David Broockman, a political scientist at UC Berkeley, and Josh Kalla, coauthor of a thought-provoking essay on political persuasion, break down common misconceptions surrounding how we change minds. They discuss the interplay of moral foundations in political messaging and analyze the fallout of negative campaigning. The duo also explores voter apathy and the myth of informed swing voters. Throughout the conversation, they emphasize the need for adaptable strategies, highlighting the complex dynamics of belief change amid the evolving political landscape.
Understanding differing moral values is crucial for effective political persuasion, as strategies must align with the audience's core beliefs.
Political campaigns should focus on defining candidates rather than attacking opponents, as positive messaging has proved more effective in persuasion.
Deep dives
The Impact of Moral Foundations on Political Persuasion
Political differences are often rooted in differing moral values, as highlighted by the work of Matthew Feinberg and Rob Willer. Conservatives tend to prioritize order, safety, and patriotism, while progressives emphasize equality and justice. This divergence can lead to ineffective persuasive efforts when individuals try to use their own moral frameworks to appeal to the opposing side. To persuade a conservative on immigration issues, for example, one should appeal to values such as the American Dream and family needs rather than focusing solely on human rights and equality.
The Ineffectiveness of Negative Campaigning
The common belief that political campaigns should mainly focus on attacking opponents is challenged by recent research. Evidence suggests that attacking well-known figures, such as Donald Trump, may be less effective than introducing lesser-known candidates like Kamala Harris. Instead of negative messaging, campaigns should focus on defining their candidates and informing voters about their positions, as this can lead to greater persuasion. The data shows that as an election approaches and familiarity with candidates increases, the effectiveness of negative messages significantly diminishes.
The Complexity of Changing Minds
Changing minds in politics is often regarded as a rare occurrence, but recent studies indicate that some degree of persuasion is indeed possible. Research involving conservative Fox News viewers exposed to CNN content showed that even small doses of new information can lead to changes in opinion. Importantly, these changes do not always result in backlash but can create a meaningful shift in understanding. However, it is crucial to recognize that while persuasion can happen, it often requires context and can easily fade as new information and messaging evolve.
Dynamic Nature of Political Persuasion Strategies
The landscape of political persuasion is not static, making it essential for campaigns to adapt their strategies continuously. Unlike voter turnout strategies, which tend to be more predictable, persuasion is dynamic and varies from election to election. What worked in past elections may not resonate in future cycles, implying that political strategies need to remain flexible and data-driven. Campaigns should embrace ongoing learning and experimentation to determine effective messaging at each stage of the electoral process.
Today's episode is about how we change our minds—and what political science tells us about the best ways to change the minds of voters. Our guest is David Broockman, a political scientist at the University of California Berkeley, and the coauthor, with Josh Kalla, of a new essay in Slow Boring on Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, and the most persuasive arguments and messages to decide this election. Today, David and I talk about the four biggest myths of political persuasion—and in the process, David will attempt to do something that I’m not entirely sure is possible: He’ll try to change my mind about how persuasion works.
If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com.