In our era of extreme political polarization, people's attitudes seem entrenched. However, a new BBC article proposes some ideas for changing others' minds, under the headline "The Simple Trick to Change Other People's Minds."
The author's essay focuses on three simple tricks. One is curiosity. He claims:
By demonstrating our good intentions to learn and understand, we will encourage them to lower their defences so that they are more open to an honest exchange of ideas.
Here's the author's description of a study that tested this idea. As you read, decide if the study was experimental or correlational:
Often it is as simple as asking the right question. In the late 2000s,Frances Chen and colleagues at Stanford University invited students to engage in an online debate about whether the university should introduce a new set of exams. Unsurprisingly, many students were dead set against the idea. Crucially, they thought they were chatting to their peers, but their debating partners were really the experimenters themselves – who followed very rigid scripts that varied depending on whether the participant was in the experimental group or the control group.
In half of the conversations, the experimenters asked the students to elaborate on their views. For example, they might listen to a student's argument and respond: "I was interested in what you're saying. Can you tell me more about how come you think that?" For the other trials, the conversation did not include any request for more information on the participants' beliefs.
It was a tiny change in the script, but the addition of the single question changed the whole tone of the debate by provoking a considerably more open-minded response from the participants. They were more willing to continue the conversation and to receive further information on the other person's arguments, for instance.
a) Classify the variables in the study above. I've helped you out by putting variable-related text in bold.
Variable name |
Levels of this variable |
Is this manipulated or measured? |
Is the variable an IV or DV? |
For the IV: was it manipulated as independent groups or within groups? |
b) Assuming they randomly assigned students to the two groups, which type of design was it: posttest only? Pretest-posttest? Repeated measures? Or concurrent measures? Explain your answer.
c) Sketch a graph of the study’s results. You don’t know the exact values but you should be able to guess the pattern (hint: Be sure to put the DV on the y-axis).
d) Apply the three causal criteria here to decide whether this study supports the causal claim: "showing curiosity in a person's argument causes them to be more willing to hear your own argument."
A second of the author's "simple tricks" is sharing personal experiences. Here is a study that illustrates how personal experience works:
Consider what a recent examination of the 2018 midterm elections demonstrated. The study measured the progress of 230 canvassers, conversing on a range of political issues with 6,869 voters across seven US locations. Some were asked to make their case using purely statistical arguments – concerning, for instance, the common fear that immigration increases crime – while others were asked to exchange personal stories, in addition to presenting factual evidence.
Each of the voters took opinion polls before and after they met the canvassers. The researchers found that the mutually respectful exchange of experiences was more likely to shift opinion than conversations that focused more on impersonal facts and statistics.
Just for fun, here's a note on the effect size of this study:
While the overall effects were small – resulting in a five-percentage-point shift in views on immigration, for example – this should be taken in context. On average, the conversations lasted just 11 minutes in total, yet a significant number of people started to change strongly held views.
e) Classify the variables in the study above. I've helped you out by putting variable-related text in bold.
Variable name |
Levels of this variable |
Is this manipulated or measured? |
Is the variable an IV or DV? |
For the IV: was it manipulated as independent groups or within groups? |
f) Assuming they randomly assigned students to the two groups, which type of design was it: posttest only? Pretest-posttest? Repeated measures? Or concurrent measures? Explain your answer.
g) Sketch a graph of the study’s results. You don’t know the exact values but you should be able to guess the pattern (hint: Be sure to put the DV on the y-axis).
h) Apply the three causal criteria here to decide whether this study supports the causal claim: "sharing personal experiences causes people to shift their opinions."
i) Feel free to read the article on your own to read the evidence behind the third "simple trick": maintaining civility.
Link to the empirical article for the first study, on showing curiosity.
Link to the empirical article for the second study, on personal experiences.