• About
    • About the Center for Public Interest Communications
    • What is Public Interest Communications?
    • Our Team
    • Theories We Use
    • Center Updates
    • Programs & Affiliates
      • frank gathering
      • The Research Prize in Public Interest Communications
      • Journal of Public Interest Communications
      • UF Programs
    • Our Approach to Generative Artificial Intelligence
    • Contact Us
    • Job: Center Research Assistant
  • SOLUTIONS
    • Beyond Raising Awareness
    • Become a Great Science Communicator
    • Fixing Data’s Demand Problem
    • Why your narrative change strategy isn’t working
    • How to reach people who don’t already agree with you
    • Why Your Science Communication Isn’t Landing
    • Services
      • Strategy Consulting
      • Issue Research
      • Training – Frameworks and Custom
  • Frameworks
  • Training
    • Programs
    • Professional Development
      • Learn on your schedule
      • Beyond raising awareness: How to create lasting change
      • Science Communications Course 
      • Strategic Communications Academy for UF Leaders & Scholars
  • RESOURCES
    • Case Studies
    • Newsletter
    • Scholarship & Publications
Center for Public Interest Communications
Support
  • About
    • About the Center for Public Interest Communications
    • What is Public Interest Communications?
    • Our Team
    • Theories We Use
    • Center Updates
    • Programs & Affiliates
      • frank gathering
      • The Research Prize in Public Interest Communications
      • Journal of Public Interest Communications
      • UF Programs
    • Our Approach to Generative Artificial Intelligence
    • Contact Us
    • Job: Center Research Assistant
  • SOLUTIONS
    • Beyond Raising Awareness
    • Become a Great Science Communicator
    • Fixing Data’s Demand Problem
    • Why your narrative change strategy isn’t working
    • How to reach people who don’t already agree with you
    • Why Your Science Communication Isn’t Landing
    • Services
      • Strategy Consulting
      • Issue Research
      • Training – Frameworks and Custom
  • Frameworks
  • Training
    • Programs
    • Professional Development
      • Learn on your schedule
      • Beyond raising awareness: How to create lasting change
      • Science Communications Course 
      • Strategic Communications Academy for UF Leaders & Scholars
  • RESOURCES
    • Case Studies
    • Newsletter
    • Scholarship & Publications
  • Research & Insights

Baad News: People Let Politicians Tell Them What To Think

  • November 20, 2014
  • 3 minute read
Total
0
Shares
0
0
0
0

Polls keep telling us that the favorability rating of political leaders drops lower and lower each day. Yet the power of politicians to influence our opinions doesn’t seem to be waning.

In fact, according to researchers James Druckman, Erik Peterson and Rune Slothuus, what party leaders say about divisive issues can sometimes hold more sway than a solid argument. Or as they put it, “party endorsements drive opinions.”

For their study, which appears in the February 2013 issue of the American Political Science Review, the authors conducted two experiments to explore whether high levels of political polarization impact how people process information.

Using an online survey of 646 Americans who identified as partisans (people who lean toward either the Democratic or Republican party), the researchers asked participants to read news stories on the topics of drilling for fossil fuels and immigration policy. The stories contained cues to whether Democrats or Republicans endorsed a given policy as well as whether the issue was polarized (i.e. whether all Democrats and all Republicans felt the same way about the issue or whether it had support from both sides).

For example, in the drilling article, all participants were told that “Republicans in Congress tend to favor drilling and Democrats in Congress tend to oppose drilling.” However, some participants were also told that “the partisan divide is not stark as the parties are not too far apart,” while others were told that “the partisan divide is stark as the parties are far apart.”

The authors found that when the articles contained no party endorsements at all, participants were influenced by the strength of the argument. Even when party endorsements were present, people still favored positions with the strongest arguments. Party endorsements only swayed opinions when both sides presented an equally strong argument, in which case people sided with their respective parties.

When the issue was polarized, though, things changed dramatically.

“[P]artisans in a polarized environment follow their party regardless of the type or strength of the argument the party makes,” the authors warn. That is, politically committed people will agree with their party on an issue even when it makes the weaker argument, which is bad news for fans of reasoned debate on issues of importance.

The researchers also found that partisan positioning has other consequences.

“When individuals engage in strong partisan motivated reasoning, they develop increased confidence in their opinions,” the authors note. “This means they are less likely to consider alternative positions and more likely to take action based on their opinion.”

Overall, these findings have implications for the democratic process.

“Competition [of ideas] is a defining element of even the most minimalist conceptions of democracy,” say the authors. “Yet when it comes to the impact of competition on public opinion formation, the opinion dynamics involved can be problematic.”

When people side with a party regardless of the strength of its arguments, we get gridlock in the short term. And over the long term, we get policy that doesn’t result from a thoughtful, fact-based debate.

The study’s findings suggest that groups advocating for policy change will have a harder time being persuasive if their nonpartisan arguments get pushed aside by partisan positioning. However, knowing that can help in deciding when and how to expend communication resources and how much of an effort to make. For instance, there may be times where an endorsement from a political leader for a cause may hold more sway than an airtight argument. At other times, a more successful strategy might be to frame an issue as apolitical.

For more on how one advocacy group had success in winning a November 2014 water conservation ballot measure, see this frank talk post: Transcending Politics For The Greater, Greener Good.

American Political Science Review, February 2013

Researchers:
James N. Druckman, Northwestern University
Erik Peterson, Stanford University
Rune Slothuus, Aarhus University

Total
0
Shares
Share 0
Tweet 0
Share 0
Related Topics
  • frankology
Previous Article
  • Research & Insights

Why It’s In Your Best Interest Not To Touch The Mute Button

  • November 7, 2014
View Post
Next Article
  • Research & Insights

How Time Online Rallies Offline Political Engagement

  • December 4, 2014
View Post
Professional Development
  • Strategic Communications Academy for UF Leaders & Scholars
  • Science Communications Course 
  • Beyond raising awareness: How to create lasting change
More of our work
  • Can #MeToo Have Lasting Influence?
  • Why each side of the partisan divide thinks the other is living in an alternate reality
  • Communicating the Complexity of Displacement in a Changing Climate
  • How to Tell Stories About Complex Issues
Latest from the Center
  • Most Americans Support Freedom of Information. Almost None Have Ever Used It.
  • October 2025 nationwide survey sheds light on Americans’ increasing worry about housing affordability
  • 2025 ‘Real Good Census’ Reveals a Strategically Vital Field with Strong Rewards, Marking Significant Growth
  • composite image of Audrey Goldfarb and text stating "Science isn't personal: why communicating emotion isn't 'soft,' it's strategic"
    Changemakers in Action: Dr. Audrey Goldfarb
How We Help – Case Studies
  • BROKE project screenshot
    Re-examining narratives on poverty and wealth — the BROKE project
  • hands with medicine
    Invest in Trust – a vaccine communications guide for CNAs
  • gloved hand holding vial
    Science-based communication strategy on COVID for the UN Verified Initiative
UF Logo

Center for Public Interest Communications
PO Box 118400
Gainesville, FL 32611-8400

An auxiliary unit of the College of Journalism and Communications

Copyright © 2026

Contact Us

We are eager to chat with you about your project or training need.

Send us a note

The Center for Public Interest Communications, the first of its kind in the nation, is designed to study, test and apply the science of strategic communication for change. We are based at the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications.

  • Change Communication
  • Science Communication
  • Strategic Communication
  • Broader Impacts
  • Public Interest Communication
  • Narrative Change
  • Leadership Development
  • Strategy Development
  • Effective Presentations
  • Research Translation & Insights

Input your search keywords and press Enter.