When talking about controversial topics, it can be incredibly easy for things to become polarized.  Think of gun control or climate change, for example.  New research from Vanderbilt University reminds us that even uncontroversial topics can become polarized, if the person talking about them is polarizing themselves.

The study began after the researchers observed how the debate around healthy school meals attracted controversy, due in part to Michelle Obama being the spokesperson for the campaign.  This meant the program attracted support from Democrats, but opposition from Republicans.

The theory was tested via a survey sent to a cross-section of Americans, in which they were asked to read a 250-word article on the topic of childhood obesity, with the article highlighting the role school lunches play in the problem, and advocating higher nutritional standards for school meals.

The volunteers were shown three identical articles, but for a slight change in the key advocate for the program.  In one version, Michelle Obama was the key advocate, a second came from the US military, and a third was a scientific expert.

Partisan support

There was a clear improvement in support when the advocate was from military and scientific experts, with the political preference of the volunteers key.  For instance, 95% of Democrats supported the initiative, regardless of the source used, with support trending downwards the more conservative the respondents were.  Republicans were most opposed to the project, regardless of the source.

For instance, among Republican volunteers, just 60% supported the project when it was backed by the military, 56% when it was backed by scientists, and just 33% when Michelle Obama supported it.  What’s more, when race was accounted for, the analysis revealed that racism lopped 10% from the support for the project, regardless of who the source was.

What was even more influential, however, was sexism, which the researchers found reduced support by up to 45% among the military group, 60% in the scientific group, and a thoroughly depressing 90% in the Obama group.

Shooting the messenger

The importance of the messenger was then reflected in the recall of the story the volunteers had.  When asked what they remembered and thought about the story, it was alarmingly common to focus on the messenger more than the message.  This was despite the messenger taking up around 3% of the words of the article.

“Source cues matter, even on seemingly uncontroversial topics,” the researchers say. “We know that there are many complicated political issues that are easily framed and attributed to different sides. We also know that people take cues to simplify their understanding of complicated issues and to decide where to stand on the issue.”

Cues are capable of giving us important information shortcuts, but they can also create unnecessary divide, even on issues that we would ordinarily agree on.  It’s perhaps something to consider when choosing spokespeople for particular campaigns.