Crafting More Credible Messages
JANUARY 2014
Voters today are bombarded by more political messages than ever
before, thanks in part to the proliferation of super PACs whose raison
d’etre is running negative ads. And the growing prominence of
unapologetically biased media sources means voters have fewer
“referees” to help decipher what’s true and what’s not.
Left to fend for themselves, voters are making snap judgments about
the veracity of often competing messages, weighing the accusations
of one candidate they barely know against the counter-charges of
another they may not know at all.
So how can candidates be more believable when talking about their
opponents? What makes one message more credible than the next?
And what information helps to validate a message?
With data from two surveys of voters nationwide, this month’s
GSGCompass provides some answers and leads the way to more
credible messaging for an increasingly cynical electorate.
GlobalStrategyGroup.com
@GSG
Eliminating hyperbole, embellishment and exaggeration
leads to more credible messaging about opponents
Given the need to break through, campaigns often dial up the heat to make their message as
incendiary as possible. But our research shows that doing so makes messages less credible and
thus less effective. Voters react better when there is no hyperbole or extraneous name-calling.
GSG asked voters about a series of descriptions of their member of Congress. Half of voters heard
descriptions with adjectives that summed up the negative with a pointed characterization, while
the other half heard descriptions that did not include the additional adjectives.
When asked if their member of Congress “has positions that are not moderate and lack common
sense,” 49% of voters agree the statement is true. But when asked if their member “has extreme
and radical positions that are not moderate and lack common sense,” just 27% agree – a 22-point
decrease in believability. Similarly, when asked if their member “is a career politician who uses the
title and office for personal financial gain,” 52% agree. However, when asked if the member “is a
corrupt career politician who uses the title and office for personal financial gain,” just 31% agree –
a 21-point drop.
Eliminating hyperbole in ways beyond the characterization of an opponent also boosts credibility.
Fifty-seven percent of voters say it is true that their member “hasn’t accomplished very much, and
someone else could be more effective,” but just 48% agree when the statement says their
member “hasn’t accomplished anything at all, and someone else could be more effective.”
Is each of these statements about your member of Congress true or not true?
Your member has (extreme and radical) positions that are not moderate and lack common sense.
TRUE
NOT TRUE
49%
Without adjectives
27%
With adjectives
40%
61%
Your member is a (corrupt) career politician who uses the title and office for personal financial gain.
TRUE
NOT TRUE
52%
Without “corrupt”
31%
With “corrupt”
39%
55%
Your member hasn't accomplished (very much/anything at all), and someone else could be more effective.
TRUE
“Very much”
“Anything at all”
2
NOT TRUE
57%
48%
34%
40%
GlobalStrategyGroup.com
@GSG
First-hand anecdotes or specific examples are more
effective validators of a message than statistics
That storytelling is a powerful way to convey a political message is not exactly breaking news. One
only need remember the young girl holding a daisy to see how the tool was used early on by
campaign ad makers. Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America” argued the country was better off
with him as President without citing a single statistic. And Priorities USA created some of the most
effective ads of 2012 by putting the workers affected by Mitt Romney’s corporate practices in
front of a camera to tell their story.
Yet every year there are more ads noting an unemployment, crime or graduation rate to argue
one candidate’s position is better than another’s – and candidates themselves cite even more
statistics than their ads, perhaps believing higher numbers equal more persuasive arguments.
But voters are more likely to believe messages that cite a few specific anecdotes over ones that
cite statistics, even if those statistics are compelling. In fact, 60% are more likely to believe a
candidate’s statement about an economic initiative if several specific local businesses that
created jobs are highlighted, compared to 26% who are more likely to believe a statement that
highlights poll results showing a solid majority believes jobs have been created.
In another example, 46% find a candidate citing first-hand knowledge of students who are
succeeding because of an education initiative more believable than one citing the statistical
percentage by which student test scores have increased.
Which of the two statements is most believable?
A candidate who says a new economic
initiative is working and highlights
several specific local businesses that
have benefited and created jobs.
A candidate who says a new education
initiative is working because of firsthand knowledge that high school
students who were struggling before
are now on track to graduate.
A candidate who cites a report from a
nonpartisan, independent watchdog
that verifies his proposal would
balance the budget.
3
60%
46%
50%
26%
38%
33%
A candidate who says a new economic
initiative is working and cites a poll from
a respected news outlet showing 57% of
the public agrees it has created jobs.
A candidate who says a new education
initiative is working because the latest
study shows overall test scores for high
school students have increased by 31%.
A candidate who cites a statement from
a senior member of the opposite party
who agrees his proposal would balance
the budget.
GlobalStrategyGroup.com
@GSG
Cross-party support is a weaker validator, but media
sources can boost credibility despite perceived bias
In today’s hyper-partisan environment, cross-party support has grown rare, seemingly making it
that much more valuable to campaigns that can tout it. Witness Republican Chris Christie, whose
campaign viewed cross-party support from local Democratic officials as so valuable that one of
the world’s busiest bridges was shutdown over it.
But is cross-party support really so valuable? The data suggest otherwise (see chart on previous
page). When a “nonpartisan, independent watchdog” is paired against “a senior member of the
opposing party,” 50% of voters find the independent validation more believable, compared to
33% who find the opposing party validation more believable.
GSG also attempted to test the effect of “cross-ideology” support, using media sources believed
(in the Beltway, at least) to carry wide perceptions of bias – FOX News as conservative and the
New York Times as liberal. The essential question: does a Democratic candidate citing a FOX News
report have more credibility than a Democrat citing the New York Times?
The answer, interestingly, is no. In fact, the number of voters who believe a Democrat citing the
Times is five points higher than the number believing one who cites FOX. There is almost no
difference in believability among Republicans (29% versus 30%), but validation from the Times
increases believability among Democrats by six points and among Independents by eight. That
said, a Democrat citing FOX is still more believable than a Republican citing no validation at all.
Which of the two statements is most believable?
A Democratic candidate who points to
a NEW YORK TIMES article to prove the current
Congress is the least productive in history.
50%
All Voters
39%
70%
Democrats
41%
29%
67%
A Democratic candidate who points to
a FOX NEWS report to prove the current
Congress is the least productive in history.
All Voters
Republicans
4
A Republican candidate who says Congress
is doing a good job because it has prevented
bad legislation from becoming law.
45%
36%
64%
Democrats
Independents
13%
46%
Independents
Republicans
A Republican candidate who says Congress
is doing a good job because it has prevented
bad legislation from becoming law.
38%
30%
16%
39%
55%
GlobalStrategyGroup.com
@GSG
KEY COMPASS POINTS
→ Messages are more credible when they lack hyperbole and state the case without
embellishing, exaggerating, or name-calling.
→ Absolutist language like “hasn’t accomplished anything at all” diminishes the
credibility of a message.
→ First-hand or specific anecdotes serve as better message validators than statistics
from a study, report or opinion poll.
→ Cross-party or cross-ideology support is not a particularly effective way to validate
a message.
METHODOLOGY: This GSGCompass references results from two national surveys of 1,000 registered
voters each conducted by Global Strategy Group via telephone. The first survey was conducted
November 19-23, 2013, and the second was conducted December 15-18, 2013. Special care has been
taken to ensure the geographic and demographic divisions of the electorate are properly represented.
The margin of error for 1,000 voters at the 95% confidence level is +/- 3.1%; the margin of error for any
split samples of 500 voters each is +/- 4.4%.
5
GlobalStrategyGroup.com
@GSG