Opinion Science

In the 1980s, two social psychologists--Rich Petty and John Cacioppo--devised a new way to make sense of persuasion: the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Their work came on the heels of an era in psychology when people were fed up with persuasion research. The old studies were a mess, and it wasn't clear if it was even possible to understand how persuasion works. In the course of studying for an exam in graduate school, Rich and John started sketching out some ways to make sense of things. Over the next decade or so, those ideas blossomed into a fully formed theory that continues to inspire persuasion research today.In this episode, I bring you up to speed on the Elaboration Likelihood Models and the incredible stories of happenstance that made it all happen. The foundation of the episode includes an interview with Rich Petty, a psychology professor at Ohio State University. In the latter half of the episode, we hear from Pablo Briñol, psychology professor at Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Plus, there are some bonus words from Bob Cialdini.If you want to dive really deep into the Elaboration Likelihood Model, check out the 1986 chapter in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). For the updated aspect of the model--"self-validation"--you can check out a recent paper by Pablo and Rich (Briñol & Petty, 2022).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.

Drs. Sarah Gaither and Analia Albuja study racial identity and how we can overcome racial biases. They just published an important new study on the effects of random roommate assignments on students' ability to develop diverse social networks.Our conversation focuses on two key research papers: Gaither & Sommers (2013); Albuja et al. (in press).And if you haven't listened to my episode on the Contact Hypothesis (Episode 44), it pairs well with this one!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.

Dave Fleischer is a political organizer who led the team that pioneered “deep canvassing,” which is a particularly effective form of face-to-face persuasion. It was developed on the ground, but when political scientists put it to a rigorous test, they found that these brief conversations with voters were having a lasting impact (Broockman & Kalla, 2016).On this episode, Dave shares his background in political campaigns and walks us through an actual example of deep canvassing that made a real difference to someone's attitudes toward transgender people.If you want to know more, check out Dave's Substack, where he's written a lot of great articles about his team's approach to persuasion.Also, doing my due diligence, I'll link to the movie I mentioned in the intro--“Salesman” (1969)--if you want to dive into classic American cinéma verité.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.

Christian Wheeler studies the intersection of opinions, communication, and personal identity. He's a professor of management and marketing at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. In our conversation, we talk about the quirks of teaching in a business school, the promise of improv exercises for learning life skills, and his new research on the reputational benefits (or not) of being good at self-control and willing to listen to people with diverse viewpoints (Hussein & Wheeler, 2024). 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.

Aviva Philipp-Muller studies why people might pass on science. She's an Assistant Professor of marketing at the Beedie School of Business at Simon Fraser University. We talked about her research on people's openness to science in consumer products and how they're marketed. She also shared her perspective on how anti-science views are an issue of persuasion.Things that come up in this episode:The public science lecture circuit in 19th-century America (Finnegan, 2016; 2021)The use of science in advertising consumer products (Philipp-Muller et al., 2023)Why people are anti-science and what we can do about it (Philipp-Muller et al., 2022)Aviva's YouTube ChannelThe “Nights with Science” ad from 1863: https://www.ohiohistory.org/science-lectures/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.

Aaron Barnes is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Louisville College of Business. He studies how persuasion, branding, and consumer–brand relationships differ between cultures. In our conversation, we talk about Aaron's story and some of his research on how the influence of calling a product "top-rated" versus "best-selling" depends on culture (Barnes & Shavitt, 2024). 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 Halpern is the President & Founding Director of the Behavioral Insights Team. It started as a "nudge unit" in the British government but has gone on to become its own company with offices around the world. We talked to David in 2021 when we were gathering interviews for our podcast series, They Thought We Were Ridiculous: The Unlikely Story of Behavioral Economics. But he had a lot of great insight on the role of behavioral science in public policy, so I wanted to share our full conversation as a standalone episode.Several years ago, David wrote a great book about the Behavioral Insights Team and what it's learned about applying behavioral science at scale. That book is: Inside the Nudge Unit: How Small Changes Can Make a Big Difference (and I really enjoyed it).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.

Daniel Kahneman was a titan in social science. He transformed our understanding of decision-making, he taught a generation about social psychology, he won a Nobel prize. It's hard to overstate his influence. He passed away last week, and the field is mourning the loss. Along with the hosts of the podcast Behavioral Grooves, I interviewed Kahneman back in 2021, and we used that interview as a foundation of our podcast series, "They Thought We Were Ridiculous: The Unlikely Story of Behavioral Economics."I had already been considering releasing the full interview as a standalone episode of Opinion Science, and under the circumstances, it felt like sharing it now was a nice tribute to the man who had contributed so much. I hope listening to this is a comforting and warm reminder of his impact on behavioral science.This isn't a typical Opinion Science episode, though, because the interview was mostly for research and pulling soundbites. We didn't set out for it to be a polished standalone interview. As a result, we go down rabbit holes, get technical, assume shared knowledge, etc. So, I make no promises that you'll follow every moment of the interview if you're not already familiar with Kahneman's work, but it might still be a fun listen anyway.Thanks again to Danny Kahneman for reminiscing about the early days of his career with us.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.

Andy Guess studies how social media platforms shape people's political views. He's an assistant professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University. Last summer, he was part of a big team that released four papers on their analyses and experiments in social media all at the same time. The research was in collaboration with Meta, the company responsible for Facebook and Instagram. Andy and the team were able to dissect how often people on these platforms are exposed to political opinions, particularly from people whose opinions differ from their own. They were also able to conduct experiments on these platforms. By turning some of the knobs and levers, could they influence people's engagement on these platforms and even change their political views?The four big research papers that all came out together are:Guess et al. (2023, Science): How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign?Guess et al. (2023, Science): Reshares on social media amplify political news but do not detectably affect beliefs or opinionsGonzalez-Bailon et al. (2023, Science): Asymmetric ideological segregation in exposure to political news on FacebookNyhan et al. (2023, Nature): Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizingFor 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.

Sendhil Mullainathan does a lot of things, and he does them well. He's a professor of Computation and Behavioral Science at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. I originally talked to Sendhil for our podcast series, They Thought We Were Ridiculous. He was well-positioned to give his perspective on a contentious, interdisciplinary field of social science called “behavioral economics.” But nowadays, behavioral economics is mainstream, but Sendhil has continued to study big questions that cut across the typical academic boundaries between disciplines. We talk about AI, economics, and racial bias.You can listen to our full series on behavioral economics here (Sendhil's voice pops up in episodes 3 and 4).Also, the study we discuss testing racial discrimination in hiring practices was first reported in this 2003 paper in American Economic Review.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.

To look into the future of Behavioral Economics, we talked to three young researchers who are pushing the field further. A new generation of researchers is striving to understand decision-making in the developing world, how brains process economic decisions, and how bigger, more transparent scientific methods can shed light on basic principles of choice. This is the second episode of a special series called: "They Thought We Were Ridiculous: The Unlikely Story of Behavioral Economics."For more information, check out the Opinion Science webpage for this series: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/they-thought-we-were-ridiculous/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.

Eventually, Behavioral Economics emerged as an influential perspective. It's become mainstream in Economics, and it's helped inform programs and policies that affect real people every day. This is the second episode of a special series called: "They Thought We Were Ridiculous: The Unlikely Story of Behavioral Economics."For more information, check out the Opinion Science webpage for this series: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/they-thought-we-were-ridiculous/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.

Behavioral Economics was using psychology to understand economics, but what did economists and psychologists think about their unexpected marriage? Slowly, this fledgling field weathered a flurry of criticism from both sides as it doggedly held onto data-driven ideas about economic decision-making. This is the second episode of a special series called: "They Thought We Were Ridiculous: The Unlikely Story of Behavioral Economics."For more information, check out the Opinion Science webpage for this series: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/they-thought-we-were-ridiculous/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.

Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky were two psychologists with big ideas about how people made decisions. Their careful research launched a brand new way of understanding people's choices, and it helped fan the flames of Behavioral Economics.This is the second episode of a special series called: "They Thought We Were Ridiculous: The Unlikely Story of Behavioral Economics."For more information, check out the Opinion Science webpage for this series: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/they-thought-we-were-ridiculous/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.

For years, neoclassical economists have made an unusual assumption—that people are rational decision-makers. But a few social scientists have dared to challenge that assumption. They've collected observations, analyzed data, and presented their perspective. Their work would usher in a new era of Economics. This is the second episode of a special series called: "They Thought We Were Ridiculous: The Unlikely Story of Behavioral Economics."For more information, check out the Opinion Science webpage for this series: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/they-thought-we-were-ridiculous/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.

Coming February 26th! I team up with the guys at Behavioral Grooves to produce a 5-part podcast series on behavioral economics. We tell the story of how some young social scientists took issue with assumptions that economists were making about how people make decisions, and they ended up transforming the field. Their insights went on to shape governments and businesses around the world.The whole series will drop on the Opinion Science podcast feed on February 26th. See you then!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.

Jack Dovidio's work is at the heart of how we currently understand the psychology of prejudice. He's spent his career considering where prejudice comes from, how people express it, how it biases people's judgments and behaviors, and what we could do to address it. He's an emeritus professor at Yale University, and he's also just a really pleasant guy to talk to. In our conversation, we cover his early days as a social psychologist studying when people will help each other out, his research on "aversive racism," and his work studying the effects of racial bias in medical treatment.The new book out by Jack, Lou Penner, and others is: "Unequal Health: Anti-Black Racism and the Threat to America's Health"Things that come up in the intro:Gordon Allport's “The Nature of Prejudice”Polling over time on interracial marriage (Gallup) and racial progress (Pew)Economists sell baseball cards on eBay to learn about racism (Ayres et al., 2015)A retrospective on The Nature of Prejudice (Dovidio et al., 2005)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.

Jim McNulty is a professor of psychology at Florida State University. He studies close relationships, and in this episode, we talk about his research on "automatic partner attitudes." When someone sees their romantic partner, their feelings about that person spring automatically to mind. And sometimes those feelings conflict with what they openly SAY they feel about their partner. Jim shares his findings from studies that measure people's feelings toward their partners.Things that come up in this episodeA longitudinal study of newlyweds shows how automatic attitudes are related to relationship outcomes years later (McNulty et al., 2013)Automatic evaluations of one's partner are related to relationship satisfaction (Turner & McNulty, 2020)Interventions that improve people's evaluations of their partners improve relationships outcomes (McNulty et al., 2017)A recent paper summarizing Jim's work on automatic evaluations of one's partner (Faure et al., 2024)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.

Happy New Year! For the first time in the show's history, this episode's a day late. Sorry, dear listeners.So it's 2024, and what better way to kick off the new year than to dive into some nostalgia for 2023 already? As has become tradition around here, I compiled some clips of favorite moments on the podcast from the last year. As I say every year, it's not truly a “best of” per se because I really am attached to every episode. Instead, I've chosen some clips that highlight the kind of show this is, including some of the things that made this year especially special.If you're new to the show, this is a great place to start! And if you've been listening since the beginning, join me on some fun memories from this year.-AndyFeatured 2023 episodes:Episode 72: Fighting Against Misinformation with Sander van der LindenEpisode 77: Opinions in the Brain with Uma KarmarkarEpisode 83: The Fundamental Nature of Opinion with Russ FazioEpisode 85: Having Curious Conversations with Mónica GuzmánSciComm Summer #18: Alie Ward on Making OlogiesSciComm Summer #19: Latif Nasser on Making RadiolabFor 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.

Elizabeth Dunn studies the psychology of happiness. One of her major research areas has looked at generosity's effects on well-being. We're happier when we spend money on other people. But studying happiness has its challenges, especially if we want to build strategies that help people feel happier. So, she shared a snapshot of her research on happiness and a new paper with Dunigan Folk looking at how strong the evidence is for different happiness-boosting strategies.Things that come up in this episode: A big social experiment through the TED organization to see what people do when they receive $10,000 (Dwyer & Dunn, 2022; Dwyer et al., 2023)The benefits of generosity for our well-being (see Dunn et al., 2020; also see Episode 23 with Lara Aknin)Digging deep into the research on happiness to see how strong the evidence is for happiness-boosting strategies (Folk & Dunn, 2023; also Folk & Dunn, 2024)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.

Mikaela Spruill studies juries and the legal system's role in sustaining social inequalities. She's a postdoctoral fellow in criminal justice with SPARQ at Stanford University. In our conversation, Mikaela shares the benefits and drawbacks of juries in the courtroom, how scientists study jury decision-making, and how jurors apply very specific legal standards to interpreting the facts of a case. Things that come up in this episodeA very brief history of juries (Alschuler & Deiss, 1994; Carey, 1994; Massachusetts Office of Jury Commissioner)A summary of early research in jury decision-making (Devine et al., 2001) and the University of Chicago Jury Project (Broeder, 1959; Cornwell, 2010)The quick clip in the intro (“I'm just saying a coincidence is possible”) is from the 1957 film, 12 Angry Men.A summary of research on jury decision-making (Spruill & Hans, in press)How jurors apply the “objectively reasonable” standard to interpreting the facts of a case (Spruill & Lewis, 2022; 2023)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.

James Druckman studies how political messages can shape people's opinions. He is maybe best known for his work on framing issues as a strategic communication strategy. He also has a recent paper on "a framework for the study of persuasion," which organizes the many variables that matter for persuasion.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.

Mónica Guzmán wants us to have better conversation with the people we disagree with. She's the Senior Fellow for Public Practice at Braver Angels, and in 2022, she released her book, "I Never Thought of It That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times." This year, she launched a brand new podcast called "A Braver Way," which is about how we can disagree about politics without losing heart. We talk about how to have curious conversations, why we would want to do so, and how we can learn from other peoples' example. 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.

Lindsay Hahn studies how entertainment media convey moral messages, especially among children. She's an assistant professor of communication at the University at Buffalo, where she leads the Media Psychology and Morality Lab. We talk about her background, how her team surveys media for the moral lessons they communicate, and how her new work is turning an eye to terrorist propaganda.Things that come up in this episode:Mr. Rogers' testimony before a Senate subcommittee.Content analyses of children's entertainment media (Aley et al., 2021; Hahn, 2022; Hahn et al., 2022a)Effects of media on children's and adolescents' morality (Hahn et al., 2022b; 2022a)Analyses of terrorist propaganda (Hahn et al., 2023b)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.

Russ Fazio has spent his career getting to the bottom of how opinions work. From his first study as a college student in 1974 to a leading expert in basically everything, his work has had a deep impact on the field of social psychology (and communication and political science...) His research over the years has included game-changing work on cognitive dissonance, implicit bias, automatic cognition, negativity biases, and the relationship between attitudes and behavior.How to cover a whole career in one podcast episode!? We stick to a few highlights. Russ shares some of his earliest work that leapt on a real-world challenge to test basic theoretical ideas, how he was able to push the boundaries of technology to examine how opinions spring to mind automatically, and how a creative video game about beans can reveal deep truths about the human condition.This episode was recorded in person at the WOSU studios! Shout out to them for making the process so easy.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.

Taylor Carlson studies how people navigate political discussions. She does a bunch of interesting work, but I was most interested in talking with her about book she published with Jaime Settle last year. It's called What Goes Without Saying: Navigating Political Discussion in America. In it, they report their findings from a variety of surveys and experiments and organize them into a four-step model of political discussion. I talked to Taylor about how she got interested in this area, how the book makes sense of how people approach talking politics with others, and what the future holds.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.

Morteza Dehghani is a psychologist and computer scientist who uses sophisticated analytics to churn through the words we use when we talk to each other. From that, he and his colleagues can get an idea of people's moral sensibilities and the consequences of letting morality imbue our opinions on important issues. We talk about his origins in the field and the key insights he's come to about people's moral sense.In the intro, I talk about Toki Pona--the world's smallest language. You can find more at the official Toki Pona website. I also mentioned interesting work on morality, language, and culture by Emma Buchtel (e.g., Buchtel et al., 2015; Buchtel, 2022).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.

Dan Simons and Chris Chabris are psychological scientists who care about attention and reasoning. They're probably best known for their groundbreaking experiments on "inattentional blindness" where they built a scenario in which people would look straight at someone in a gorilla costume and not even know it. The point is: for as smart as we are, we miss a lot of stuff. And it's not just gorillas. Dan and Chris have a new book out on the psychology behind why people fall prey to scams and cons. It's called: Nobody's Fool: Why We Get Taken In and What We Can Do about It. It's a fun read, full of stories of swindlers and cheats and the science behind how we get taken in by them. We talk about how Dan and Chris became partners in science and what they've learned about the psychology of attention and reasoning.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.

Latif Nasser is the current co-host of the WNYC show Radiolab. Radiolab is probably the first podcast I was ever really a fan of. I've been listening since 2007 when it was hosted by Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich. It's an amazing show that leans on the incredible audio production to convey the wonder of science. The show has branched out to tell all kinds of stories--not just about science--but it's still one of the best science shows out there.Latif came to Radiolab while working on his Ph.D. in the History of Science at Harvard. He eventually joined the show's team to report stories and occupy the role of Director of Research. In 2020, he joined Lulu Miller as co-host of the show. Also in 2020, he hosted a 6-episode show for Netflix: Connected: The Hidden Science of Everything. And I think I first really learned about Latif through an incredible (although not super science-y) series he produced, The Other Latif. Seriously, you have to check it out.In our conversation, we talk about the philosophy of science communication, the role of narrative, and how Radiolab works. We also break down an episode that Latif reported in 2021, "Of Bombs and Butterflies."You can find the rest of this summer's science communication podcast series here.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.

Alie Ward is a lot of things--an actor, illustrator, TV host. But I was especially interested in talking to her about her undeniably popular science podcast, Ologies. Her show shares interviews with all sorts of scientists. It's so delightful and engaging, and Alie puts in the work to fill the listener in behind the scenes on things you wouldn't know if you just listened to the interview. Think you're not interested in indigenous bees? Well, just listen to her interview with a Native Melittologist and think again.We talk about Alie's backstory, how she approaches Ologies, and what we're trying to do when we share science with a big, public audience.You can find the rest of this summer's science communication podcast series here.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.

Siri Carpenter began her science writing journey without a playbook. She was working on a Ph.D. in social psychology and ended up being awarded a AAAS Mass Media Science & Engineering Fellowship where she got critical experience in the field. From there, she took on assignments, pitched stories, and tried to figure out how to do the job of a science journalist.In trying to figure things out, she talked to experienced writers and thought other people would benefit from what they had to say too. And thus The Open Notebook (TON) was born. It's been a powerful resource for science writers, providing free access to articles and interviews about the craft. The website also includes courses and a "pitch database." In 2020, Siri's edited book "The Craft of Science Writing" was released, featuring new and established articles from TON. In our conversation, she shares her journey and offers advice for aspiring science journalists.You can find the rest of this summer's science communication podcast series here.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.

Sam Jones wears many hats. She's executive producer of the podcast Tiny Matters. She's also worked on other podcast and video projects. She's written about science for The Washington Post, New York Times, Scientific American, and more. She's also the current president of the D.C. Science Writers Association. Oh, and she got her Ph.D. in Biomedical Science at UCSD in 2018. Sam does good work and has to find her own way into science communication as an "alternative" to the more typical academic pathways laid out in grad school. In our conversation, we talk about her journey and what she's learned about doing scicomm her way. You can find the rest of this summer's science communication podcast series here.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 Mastroianni is a social psychologist and the author of Experimental History, available on Substack. But what is Substack? And is it a good vehicle for science communication? Adam shares his experiences writing for a non-academic audience and also reflects on the role of "science communication" in the world. Should there be a division between the scientists and the science communicators? What is a scientist's responsibility in keeping in touch with the public?We also discuss his new article in The Atlantic: "I Ruined Two Birthday Parties and Learned the Limits of Psychology."You can find the rest of this summer's science communication podcast series here.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.

Melinda Wenner Moyer is a science journalist and contributing editor at Scientific American magazine. Recently, Melinda received the Excellence in Science Journalism award from The Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the 2019 Bricker Award for Science Writing in Medicine, and her work was featured in the 2020 Best American Science and Nature Writing anthology. But that's only recently. She's been writing about science for major outlets for years and doing it really, really well. In 2021, she released her first book—How to Raise Kids Who Aren't Assholes, which is a great parenting book that actually cares about evidence from behavioral science.We talk about how she got started and her new book, but we also do a deep dive on a 2017 feature article she wrote for Scientific American about whether legal access to guns actually deters crime and makes people safer ("More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows"). It's a really great example of what science journalism can be, and I wanted to know every step of how something like that gets written.You can find the rest of this summer's science communication podcast series here.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.

(Another) special summer series on science communication! Regular Opinion Science episodes will resume in August.Announcing another season of my special podcast mini-series for the summer focused on 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.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.

Dr. Dannagal Young studies political humor. She pulls together psychology, communications, and political science, to understand how political satire works to change minds and expand political knowledge. She also has a new book: Irony and Outrage: The Polarized Landscape of Rage, Fear, and Laughter in the United States, which explores how satire became a tool of political left and outrage media because a tool of the political right.Update: This episode was replayed on June 5th, 2023 and contains an extra interview at the end about some newer work. Danna's TED talk came out in 2020. She just released a full lecture series on Propaganda and Persuasion through The Great Courses. And later this year, you can read her new book Wrong: How Media, Politics, and Identity Drive our Appetite for Misinformation (out October 17, 2023).Some things that come up on this episode:Daily Show viewers were particularly well-informed about the 2004 election (Young, 2004)Jon Stewart defending the Daily Show on Crossfire (2006)Jokes lead people to suspend critical thinking about a message (Polk, Young, & Holbert, 2009; Young, 2008)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.

Erin O'Mara Kunz is an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Dayton. We spend the whole episode on her new paper analyzing racial and gender biases in the voting decisions on the reality TV show, Survivor. We dig into how Survivor is a useful test case for understanding discrimination, what the data tell us, and what conclusions we can take away.Things that come up in this episode:In the intro, I mention that social scientists are no strangers to analyzing decisions in televised game shows. These include analyses of  bets placed on the show Jeopardy! (Metrick, 1995), choices on Deal or No Deal (Post et al., 2008), and bids on The Price is Right (e.g., Berk et al., 1996)Erin's new paper analyses trends over 40 seasons of Survivor (Kunz et al,. in press)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.

Leor Hackel studies how we learn about other people and how we make decisions about them. He's an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Southern California, and he uses neuroscience, economic games, and computational models to sort out what's going on in our heads as we're getting information about other people. Things that we mention in this episodeDolf Zillmann's disposition theory (Zillmann & Cantor, 1972; 1996; also see affective disposition theory [Wiki])The difference between "reward associations" and "trait impressions" in how we learn about other people (Hackel et al., 2020; 2022), including differences in brain processes (Hackel et al., 2015)People will give more to someone who gave them more, even if that person is just as "generous" a person as someone who gave less (Hackel et al., 2018)We can form impressions of others is various sorts of "gist" memories (Hackel et al., in press)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.

This week, I'm happy to reshare my conversation with political scientist, Alex Coppock. This episode first ran on October 12, 2020, and just a few months ago, Alex published his book, "Persuasion in Parallel: How Information Changes Minds about Politics." The book nicely aligns with our conversation on the podcast, so it seemed like a good reason to reshare the original episode. Enjoy! See you in a couple weeks with a brand new episode. Original Episode: #22 - Political Persuasion with Alex Coppock---Alex Coppock is an assistant professor of Political Science at Yale University. His research considers what affects people's political beliefs, especially the kinds of messages people regularly encounter--TV ads, lawn signs, Op-Eds, etc. In this episode, he shares the findings of a big, new study that just came out as well as what it means for how persuasion works. Things that came up in this episode:A new study testing dozens the efficacy of dozens of political ads (Coppock, Hill, & Vavreck, 2020)The long-lasting effects of newspaper op-eds on public opinion (Coppock, Ekins, & Kirby, 2018)The effects of lawn signs on vote outcomes (Green, Krasno, Coppock, Farrer, Lenoir, & Zingher, 2016)Framing effects in persuasion (for an overview, see Chong & Druckman, 2007)The sleeper effect (see here for an overview)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.

Uma Karmarkar is a decision neuroscientist. She tries to understand how people make decisions when they have too little or too much information, and she uses tools and theories from neuroscience, psychology, and economics. I wanted to get Uma's take on the value of neuroscience in trying understand consumer behavior. Does looking at brain signals give us anything special when we try to figure out why people buy what they buy, which advertisements are most influential, etc. We talk about the promises and limitations of neuroscience and cover a whole lot of ground in doing so!Things that come up in this episode:The opening example of a neural focus group to identify songs that would become hits is from Berns and Moore's (2012) experiment published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology. The other examples were also published studies, including the study on anti-smoking PSAs (Falk et al., 2012) and chocolate brand displays (Kühn et al., 2016). (By the way, I didn't actually just stumbled across those songs in the intro. As with most of the music in the podcast, they came from Epidemic Sound.)Uma has two great summary articles on the role of neuroscience in consumer psychology (Karmarkar & Plassmann, 2019; Karmarkar & Yoon, 2016)And because it came up, I'll plug my one fMRI study on certainty and ambivalence in the brain (Luttrell et al., 2016)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.

Ben Rosenberg studies how people react to having their freedom threatened. He is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Dominican University of California. In addition to conducting his own studies on this question, he has exhaustively reviewed decades of research on something called "psychological reactance theory." In our conversation, we break down what reactance is, where it comes from, who it applies to, and what questions about it are still unanswered.Things that come up in this episode:2022 set new records for attempts to ban books in the United States (Associated Press, 2023)In the intro, I tell a personal story about book bans in my school district, but don't worry--I have sources (1, 2, 3)Banning books has been linked to increases in sales (e.g., The Hill, 2022)Psychology research has found that censorship can change people's attitudes (e.g., Worchel & Arnold, 1973)Ben and his advisor summarized a long history of research on psychological reactance (Rosenberg & Siegel, 2018)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.

Guy Itzchakov knows how to listen. He's an associate professor in the Department of Human Services at the University of Haifa. He studies the markers of high-quality listening. But it's not that he tries to figure out who listens well and who doesn't. Instead, he's focused on how receiving high-quality listening affects us as speakers. He finds, for example, that when someone really, deeply listens to what we have to say, it provides us with a safe opportunity to explore where we really stand, realizing that the world is more nuanced than our simple opinions make them out to be. In our conversation, Guy shares the hallmarks of quality listening and what impact they have on speakers.Things that come up in this episode:Psychologist Carl Rogers and his pioneering work on person-centric therapy and empathic listening. Sources for the intro included: Boettcher, Hofmann, and Wu (Noba Textbook); Owen (2022); Rogers and Roethlisberger (1952)The markers of good listening: attention, comprehension, and positive intention (see Kluger & Itzchakov, 2022)Being listened to can lead people to openly acknowledge their ambivalence (Itzchakov et al., 2017) while becoming more clear in their views (Itzchakov et al., 2018).Speakers who experienced high-quality listening became less prejudiced in their views of other groups (Itzchakov et al., 2020)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.

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.

Maureen Craig studies how we navigate a diverse social world. She's an associate professor of psychology at New York University. In our conversation, she shares her work looking at people's reactions to the ever-increasing diversity of their social environments. How do people react to the news that one day, less than half of the U.S. population will be White? She also shares her other work on who tends to advocate for whom. What makes an "ally"? When do members of one minority group stand up for another minority group? Things that come up in this episode:People often implicitly associate “American” with “White” (see Devos & Mohamed, 2014)According to the U.S. Census, less than half of Americans under 18 are White (AP News, 2021) and less than half of White Americans live in predominantly White neighborhoods (Washington Post, 2022)For a summary of the work on people's reactions to increasing racial diversity, see Craig et al. (2018)For a summary of the work on solidarity and allyship, check out Craig et al. (2020)People assume that certain racial groups are aligned on specific social and political issues (Craig et al., 2022)Framing inequality in terms of the disadvantaged group prompts more support for action than framing it in terms of the advantaged group (Dietze & Craig, 2021)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.

Sander van der Linden studies the psychology of misinformation. He and his lab have conducted studies to understand why people believe false information, and they've also leveraged the psychology of "inoculation" to build tools that help people avoid falling prey to misinformation. He describes this work and more in his new book, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects Our Minds and How to Build Immunity.You can play the video game that Sander's lab built to inoculate people against misinformation. The game is called Bad News.At the beginning of the episode, I share the story of the first bit of fake news in American media. In tracing the arc of the story and getting the critical details, I turned primarily to Andie Tucher's recent book, Not Exactly Lying: Fake News and Fake Journalism in American History. Other details thanks to an interview Tucher did, a story in The Saturday Evening Post, and an article by Emmanuel Paraschos.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.

April Bailey is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of New Hampshire, and she studies the psychology of androcentrism—people's tendency to think of men as a stand-in for all people and treating women's experiences as the outlier. We talk about exactly what androcentrism is, the kinds of evidence we have for it, and what it means for the future of how we think about gender.Things that come up in this episode:The history of the genderless pronoun "thon," including a question in The Straight Dope (see Baron, 2018; Converse, 1884; Merriam-Webster)An overview of the psychology of androcentrism (Bailey et al., 2019)Androcentrism reflected in the order in which people are listed (Hegarty et al., 2011)Billions of words on the internet highlight everyday androcentrism (Bailey et al., 2022)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.

Another year in the books! I don't think I ever really mastered writing the year as "2022," and now I have to write "2023." I'll figure it out one of these days.But another year meant another year of Opinion Science! This year saw even more new listeners, amazing guests, and an ambitious series of episodes over the summer. Your support has meant a lot.So even though I'm (again) a week or so behind on this, I wanted put together another "best of" episode, featuring notable moments from the podcast in 2022. As I say every year, it's not truly a “best of” per se because I really am attached to every episode. Instead, I've chosen some clips that highlight the kind of show this is, including some of the things that made this year especially special.If you're new to the show, this is a great place to start! And if you've been listening since the beginning, join me on some fun memories from this year.-AndyFeatured 2022 episodes:Episode 54: Influence is Your Superpower with Zoe ChanceEpisode 57: Media, Norms, & Social Change with Sohad MurrarEpisode 58: How Minds Change with David McRaney (ft. Adam Mastroianni)Episode 63: Why We Need Polls with G. Elliott MorrisEpisode 64: Saving Democracy with Robb WillerEpisode 68: Intellectual Humility with Tenelle PorterSciComm Summer #1: Joss Fong – Producing Science VideosSciComm Summer #2: Meryl Horn – Producing “Science Vs”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.

Geoff Durso studies what happens when we face mixed information. When people do good things and bad things. When a product has positive and negative qualities. Geoff's an assistant professor of marketing at DePaul University. He's also an old friend of mine. We met up at a conference and caught up, chatting about some of the cool work Geoff has done on the nature of ambivalence.(As I mention in the intro, you can also check out Episode 35 with Iris Schneider for more on ambivalence.)Things that come up in this episode:Geoff's early work on ambivalence (Rydell & Durso, 2012)The effects of expecting ambivalence (Durso et al., 2021)How psychological power makes us delay making decisions when we're ambivalent (Durso et al., 2016)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.

Tony Barnhart is Associate Professor of Psychological Science at Carthage College. But just as notably, he's a magician. As a result of this dual identity, he has the unique distinction of being an expert in the psychology of magic. Magicians have long prided themselves on understanding and exploiting human psychology, but Tony actually brings a scientific perspective. He's on the committee for the Science of Magic Association and played a central role in the book Sleights of Mind: What the Neuroscience of Magic Reveals about Our Everyday Deceptions. Today on the podcast, Tony shares his work on the psychology of attention, what we can learn from magicians' expertise in "misdirection," and what science can give back to magic.Opening the show is a chat with my buddy Erik Tait. Erik has the unique honor of recently placing third in card magic at F.I.S.M., the Olympics of magic. You can watch his winning act below. Erik shares his story of training for the big competition and what he's learned about the psychology of directing attention.Things that come up in this episode:We mention the "Invisible Gorilla" experiment a few times. You can learn more and see a video here.For a nice overview of Tony's research on the psychology of magic, check out his 15-minute keynote address for the 2020 American Psychological Association virtual meeting (video)Tracking people's attention by recording their eye movements while watching magic tricks (Barnhart & Goldinger, 2014)"Microsaccades" (tiny eye movements) reveal whether people are fooled by a magic trick (Barnhart et al., 2019)How auditory rhythms can direct visual attention (Barnhart et al., 2018)Using "tactical blinking" as misdirection (Barnhart et al., 2022)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.

Tenelle Porter is a new colleague of mine at Ball State University. She's an educational psychologist, and one of the things she studies is intellectual humility, which is people's awareness of the limits of their knowledge and the fallibility of their reasoning. Intellectual humility offers a variety of handy benefits even though there has been some disagreement about what it is, exactly. I was excited to sit down with Tenelle and get her take on intellectual humility, what it does for people, and when we ought to have more or less of it.Things that come up in this episode:For a nice summary of a lot of the things we discuss, check out Tenelle's new review article in Nature Reviews Psychology (Porter et al., 2022a)Surveying different definitions of "intellectual humility" to clarify the content of this idea (Porter et al., 2022b)Intellectual humility promotes openness to other opinions (Porter & Schumann, 2018)Intellectual humility promotes mastery in learning (Porter et al., 2020)Classroom environments can shape students' intellectual humility (Porter et al., 2022c)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.

Margo Monteith is a Distinguished Professor of Psychological Sciences at Purdue University. She studies how we can reduce prejudice in the world by confronting those biases head-on. One way we can confront prejudice is to keep ourselves in check, paying attention to the ways in which we might say or do something biased. Another way we can confront prejudice is to call out other people when they say or do something biased. In our conversation, Margo gives a big overview of her work in these areas and highlights the importance of keeping these biases under control. For big, up-to-date overviews of the research we talk about in this episode, you can check out a new chapter in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Monteith et al., 2022) and Margo's 2019 book with Robyn Mallet: Confronting Prejudice and Discrimination.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.