Ozean Digital Media Logo
Call 352 376 0505
Book My Meeting
Is the Use of AI by Knowledge Workers Reducing Critical Thinking?

Is the Use of AI by Knowledge Workers Reducing Critical Thinking?

by | Feb 21, 2025 | Corporate Communications

Introduction

Generative AI (GenAI) tools like ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot are transforming how we work, how we study, how we prepare for meetings, but what does this mean for our critical thinking skills?

This study explores how generative AI tools influence critical thinking among knowledge workers. As these tools become more common, they raise questions about how they affect cognitive effort and confidence. This research surveyed 319 knowledge workers, collecting 936 examples of how they used generative AI in their tasks.

The study examined two main questions:

  • when and how do users engage in critical thinking with AI, and
  • when does AI make critical thinking easier or harder?

Title: The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects

Link: The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking

Peer Review Status: Peer Reviewed, presented at CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Citation:
Lee, H.-P., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., & Wilson, N. (2025). The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects From a Survey of Knowledge Workers. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama, Japan.

Methodology

The researchers used an online survey (n=319) targeting knowledge workers who use generative AI at least once a week.

Participants provided detailed examples of using AI for three types of tasks: creation, information processing, and advice. They rated their confidence in completing the tasks with and without AI, as well as the cognitive effort required for six types of critical thinking activities based on Bloom’s taxonomy: recall, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

The study also measured each participant’s general tendency to reflect on their work and their overall trust in AI.

Results and Findings

The study found that knowledge workers perceive reduced cognitive effort when using AI, especially when they have high confidence in the tool’s capabilities.

Conversely, those with high self-confidence reported more effort in verifying and integrating AI outputs.

Key findings include:

Critical Thinking Shifts Toward Verification and Integration
When using GenAI, knowledge workers reported spending less time on information gathering and more time verifying the accuracy of AI outputs. For example, participants often cross-referenced AI-generated content with external sources or their own expertise to ensure reliability. This shift reflects a move from task execution to task stewardship, where workers focus on guiding and refining AI outputs rather than generating content from scratch.

Confidence in AI Reduces Critical Thinking Effort
The study found that higher confidence in GenAI’s capabilities was associated with less perceived effort in critical thinking. In other words, when workers trusted AI to handle tasks, they were less likely to critically evaluate its outputs. Conversely, workers with higher self-confidence in their own skills reported engaging in more critical thinking, even though they found it more effortful.

Motivators and Barriers to Critical Thinking
Participants cited several motivators for critical thinking, including the desire to improve work quality, avoid negative outcomes, and develop professional skills. However, barriers such as lack of time, limited awareness of the need for critical thinking, and difficulty improving AI responses in unfamiliar domains often prevented workers from engaging in reflective practices.

GenAI Reduces Effort in Some Areas, Increases It in Others
While GenAI tools reduced the effort required for tasks like information retrieval and content creation, they increased the effort needed for activities like verifying AI outputs and integrating them into workflows. This trade-off highlights the dual role of GenAI as both a facilitator and a complicator of critical thinking.

Critiques of the Research or Additional Areas of Potential Study

To start, I am always weary of research conducted by the industry itself, and Microsoft is a huge player in today’s AI.  So I tend to read these studies extremely critically and take them as always needing and begging for further study.

The study relies on self-reported data, which may be subject to bias or inaccuracies.

This study lacks any cross-cultural perspectives in that it was conducted in Enlish only, and focused on youngish, tech savy workers.  

Additionally, it does not account for long-term impacts on critical thinking skills.

Future research could explore:

  • Longitudinal studies to observe changes in critical thinking over time.
  • Rapid, evolving studies due to the rapid evolution of AI tools.
  • Experiments that measure critical thinking performance rather than self-perception.
  • Cross-Cultural Studies
  • Studies across all age groups
  • Studies with non Knowledge Workers
  • Studies with students.  

Conclusion

I keep a folder of quotes from pundits lamenting the death of civil society with each new technological advancement for my class on “The Media.” The printing press, radio, television, cable TV, the Internet, and social media—all were predicted to destroy us.

Meh.

I do believe generative AI tools are massively disrupting workflows, effort,  outputs, and critical thinking. I see it firsthand in the college classroom.

As Generative AI evolves, tools must support – not undermine- critical thinking. While AI can enhance efficiency and reduce effort, it also risks fostering overreliance and diminishing critical engagement.

By reducing the perceived effort of critical thinking, Generative AI may weaken independent problem-solving skills. As users shift from direct engagement to oversight, they must balance efficiency gains with maintaining cognitive skills.

AI designers should prioritize features that promote critical thinking while preserving efficiency. This research highlights the need for systems that encourage reflective thinking and help users critically assess AI-generated outputs.

Ultimately, the study underscores the importance of maintaining a critical mindset in an increasingly AI-driven world.

P.S.

Now that you’re here thinking about critical thinking, I would be remiss if I didn’t recommend one of the guides I keep within arm’s reach at my desk. This book contains over 60 structured techniques that enhance thinking processes, and I highly recommend it.

Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis

Fake News and the Sleeper Effect: Why Misinformation Lingers in Memory

Fake News and the Sleeper Effect: Why Misinformation Lingers in Memory

by | Feb 14, 2025 | Ozean Media

Ever shared a post only to realize later it was fake news? You’re not alone, and psychology explains why. The “sleeper effect,” a phenomenon where a message’s influence grows over time as its source fades from memory, has gained new relevance in the age of social media misinformation. A foundational 2004 meta-analysis by Kumkale and Albarracín unpacks the mechanics of sleeper effects in persuasion.  (and who doesn’t love a meta study?), while a 2023 study by Ruggieri et al. examines how this effect applies to fake news about COVID-19 workplace safety. Together, these studies reveal why false claims stick in our minds and what makes them so hard to correct.

Sources

Title: The Sleeper Effect in Persuasion: A Meta-Analytic Review

Link: NIH Peer Review Status: Peer-reviewed Citation: Kumkale, G. T., & Albarracín, D. (2004). The sleeper effect in persuasion: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 130(1), 143–172.

Fake News and the Sleeper Effect: How Misinformation Persists Over Time

Link: Fake News and the Sleeper Effect in Social Media Posts: The Case of Perception of Safety in the Workplace Peer Review Status: Peer-reviewed Citation: Ruggieri, S., Bonfanti, R. C., Santoro, G., Passanisi, A., & Pace, U. (2023). Fake news and the sleeper effect in social media posts: The case of perception of safety in the workplace. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 26(7), 554–562.

Methodology

Kumkale and Albarracín (2004)

This meta-analysis compiled data from 72 experiments to examine the sleeper effect across multiple contexts. The study investigated conditions influencing delayed persuasion, including the timing of discounting cues and the audience’s ability and motivation to process messages. The researchers analyzed the persistence of message impact when the source’s credibility faded from memory, thus isolating key factors that contribute to the sleeper effect.

Ruggieri et al. (2023)

This study involved 324 Italian white-collar workers who viewed Facebook posts about COVID-19 workplace safety. Participants were exposed to three types of posts: real news, real news with a discounting cue, and fake news. Researchers measured participants’ perceptions immediately and one week later, focusing on memory recall and belief in the information. They categorized participants as either “believers” or “nonbelievers” of the fake news to analyze differences in perception and memory retention over time.

Findings

Kumkale and Albarracín (2004)

The meta-analysis confirmed the sleeper effect’s occurrence under specific conditions: when discounting cues followed persuasive arguments and when recipients had high motivation or ability to process the message. Persuasion increased over time as memory of the noncredible source decayed. The review emphasized the importance of the timing of discounting cues and the cognitive engagement of the audience, suggesting that motivated audiences are more susceptible to the sleeper effect.

Ruggieri et al. (2023)

Participants remembered fake news better than real news, even when they initially recognized it as false. Fake news is often more emotionally provocative, novel, or sensational, making it more memorable. The study also posits that the narrative structure and vividness of fake news stories can enhance recall.  In the end, memory of the message persisted, but memory of the source diminished over time, suggesting a sleeper effect. Those who initially believed the fake news maintained or increased their positive impression of the content over time. Conversely, nonbelievers showed a slight increase in acceptance but to a lesser extent. The study highlights how fake news influences perception long after the source is forgotten.

Critiques of the Research or Additional Areas of Potential Study

Kumkale and Albarracín (2004)
The meta-analysis provides robust evidence for the sleeper effect but relies on aggregated data from diverse studies with varying methodologies. As with all meta studies, the lack of uniformity across experiments presents a challenge in isolating causal mechanisms. Further research should explore real-world applications (as in Ruggieri), such as political messaging or health communication, to test the sleeper effect outside controlled environments. Investigating long-term behavioral changes could also deepen understanding of its societal impact.

Additionally, the meta study was published in 2004 –  predating social media’s rise.

Ruggieri et al. (2023)
The study effectively demonstrates the sleeper effect in the context of workplace safety perceptions but is limited by its sample of educated white-collar workers.  In addition, Ruggieri’s study tested memory after one week—what happens after months?  Future research should explore different demographic groups to determine if educational background affects susceptibility to misinformation.   Future research should explore media diets to determine if media mode affects the sleeper effect.  Memes and now deepfake pictures or video are likely to stick around a lot more than a text based message. Additionally, the study focuses on COVID-19-related content, which may limit generalizability due to potential confounding factors. Examining other controversial topics could provide a broader understanding of the sleeper effect’s impact.   I may as so bold as to suggest UFO’s?

Comparative Analysis
Kumkale and Albarracín offer a foundational, theoretical perspective on the sleeper effect, establishing cognitive mechanisms and general conditions for delayed persuasion.
In contrast, Ruggieri et al. apply these principles to a specific real-world context, highlighting how emotionally charged and vivid fake news influences memory. The former provides broad insights into persuasion dynamics, while the latter demonstrates practical implications in digital misinformation.  Future studies should integrate both approaches, combining theoretical rigor with real-world relevance to better understand and combat misinformation.

Neither study offers much on how to combat the sleeper effect, merely suggest implications for countering misinformation. Kumkale and Albarracín (2004) highlight the importance of disrupting the dissociation process by ensuring the credibility of the source remains linked to the message. Ruggieri et al. (2023) imply that repeated corrections and reminders of the source’s noncredibility could mitigate the sleeper effect. Future research should explore these mitigation strategies more systematically, particularly in digital environments where misinformation spreads rapidly.

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

Mark Twain

Conclusion: Why This Matters

The sleeper effect isn’t just an academic curiosity—it’s a weapon in the misinformation playbook.

Kumkale and Albarracín (2004) provide a theoretical framework for the sleeper effect, showing its occurrence when discounting cues follow persuasive arguments and when audiences engage cognitively. Their meta-analysis emphasizes cognitive mechanisms and general conditions for delayed persuasion.

Ruggieri et al. (2023) apply this framework to real-world misinformation about COVID-19, revealing that fake news persists in memory even when initially identified as false. Their findings demonstrate how emotional and vivid content enhances recall, highlighting practical implications in the context of social media.

In a world barrelling towards deep fakes, and where where misinformation spreads faster than facts, understanding the sleeper effect isn’t just smart—it’s survival!
Preparing the Political Environment Before Introducing A Policy Change

Preparing the Political Environment Before Introducing A Policy Change

by | Jan 24, 2025 | Political Consulting

When I was a young, student leader at the University of Florida, I had an eye-opening experience during a meeting with a Congressperson in D.C. I had meticulously prepared my case for a legislative change affecting students and felt confident as the discussion progressed. The Congressperson was engaged, asking insightful questions, and I believed I was making real progress.

As the meeting ended, we walked to the door, and the Congressperson put a hand on my shoulder and said, “I agree with you, but I can’t help you—yet. It’s too soon. Your job is to build the pressure on me and my friends.”

That moment taught me a critical lesson: successful policy change requires understanding and preparing the political environment before moving forward.

“I agree with you, but I can’t help you—yet. It’s too soon. Your job is to build the pressure on me and my friends.”

Member (ret), US House of Representative

Why Preparation Matters

Policy change is a complex, multifaceted process that demands a strategic approach. Without the right groundwork, even the most compelling proposals can falter. Decision-makers are influenced by political realities, public opinion, and stakeholder pressures. To succeed, businesses and advocacy groups must align their goals with the broader political landscape and create the conditions for policymakers to act.

The Outside Game: The Role of Political Affairs Experts

Political affairs experts are to understand and shape the political environment.  The work lays the foundation for successful advocacy efforts and creates momentum for change through key strategies:

Strategic Vision & Planning: They analyze the political landscape, identify the stakeholders, power players, and the relationships, and develop a comprehensive roadmap (to include processes) and budget for the entire policy campaign.

Stakeholder / Power Mapping & Engagement: They identify key stakeholders, including agencies, industry groups, and advocacy organizations, and develop engagement strategies to build coalitions and garner support.

Issue Identification & Research: They meticulously analyze the policy problem, gather data, and conduct comprehensive research to understand its impact and potential solutions.    This may involve data analysis, exploring other jurisdiction’s approach, identifying knowledge gaps to be filled by experts, and conducting public opinion polling and focus groups.

Opposition Research & Counter-Messaging: They delve deep into the opposition’s arguments, funding sources, and potential weaknesses, developing counter-messaging strategies to neutralize their influence.

Narrative Development: They craft compelling narratives that resonate with lawmakers, stakeholders, and the public, framing the issue in a way that demands attention and action.    This often entails translating complex information into more digestible materials.

Policy Whitepaper Development: They synthesize research findings and stakeholder perspectives into persuasive policy whitepapers that provide evidence-based arguments for change.

Targeted Messaging & Channel Optimization: They tailor messaging for specific audiences, including lawmakers, the public, and media outlets, ensuring consistent and persuasive communication across all channels.  This can include collateral to digital programs to full-blown advertising campaigns.

Resource Allocation & Coordination: They strategically budget and allocate resources, including funding, personnel, consultants, and media outreach, to maximize impact and efficiency throughout the campaign.

The Inside Game: The Role of Lobbyists

Lobbyists are the boots on the ground, leveraging their relationships and expertise to navigate the legislative process. They work in tandem with political affairs experts to present the research, the proposal, and push policy change through formal channels.

Legislative Champion Recruitment: They identify and engage lawmakers with influence and interest in the issue, building relationships and securing sponsors for the bill.

Pre-Filing & Legislative Advocacy: They conduct briefings with legislative committees, staff, and leadership and ensure buy-in from key committees before formal introduction of the bill.

Committee Process Management: They organize expert testimony for public hearings, negotiate amendments with stakeholders, and work behind the scenes to secure votes in committees.

Floor Vote & Passage: They orchestrate last-minute advocacy pushes, ensure cross-chamber coordination in bicameral systems, and engage the Governor’s office to secure support or negotiate potential veto overrides.

Governor & Executive Branch Engagement: They engage with the Governor’s office, the Governor’s staff, and relevant agencies to ensure smooth implementation and minimize potential roadblocks.

Post-Passage Implementation: They work closely with regulatory bodies during the rulemaking process, mobilize supporters to advocate for favorable implementation rules, and monitor compliance and performance metrics.  (Note sometimes the implementation lobbyists may change depending on area of expertise.)

The Power of Synergy in Policy Change

Policy change is not a linear process. Political affairs experts and lobbyists must work simultaneously, both inside and outside the legislative arena, to build momentum and overcome resistance. Their collaboration ensures:

  • Policy initiatives are well-researched and strategically positioned.
  • Stakeholders are engaged and mobilized effectively.
  • Policymakers are equipped with the right information at the right time.

Key Takeaways for Businesses

Preparing the political environment requires a strategic, long-term approach. Businesses seeking significant policy changes should:

  1. Invest Early in Research: Understand the landscape and anticipate challenges.
  2. Build Relationships: Cultivate trust with key stakeholders and decision-makers.
  3. Craft Compelling Narratives: Simplify complex issues and align messaging with audience values.
  4. Mobilize Support: Leverage grassroots and grasstops advocacy to build momentum.
  5. Be Patient: Policy change is often slow; persistence is key.

Conclusion

Effective policy change doesn’t happen in a vacuum. By preparing the political environment, businesses can increase their chances of success and create lasting impact. Whether engaging political affairs experts, lobbyists, or both, the key lies in strategic planning and consistent effort.

Campaigns, Ads, and Experiments: How Political Science Meets Persuasion

Campaigns, Ads, and Experiments: How Political Science Meets Persuasion

by | Dec 20, 2024 | Political Media

The new edition of the American Political Science Review (Feb 2024) published a study that I was extremely excited to read. It explores political ads and persuasion—those annoying little things on which millions of dollars are spent, and for the most part, are written and produced based on rules of thumb passed down from mentors. But what really works and actually moves voters? In this polarized world, does persuasion even work, or are we just trying to mobilize voters? Well, How Experiments Help Campaigns Persuade Voters: Evidence from a Large Archive of Campaigns’ Own Experiments makes a valiant effort, but falls short in a couple of areas. While this literature does add to our knowledge, it has a significant blind spot. Due to the research design, only ads from Democratic campaigns were studied—but more on that later. Additionally, we must critically evaluate the findings, noting that it appears the ad testing company, Swayable, has researchers listed as authors on the paper, and the findings seem to be extremely favorable to the company’s revenue goals. Noting these two major concerns, let’s explore this study to see how political campaigns (remember—Democratic campaigns only) use experiments to figure out which ads work best. Spoiler alert: It’s more complicated than you think.

Title: How Experiments Help Campaigns Persuade Voters: Evidence from a Large Archive of Campaigns’ Own Experiments

Link: Read the study

Peer Review Status: Peer-reviewed

Citation: Hewitt, L., Broockman, D., Coppock, A., Tappin, B. M., Slezak, J., Coffman, V., Lubin, N., & Hamidian, M. 2024. “How Experiments Help Campaigns Persuade Voters: Evidence from a Large Archive of Campaigns’ Own Experiments.” American Political Science Review, 118(4): 2021-2039. doi:10.1017/S0003055423001387.

Methodology

The study analyzed a treasure trove of data from 146 experiments run by the tech platform Swayable, which worked with Democratic and left-leaning campaigns. These experiments tested 617 ads on over 500,000 respondents. Here’s the gist:

  • Type of Study: Randomized survey experiments
  • Sample Size: Over 500,000 respondents, including diverse demographic and political groups
  • Experimental Design: Ads were tested on treatment groups, while control groups viewed neutral videos (e.g., public service announcements).
  • Measures: Respondents rated their likelihood to vote for a candidate and their favorability toward that candidate on a scale of 0 to 10. Results were adjusted for variables like gender, age, and partisanship to ensure accuracy.

Each experiment aimed to measure the persuasive impact of specific ad features, such as emotional tone, messenger characteristics, and informational content. Data collection spanned two election cycles, offering a comprehensive look at how ad effectiveness varies by context.

Factors Considered in Ad Effectiveness

Figure 3 of the study provides a detailed analysis of the features evaluated for their impact on ad effectiveness. The following factors were explored:

  • Tone of the Ad: Whether the ad was positive, negative, or contrast.
  • Message Content: Inclusion of new facts, emotional appeals (anger, enthusiasm, fear), or policy details.
  • Messenger Characteristics: The demographic attributes, partisanship, or credibility of the spokesperson.
  • Production Quality: The perceived professionalism or “polished” nature of the ad.
  • Pushiness: How assertive the ad was in delivering its message or call to action.

The results revealed a lack of consistency across contexts. For instance, ads emphasizing enthusiasm might perform well in one election but have no discernible effect in another.

Similarly, while emotional appeals were hypothesized to boost effectiveness, the actual impact was context-dependent and often minimal. This inconsistency underscores the challenge of predicting ad success without experimentation.

Results and Findings

  • Overall Effectiveness: Ads had small but significant persuasive effects. On average:
    • Vote choice shifted by 2.3 percentage points in 2018 down-ballot races.
    • Effects dropped to 1.2 points in 2020 down-ballot races and
    • Effects dropped to 0.8 points in the 2020 presidential race.
  • Variation in Effectiveness: Persuasion varied significantly among ads. Some were 50% more effective than the average, while others were 50% less effective.
  • Unpredictable Features: Conventional wisdom about what makes ads effective—like emotional appeals or testimonials—had limited and context-dependent predictive power. What worked in 2018 didn’t necessarily work in 2020.
  • Implications for Campaigns: Experimentation is invaluable. Simulations showed that campaigns investing in testing ads could dramatically improve their impact, especially in close elections.

Simulations and Their Impact

In what could almost be considered a side note, the researchers conducted simulations to explore the potential value of ad experimentation in campaign strategy. Here’s what they did and what they found:

  • Method: They modeled scenarios in which campaigns invested resources in testing ads to find the most persuasive ones. This allowed them to model/estimate how much more effective overall advertising efforts could become with such targeted approaches.
  • Findings: The simulations showed that even modest investments in experimentation could yield significant returns, particularly in close elections. Choosing a highly persuasive ad over a less effective one could shift the needle in tight races, demonstrating the importance of data-driven decision-making.

Once again, it’s important to note that this research was published in conjunction with an ad testing platform.

Critiques of the Research

  • Generalizability: As discussed, the data came exclusively from Democratic campaigns using the Swayable platform. No conservative ads were included in the analysis. Given the significant personality differences often found between liberals and conservatives, these results may not be generalizable to right-leaning campaigns or voters.
  • Generalizability (con’t):  Additionally, the analysis did not include ballot iniatives or other type of influence campaigns,  which are typically more nonpartisan. 
  • Attrition and Sampling Issues: Some experiments lacked complete data on respondents who dropped out, potentially skewing results.
  • Timing Limitations: Findings are specific to the 2018 and 2020 elections and may not generalize to future elections with different political dynamics, particularly as campaigns continue to learn and improve.
  • Industry Sponsorship/Relationship: The research was conducted only with ads tested by the Swayable platform. Some of the findings support the use of ad testing. While I’m not accusing the researchers of anything, it’s important to note the relationship. It’s crucial to be critical when interpreting the results.

I will note the authors do a good job and are transparent in offering these caveats.

Additional Areas of Potential Study

  • Bipartisan Analysis: Expanding the dataset to include Republican campaigns could reveal whether persuasion techniques differ by political party / ideology.
  • Non-partisan Analysis: Expanding the dataset to include ballot initiatives and issue ads could reveal whether persuasion techniques differ from partisan activities.
  • Primary / General Election Analysis:  Expanding the ads studied to group intra-party (primary) versus inter-party (general) could reveal some significant differences.  This is especially critical given the substantial number of elections decided in the primary, influenced by sorting and gerrymandering.
  • Field Experiments: Testing ads in real-world settings—not just surveys—would enhance ecological validity.  Would the results be ‘replicated’ in focus groups?
  • Ad Context: Future research could explore how competing ads or media coverage influence ad effectiveness.

Conclusion

For me, this is one of those frustrating studies. When you read the title, the title promises answers, but the study raises more questions than it answers.

This research sheds light on how Democratic campaigns use experiments to refine their strategies, emphasizing the need for ad testing in a rapidly changing political environment. However, as Steve Schale, a Democratic operative from Florida, points out, ad-testing can become an obsession that overshadows the larger narrative of the campaign.  He writes, “”We (Democrats) were addicted to ad-testing, to the point that it drove decision-making more this cycle than the desire or need to tell a story.”

The study concludes that ad effectiveness is deeply tied to the specific context of each election, meaning strategies that worked in 2018 might not have the same impact in 2020, let along in 2026 or 2028.  This highlights the challenge for campaigns: predicting what will work is difficult, and there are no guarantees. In fact, attempting to replicate past success is likely to be a futile endeavor.

A cynic would write, the authors conclude that persusion is extremely context driven, and what may work in one election may not work in another….whomp whomp.  Therefore, campaigns should test ads.

Nevertheless, the cumulative impact of even small shifts in ad effectiveness can influence election outcomes, particularly in tight races. The study underscores the growing importance of data-driven decision-making in modern campaigns, but it also leaves many questions unanswered—questions that future research will need to address to refine our understanding of political ad effectiveness.

The Audacious Public Affairs Playbook: What Bold Tactics Are Being Used

The Audacious Public Affairs Playbook: What Bold Tactics Are Being Used

by | Dec 17, 2024 | Political Research

In political theory, two dominant models attempt to explain how power and public policy are shaped within a democracy.

The first is pluralism, the idea that a diverse array of interest groups competes within the political arena, with policies emerging as a compromise reflecting the public’s competing demands.

The second is elitism, which argues that a small, concentrated group of individuals or entities—typically those with significant economic or institutional power—dominates decision-making, often to the exclusion of broader societal interests.

But, as they say, “all models are wrong, but some are useful.”

Reality is rarely so clear-cut. Enter elite pluralism, a hybrid model that offers a more nuanced perspective. This theory acknowledges the competitive nature of pluralism but emphasizes that not all interest groups are created equal. While many groups may vie for influence, certain “elite” groups—those with disproportionate access to resources, networks, and institutional power—inevitably hold a stronger hand.

Elite pluralism explains why some voices, despite the principles of democratic competition, resonate more loudly in the halls of power.  It’s not just about having a seat at the table; it’s about owning the table—or at least the most valuable seats around it.  While competition exists it is just not a fair fight among equals.

Well-resourced groups have mastered this interplay between pluralism and elitism, creating systems where competition seemingly exists, but the winners are often predetermined. The audacious tactics they use to shape policy and public opinion are worth exploring.

NOTE: In this blog post, I am not making a normative argument. My aim is to acknowledge the tactics I have witnessed—and at times employed—in public affairs. It is up to you, the reader, to draw your own conclusions about the morality of these practices and their intersection with the First Amendment rights to free speech, petitioning the government, and assembly.

“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.”    ― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

The Audacious Public Affairs Playbook

A deeper dive into tactics used to shape the political battleground by any means necessary.

Machiavelli is often misquoted or misunderstood as saying, “It is better to be feared than loved.” That’s not exactly what he wrote.

In The Prince, he actually wrote: “Whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared.”

However, he acknowledged that ideal conditions rarely exist, and when forced to choose, one should resort to being feared. Why? Because people are fickle. Love persists only as long as it aligns with self-interest, but the fear of pain and punishment remains constant.

In the world of public affairs, these principles are alive and well. I’ve generally categorized the tactics in the audacious playbook into two main camps: Buying Your Love or Beating It Out of You.

“Buying Your Love” Public Affairs Tactics

Tactic:  Campaign Contributions & PACs

Financial support for political candidates or causes can buy access, influence, and loyalty. Well-resourced groups often make substantial donations to ensure that their voices are heard in the policy-making process.  This is especially true in the era of super pacs and in the wake of the Citizens United decision.

Example: Elon Musk spends $277 million to back Trump and Republican candidates

Example2: Why some California Democrats take Big Oil money and vote against environmental laws

Tactic: Astroturfing

Creating the illusion of grassroots support to sway public opinion or influence policymakers. By creating a citizens group with little no to citizens “public” support can be seemingly manufactured for a cause, and groups can seem more popular or legitimate than they truly are.

Example:  Microsoft accuses Google of secretly funding regulatory astroturf campaign

Tactic: Lobbying

Direct interaction with lawmakers, regulators, and government officials to push for favorable policies. This often involves offering expertise, research, and sometimes personal incentives to sway decisions.  For example, the pharmaceutical industry spent $293,701,614 in 2024.

Example:  Lobbying Data Summary

Example2:  Lobbying Top Spenders by Sector

Example3:  Lobbying Top Spenders by Industry

Tactic: Think Tanks & Research Funding

Well-resourced groups can fund research from “intellectually” aligned groups or universities, or even establish think tanks to produce research supporting their agenda. These tactics lend credibility and shape public discourse by presenting biased information as fact.

Example:The Secret Donors Behind the Center for American Progress and Other Think Tanks

Example2:  Public Universities Get an Education in Private Industry

Tactic: Partnerships with Charities or Foundations

Donations to charitable organizations or foundations can help create positive public relations, align with a specific cause, and gain goodwill among key stakeholders. This can also be a form of indirect influence and sometimes leads to implicit quid pro quo.

Example:  Strings Attached: How utilities use charitable giving to influence politics and increase investor profits

Tactic: Revolving Door Employment

Hiring former government officials to serve in advisory roles or as lobbyists. This builds connections and ensures that former decision-makers continue to champion the interests of the group they once regulated.

Example: Video: Jack Abramoff: The lobbyist’s playbook on 60min 

Tactic: Cultural Influence

Sponsorships and partnerships with media outlets, celebrities, and influencers can shape public opinion and create a favorable cultural narrative around the group’s goals.

 Example:  Influencers are playing a big role in this year’s election. There’s no way to tell who’s getting paid for their endorsements

Tactic: Political Endorsements and Strategic Alliances

Aligning with influential political figures or organizations can boost credibility and secure powerful allies in decision-making.

Example:  LeBron James Shares Strong Political Message On New Nike Sneakers

Example2:  Harris Grabs Green New Deal Network Endorsement That Eluded Biden  

Example 3: Fossil fuel firms ‘spent £4bn on sportswashing’ says report

Tactic: Event Sponsorships

Hosting or sponsoring high-profile events (e.g., policy conferences, galas) to gain access to influential stakeholders and enhance visibility.

Example: The Davos Forum and its role in networking

Tactic: Educational Initiatives or Scholarships

Funding educational programs or scholarships that align with policy goals to build goodwill and influence future thought leaders.

Example: Koch Foundation Criticized Again For Influencing Florida State

“Beating it Out of You” Public Affairs Tactics

A quick note on the use of the “dark arts” in public affairs: Sponsoring groups rarely engage in these tactics directly (especially if they are a public company). Instead, they often employ a layered strategy.

The key is to establish plausible deniability by structuring operations through cutouts often consultants and/or trade associations. By creating multiple layers, those funding the efforts (often to the tune of millions of dollars) can testify under oath that while their money may have been used to advance their interests, they had “no knowledge” of the specific tactics or details. They can then claim with a straight face, “Yes, we spent millions.  We also always follow the law at XYZ group, have a dedicated compliance department, and firmly believe in our right to participate in the political process.  We control no 501c(4) nor do we have a record of ever funding said group.  XYZ has broken no laws.”

“So far as he is able, a prince should stick to the path of good but, if the necessity arises, he should know how to follow evil.”  ― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

Tactic: Opposition Research

In-depth digging into the backgrounds, records, and personal lives of political opponents or critics. This can be used to discredit individuals, create scandal, or shift public opinion against adversaries.

Example: Definers tries to reboot after Facebook oppo research controversy

Tactic: Corporate Espionage

In some cases, organizations may resort to stealing trade secrets, confidential information, or engaging in sabotage to gain a competitive or political edge.

Example:  Linwei Ding was a Google software engineer. He was also a prolific thief of trade secrets, say prosecutors.

Tactic: Smear Campaigns

Negative campaigning or information warfare designed to destroy reputations, spread misinformation, or stoke fear. This can be targeted at individuals, organizations, or entire movements that oppose the group’s interests.

Example: Facebook resorts to old smear tactics against TikTok
Example2: Facebook exposed in Google smear campaign

Tactic: Threats of Retaliation

Using threats, whether economic (such as pulling investments) or political (such as targeting re-election campaigns), to punish or coerce opponents into submission.  The old “you’ll never work in this town again” threat.

Example:  Trump has made more than 100 threats to prosecute or punish perceived enemies

Tactic: Legal Pressure and Litigation

Filing lawsuits or using the legal system to intimidate or financially drain opponents. Well-resourced groups may use legal battles as a form of harassment, knowing that smaller groups lack the resources to fight back.

Example: Frivolous suits stalk journalists in states without anti-SLAPP laws

Example2: Appeals court upholds Rick Wilson win over Michael Flynn in defamation case 

Tactic: Astroturfing as a Coercive Tool

While also used to manufacture support, astroturfing can be deployed in a more aggressive form to attack and drown out opposition voices, overwhelming public discourse with misleading or false narratives.

Example: Mad at MADD

Tactic: Media Manipulation

Using media to create fear, confusion, or resentment toward certain groups, issues, or individuals. This can include planting stories, leaking confidential information, or directly influencing journalists to push a particular narrative.

We are now in the phase with media becoming so fractured that certain organizations are attempting to purchase media outlets outright or fund them via advertising / sponsorships as to co-opt any ‘journalistic’ standards.  

Example: Powerbrokers: How FPL secretly took over a Florida news site and used it to bash critics

Example:  In the Southeast, power company money flows to news sites that attack their critics

Tactic: Monetary and Economic Leverage

Threatening to withdraw funding or financial support from entities that don’t align with the group’s interests. This tactic uses economic influence as a means of forcing compliance or silence.

Example:  Harvard and UPenn donor revolt raises concerns about big money on campuses

Tactic: Political Bullying and Intimidation

Using the power of government or other institutional levers to punish or pressure opponents. This can involve public shaming, threats of regulatory crackdowns, or direct threats of political retaliation.

Example:  Twitter accused of bullying anti-hate campaigners

Tactic: Straight Up Bribery

The direct exchange of money, gifts, or favors to secure a specific action or decision from a government official, policymaker, or other influential figure.  R real quid pro quo.  While illegal in most democracies, bribery remains a clandestine tool used to bypass traditional lobbying and advocacy efforts when outcomes are deemed critical or urgent by well-resourced entities. (and now thanks to SCOTUS, it appears you can have a winky winky agreement and then tip after.)

Example: Indian billionaire Gautam Adani’s business empire at risk amid U.S. indictment for fraud, bribery

Example2: Supreme Court sides with mayor accused of accepting a bribe in latest ruling to limit public anti-corruption laws

Conclusion: Understanding the Audacious Public Affairs Playbook


This audacious public affairs playbook is neither exhaustive nor prescriptive. It highlights the lengths to which well-resourced groups can and will go to influence policy, perception, and power. Some tactics operate within the bounds of the law, others test its limits in legal gray areas, and a few are outright illegal. Many fall into ethical gray zones, while others blatantly cross ethical lines.

In an ideal democracy, every voice would be heard equally. Yet, as elite pluralism demonstrates, the reality is far more complex. Influence, access, and resources skew the playing field, often leaving ordinary citizens to compete against entities with disproportionate power.

Whether you admire or detest the tactics in this playbook, they reveal the raw, realpolitik side of public affairs.

However, don’t become too cynical. History is full of examples where less-resourced efforts have defied the odds to harness public opinion and achieve policy or political victories. Often, these successes come in reaction to a well-resourced group overplaying its hand or through decisive legal action.

While power and resources undeniably play significant roles in public affairs, they are not invincible.  Just as the casino doesn’t win every time…..luck and timing can lead to a winning hand.  However, continuing the casino metaphor, over time, the odds remain stacked in favor of the well-resourced. And like in a casino, the house usually wins.

As you reflect on these methods, ask yourself: Where do you draw the line between strategy and manipulation? Between fair competition and coercion? Public affairs, like democracy itself, demands constant vigilance, active participation, and critical scrutiny to ensure it serves the public good.

What’s your take? Are these tactics necessary evils, or do they erode trust in our institutions?  Most importantly, what was left out?

PS.  We must pay homage to two of the biggest contributors to the playbook.

The original OG:  The Tobacco Industry

Then the Energy Industry took tobacco’s playbook and improved upon it.