The tricky art of changing minds and motivating people to action
For as long as I can remember, I’ve wanted to be part of movements that create change on important issues of the day.
And it’s tough! Feeling that people don’t care or aren’t listening is an added weight on top of whatever distress we feel about the issue itself.
So how do we go about changing minds or motivating people to action?
Emotive protest language
“How can you not care about genocide and the slaughter of innocent children?”
“Why are you doing nothing as the planet burns?”
“Silence puts you on the side of the oppressor!”
I understand this kind of language; I grew up on it. It’s often angry, pain-filled, pleading, accusatory or sarcastic. It expresses our collective distress and our urgent need to provoke a response. It’s cathartic. It binds us to a community and isolates a target for our anger – people who are yet to ‘take a stand’ in ways that we feel are legitimate.
At times, this language strikes a powerful chord with our audiences and creates converts to our cause. It can jolt people from complacency and drive people to action. And that is good.
But if this is the tool we rely on most often to motivate, persuade and encourage people to action, we’re missing opportunities. A significant proportion of people easily switch off when emotions run too high, when they are accused of complicity or in other ways confronted.
There are other ways to engage and persuade ‘the middle’ ground.
How?
Curiosity instead of condemnation
It’s helpful to ask people how they feel about a situation instead of prosecuting our own personal position. Listening to "understand rather than argue" helps us build a picture of a person based on empathy instead of tribal stereotypes.
Do we really live in a world where people can be neatly divided into patriots vs woke snowflakes, rednecks vs enlightened liberals, allies vs oppressors?
Social media would have us think so, and as we retreat into our bunkers, we increasingly behave according to the labels.
But most people can’t be so readily categorised. If you think about the examples above, much emotive protest language reduces or threatens the identities of others by refusing to allow them any possibilities other than ‘for’ or ‘against.’
In the face of these threats, it’s understandable that people either fight back, freeze, fawn (virtue signal with no real change), or fly – avoid the issues altogether. All of this deeply entrenches people in their positions and hardens hearts and minds.
Highlight nuance and complexity
Strategic communication research suggests that if you really want to encourage people to consider alternative viewpoints or take action, provide content that reveals the complexity of an issue, acknowledging different viewpoints and shades of nuance.
People who take this approach are shown to be MORE persuasive instead of less. Why?
First, those who of us who have different views feel respected. We’re not threatened into fight, flight, fear or freeze modes. And when others calmly acknowledge the frailties of their viewpoints, we’re more likely to admit our own.
Adam Grant, author of "Think Again - the power of knowing what you don't know", illustrates this within the climate debate.
He writes that in spite of more than a decade of impassioned, well funded discourse urging climate action, American views have barely shifted and remain deeply polarised. The “climate alarmists” are pitted against the “climate deniers”, with each claiming they have the better understanding of the truth.
But careful research on attitudes to climate reveal there are at least six positions on a broad spectrum: believers (some alarmed, some concerned) and non-believers (cautious, disengaged, sceptical or dismissive/denying).
The two extreme ends receive the most attention via sharable media content, while the persuadable middle has no sense that they even exist and thus are unmotivated to act. But when thoughtful people start by listening carefully, and then present the complexity and nuance of an issue, there’s far more room for minds to change.
We seldom take the time to invest in that level of analysis, partly because when we do, no one appears to take any notice.
If I’d titled this blog “How your political silence is killing babies in Gaza”, for example, I’m pretty sure I’d have received more clicks than my much more moderate offering. But the science suggests for all the comments, likes or outrage I may have generated, few in the persuadable middle would have tuned in or been exposed to much that’s new.
And that’s a lost opportunity.
This is true of many issues about which we ostensibly disagree. And as someone who cares a lot about creating (what I personally regard as) positive change, I want to advocate for more kindness, patience, nuance and humility among activists. Much of this work happens behind the scenes, face to face and conversation by conversation. It may never appear on a placard or a social media story, but it's equally important.
Please don’t misunderstand – I’m not saying there is never a place for public anger, stridency and urgency. Clearly there is.
But as someone with a vested interest in strategic communication, much of the research I’m encountering highlights that there are other ways to create change, and not enough of us are using them.
Best read on this subject – as above, Adam Grant’s “Think Again – The power of knowing what you don’t know.”
Best podcast - Think Fast, Talk Smart - Strategic Communication from Stanford University.
Comments