Not Loud, but Clear

Autumn 2020
Lightbulb illustration
Illustration by Doug Chayka

How do Americans react when policy issues are communicated in a nonpartisan way?

In America’s highly charged partisan atmosphere, it can be difficult to hear the signal through the noise — to discern facts through the spin and rancor often generated on both sides of the political aisle. But could there be a form of communication that would allow Republicans and Democrats to draw similar conclusions when choosing between policy options?

Assistant Professor of Political Science Matthew Luttig asked this question, with coauthor Philip Chen of Beloit College, in the paper, “Communicating policy information in a partisan environment: the importance of causal policy narratives in political persuasion,” which appeared in the August 2019 issue of the Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties.

Luttig studies the intersection of politics and psychology, particularly the concept of partisan-motivated reasoning. “A person’s group identity is important to their well-being,” he explains. “Because of that, people tend to hold beliefs and opinions that make their own political party look good in contrast to the opposing party.” This holds true even on topics that can be objectively quantified, like the federal budget. “We’ve seen a lot of this kind of partisan-motivated reasoning over the past several months in regard to COVID-19,” he says. 

Luttig and his coauthor designed a study to, in their words, “upset” this type of thought process. They provided subjects with information from nonpartisan experts that communicated a clear link between a particular policy and a societal outcome. “The assumption behind our hypothesis,” he says, “was that, if we gave people clear information, they would be persuaded by it and ignore the position adopted by their affiliated party’s leaders.”

Their first experiment looked at the issue of funding for Head Start, a federal program that provides pre-K education for children from low-income families. Their second experiment focused on national education standards in STEM fields. “We purposely chose less salient issues,” Luttig says. “People are likely to not have given these topics as much thought, so it’s a test case for what happens when an issue emerges, and it provides more potential for people to be persuaded in that context.” 

The concept of outcome preference also influenced which two issues they selected. “Both Democrats and Republicans want more equality and better education,” Luttig says. “But they disagree over which policies will produce those outcomes.”

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. In the first condition people were given no information about where party leaders stood on the issue. In the second, people were told that Democrats supported the issue and Republicans opposed it. In the third condition, respondents were told that Republicans supported the issue and Democrats opposed it. In addition, participants were also given clear or unclear information from nonpartisan experts on whether the policy results in the broader social goal it aims to accomplish. 

The results showed that, when it’s unclear whether a policy will achieve a desired outcome, most people will revert to their party’s position. But when people are told a clear narrative linking a policy to a desired outcome, support for that policy rises, even when partisan cues direct people to oppose that policy. “We found that everyone, regardless of how strongly partisan they were, was at least somewhat persuaded by nonpartisan experts when they claimed a clear link,” Luttig says. 

An example of Luttig’s results is playing out in real time, as guidance on mask use has evolved during the pandemic. “[Initially], the communication about masks was not very clear,” he says. “The lack of clear communication made what the party leaders were saying and doing all the more influential. As the guidance has become more clear, more people are now wearing masks.”

The study put into starker relief for Luttig just how influential political leaders are in their choices and recommendations and how crucial it is for them to be well-informed. “We want experts to have an important say in government policy,” he says. “Our results  show that it is important to think about not only the science and evidence that those experts have to share, but also how they communicate their findings.”  


Luttig is incorporating his study findings into his upcoming book, tentatively titled The Bipartisan Closing of the Partisan Mind