.

This is why it is so difficult to change minds in politics.  Politics creates  feedback loops that activate beliefs, values.  They create identities – “I am a Republican.”  These identities are reinforced – hardening positions.

Cognitive Dissonance

Once positions are hardened then the concept of cognitive dissonance comes into play. 

When people are faced with dis-confirming information, they become stressed.  For the most part, people want their values, beliefs, opinions and behavior to be in agreement and alignment. 

When faced with new information that dis-confirms a current mental model/reality, a person has a couple of choices

  • Denial – just ignore it
  • Bolstering – add thoughts to our side of argument
  • Differentiation – split arguments (i like the person, but disagree)
  • Integration – both can peacefully exist

In most cases, most will rationalize away the dis-confirming information. 

We humans must construct a reality in line with our mental model / reality. 

Yet, we do see people change their minds.  So, we know it is possible.  After all, we have seen massive changes in public opinion on the legalization of marijuana, on gay rights, on Russia.

Therefore, it is time the ask one of the best questions ever taught in grad school : when faced with two seemingly contradictory findings, ask under what conditions can BOTH be true?

Under what conditions even though difficult do people change their minds?  How does digital media affect this process?

Persuasion, manipulation, and coercion

A quick note, in politics a lot of the time, when politicians, leaders, etc say they want to persuade, really they mean they want to use power to make you do something – they want to coerce you.  They want to remove the choice and free will.  “Do it or else….”

That is not what I am writing about – that is another blog post.

digital media & our brains - the elephant and rider

How to change minds

We must return to our rider and elephant metaphor of the dual processing in a person’s brain.

Most of the time, we are in elephant mode – lumbering through life, conserving energy, and confirming our beliefs.

In addition, we have seen that brute force attempts often boomerang and backfire.

If a person is unmotivated to change, we are likely to change beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors. Yes with coercion, we may be able to change short term behaviors, but it is unlikely to stick.

My model is my teenage son. I have come coercion at my disposal in the form of punishments, but if I want to affect true change – the seemingly only way is to allow him to think any and all change is 100 percent his idea. If I come directly at him and challenge him head on, he is sure to buck and dig in.  My role as a caring and loving parent is to interrupt his lumbering elephant and shape the path.   Real change is difficult, time consuming, indirect, and uncertain to work.

Step 1 – Interrupt the Elephant

We must interrupt the automatic thinking.

As we have discussed, often it is an event outside our control that opens people up to change. (9/11, trauma, job loss, etc.)  At those times, we must “be willing to never waste a crisis.”  Yes, there are true crisis, but the big stressors in life also open windows – new job, a death, moving.  In these cases, move fast.

But how do we create our own momentum towards change? There is significant research into affective decision making and the roles of fear and anxiety. Yes, fear is a driver, but it appears to be more short term in nature. Anxiety is more insidious.

This is why so many digital headlines, ‘news’ stories, political stories are anxiety laden.  Anxiety is the Trojan horse of persuasion.

Step 1 is to get interrupt the elephant, allow the thinking to move from automatic to deliberate, and allow the rider to take control.

A successful interruption will often embrace a novel, shocking, or provoking use of emotion, typically inducing anxiety. 

We then need to work on shaping the path.

Considerations of the Interruption

What are we really trying to change?  Beliefs, Attitudes, Opinions and/or behavior?  This far too often is overlooked.  Beliefs and Attitudes are difficult, but normally, we are attempting to work on short term behavior or opinions.

We must consider the starting point of target.  How strongly held are their beliefs, attitudes, opinions and/or behaviors?  Sometimes it is helpful to think of a football field.  50 yard line is neutral, and the goal lines are our strongest held beliefs.  It is very rare that someone wholesale changes their beliefs…rather it is a process.  They have to move the entire football field, and that takes time, effort and consistency.  There are ‘zones of acceptance’ and if we are asking too large of a jump, we are looking at the success rate of a hail-mary.  The zone of acceptance often forms the credibility of the message itself.

In addition, we must consider credibility.   Someone outside our tribe, we are likely not to trust them or find them credible.  In our efforts to ease our cognitive dissonance, if we can write off dis-confirming information as coming from a non-credible source, we can quickly return control to the elephant.

Finally, efficacy.  The target must always feel like they are in control and not being manipulated or forced.  “Do your own research….” “We are just asking questions…..”  The need for efficacy is a powerful driver.

The Power of Questions

A good way to interrupt is a question.  Allowing the target to answer the question.  “How” questions are effective.  No better political question than “how so?”

Shaping the Path

Once we have interrupted, the messenger must be credible, we need to frame information as being consistent with currently held beliefs, we need to show social proof (peer pressure), best to be an authority figure, and don’t forget the fear of loss / loss aversion. 

Human behavior is greatly affected by the behavior of others – especially by people we like and trust.  If we aren’t that into a subject, we will readily adopt the opinions and behaviors of our pastors, political leaders, friends, and co-workers.  If a person sees someone in their tribe also making the change, we are apt to continue to think about it.   It is why the entire ‘influencer’ markets exist.  We must make great efforts to demonstrate social proof.

Unfortunately, many in the digital space make herculean efforts to manufacture fake social proof – it is also why false reviews are a massive, fake accounts are a massive problem, and bot nets exist.  They are problems because they are highly effective tactics.    There is significant research that volume can make up for low credibility.  If we see a message from many different sources, the credibility can be lower – due to social proof.

If possible, create experiences for the target.  The old adage of show, don’t tell.  If trying to convince a political leader, arrange a personal tour.  If tying to use digital media, use a virtual tour or a video to tell your story.  Visuals are critical.

Consider inoculation.  If you know the arguments against your position, best to bring them up and put them on the table.   There is some research that shows the goal isn’t to REFUTE the arguments, but rather to simply acknowledge them. Chris Voss labels this an accusation audit. Regardless of what you label it, we have found it to be extremely effective.

Finally, take advantage of loss aversion.  Humans fear loss.  There is research showing that humans feel loss or the fear of loss 1.5 – 2 times than we value gain.   At times in marketing, this is referred to as scarcity.  (This offer expires in 10 minutes….).  If you can massage your message to pique a loss frame,  you will likely see an uptick. 

An example – the vaccine whisperer

Adam Grant in his book Think Again provides the example of a local doctor who is called the vaccine whisperer.  (Doctor = high credibility).  When faced with a vaccine hesitant person, he doesn’t try to argue, get political, preach or make them a villain.  He interviews.    His goal is to get the person to see new possibilities.

The doctor tells the person they are concerned of what would happen if they became sick, but he accepted their decision but wanted to understand it better.   (triggers anxiety, zone of acceptance).  In the end, the doctor – after listening – would acknowledge the world is full of conflicting information, and reminded the patient “that they were free to choose and that he trusted their ability and intentions.”  (inoculation, efficacy, non threatening).

The premises of this entire series is that we can’t make someone change.  If we could, my teenagers would behave differently.  We are better off coaching and helping them think everything is their idea by shaping the path of the elephant and rider. 

The question for us in the digital space is how do we convert this one-on-one experience and convert it to the digital space?

Summary

One must understand to attempt to change minds is difficult and fraught with peril.  We see this so much in today’s politics – what fails to persuade us, normally makes our beliefs stronger. 

So, in most cases it is best to be first.  Get there before positions are hardened.   In digital advocacy, first mover has a large advantage.  

Interrupt the elephant.

  • Best done with emotion, not facts or stats.
  • Anxiety inducing has been shown to lead the pack of emotions.
  • Must be from a messenger target finds credible – a person of authority is typically best.
  • Questions are helpful.
  • Prompt or stimulus – Can be novel or shocking.
  • Take advantage of events outside of your control.

Shape the Path.

  • Framing new information in direction with targets’ beliefs and values is best.   Pay attention to the zone of acceptance so that the message itself has credibility.
  • Stress Efficacy.  The target must feel in control.  If they feel manipulated or coerced, they are likely to dig in and double down.
  • Show (don’t tell) how people like them are / have made the change you want.  Create Experiences.
  • Use as many and as various of validators or endorsers as you can muster.
  • Consider the technique of inoculation.

Additional Reading

  • Cialdini, Robert B. Influence, New and Expanded : the Psychology of Persuasion . First Harper Business new and expanded hardcover edition. New York: Harper Business, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 2021. Print.
  • Grant, Adam. Think Again : the Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know . New York, New York: Viking, an imprint of Penguin Random House LLC, 2021. Print.
  • Haidt, Jonathan. The Happiness Hypothesis : Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom . New York: Basic Books, 2006. Print.
  • Joseph Grenny et al. Influencer: The New Science of Leading Change, Second Edition, 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill, 2013. Print.
  • Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow . 1st ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. Print.
  • Lakoff, George. The All New Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2014. Print.
  • Marcus, George E., W. Russell. Neuman, and Michael. MacKuen. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Print
  • Voss, Christopher, and Tahl Raz. Never Split the Difference : Negotiating as If Your Life Depended on It . First edition. New York: HarperBusiness, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 2016. Print.
  • Westen, Drew. The Political Brain : the Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation . New York: PublicAffairs, 2007. Print.

Editors note:  I admit this writing is terrible.  In re-reading this, I find myself cringing.  Persuasion is a messy and complicated issue.  In this series, I realized that the persuasion techniques here – while fundamental and key points – aren’t what most people think of when thinking of persuasion in the digital sphere.

When talking persuasion in digital – a lot of people are really talking mass public opinion and propaganda.

Therefore, I have decided to add a part 4 of 3 on mass opinion and propaganda.  Stay tuned.