Scottish independence: Psychologists on how to win referendums and influence people

Behavioural psychology is increasingly employed to influence people in health and advertising campaigns, but can it offer any insights to Yes campaigners gearing up for the next referendum?

To find out, the Sunday National spoke to two leading ­psychologists.

While stressing they were not ­giving their personal views on ­independence, both agreed it was ­extremely difficult to change the minds of people with very entrenched views, but added there are techniques that can be used to sway those who do not hold such strong opinions.

READ MORE: SNP and Greens to work together on joint independence prospectus ahead of 2023 vote

“These are the tools which are used in terms of vaccination, health campaigns, reducing speeding or ­reducing theft and studies show they broadly work,” said organisational psychologist Dr Rob Yeung. Those who hold strong views are liable to pay more attention to ­information they think confirms what they already believe, and ­disregard ­anything that contradicts it.

But, he said, persuasive technique can work for those who are “slightly pro or slightly against, but have not made up their minds so strongly that they are disregarding information”.

Research shows that people tend to ignore statistics, so they are less effective at convincing others to change their minds, according to Yeung.

“Economic benefits or costs are not really the right thing to focus on,” he said. “What people respond to more are stories about other human ­beings, especially stories about people like themselves. So, for example, if you are someone living in a smaller town, then you don’t actually want to hear about the views of someone say in ­Edinburgh or Glasgow, because it’s very easy to say, ‘well, that does not ­apply to me’.

“But if you hear stories about people from a similar background as yourself, and the process they have gone through, of changing one way or another, that can quite often be more influential than facts. We know this from previous situations, such as HIV transmission and, to some ­extent, Covid. Human beings have been ­telling stories for thousands, if not tens of thousands of years, and they are much more visceral than statistics which – from an evolutionary point of view – are quite new.”

STORIES should have colourful detail explaining how the person came to change their mind, as this makes them more believable than bald statements or an anodyne case study, Yeung said.

“It should be like how you would tell a story down the pub with human ­interest in it – that is when people are more likely to change their minds,” Yeung said. He added that one of the best ways to change people’s views and behaviour was to introduce them to others in their community who thought differently, adding that most people tended to go along with the majority view.

“If you have a small community where a number of people hold ­different views from the majority, then pointing out that the majority of people in that locale are in favour can really help to change people’s ­behaviour.”

It also helps to hear from people they think are like themselves.

“There were some reports that the Government was paying influencers to talk about how they had vaccinations or testing and that could be a good strategy for targeting people. If you are an early 20-something who is very much into the kind of things that a fitness influencer is doing, then that might resonate with you far more than someone who is 20 years older and a city professor quoting ­statistics,” said Yeung.

CHRIS Hand, senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Glasgow, said people could try to effect behavioural and attitudinal change through an emotional approach, or by supplying information, but a bit of both would probably be needed to convince others.

Consistency is key in an ­informational approach, he said, and if achieved it would act like the steady drip of water that erodes a rock if it continues for long enough.

Hand said the emotional approach could also work, but the effect tended to be more transient – meaning that it is best to ramp it up closer to the day of action in a campaign.

“It’s likely to be a blend of both ­approaches that will work,” he said.

Hostility and negativity, by ­contrast, will not.

“Threats or scare tactics or ­belittling the counter argument ­generally does not tend to work, so in-your-face bluster tactics are not necessarily compelling.”

He said studies after the first indyref, and after the Brexit vote, showed that a lot of people who were on the fence or relatively moderate in their views were ­either unaffected or ­actually pushed the other way by some of the ­hostility and aggressiveness in the ­campaign tactics.

Hand added that those wanting to change other people’s views could not just sit back and hope the other side would slip up.

“Sometimes, it can be really helpful when the other lot are ­doing a ­really poor job or something that is grossly ­offensive. That could be enough to shift ­people’s opinion – but you can’t rely on that,” he said.

“A lot of people think that you can give the other side the rope and let them hang themselves, but if you are a supporter of that side you will always find ways to see that it wasn’t their fault, that it was someone else’s fault.”

Listening with respect to others’ opinions is key too, according to Hand.

“Being willing to listen and being able to carefully present an evidence-based counter argument is absolutely critical,” he said. “The idea of trying to turn it on them, that there is something about them that makes their opinion problematic such as saying, ‘oh, you don’t care about your country’s future’, that would not be ­effective, not at all.

“Try to illustrate to people where their attitudes have come from, and why your alternative might be ­better. Maybe their information is ­incorrect, but it is about giving ­people the ­opportunity to be heard and then carefully trying to counter their ­argument. If people don’t feel they are being listened to, if people don’t feel they are being respected, you are going to lose them.”

Policy and ­communication methods should be ­developed as early as ­possible so campaigners can show a realistic outcome for their claims, while still being careful not to promise what cannot be delivered.

READ MORE: Do Unionist attacks on a 'divisive' 2014 referendum stand up to scrutiny?

“If you know what the people want and what the people need, you can start to present your evidence and present your case. Again, it is that drip on the boulder that can start to eat away at the resistance,” said Hand.

“Whatever ­evidence you are trying to present, make sure it is high ­quality and recognise where other people’s ­arguments might be ­undermined by poor quality evidence. Make sure you can show the ­legitimacy of your source and the illegitimacy of your ­opponent’s source.”

Pointing out that people generally dislike being challenged, he said it was helpful to gather different people with different opinions together to ­respectively share their views: “When you are exposed to ­multiple viewpoints it tends to make you a bit more malleable.

“It’s better when you have moderate and more intense views all in the same place, although that’s maybe easier for a general or council election when you have more voices, but harder to do when you have essentially two forced choices,” said Hand.