0:00

Hi,

0:07

I'm Chelsea Clinton, and this is in fact,

0:10

a podcast about why public health matters

0:12

even when we're not in a pandemic. Today

0:15

we're talking about what works and what doesn't

0:17

when it comes to helping people have good information

0:20

to make good decisions for their health, even

0:22

when they may need to change their behavior or their

0:24

minds. Throughout this pandemic,

0:27

we've seen the impact individual decisions can

0:29

have on our collective health, whether it's wearing

0:31

masks, practicing social distancing, or

0:33

getting vaccinated. But getting

0:35

people to do those things requires effective

0:37

messaging and effective trusted

0:39

messengers. Today, I'm talking with

0:42

two people who have spent years figuring out what

0:44

it takes to spark widespread change in actions

0:46

and attitudes. Later

0:48

we'll hear from Polster author, political

0:50

strategists and communications consultant Frank

0:53

Lentz, But first I'm talking

0:55

with behavioral economist Maya Shankar.

0:58

Maya has spent year studying why people

1:01

do what we do and how to encourage

1:03

positive changes that can have huge results.

1:06

She's currently Google's Global director of Behavioral

1:08

Economics, which I hope to talk to about in a

1:10

future episode. For today's conversation,

1:13

we're focused on her time as senior advisor in the

1:15

Obama administration, where she founded

1:17

and served as chair of the White House's Behavioral

1:20

Science Team, a group of scientists

1:22

studying the intersection between human behavior

1:24

and public policy and using that

1:26

science to help motivate people to make choices

1:28

to improve their health and their lives. Maya.

1:32

I'm so thrilled to welcome to the podcast. Thank

1:34

you for being with us today. And I think

1:37

maybe we'll start with your story, if that's

1:39

okay, because I know that you originally

1:42

trained and I think thought you were going to become

1:44

a classical violinist and yet now

1:47

are a cognitive scientist. How

1:49

did that happen and what sparked your

1:51

interest in the field originally. I

1:53

think if you had told me as a child, one

1:55

day you'll be studying the mind, I would have been like, you're

1:58

crazy. I'm a violinist. Yeah.

2:00

When I was six, I started playing the violin and

2:02

it became serious very quickly. So when

2:04

I was nine, I started

2:06

studying at Juilliard every weekend, and

2:09

then when I was in my teens, it's like Pearlman

2:11

asked me to be his private violence student,

2:13

and that really accelerated things for me. And I

2:15

for anyone who may not know who it's like Pelman is,

2:18

explain why that was such a big deal. So

2:20

he's like arguably the best violinist in the

2:23

world. I still get tinkles saying

2:25

that he was my teacher. But yeah, it was

2:27

just such an amazing period of my life.

2:29

And then I had a hand injury suddenly

2:32

one day, and unfortunately, doctors

2:34

told me at that point that I could never play the violin

2:36

again. So I kind of went from like this peak

2:39

interest and passion to being told you

2:41

have to pivot. Oh, I'm so

2:43

sorry. I can't imagine how devastating

2:46

that was, especially given where you were at

2:48

that point in time and in your study and your

2:51

dreams for yourself, and yet you

2:53

imagined a different future. Yeah,

2:56

so I was pretty lost, and I

2:58

didn't know what it was that I

3:00

could be passionate about again. But fortunately

3:02

for me, the summer before college, I

3:05

stumbled upon a book on

3:07

how the mind works, and it basically detailed

3:09

the remarkable abilities that our minds

3:12

have to process language.

3:14

So this book was on language acquisition, and

3:16

I remember thinking, oh, my gosh,

3:18

this is amazing, Like I have taken my ability

3:20

to process language speak

3:23

language, comprehend it for granted

3:25

my entire life, and it's actually the result

3:27

of really sophisticated cognitive

3:29

processing and every thinking. If this is what

3:32

underlies language, like what underlies

3:34

even higher level stuff like doing

3:36

complex math, or thinking about deep philosophical

3:39

questions, or analyzing the cost benefit

3:41

of a public health policy, or falling

3:43

in love. And I just in that moment, I just became

3:46

so captivated by the inner

3:48

workings of the mind. And so that began

3:51

a decades long journey to

3:53

study the mind. So I got my PhD

3:55

and post doc in cognitive psychology

3:57

and neuroscience and basically have been

4:00

studying how and why we

4:02

make decisions, as well as how we develop

4:04

our attitudes and beliefs about the world.

4:06

And the reason why I believe this body

4:09

of research is so important is that one

4:11

of the things behavioral science teaches us

4:14

is that there are many surprising

4:16

factors that influence our behaviors,

4:18

factors we might not even be consciously

4:20

aware of. Before you were in Google, you

4:22

were at the White House and the Obama

4:24

administration, and you helped create the

4:26

White House Social and Behavioral Sciences

4:28

Team, which kind of colloquially

4:30

has been touched, has

4:32

been touched, has been has been dubbed

4:35

the nudge unit. Um. I don't know what

4:37

that says about my language acquisition, but could

4:40

you talk about what maybe some of

4:42

the work you did while you were at the White House

4:45

led to any changes at the federal level

4:47

on how we might nudge to help people

4:50

make better decisions for themselves. Yeah. So

4:52

one project we worked on was with the Department

4:54

of Veterans Affairs, and we were

4:56

trying to boost enrollment

4:58

in a benefits program m that veterans

5:01

could take advantage of upon returning

5:03

to this country. And the reason the government

5:05

offered this program is that assimilating back

5:08

to civilian life can be a very challenging transition,

5:10

and we wanted to do everything we could to aid the transition

5:13

right, to open up job opportunities, higher

5:15

education, etcetera, etcetera. And so

5:18

the v A was seeing, oh, man, you know, we're offering

5:20

this program, but participation rates are

5:22

low. What can we do about it? Especially

5:25

in a resource constrained environment

5:27

where we don't have a ton of dollars to throw at

5:29

this, But we really want to make sure that veterans

5:31

are getting the best experience they can. So

5:33

they came to us and they said, we just have this

5:35

one email to work with, Please do what you

5:37

can to it. We ended up changing just

5:39

one line in the email message. Instead

5:42

of telling veterans that they were eligible for

5:44

the program, we simply reminded

5:46

them that they had earned it through their years

5:48

of service. And that one word tweak

5:51

led to a nine percent increase in participation

5:54

in the program and access to the program,

5:56

which is many, many thousands of people. It's

5:58

a lot of veterans. What this owed us,

6:00

and the principle that it was based on is a

6:02

version of what's called the endowment effect, which

6:04

says that we value things more when

6:06

we feel we own them, or in this

6:08

case, have earned them, and that we have something to lose

6:11

by not taking advantage of them.

6:13

Another quick example of some of the work

6:15

we did at the White House had to do with going

6:17

to college. Every year of

6:21

college accepted high school grads who

6:23

are from urban districts failed

6:25

to matriculate in college in the fall because

6:27

they haven't completed required

6:30

tasks like filling out a course enrollment

6:32

form or taking a placement test. And

6:34

this is tragic, right, Chelsea, because these

6:36

are kids who have already overcome all the

6:38

barriers along the way when it comes to applying

6:41

to college and then even getting in, and

6:44

yet they don't end up matriculating

6:46

in the fall. So this phenomenon is known

6:48

as summer melts. And what

6:50

behavioral science shows us is that we reliably

6:53

underestimate the kinds of small

6:55

barriers that can deter people from achieving

6:57

their long term goal. What we found from our

6:59

inventions while at the White House was that

7:02

sending students just eight text

7:04

messages over the summer that reminded

7:06

them to complete these tasks boosted

7:08

college enrollment by nine and

7:10

so again like a really low cost

7:12

intervention, but it was a game changer for

7:14

these students. And like, I don't know these days,

7:17

what we send eight text messages within ten

7:19

minutes in our daily in our daily lives,

7:21

that could make the difference between a kid going

7:23

to college or not going to college. Do

7:25

you know if that program continued under the Trump administration.

7:29

It's a good question. Um, not sure in

7:31

this case. But what I did try to do when

7:34

designing the behavioral science team

7:36

within the White House was to build it in a very

7:38

bipartisan part of government because I just

7:40

felt like what we're promoting here

7:43

is not a partisan agenda. We're just

7:45

trying to make government programs smarter,

7:47

make sure that they actually achieve their

7:49

policy objectives. And so we built

7:52

the team in part of the government again

7:54

that's relatively bipartisan. It's called the General

7:56

Services Administration, which meant

7:58

that even though I disbanded the White

8:00

House component of the team when I left

8:02

the agency, components of the team

8:04

still persistent and we're still working on really

8:06

amazing programs. I'm just incredibly

8:09

curious now, having listened to your

8:12

reflections on your time in government,

8:14

what you think over the last fifteen

8:16

months, when so much has been made partisan

8:19

and political that really shouldn't have

8:21

been when it comes to COVID,

8:24

I think what's really important for people

8:26

to understand is that there are

8:29

obviously many underlying causes

8:31

for why people fall prey to misinformation

8:34

or labor under false beliefs, and it's really

8:37

important to understand the psychology underlying

8:39

each of these causes because then we can design

8:42

tailored solutions. We can't use a blunt instruments

8:44

to solve all of the problems. So if we can really

8:46

with this like fine point, figure out, Okay,

8:48

what is the psychology leading to X

8:51

non ideal outcome or why non ideal

8:53

outcome that we can really try and solve it. So, behavioral

8:55

economics has shed light on several

8:58

of these and has served up some potentially

9:01

very powerful solutions. So the first one

9:03

has to do with a framework called

9:05

cultural cognition, and this is work done by

9:07

Dan Kahan and others. He's a professor at Yale

9:10

Law School. Basically, what this theory

9:12

says is, look, we all know that people

9:14

can disagree strongly, even

9:16

on empirical matters, things that you and I are like,

9:18

Okay, these are just the facts. Is climate change

9:21

real? Does gun control regulation

9:23

lead to fewer deaths? Right? It's like yes

9:25

and yes, And so it's tempting

9:27

to think that in order to persuade

9:29

people of something, we just need to give them

9:32

more facts. It's just an information gap problem,

9:34

right. If we can just give them more

9:36

information, we can solve the problem. But

9:38

I think many of us see in our everyday

9:40

lives that this doesn't always

9:43

work. Right, Like the proverbial Thanksgiving

9:45

dinner where you're sitting across from your relative

9:47

and they're absolutely convinced that

9:49

COVID is not real and giving them.

9:52

More evidence just doesn't seem to work,

9:54

and that's because we may be failing

9:56

to appreciate a key piece of the

9:58

puzzle, and that's that we don't

10:01

just form our beliefs from facts.

10:03

We form our beliefs partly based on

10:05

our group identities and the values

10:08

that group has. There's this really illustrative

10:11

example, a classic study from the fifties

10:13

about sports team loyalty that I think highlights

10:15

this really well. So in this study,

10:18

fans of opposing teams were shown

10:20

footage of controversial referee

10:22

calls from a football game. Okay, and

10:24

even though these people were watching exactly

10:27

the same footage, they arrived at very

10:29

different conclusions about the referee calls

10:32

based on their loyalty to their sports team.

10:34

So they tended to think that calls were

10:37

unfair towards their team, but

10:39

not the opposing team. So what this study

10:41

illustrates is that there are internal

10:44

group allegiances are literally shaping

10:47

their their views of reality. So how does this relate

10:49

to COVID. What it shows us is

10:51

that people's beliefs about COVID

10:53

may in fact be serving as a deep reflection

10:56

of their values and their group membership.

10:58

Some of us think it's just if he's of cloth, wear

11:00

a mask for God's sake. But for many people,

11:03

wearing a mask or getting vaccinated

11:05

or social distancing can carry huge

11:08

symbolic significance. They feel

11:10

in some way that it threatens

11:13

their group membership. It's not this like thoughtful

11:15

cost benefit analysis of the inconvenience

11:17

of wearing a mask versus the risk of getting a virus,

11:20

and it is profound meaning within their social

11:22

networks. And I think, unfortunately,

11:24

so much of what we've seen over the last

11:27

many months now of COVID our efforts

11:29

from people who think they're doing the right thing

11:31

too by not only heaping more evidence,

11:34

but also often shouting

11:36

at people or shaming or attempting

11:38

to shame people. And we know that doesn't

11:41

work. It never works. How do you

11:43

think we can all just be more aware

11:46

of those different identities that we

11:48

carry within ourselves so that

11:50

we may better understand how they influence

11:53

our behavior and sometimes in ways

11:56

that our counter to what we think

11:58

we're doing. You are one

12:00

million percent right shouting, being

12:03

antagonistic, undermining people's values.

12:05

This stuff doesn't work. While it feels

12:08

good, we're like fulfilling some sort of deep

12:10

emotional need to just get it out. It's not

12:12

effective. Okay, So here's the good news.

12:14

Behavioral economics helps us to identify

12:16

part of this problem, but then it also offers

12:19

up some solutions. One of my favorite

12:21

bodies of research that's emerging,

12:23

it's really fresh, is called moral

12:25

reframing, and it's the idea that

12:28

when we ground our arguments in moral

12:31

terms that affirm, rather

12:33

than threaten the moral values of those we

12:35

disagree with, it's far more effective

12:38

at helping them change their views. So, to

12:40

give you a concrete example, if you're trying

12:42

to convince conservatives to care more

12:44

about the environment, you might appeal to values

12:47

that conservatives tend to hold, for example,

12:49

patriotism. There's research showing that

12:51

like a frame such as being pro

12:54

environmental allows us to protect

12:56

and preserve the American way of life. It

12:58

is patriotic to conserve this beautiful

13:01

country's natural resources, which by

13:03

I also agree with, Yeah,

13:05

I completely agree with exactly.

13:07

So this framing, which is holding

13:10

their values constant, but is saying

13:12

that they can achieve progress

13:14

on those values through climate change

13:16

reform, is a very effective

13:18

way of getting folks to change

13:21

their minds. And it's really funny. So I'm

13:23

I'm interviewing folks for this new podcast that

13:25

I'm coming out with, which is all about change, and

13:27

one of the people that I interviewed, she's a woman

13:30

named Megan Phelps Roper. She grew up

13:32

in this, you know, absolutely vile hate

13:34

group. It was a religious cult called the Westboro

13:36

Baptist Church. Oh, I'm very familiar

13:38

with the Westboro Baptist Church. It's

13:40

super venomous. And what was fascinating

13:42

about Megan's story is that she was

13:45

a true believer in her life. She

13:47

was born into the church, her grandfather founded

13:49

it. When she graduated from college, she became

13:52

one of the church's most vocal supporters.

13:54

And it was only when people

13:57

engaged with her in the way that I just described,

14:00

using these moral reframing techniques, that

14:02

it started to make a dent. That it

14:04

created a crack in her ideology

14:06

that ultimately led her to realize

14:09

that everything she had ever believed was

14:11

wrong and that she needed to challenge

14:13

her own views. But importantly, again,

14:15

they didn't tell her, Megan, your

14:17

views are absolutely completely insane.

14:20

They said, Okay, I'm going to take your values

14:22

as fixed, but I'm going to show you through

14:25

these reframing techniques why you might

14:27

want to think about them differently. And that was very powerful

14:30

for her. And I always think, wow, if you could take

14:32

someone who had such an extremist ideology

14:34

and use this kind of technique, how powerful

14:36

is that? And the other thing Chelsea I wanted to mention

14:39

is we really need to be thoughtful about

14:41

who the messenger is when communicating

14:44

some of these public health messages. We know

14:46

that people are far more

14:48

receptive to evidence that challenges their

14:51

existing views when it's coming from a member

14:53

of their own community. And importantly that

14:55

expert bodies, so public health officials

14:58

are far more persuasive when

15:00

they comprise a diverse group

15:02

of people that exist somewhere across this

15:04

political spectrum. I'm really

15:06

curious, Maya, whether we're talking about moral

15:08

reframing or nudge theory,

15:11

or the broader ecosystem

15:13

of everything under behavioral economics,

15:16

how do people feel if they're aware

15:18

of kind of the different ways that the

15:21

government, from your job when

15:23

you were at the White House, or private companies

15:25

like Google where you are now, how do people

15:27

feel like they're not being manipulated? My

15:30

belief always is that everybody

15:33

should know they're being nudged, because even

15:35

nudges that are completely transparent are

15:37

effective. Can you give an example of that.

15:39

Absolutely, So this actually relates

15:42

to the opiate epidemic. This is one of my favorite interventions.

15:44

So it's a complicated problem,

15:46

many underlying causes, but behavioral

15:49

science does tell us about one

15:51

of the causes, and it has the benefit

15:53

of being again highly transparent, very

15:56

low cost, and relatively easy to implement.

15:58

Okay, let's think of about that

16:01

moment in the doctor's office. When the doctor

16:03

is first prescribing an opioid prescription

16:05

for a patient. They're typically using some

16:08

sort of software, and that software

16:10

includes a default number, a preset

16:12

number of pills to prescribe to the

16:14

patient. What researchers found

16:17

is that when they lowered this default

16:19

number from thirty pills to twelve

16:21

pills in the system, it decreased

16:23

opioid prescriptions by across

16:26

an entire health system. So in this

16:28

case, like the researchers aren't pretending

16:31

they're trying to fool the doctor, right, the

16:33

number has changed in the system, and doctors

16:35

are very mindful of the fact that this number

16:37

has changed. But it is a really healthy nudge

16:40

to make doctors slightly more thoughtful

16:42

about just recommending the default

16:44

number in there and trying to engage in some

16:46

degree of critical

16:49

thinking in order to make sure that they're they're giving

16:51

the right amount. I always think of nudges

16:53

as being the sort of thing that help

16:56

people who already have this goal but are

16:58

facing obstacles or barriers to get over the

17:00

finish line. But it's just not powerful

17:02

enough a tool or an instrument to actually

17:04

convince people to do things that they don't already

17:07

want to do. We'll

17:10

be right back. Stay with us why

17:24

I was just just going to ask, because we've now talked so much

17:26

about nudges, and if you could

17:28

just provide maybe a coherent definition

17:31

of what a nudge is and what nudge theory

17:34

is. Yeah. So, behavioral

17:36

economics teaches us that there are these very

17:38

surprising factors that influence our behaviors,

17:41

and a nudge is

17:44

a design tweak that we might see

17:46

in any given policy or program

17:48

that reflects this understanding of the science

17:51

of human behavior. One of my favorite examples,

17:53

because this is an example that motivated me to go join

17:55

the government in the first place, was in the domain

17:58

of school lunches. Basically, the federal

18:00

government has a program that

18:02

offers millions of low income kids access

18:05

to free or reduced price lunches

18:07

at school. What we are finding is

18:09

that even though we are offering this program,

18:12

millions of kids were still going hungry every

18:14

single day at school. It was a tragedy

18:16

because the programs being offered, but parents aren't signing

18:18

up. So we try to figure out, Okay,

18:21

what are the behavioral factors that are underlying

18:24

this lack of participation, and then how can we design

18:26

a nudge that in turn helps solve it. And

18:28

what we realize when we do this behavioral analysis

18:31

is that one, parents aren't signing

18:33

up because the application process is extremely

18:36

burdensome. There's a single mom who's working

18:38

three jobs to make ends meet, and then we're asking

18:40

her to fill out this application form. It's

18:42

requiring that she references old tax documents

18:45

and there's a huge penalty if she gets one of these

18:47

pieces of information wrong, and so we're

18:49

setting her up for failure. And that's

18:51

one barrier. Another barrier

18:53

is stigma. So I remember when I was at the White

18:55

House, I spoke with principles from different

18:58

schools, like, for example, this one principle in Florida,

19:00

who said, these folks work

19:02

really hard, and the idea of actively

19:04

signing their kids up for a public benefits

19:07

program it's just a really hard thing for them

19:09

to swallow. They don't like the stigma associated

19:11

with having their kids rely on the government. So

19:14

what the government did is utilize

19:16

a nudge, which is an understanding that

19:18

when something is the default

19:21

option, when kids are automatically

19:23

enrolled in a program, and parents

19:25

only need to take an active step to unenrolled

19:28

their kids, it's can significantly boost

19:30

participation rates. So what we did is we are

19:32

What the government did is it realized, hey,

19:34

we we actually already have a bunch

19:36

of data around these kids

19:39

eligibility criteria because they're enrolled

19:41

in things like Medicaid or women's and children's

19:43

programs. We can use that data

19:46

to automatically enroll eligible kids.

19:48

So now as a default, all these kids are

19:50

now getting access to school lunch, and like I said

19:52

earlier, parents only need to take an

19:54

affirmative step that they actively want to unenroll

19:57

their kids. And as a result of this nudge, Chelsea

19:59

like twelve and a half million more

20:02

kids were now eating lunch at school every

20:04

day. So my we've talked a

20:06

lot about where nudges have worked.

20:08

Can you talk about where

20:10

either you or others in your field

20:12

have had a lot of hope about a nudge having

20:15

a similarly powerful impact and

20:17

then it just not working. One

20:20

place where I really see the limitations

20:23

of nudges and behavioral sciences in the

20:25

domain of changing your mind. I think

20:27

nudges are very effective when a person

20:29

has already decided that they want to do

20:32

something that maybe the long term goals

20:34

and their short term costs create some sort of tension.

20:36

It's like, oh, I know I want to eat healthier, I know I want

20:39

to exercise, but it's just so painful right

20:41

now, and I'd rather watch TV and eat the ritos.

20:43

And so nudges can be really effective at

20:45

helping to bridge that gap. They have an intention

20:47

to do something and you can translate it into action.

20:50

There are a lot less effective when it comes to changing

20:53

people's fundamental beliefs

20:55

about the world, their actual attitudes,

20:57

the opinions that they've made up over time.

21:00

So, as you mentioned, I mean think your instincts are totally

21:02

right. That yelling at people telling

21:04

that that they're wrong, that doesn't work. What does

21:07

work is what's known as motivational

21:09

interviewing. This kind of strategy of

21:11

interacting with people is a highly effective

21:13

tool for moving the needle

21:16

when it comes to mindset change.

21:18

So here are some of the tips that listeners

21:20

can take with them. So the first is you

21:23

want to show genuine curiosity for

21:25

the person's views. It needs to feel

21:27

like a conversation that you're having. And one way

21:29

to make it feel like a genuine conversation

21:31

is to increase the number of questions

21:34

you're asking versus the statements you're

21:36

making. I could be like, Chelsea, you

21:38

should think X, Y, and Z, or I could

21:40

say, Chelsea, why is it that you

21:42

think this thing? Like how did you come to develop

21:45

these beliefs in the first place. Another

21:47

technique that I think can be really powerful is

21:49

reminding people of their agency

21:52

that you're not forcing a

21:54

mindset shift on them. Instead,

21:57

you are recruiting their agency.

21:59

You are are giving them the tools

22:01

and maybe new information that they can

22:03

then noodle with to try to change their own

22:06

minds. And that's a much more sustainable

22:08

process. Right. If someone feels like they

22:10

came up with a new opinion, they changed

22:12

their mind on their own terms, it's

22:14

much more likely to be durable. Just

22:17

on a on a personal level, have you personally

22:19

nudged any of your family or friends? Are

22:21

there any personal anecdotes you can share as a final

22:23

question. So, I have a family member

22:26

overseas who I felt like I was not

22:28

taking COVID seriously enough and was like,

22:30

I read that if you eat these specific foods, you're

22:32

more likely to resist COVID, or you can build

22:34

immunity towards COVID, and

22:37

oh gosh, you know, my initial instinct was to be

22:39

like, this is so insane. How can

22:41

you believe these things? Like you're by genetic

22:43

relative? And then I

22:45

had to remind myself, Okay, don't

22:48

forget that. You need to, you know, validate

22:50

what he's saying, you know, repeat some of that back

22:52

in your language. And I don't

22:54

think I fully change things

22:56

for him, but he did get vaccinated.

22:59

I think though it matters my have for people to hear

23:01

that that it's even for you, who is,

23:04

you know, one of the world's leading experts

23:06

on nudge theory, that you still have

23:08

to do the hard work to hopefully anyone

23:10

listening to usk and think, oh, well, I can

23:13

do it too. There are a lot

23:15

of concrete steps we can take in

23:17

our own lives to try to help

23:19

make a positive impact. I think what behavioral

23:21

science teaches us is like it doesn't always have

23:23

to feel so emotionally charged

23:26

and explosive. Right. We can take these small

23:28

steps and over time to slowly chip away

23:30

because I think we can be more thoughtful about

23:32

the way that we engage with others and how

23:34

we approach the problem of behavior

23:36

change or mindset change. Well man,

23:39

thank you so much, Thank you for your time, thank

23:41

you for your work, thank you for your nudges, and

23:43

hopefully I will have the chance to talk again soon.

23:46

That sounds great. Thank you so much. Kelsee My's

23:50

new podcast, A Slight Change of

23:52

Plants is out this week, and trust

23:55

me, you won't want to miss it. There's

24:04

one thing we know for sure about encouraging more

24:06

people to wear masks or get vaccinated.

24:08

It's a lot harder because we're so politically

24:10

polarized here in the US. Frank

24:13

Lentz has seen and studied this

24:15

phenomenon up close. He's

24:17

a political communications expert, author,

24:19

and pundit known for shaping Republican

24:21

messaging and strategy over decades. He's

24:24

also a Polster, who has run far more focus

24:26

groups than just about anyone I know. As

24:29

his Twitter bio says, he'll show you what Americans

24:31

really think with data, facts and the occasional

24:33

meme. I've been fascinated

24:35

by the work Frank has done over the last several months to

24:38

understand why some people are more likely

24:40

to believe that COVID nineteen isn't a threat to them,

24:42

and why then they're less likely to get a COVID

24:45

nineteen vaccine. We caught up in

24:47

between the classes he's currently teaching at Oxford

24:49

University. Frank,

24:52

thank you for just delving into this topic.

24:55

You know, I think it makes sense to start with

24:57

where do you think we are right now in

24:59

term terms of people who

25:03

want to get vaccinated, people who maybe

25:06

think they might get vaccinated,

25:09

and then people who may

25:11

not want to get vaccinated. Where do you think we are? Well?

25:14

I wish you'd been on my focus group last night,

25:16

women eighteen to thirty nine. And

25:19

the level of concern hesitation

25:21

about getting the vaccine is so great,

25:24

and it's not over issues

25:26

of pregnancy or menstruation

25:29

or any of the things that we've heard about. Yeah,

25:32

and that we've heard about it as real concerns from people

25:34

anecdotally, The problem

25:36

with them, or the challenge for them, is that

25:39

COVID is not as serious to them. Many of

25:41

them have had it, it took them a day or two to get

25:43

over it, and they simply don't see

25:45

the need, or they think that the

25:47

vaccine is actually more dangerous

25:49

than COVID itself, or they

25:51

want other people to do it so they won't have to, and

25:54

any of these, if it continues,

25:57

means we will not reach herd immunity, which

25:59

I'm coming less and less competent

26:01

in. It means that we will never be as

26:04

safe and secure as we could be. We

26:06

know that for some people that really still are access

26:08

challenges, for people who have

26:11

mobility challenges, for whom we do need to

26:14

very much go that last proverbial mile and

26:16

bring the vaccines to them. We know that

26:18

for many people who live in rural areas,

26:21

for whom it's just too far a track,

26:24

we need to bring vaccines to them.

26:26

But we also know there are groups

26:29

in our country for whom vaccines are

26:31

available around the corner or increasingly

26:33

at their local doctor's office or

26:36

kind of their pharmacy, and they're still not going

26:39

Frank, how do we think about the different groups

26:41

that you've now spoken to and what

26:43

may work to try to help

26:46

encourage them to recognize that COVID

26:49

is actually really serious. There

26:52

are three different segments that we need to reach out

26:54

to. The first and largest are

26:56

Trump voters, and they don't want to be told

26:58

what to do. They don't trust the government, they

27:00

don't trust the facts. They

27:02

believe that the media is dishonest with them, and

27:05

they're very hard to convince because

27:07

they believe that Donald Trump lost the election

27:10

because of COVID, and so that makes

27:12

them instantly more hesitant either

27:14

about the virus or the vaccine. So

27:17

many of them are in rural areas which

27:19

are less likely to trust the vaccine

27:21

or want to get it. And so many

27:24

of them are anti government, which

27:26

means that they won't even accept what the c d C

27:29

says or the f d A or Anthony Faucci.

27:31

That's group number one. Group number two or

27:33

black and brown, and there's been a

27:36

very successful effort from the Biden administration

27:38

to reach out to them, to do so on their terms,

27:41

but that black and brown community needs

27:43

to hear from others in their community. That's

27:45

what's going to make a difference for them, and then

27:47

the third or eighteen the thirty nine year olds

27:50

in general, particularly eighteen the thirty nine

27:52

year old women, and for them it's

27:54

somewhat of a fear, but it's also

27:57

for some it's the feeling that they're

28:00

either invincible or they're healthy.

28:03

We're not reaching them the way that we need to. And

28:05

I want to suggest one profession

28:08

which has not been used enough, that works

28:10

for all three of these groups. It's

28:12

your pharmacist. I had a stroke

28:14

last January. And

28:17

I had a stroke because I ate too much, I

28:19

traveled too much, I slept too little.

28:22

I lived a very unhealthy

28:24

life and it has and will

28:26

continue to affect me for the rest of my life.

28:28

And because of that, I don't want anyone

28:31

to make these decisions I made. I don't

28:33

want anyone to make the mistakes I made. I

28:35

want them to know that not

28:37

taking care of yourself could

28:40

and will have a negative consequence

28:42

that you will never ever be able to shake.

28:44

Getting COVID is so much

28:47

worse. You don't have to be stuck

28:49

with shortness of breath, you don't have to be stuck with

28:52

the inability to taste, you

28:54

don't have to be stuck with all of what COVID

28:56

does to you if you get it, So don't

28:58

make the same mistakes I did. Be

29:01

proactive and listen to the people

29:03

who really care about you, because

29:06

it could save your life. And

29:08

Frank, returning to your

29:11

diagnosis, around Republicans

29:14

who voted for President Trump, who

29:16

are unlikely to

29:19

certainly be standing in line first to

29:21

get the COVID nineteen vaccines, have

29:24

you found any messages

29:26

or messengers that at least hopefully

29:29

have the chance of working. The

29:31

most amazing message would be delivered

29:34

by Donald Trump and Joe Biden, together,

29:36

the current president and the former president,

29:38

each one delivering a sentence of thanks

29:41

to the other, Donald Trump complimenting

29:43

Joe Biden forgetting the vaccine out across

29:46

the country incredibly fast, efficient

29:48

and effective. Joe Biden giving Donald

29:51

Trump credits for his administration

29:53

developing the vaccine in a

29:55

rigorous and detailed and scientific

29:57

manner, and then the two of them

30:00

saying, but don't trust us, trust our

30:02

doctors, and let binds doctor and

30:04

Trump's doctors safe. For the remaining fifty

30:06

seconds of a sixty second ad

30:08

that we know that this vaccine is safe. We

30:11

know that it works. That's the most powerful

30:13

message of all. But Chelsea, we're not going to do

30:15

it because our politics

30:17

are so divided. Now, I've been saying

30:19

for months, I think, truly starting last October,

30:22

I can't wait to watch President Trump

30:25

get vaccinated on television. I

30:27

can't wait for him to take credit for

30:30

the extraordinary

30:33

pace of vaccine development without

30:35

sacrificing quality, without sacrificing

30:38

safety. I've been asked repeatedly,

30:41

do I wish the President Trump had been

30:43

in the p s A with the four presidents?

30:45

And I think before someone can finish asking the

30:48

question, I say, yes, this should be

30:50

ideally nonpartisan. But if we can't

30:52

have it be nonpartisan, it at least needs

30:55

to be bipartisan. So I just

30:57

I couldn't agree more

31:00

more enthusiastically and

31:02

emphatically with my public health hat

31:04

on with what you're saying. But

31:06

but even better than the politicians

31:09

is your doctor and your pharmacists.

31:12

If you get a video from

31:14

your doctor that's texted or emailed, you're

31:16

gonna watch it of them will and

31:18

if they tell you to get vaccinated, over those

31:21

who have not been vaccinated are going to

31:23

listen because it's your doctor and your

31:25

pharmacists, they know you, and that would

31:27

be even more powerful than the politicians.

31:30

And in terms of the three messages that work

31:32

best, that this vaccine

31:34

is even more much more effective than the

31:36

flu shot, which so many Americans take. That

31:39

the vaccine that they cut bureaucracy

31:42

and they cut red tape, but

31:44

they didn't cut corners. One of the greatest phrases

31:47

of all. And third is

31:49

that over of all doctors have been

31:51

vaccinated. Those are three messages

31:53

and they absolutely positively

31:56

work, particularly when when delivered

31:58

by someone you know. And Frank, what

32:01

advice would you have for people

32:03

talking to their own family members who might be

32:05

hesitant. And the most powerful

32:07

familiar relationship is grandparents

32:10

and grandchild. I joke that it's because

32:12

they both have the same enemy, but

32:14

it's actually true. Well,

32:17

I was very close to my grandmother, like

32:19

I talked to her every single day, Frank,

32:21

So I love my parents a lot, but my grandmother

32:24

had a super special place in my hurt. And

32:26

that happens across the country. And it doesn't

32:28

matter what ethnicity you are, doesn't

32:30

matter what region of the country. People

32:33

feel that closeness and the idea

32:35

that grandparents and grandchildren can't

32:37

hug. I know grandparents

32:39

who have who are very sick and

32:41

have somehow managed to stay alive because

32:44

they want that embrace. Again. That the dream

32:46

is to be able to tuck your grandchild

32:49

in at night, be able to give them a kiss

32:52

and say I love you, I love you, and

32:54

to be able to do so with complete

32:57

safety and security matters.

32:59

That's the ad that I want. I think

33:01

that makes a difference. So it's not the

33:03

government telling you to do it. It's

33:06

your grandma and your grandpa.

33:12

We're taking a quick break, stay with

33:14

us. One

33:24

of the things that I've been really concerned

33:26

about for many years is the

33:28

misinformation, the disinformation

33:31

around vaccines, especially

33:34

which has largely been allowed to flourish

33:37

unchecked online by the social media companies.

33:39

And we have seen just an unprecedented explosion

33:42

of misinformation around COVID and the

33:44

COVID nineteen vaccines. How much

33:46

of that do you see reflected in

33:49

the surveys that you're conducting

33:51

or the focus groups that you're you're

33:54

conducting. It's not just misinformation

33:57

or disinformation, it's in some

33:59

case is no information at

34:01

all that they give you all the reasons why

34:03

they're hesitants and they've made no effort

34:05

to confirm them, or they accept sources

34:08

that nobody else would believe simply

34:10

because it's easier for them to do so. I'm

34:13

very upset with social media platforms

34:16

and with the technology because

34:18

in the end, their irresponsibility

34:20

is causing people to die. I

34:22

also know the part of it, the messaging,

34:25

where the words themselves matter, where

34:27

I blame the politicians. For

34:29

example, call it a government mandate

34:32

and you immediately agitate every

34:34

right of center voter. Call it a protocol,

34:37

and that's acceptable. Another example

34:39

is the lockdown versus stay at

34:41

home. Stay at home is you're

34:44

at home. Lockdown is you're in prison.

34:47

So every politician who used these phrases

34:49

was actually causing a problem. And the one that's happening

34:52

right now, and it's really agitating

34:54

to me, is that they call it a vaccine

34:56

passport. Well, to those on the left,

34:58

a passport is something that will never some

35:01

people never be able to own. It's expensive,

35:03

it's exclusive. And on

35:05

the right, a passport, a vaccine passport

35:07

to them means more government involvement. You

35:09

call it a vaccine verification,

35:12

and the American people say, yes, you

35:14

call it a vaccine passport. The

35:17

public says, no, that's not misinformation,

35:20

that's simply bad language.

35:22

Frank, I do want to go back, though, to the

35:24

eighteen to thirty nine year olds.

35:27

What do you think would be

35:29

sufficiently persuasive to

35:32

the eighteen to thirty nine year old you've been talking

35:34

to, so that they make a different

35:36

risk assessment of COVID

35:39

versus the COVID nineteen vaccines, and

35:42

hopefully then are persuaded

35:44

to get themselves vaccinated. It's

35:47

not about them. It's about the people they

35:49

love. It's about the people they want to protect.

35:51

For an eighteen to thirty nine year old, it's about

35:53

their grandparents and being able

35:56

to see them in a safe and secure manner.

35:58

If you try to make it about them, it will

36:00

fail because they just don't fear COVID.

36:03

If you try to make it about the side effects,

36:05

they're much more afraid of the side effects of the

36:07

vaccine than they are of the virus

36:10

itself. And if you try to

36:13

make a political argument, it

36:15

just doesn't resonate. If I want

36:17

eighteen to thirty nine year olds to get the shot,

36:20

I need to tell them how

36:22

easy it is, and I need to tell them

36:24

that they will have a light at the end of the

36:26

tunnel, and so often these interviews, I

36:28

forget that if you want people get vaccinated,

36:31

let them know that they can take their masks off.

36:34

Let them know that they'll be able to celebrate

36:36

the fourth of July like they used

36:38

to. Let them know that our schools are going back

36:40

and people are going back to work. If you don't

36:43

tell them that, then they won't get vaccinated,

36:46

and we will be under a threat from this,

36:48

from this horrible virus. And I will

36:50

acknowledge something to you. I don't even want to look

36:52

at you when I say this. When

36:55

I got the vaccine, the first shot in my arm, I

36:57

started to cry because

36:59

I had a pre existest in condition I was

37:01

damaged from last year, and

37:03

that shot to me was life itself.

37:06

It was actually, I'm going to live.

37:08

And I didn't know that for six or seven months.

37:11

So I don't understand how

37:13

people can be so cavalier. They

37:16

gave me my life back, and I'm so

37:18

grateful to those researchers, and

37:20

I feel so blessed, and I want others to feel

37:22

as blessed as I feel. Frank

37:25

I cried too. I cried

37:28

to when I got my first shot because it just felt

37:30

it felt like hope. You

37:33

know, I am curious. Has

37:35

there been anyone that you've seen

37:38

changed their mind who's been in that group?

37:40

And if so, what changed their mind

37:42

or not? Yes? Yes, and people

37:45

have changed their minds and they tend to change their

37:47

minds to get the vaccine, and it's usually

37:49

because of interaction with their doctor and

37:52

their pharmacists. But the problem of the

37:54

eighteen to nine year olds is that they're

37:56

not necessarily calling that they're just getting

37:58

stuff off the web. That just getting

38:00

superficial information. That's

38:02

why we need to connect every person

38:05

and the medical professional who

38:07

may trust the most that will

38:09

have the greatest impact and will have the fastest

38:12

impact. Is there a next

38:14

best alternative to your doctor? If

38:16

you don't necessarily have a doctor,

38:19

it's the closest person to you, maybe

38:21

your child, that maybe your parents, maybe

38:23

your spouse, but the person that you

38:25

love most. Because in the end, if

38:27

it's a message that's delivered from love

38:31

and a message about returning to life

38:33

itself, they'll do it. If

38:35

it's a message that comes across like a

38:38

mandate, like you must do it, you

38:40

have to do it. You don't have a choice. It

38:42

will be rejected. Even the

38:44

tone, even the context of how we deliver

38:46

this determines whether or not it's

38:49

credible and whether or not people

38:51

actually follow Frank.

38:53

Thank you so much for all of your time. To

38:59

learn about Frank's work and upcoming focus

39:01

groups on this and other topics, follow

39:04

him on Twitter at Frank Luntz. Changing

39:09

people's minds isn't easy. In fact,

39:12

it can be really hard, even with the best

39:14

information from trusted messengers

39:16

with the best intentions. But

39:18

in this moment, when we're working so hard

39:21

to vaccinate as many people as possible and

39:23

learn from the COVID nineteen pandemic, it's

39:25

really important. I hope

39:27

that after listening to Maya and Frank, you might

39:29

feel a little more confident about broaching and conversation

39:32

with someone close to you who may not yet be convinced

39:34

about getting vaccinated or making other

39:36

decisions that you know are good for their health

39:39

and our shared public health. Beyond

39:41

the pandemic, the tools of informing

39:43

and persuading that we heard about today can be effective

39:45

when it comes to so many other topics in public

39:47

health, including climate change,

39:50

the stigma amount substance used disorders and addiction,

39:52

and so much more. I, for

39:55

one, I'm really glad that Maya, Frank

39:57

and so many others are deeply committed to

39:59

understand name what it really takes to get someone

40:01

to take action or change their mind

40:04

and build a healthier, more just country in the

40:06

process. In

40:10

Fact is brought to you by iHeart Radio.

40:13

We're produced by Erica Goodmanson, Lauren

40:15

Peterson, Cathy Russo, Julie

40:17

Subrian, and Justin Wright, with help

40:19

from the Hidden Light team of Barry Luriy, Sarah

40:22

Harowitz, Nikki Huggett, Emily

40:24

Young, and Hugh Abodeen, with additional

40:26

support from Lindsay Hoffman. Original

40:28

music is by Justin Wright. If

40:30

you liked this episode of In Fact, please

40:33

make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode,

40:35

and tell your family and friends to do the same. If

40:38

you really want to help us out, leave us a review on

40:40

Apple Podcasts. Thanks again

40:42

for listening, and see you next week.