Opinion Science

Joss Fong is a senior editorial producer at Vox. She produces science videos on a variety of topics, pushing the medium in ever more creative directions to convey interesting and important ideas.We spend a lot of our time talking about her most recent video: "How American conservatives turned against the vaccine"Here are some of the other videos we talked about in this episode:"Does Megalodon still exist? Shark Week debunked"“Are We Automating Racism?” (Glad You Asked series)"The state of gun violence in the US, explained in 18 charts"Why the James Webb Space Telescope looks like thatAll of Joss’ videos for Vox are available in this YouTube playlist.Also, Joss mentioned a great animation-based science channel on YouTube: KurzgesagtThis episode is part of a special podcast series on science communication. You can find more info and episodes here: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/hot-scicomm-summer/Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Special summer series on science communication! Regular Opinion Science episodes will resume in September.Announcing a special podcast mini-series for the summer focused on social science communication. I wanted to talk to a bunch of people who have become experts at communicating research outside of academia through different forms of media.I also wanted to emphasize the unique challenge of social science communication. I felt that a lot of the popular discussions of science communication have focused on topics like chemistry, biology, astronomy…all important and interesting in their own right. But communicating findings in psychology, political science, and economics comes with its own quirks. Of course, the series is still largely under the SciComm banner.So whether you’re an academic who wants to communicate your research more widely, a journalist interested in covering more social science topics, or just someone in the world who’s looking to be a better communicator, I think you’ll find a ton to like this series.Just stay subscribed to Opinion Science to get this summer series. All episodes in the series will also be available online at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/hot-scicomm-summer/For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

G. Elliott Morris is a data journalist for The Economist. In July 2022, he’s releasing his first book, Strength in Numbers: How Polls Work and Why We Need Them. The book takes a critical look at the history and current use of public opinion polling and the role it plays in democracy. Morris also contributed to The Economist’s 2020 presidential election forecasts. We talk about how he got involved in all of this, sources of error in polling, and the importance of opinion polls.Also in this episode, we hear from Andrew Kozak (@andrewkozaktv), meteorologist for Spectrum News 1 in Ohio. He shares how weather forecasting works and common misconceptions about forecasts.  Some music sourced from Blue Dot Sessions.For a transcript of this episode, visit: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/polls-polling-g-elliott-morris/Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Robin Nabi is a professor of communication at the University of California-Santa Barbara. She studies how emotional appeals can (and cannot) lead people to change their thoughts and behaviors. She’s published important research on the effects of anger, humor, and guilt, and she’s also developed integrated theories about how emotions can work together in the persuasion process. We talk about all this and more!When we talk about humor and persuasion, we briefly mention Dannagal Young’s prior appearance on the show. To listen to that check out: Episode 19: Political Humor as Persuasion with Danna Young Some things that come up in our conversation:Sarah McLaclan’s powers of emotional manipulation (ASPCA)Aristotle’s treatise on Rhetoric, including ethos (Miyawaki, 2017), logos (Trebing, 2017), and pathos (Tollefson, 2017).Robin has a nice summary of work in this area in a chapter for The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects (Nabi, 2017)Emotion is not as irrational as we may believe (e.g., Clore, 2011; Mull, 2019)Emotions can help frame an issue (Nabi, 2003)“Emotional flow” or the sequence of emotions in a message (Nabi, 2015) Some sound effects sourced from freesfx.co.ukFor a transcript of this episode, visit: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/persuasion-via-emotion-with-robin-nabi/Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Linda Skitka is a distinguished professor of psychology at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She's been studying people's moral convictions--the opinions that we connect to our core sense of moral right and wrong. Two people might agree about universal healthcare, for example, but they might disagree about how much their positions on this issue are drawn from their personal moral compass. Over the years, Linda and her colleagues have found that our opinions take on a different character if we've attached a feeling of moral significance to them. A few things than come up in this episode:Bernie Sanders’ 2016 speech urging people to treat inequality as a moral issue.In the opening, I discuss some research I did on how the mere perception of moral relevance makes opinions harder to change (Luttrell et al., 2016)For a summary of the research on moral conviction, Linda and her colleagues recently published a great overview in Annual Review of Psychology (Skitka et al., 2021)The early days of distinguishing moral conviction from other characteristics (Skitka et al., 2005)People resist conformity when they hold a morally convicted attitude (Aramovich et al., 2012)The question of how emotion plays a role in moralized opinions (Brandt et al., 2015; Skitka & Wisneski, 2011; Skitka et al., 2018; Wisneski & Skitka, 2016) For a transcript of this episode, visit: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/moral-conviction-with-linda-skitka/ Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Adam Hahn spends a lot of time thinking about how well people know their own biases. Sure, people often refer to "implicit bias" as social biases that exist unconsciously. But do they really? How strongly can we claim we're unaware of these attitudes and is there any reason to think people can readily tell you what their gut reactions are when they encounter people of different racial, gender, and religious identities? Adam's a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychology at the University of Bath. A few things that come up in our conversation:In the intro, I talk about the work of Russ Fazio (e.g., Fazio et al., 1986) and John Bargh (e.g., Bargh et al., 1992) looking into the automatic activation of attitudes. I also highlight Greenwald and Banaji's (1995) presentation of "implicit social cognition." (The quote about using "implicit" to refer to processes outside of awareness is from a 2001 chapter by Banaji and Tesser.) Also, big tip of the hat to Adam Hahn for helping me organize the structure of the introduction.You can take the Implicit Association Test (IAT) at "Project Implicit"Whether implicit bias is unconscious depends on how you define "unconscious" (Hahn & Goedderz, 2020)People can predict their scores on the IAT (Hahn et al., 2014; Hahn & Gawronski, 2019)People's predictions of their IAT performance is predictable (Rivera & Hahn, 2019)For details on some of the newer (unpublished as of yet) work that Adam talks about, you might enjoy this 2021 talk he gave at Université Grenoble Alpes.News clips at the top of the show were sourced from the following: NPR [1] [2], 5News, CBSNews, Devex, Christian Science Monitor, CNN, & The Young Turks. For a transcript of this episode, visit: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/unconscious-bias-with-adam-hahn/Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and folFor a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Mark Brandt studies a bunch of things. He’s an assistant professor of psychology at Michigan State University. These days, he’s been exploring how we can think about belief systems as a network of interconnected opinions. Using mathematical simulations that specify how people’s opinions can be connected, Mark and his team have been able to establish a core model that explains a bunch of findings from political psychology.Mark also co-organizes a free online seminar, the Minority Politics Online Seminar Series (MPOSS). Check it out for a bunch of great presentations by researchers who are studying a range of important topics. A few things that come up in our conversation:We focus on a recent summary of the idea that networks can help explain belief systems (Brandt & Sleegers, 2021)Using network analysis, we can identify which opinions are central to a belief system (Brandt et al., 2019)It is difficult to quantify an individual person’s network of opinions (Brandt & Morgan, 2022; Brandt, 2022)For a transcript of this episode, visit: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/belief-systems-with-mark-brandt/Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

David McRaney is an author and host of the podcast You Are Not So Smart. In June, he’s releasing a new book—How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion (you can pre-order it now). In the book, David goes on a wild journey to understand the mechanics of persuasion. He combines research in psychology with stories of persuasion on the ground to arrive at an understanding of when and why people end up changing their opinions. In our conversation, David shares how he got wrapped up in reporting on social science research, why he wanted to learn more about persuasion, and what he’s learned about how minds change.Also at the top of the episode is a look at some brand new research by Adam Mastroiannion how public opinion in the United States has changed over the years…and how people are generally ignorant about what these changes have been. For details, check out the paper (Mastroianni & Danas, 2022), which came out last week in PNAS. (You should also check out Adam’s blog, Experimental History.)Music in this episode by Blue Dot Sessions.For a transcript of this episode, visit: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/how-minds-change-with-david-mcraney/Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Sohad Murrar studies how media and norms affect people's opinions about social groups. Does media representation matter? Can infotainment aimed at reducing misconceptions really work? In this episode, Sohad gives us a glimpse into what the research says, her own experiences consulting with Hollywood creatives, and how conveying social norms can be a potent way of addressing prejudice.Also at the top of the show, you'll hear about a radio program from the 1930s: "Americans All--Immigrants All." You can listen to most episodes of that show at WNYC's archives. Many of the details about the program and how it responded to anti-immigrant prejudice at the time is thanks to a wonderful book by Susan Herbst: A Troubled Birth: The 1930s and American Public Opinion.Some of the research Sohad and I talk about includes:Thoughtfully produced infotainment can lead to reduced prejudice in viewers (Murrary & Brauer, 2018)How stories can foster more positive attitudes toward social groups (Murrar & Brauer, 2019)Conveying pro-diversity social norms serves to increase tolerance and inclusion (Murrar, Campbell, & Brauer, 2020)For a transcript of this episode, visit: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/media-norms-social-change-with-sohad-murrar/Check out my new audio course on Knowable: "The Science of Persuasion."Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Julia Minson studies the psychology of disagreement. In particular, she's been working to understand what sorts of people are receptive to other opinions and how our perceptions of other people's receptiveness can improve conversations. Dr. Minson is an Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of government.Some things that come up in this episode:StoryCorps and the One Small Step initiative (the clip at the beginning of the episode is from "Family Politics")For a big overview of the kinds of things we discuss, check out a recent review article about receptiveness by Julia and her colleague, Frances Chen (Minson & Chen, in press)The effects of asking questions on receptiveness (Chen, Minson, & Tormala, 2010)Eye contact can foster resistance to persuasion (Chen, Minson, Schöne, & Heinrichs, 2013)Measuring receptiveness to opposing views as a personal trait (Minson, Chen, & Tinsley, 2019)Developing an algorithm to detect receptiveness using language (Yeomans, Minson, et al., 2020) For a transcript of this episode, visit: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/receptiveness-with-julia-minson/Check out my new audio course on Knowable: "The Science of Persuasion."Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.