The last few years has seen an apparent polarization emerge across the world, with everything from politics to gender equality seeming to divide society in two.  Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this polarization is how rare it is for people to ‘cross sides’ and adapt their thinking, even in the face of resounding evidence.

A recent study from the University of Pennsylvania explored whether an ardent supporter of one side can persuade their former bedfellows should they happen to crossover.  The study explored what happens when this occurred in the ever controversial issue of genetically modified (GM) food.

Switching sides

The individual in question was the British environmentalist Mark Lynas, who gave a talk where he discussed his transformation from an opponent of GM crops to an advocate.  The researchers showed a video of the talk to test whether it was more effective in changing people’s minds than a direct advocacy method.

“People exposed to the conversion message rather than a simple pro-GM message had a more favorable attitude toward GM foods,” the researchers explain. “The two-sided nature of the conversion message—presenting old beliefs and then refuting them—was more effective than a straightforward argument in favor of GM crops.”

The talk, which was given at the Oxford Farming Conference in 2013, was shown to around 650 adults who volunteered for the research.  They were split into three groups, the first of which was shown the clip of Lynas talking about the benefits of GM crops, the second of which was shown Lynas saying that he had previously been an opponent of GM food, but had changed his mind, whilst the third group were shown Lynas explaining both that he had changed his mind, and why he had done so.

Persuasive message

The results revealed that the most persuasive message was undoubtedly when both the transition from sceptic to advocate was communicated and when that transition was explained.  Interestingly however, there appeared to be no real difference between the two forms of conversion message.

When the researchers delved into the data in more detail, they found that Lynas’ message was enhanced because it improved the perceived strength of his argument rather than his credibility.  Of course, this is self-reported data, so it’s quite possible that the volunteers were saying what they thought they should rather than what actually persuaded them.

The researchers selected GM food as an issue as it doesn’t seem to be as heavily influenced by religious or political ideology.  It’s also an issue that American people are not hugely knowledgeable about, which suggests that public opinion is not yet fixed.

“After completing this study, I’m more optimistic about our ability to change minds on the issues that haven’t been totally polluted by ideology,” the authors explain.

It should perhaps go without saying that the research was conducted both within the confines of the GM food debate and on a purely American audience, so it would not be right to suggest that they extend beyond both realms.  The researchers also accept that they looked solely at a transformation from anti-GM to pro-GM, and admit that the same findings might not emerge the other way.  Nonetheless, despite these questions that remain, the findings could provide an interesting start point for further work to be conducted.