The science of influencing people: six ways to win an argument

The Observer / Psychology

Hidebound views on subjects such as the climate crisis and Brexit are the norm – but the appliance of
science may sway stubborn opinions

David Robson / Sun 30 Jun 2019

“I am quite sure now that often, very

often, in matters of religion and politics
a man’s reasoning powers are not
above the monkey’s,” wrote Mark
Twain.

Having written a book about our most

common reasoning errors, I would
argue that Twain was being rather
uncharitable – to monkeys. Whether
we are discussing Trump, Brexit, or the
Tory leadership, we have all come
across people who appear to have next
to no understanding of world events –
but who talk with the utmost confidence and conviction. And the latest psychological research can now
help us to understand why.

Consider the “illusion of explanatory depth”. When asked about government policies and their
consequences, most people believe that they could explain their workings in great detail. If put to the test,
however, their explanations are vague and incoherent. The problem is that we confuse a shallow
familiarity with general concepts for real, in-depth knowledge.

Besides being less substantial than we think, our knowledge is also highly selective: we conveniently
remember facts that support our beliefs and forget others. When it comes to understanding the EU, for
instance, Brexiters will know the overall costs of membership, while remainers will cite its numerous
advantages. Although the overall level of knowledge is equal on both sides, there is little overlap in the
details.

Simply asking why people support or oppose a policy is pointless. You need to ask how something works
to have an effect

Politics can also scramble our critical thinking skills. Psychological studies show that people fail to notice
the logical fallacies in an argument if the conclusion supports their viewpoint; if they are shown contrary
evidence, however, they will be far more critical of the tiniest hole in the argument. This phenomenon is
known as “motivated reasoning”.

A high standard of education doesn’t necessarily protect us from these flaws. Graduates, for instance,
often overestimate their understanding of their degree subject: although they remember the general
content, they have forgotten the details. “People confuse their current level of understanding with their
peak knowledge,” Prof Matthew Fisher of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, says. That
false sense of expertise can, in turn, lead them to feel that they have the licence to be more closed-minded
in their political views – an attitude known as “earned dogmatism”.

Little wonder that discussions about politics can leave us feeling that we are banging our heads against a
brick wall – even when talking to people we might otherwise respect. Fortunately, recent psychological
research also offers evidence-based ways towards achieving more fruitful discussions.

Ask ‘how’ rather than ‘why’

Thanks to the illusion of explanatory depth, many political arguments will be based on false premises,
spoken with great confidence but with a minimal understanding of the issues at hand. For this reason, a
simple but powerful way of deflating someone’s argument is to ask for more detail. “You need to get the
‘other side’ focusing on how something would play itself out, in a step by step fashion”, says Prof Dan
Johnson at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia. By revealing the shallowness of their
existing knowledge, this prompts a more moderate and humble attitude.

In 2013, Prof Philip Fernbach at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and colleagues asked participants in
cap-and-trade schemes – designed to limit companies’ carbon emissions – to describe in depth how they
worked. Subjects initially took strongly polarised views but after the limits of their knowledge were
exposed, their attitudes became more moderate and less biased.

It’s important to note that simply asking why people supported or opposed the policy – without requiring
them to explain how it works – had no effect, since those reasons could be shallower (“It helps the
environment”) with little detail. You need to ask how something works to get the effect.

If you are debating the merits of a no-deal Brexit, you might ask someone to describe exactly how the
UK’s international trade would change under WTO terms. If you are challenging a climate emergency
denier, you might ask them to describe exactly how their alternative theories can explain the recent rise in
temperatures. It’s a strategy that the broadcaster James O’Brien employs on his LBC talk show – to
powerful effect.

Fill their knowledge gap with a convincing story

If you are trying to debunk a particular falsehood – like a conspiracy theory or fake news – you should
make sure that your explanation offers a convincing, coherent narrative that fills all the gaps left in the
other person’s understanding.

Consider the following experiment by Prof Brendan Nyhan of the University of Michigan and Prof Jason
Reifler of the University of Exeter. Subjects read stories about a fictional senator allegedly under
investigation for bribery who had subsequently resigned from his post. Written evidence – a letter from
prosecutors confirming his innocence – did little to change the participants’ suspicions of his guilt. But
when offered an alternative explanation for his resignation – to take on another role – participants changed
their minds. The same can be seen in murder trials: people are more likely to accept someone’s innocence
if another suspect has also been accused, since that fills the biggest gap in the story: whodunnit.

The persuasive power of well-constructed narratives means that it’s often useful to discuss the sources of
misinformation, so that the person can understand why they were being misled in the first place. Anti-
vaxxers, for instance, may believe a medical conspiracy to cover up the supposed dangers of vaccines.
You are more likely to change minds if you replace that narrative with an equally cohesive and convincing
story – such as Andrew Wakefield’s scientific fraud, and the fact that he was set to profit from his paper
linking autism to MMR vaccines. Just stating the scientific evidence will not be as persuasive.
Reframe the issue
Each of our beliefs is deeply rooted in a much broader and more complex political ideology. Climate crisis
denial, for instance, is now inextricably linked to beliefs in free trade, capitalism and the dangers of
environmental regulation.

Attacking one issue may therefore threaten to unravel someone’s whole worldview – a feeling that triggers
emotionally charged motivated reasoning. It is for this reason that highly educated Republicans in the US
deny the overwhelming evidence.

You are not going to alter someone’s whole political ideology in one discussion, so a better strategy is to
disentangle the issue at hand from their broader beliefs, or to explain how the facts can still be
accommodated into their worldview. A free-market capitalist who denies global warming might be far
more receptive to the evidence if you explain that the development of renewable energies could lead to
technological breakthroughs and generate economic growth.

Appeal to an alternative identity

If the attempt to reframe the issue fails, you might have more success by appealing to another part of the
person’s identity entirely.

Someone’s political affiliation will never completely define them, after all. Besides being a conservative
or a socialist, a Brexiter or a remainer, we associate ourselves with other traits and values – things like our
profession, or our role as a parent. We might see ourselves as a particularly honest person, or someone
who is especially creative. “All people have multiple identities,” says Prof Jay Van Bavel at New York
University, who studies the neuroscience of the “partisan brain”. “These identities can become active at
any given time, depending on the circumstances.”

You are more likely to achieve your aims by arguing gently and kindly. You will also come across better
to onlookers

It’s natural that when talking about politics, the salient identity will be our support for a particular party or
movement. But when people are asked to first reflect on their other, nonpolitical values, they tend to
become more objective in discussion on highly partisan issues, as they stop viewing facts through their
ideological lens.

You could try to use this to your advantage during a heated conversation, with subtle flattery that appeals
to another identity and its set of values; if you are talking to a science teacher, you might try to emphasise
their capacity to appraise evidence even-handedly. The aim is to help them recognise that they can change
their mind on certain issues while staying true to other important elements of their personality.

Persuade them to take an outside perspective

Another simple strategy to encourage a more detached and rational mindset is to ask your conversation
partner to imagine the argument from the viewpoint of someone from another country. How, for example,
would someone in Australia or Iceland view Boris Johnson as our new prime minister?

Prof Ethan Kross at the University of Michigan, and Prof Igor Grossmann at the University of Waterloo in
Ontario, Canada, have shown that this strategy increases “psychological distance” from the issue at hand
and cools emotionally charged reasoning so that you can see things more objectively. During the US
presidential elections, for instance, their participants were asked to consider how someone in Iceland
would view the candidates. They were subsequently more willing to accept the limits of their knowledge
and to listen to alternative viewpoints; after the experiment, they were even more likely to join a bipartisan
discussion group.

This is only one way to increase someone’s psychological distance, and there are many others. If you are
considering policies with potentially long-term consequences, you could ask them to imagine viewing the
situation through the eyes of someone in the future. However you do it, encouraging this shift in
perspective should make your friend or relative more receptive to the facts you are presenting, rather than
simply reacting with knee-jerk dismissals.

Be kind

Here’s a lesson that certain polemicists in the media might do well to remember – people are generally
much more rational in their arguments, and more willing to own up to the limits of their knowledge and
understanding, if they are treated with respect and compassion. Aggression, by contrast, leads them to feel
that their identity is threatened, which in turn can make them closed-minded.

Assuming that the purpose of your argument is to change minds, rather than to signal your own
superiority, you are much more likely to achieve your aims by arguing gently and kindly rather than
belligerently, and affirming your respect for the person, even if you are telling them some hard truths. As a
bonus, you will also come across better to onlookers. “There’s a lot of work showing that third-party
observers always attribute high levels of competence when the person is conducting themselves with more
civility,” says Dr Joe Vitriol, a psychologist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. As Lady
Mary Wortley Montagu put it in the 18th century: “Civility costs nothing and buys everything.”

• David Robson is the author of The Intelligence Trap: Why Smart People Do Stupid Things and How to
Make Wiser Decisions (Hodder & Stoughton, £20). To order a copy go to guardianbookshop.com. Free
UK p&p on all online orders over £15

As the crisis escalates…

… in our natural world, we refuse to turn away from the climate catastrophe and species extinction. For
The Guardian, reporting on the environment is a priority. We give reporting on climate, nature and
pollution the prominence it deserves, stories which often go unreported by others in the media. At this
pivotal time for our species and our planet, we are determined to inform readers about threats,
consequences and solutions based on scientific facts, not political prejudice or business interests.

More people are reading and supporting The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism than ever
before. And unlike many new organisations, we have chosen an approach that allows us to keep our
journalism accessible to all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford. But we need your
ongoing support to keep working as we do.

The Guardian will engage with the most critical issues of our time – from the escalating climate
catastrophe to widespread inequality to the influence of big tech on our lives. At a time when factual
information is a necessity, we believe that each of us, around the world, deserves access to accurate
reporting with integrity at its heart.

Our editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Guardian
journalism is free from commercial and political bias and not influenced by billionaire owners or
shareholders. This means we can give a voice to those less heard, explore where others turn away, and
rigorously challenge those in power.