Rule 8: It's Not Enough To Be Right

Somehow, inexplicably, a scientific matter of public health has found its way to become an ideological debate. Conservatives on one side and progressives on the other. When these intractable lines are drawn around COVID-19 conversations – i.e. Is it worse than the flu? How do we open the economy back up? Are the restrictions appropriate? – it turns out that simply flaunting the science that supports your point is not enough.

Carl Sandburg once argued that when the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When both are against you, pound the table and yell loudly. This may be helpful advice for lawyers, but advocates have a different goal. When attempting to shift long-term thinking among a populace–for example, trying to get members of society to see the world differently or consider a problem differently–we like to use data. In fact, we can overwhelm our audiences with data to make our case more convincing. In the presentation of the data, we often forget the rest of what our case is, believing that the data alone makes the argument for us.

We are wrong.

There is no such thing as a clean slate when it comes to advocating for social causes. Our audiences, whether they are familiar with our causes or not, have some existing mindset about our cause from the moment it is introduced to them. These mindsets are formed by their own lived experiences, their families, the media, and many other influencers. These mindsets form a “frame” that surrounds a given topic, from which comes attitudes and opinions related to that topic.

Advocates often use facts, such as statistics, studies, and other metrics, to penetrate and influence those existing frames. But research shows that when the facts don’t fit the frame, people reject the facts, not the frame. In truth, when audiences are presented with irrefutable evidence of the error in their thinking, the human reaction is to question the evidence.

The only way data is effective in influencing mindsets is to present the data in its own alternative frame. For example, those that see wearing face masks in public as a mandate from an overzealous government will question the data that shows reduced transmissibility of the virus when two parties are wearing masks vs. not wearing masks. But when the same data is presented to support an individual’s choice to wear a mask, suddenly you’ve provided a new context to consider the data. Same facts, different frame.

It is not enough just to be right. We have to frame our facts in ways that help audiences consider issues in new ways.

Check out how the American Red Cross uses data to demonstrate the importance of blood donation by framing it with an illustrative story.