If you want to change someone鈥檚 mind, let them talk about themselves. That鈥檚 the implication of a study showing that short conversations about deeply held beliefs can reduce prejudice against transgender people.
The study serves as a capstone to a scientific scandal from last summer, and could have far-reaching consequences for how political campaigns of all stripes are conducted.
鈥淪o often, political practitioners ask what鈥檚 the Harry Potter incantation that will change people鈥檚 minds?鈥� says at Stanford University in California. 鈥淲hat this study suggests, in contrast to others, is that what鈥檚 unique is not what is said and what鈥檚 talked about, but just the fact that there is an in-depth conversation.鈥�
Advertisement
In 2015, Broockman set out to follow up on a 2014 study carried out by Michael LaCour at the University of California, Los Angeles, and of Columbia University in New York. That study claimed to show that a 20-minute conversation with a door-to-door canvasser was enough to cause a significant and lasting .
Lasting difference
While both gay and straight canvassers were persuasive initially, the pair found that only conversations with gay canvassers made a lasting difference that was still present nine months after the meeting.
The findings were a surprise. Most previous research suggests that prejudice is deeply ingrained, and we don鈥檛 really know how to reduce it. A 2009 found that none gave a convincing idea of what works.
Unfortunately, LaCour and Green鈥檚 study couldn鈥檛 either 鈥� . Although LaCour worked with canvassers from the , he falsely claimed to have worked with a survey company to poll voters in California and could not produce the original survey data which would have allowed other researchers to verify the analyses. The paper was .
鈥淚t was a pretty sensational, if sad, story,鈥� says of Princeton University, one of the authors of the 2009 review.
By the time this came to light, Broockman and his team were already deep into collecting data for their follow-up study assessing whether the canvassing method could reduce prejudice against trans people. So they just kept going.
Ongoing discrimination
In the US, trans people 鈥� who identify with and live as a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth 鈥� are at than the general population. Recent political campaigns have used the trope of trans people using the 鈥渨rong鈥� bathroom to oppose laws that would protect LGBT people from discrimination.
When such a was passed in Miami-Dade County, Florida, in December 2014, the feared a transphobic backlash. So the next year, it sent volunteers around Miami to try a technique it had developed called 鈥渄eep canvassing鈥� in an attempt to avoid popular pressure for the law to be repealed.
鈥淎 typical canvassing conversation is mostly telling you what to do,鈥� says David Fleischer of the centre. Their approach takes a different tack: a person is asked to reflect on a relevant real-life experience, especially one that has emotional significance. In the case of trans prejudice, this could be asking the respondent to think about a time when they had felt they were judged negatively, then getting them to relate that experience to the discrimination trans people face.
Of the 1800 people who responded to a survey about their attitudes towards trans people, the team were able to have a 10-minute face-to-face conversation with about 500 of them. Half discussed trans issues and half discussed another topic.
It鈥檚 good to talk
The researchers followed up with the same people three days, three weeks, six weeks and three months later. They found that one in 10 people canvassed became less prejudiced, and the effects lasted up to three months, even when they were shown adverts that attacked trans people.
鈥淲hat surprised me was the endurance of the effects,鈥� Broockman says. 鈥淚 expected an initial small effect, followed by a return to a previous baseline鈥�.
Also, in a departure from the redacted聽paper, they found that it didn鈥檛 matter whether the canvasser was trans or not 鈥� both trans and non-trans canvassers were equally effective at changing minds.
Fleischer thinks the key is getting people to talk about their own experiences. 鈥淲e all feel like we have very compelling personal stories to share,鈥� he says. 鈥淏ut the most powerful part of the conversation in terms of persuading the voter is when they鈥檙e speaking aloud and then reflecting on their story, not our story.
Wide-reaching effects?
The techniques are similar to those used in cognitive behavioural therapy. 鈥淭he idea is that they use active processing, which is a fancy phrase that means burning mental calories,鈥� says Broockman. Rather than passively watching a TV ad or seeing a billboard, this approach requires people to think deeply.
More research is required to find out exactly what is happening but initial results from other studies the Los Angeles LGBT Center is involved in suggest the technique could be generalised.
Fleischer has already started working with advocacy groups on issues like gun control, animal welfare, voter turnout and vaccinations. And another grassroots group, called , is adapting deep canvassing to try to convince people to care about climate change.
The fact that the effect of canvassing held up in the face of negative adverts is also optimistic for countering misinformation campaigns, such as those employed by tobacco companies and the fossil fuel industry.
But its effectiveness may depend on to begin with, says of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It鈥檚 possible that people in Miami hadn鈥檛 thought much about trans people, and so were more swayable. In a more conservative county, or on a different issue, you might see different results.
鈥淭he dominant culture can certainly affect things,鈥� McKee says. 鈥淲ith climate change and vaccines, most people don鈥檛 think that much about them, but there鈥檚 a small number of people who think quite a lot about them. For people who haven鈥檛 formulated strong opinions, you could change their minds. But it鈥檚 much, much more difficult whenever people are more fixed in these things.鈥�
And what of the US election? Most candidates have focused their efforts on raising money to enable mailings and TV slots (with the notable exception of Donald Trump, his competitors do). Broockman鈥檚 research suggests that this isn鈥檛 the best strategy: 鈥淚f the findings are repeated, it suggests that it is in a campaign鈥檚 own best interests to make democracy more participatory and deliberative鈥�.
Journal reference: Science,
