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.

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 fourth 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.

Ken DeMarree studies how opinion science applies how we see ourselves. He’s an associate professor of psychology at the University at Buffalo. In our conversation, we talk about how opinion science can be used to understand things like self-esteem, how people sometimes desire opinions they currently disagree with, and how some people just tend to be pretty confident in their views.

Things we mention in this episode:

• California’s Self-Esteem Task Force (Guardian; NYT; The Cut)
• The psychology of strong opinions can help us understand how people see themselves (DeMarree et al., 2007)
• More “accessible” self-esteem is more durable and impactful (DeMarree et al., 2010)
• Seeing yourself in both positive and negative ways makes your self-esteem more susceptible to influence (DeMarree et al., 2011)
• When we want an opinion we don’t already have, it makes us conflicted (DeMarree et al., 2014; 2017)
• Some people just tend to be more confident in their views than others (DeMarree et al., 2020)

Check out my new audio course on Knowable: "The Science of Persuasion."

For a transcript of this episode, visit: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/opinions-of-ourselves-with-ken-demarree/

Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/

Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

David Melnikoff studies how our goals affect how we feel about things. When stuff helps us reach a goal, we like it…even if it’s not the kind of thing we’d ordinarily like. In our conversation, we talk about what psychologists mean when they talk about people’s “attitudes,” how goals can affect those attitudes, and why all of this means that people can sometimes come to like immoral people. 

Things that come up in this episode:

• What is an “attitude”? (For more on this concept, check out this webpage.)
• “Instrumentality” and “action valence” affect how we feel about someone in the moment (Melnikoff, Lambert, & Bargh, 2019)
• Morality isn’t always a valued quality in other people (Melnikoff & Bailey, 2018)

Check out my new audio course on Knowable: "The Science of Persuasion."

For a transcript of this episode, visit: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/liking-what-helps-you-with-david-melnikoff/

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.

Dr. Ana Gantman studies how people process moral stuff. She’s an assistant professor at Brooklyn College, and she finds that our attention is often drawn more quickly to morally relevant stimuli in our environment. More recently, she’s been looking into how our moral judgments collide with bureaucracy and how we can use moral psychology to address issues surrounding consent and sexual assault. 

Things we mention in this episode:

• The “moral pop-out” effect where moral stuff grabs our attention (Gantman & Van Bavel, 2014; Brady, Gantman, & Van Bavel, 2020)
• Moral pop-out seems to work like a motivational state because it goes away when needs for justice are satisfied (Gantman & Van Bavel, 2016)
• Using EEG to study the time course of moral perception (Gantman et al., 2020)
• The books The Utopia of Rules and Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber
• How “phantom rules” can be selectively enforced when someone’s violated other social norms. 
• Taking “consent pledges” before a party can get college students to moralize consent (The Daily Princetonian)

Check out my new audio course on Knowable: "The Science of Persuasion."

For a transcript of this episode, visit: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/moralizing-and-attention-with-ana-gantman/

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.

Dr. Matt Rocklage studies the words we use to express opinions. He’s an assistant professor of marketing the University of Massachusetts-Boston. In our conversation, Matt talks about the Evaluative Lexicon, which is a tool he developed to quantify the language of opinion. Take an online review, feed it into the Evaluative Lexicon, and it’ll tell you how much the person liked or disliked the product and how much their emotions played a role in their opinion. His research with this tool has shown just how potent emotion can be and how we should approach studying language in psychology.

Things we mention in this episode:

• The “Evaluative Lexicon” (Rocklage & Razio, 2015; Rocklage et al. 2018); you can learn more at: http://www.evaluativelexicon.com/ 
• Emotion-based opinions tend to be stronger (Rocklage & Fazio, 2016; 2018; Rocklage & Luttrell, in press)
• The role of emotion in consumer reviews (Rocklage & Fazio, 2020)
• People turn to emotional language more when trying to be persuasive (Rocklage, Rucker, & Nordgren, 2018)

Check out my new audio course on Knowable: "The Science of Persuasion."

For a transcript of this episode, visit:  http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/language-of-opinion-with-matt-rocklage/

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.

Jay Van Bavel studies how our social identities shape the way we see ourselves and the people around us. He’s an associate professor of psychology at New York University. In an upcoming book, he and his colleague, Dominic Packer, present social identity theory. It’s a classic theory in social psychology that has inspired tons of research and continues to give insight into the modern world. At its root, it’s the idea that people often adopt an “us vs. them” mindset, which fuels lots of conflict between groups. In our conversation, Jay shares the basic tenets and controversies surrounding social identity theory and the direction his own research lab is going.

For a quick overview of Social Identity Theory, featuring Dr. Van Bavel, you can check out this YouTube video [13:36] I made.

Things we mention in this episode:

• Dominic Packer’s research on identity and dissent.
• The pioneering work of John Turner and Henri Tajfel and the development of social identity theory.
• Marilynn Brewer’s “Optimal Distinctiveness Theory”
• Jay’s research on how social identities affect our thought and behavior in domains like politics (e.g., Van Bavel & Pereira, 2018) and social media (Brady, Crockett, & Van Bavel, 2020).
• According to Facebook’s global creative director, Andrew Keller, the average person scrolls through 300 feet of mobile content a day.
• Lilliana Mason’s book (Uncivil Agreement) applying social identity to politics.

Check out my new audio course on Knowable: "The Science of Persuasion."

For a transcript of this episode, visit: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/social-identities-with-jay-van-bavel/

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.

Michael F. Schein is a writer, speaker, and founder of the marketing agency, MicroFame Media. In his new book, The Hype Handbook, he explores the antics of historically successful “hype artists”—cult leaders, music promoters, propagandists, etc.—to extract 12 common strategies that get people excited about and committed to new ideas.

In our conversation, we talk about how “hype” is or is not the same as “persuasion,” how much we’re able to learn from stories of historical hype artists, and the ethical and practical limits of hype.

Check out my new audio course on Knowable: "The Science of Persuasion."

For a transcript of this episode, visit: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/hype-with-michael-f-schein/

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.

Lara Aknin studies what makes people happy. In particular, she’s spent a lot of time looking at how being generous can improve one’s well-being. She is an associate professor of social psychology at Simon Fraser University, and you heard her a couple weeks ago on Opinion Science. Her work was featured on our episode on gift-giving, but she has so much interesting work that it seemed setting aside a whole episode for our entire conversation.

Things that come up in this episode:

• College students were happier when spending money on others vs. on themselves (Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, 2008; for a replication see Aknin et al., 2020)
• The positive effects of spending on others extends around the world (Aknin et al., 2013), in small rural societies (Aknin et al., 2015; Aime et al., 2017), with children (Aknin, Hamlin, & Dunn, 2012), and among ex-offenders (Aknin et al., 2018).
• Giver-focused gifts promoted greater relationship closeness than recipient-focused gifts (Aknin & Human, 2015)
• For reviews of the effects of “prosocial spending,” see Aknin et al. (2018) and Dunn et al. (2020)

 Check out my new audio course on Knowable: "The Science of Persuasion."

For a transcript of this episode, visit: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/when-money-buys-happiness-with-lara-aknin/

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.

Although 2020 will be remembered mostly for annoyances and deeply tragic events, one thing that kept me going this year was starting this podcast. Being able to talk with friends, people I've long admired, and people I had only recently met was a real joy.

I wanted to put together an episode with some notable moments in Opinion Science this year. It's not truly a "best of" per se because I really am attached to every episode! Although I was learning on the fly how to podcast, there's aspects of all of this year's episodes that I value.

So instead, I've chosen some particularly meaningful episodes for me, fan favorites, and moments that highlight what this show is all about.

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.

-Andy


Featured 2020 episodes:

• Episode 1: Word of Mouth with Jake Teeny
• Episode 6: Film Criticism with Alissa Wilkinson
• Episode 9: Systemic Racism with Phia Salter
• Episode 15: Political Campaigning with Joe Fuld (*Hear the new season of his podcast)
• Episode 16: Implicit Bias with Mahzarin Banaji
• Episode 19: Political Humor as Persuasion with Danna Young (*See her new TED Talk)
• Episode 20: The Cognitive Dissonance Episode
• Episode 22: Political Persuasion with Alex Coppock
• Episode 23: Polling Young Voters with Kristen Soltis Anderson

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.

It’s that time of year when winter holidays send people on a buying spree as they collect gifts to give to every friend, family member, and acquaintance. And you’d think that after so many years of giving gifts for all sorts of holidays, we’d be pretty good at it. Right? Well, not according to research in psychology. In this episode, we explore the psychology of why giving to others is such a good thing to do, and also where gift givers go wrong. Along the way, we’ll pick up some tips for how to approach giving in a smarter, more effective way.

Many guests in this episode!

• We hear from Laura and Bethany Sanders about childhood gifting go awry. Laura Sanders is a stand-up comedian and illustrator, so check out her work!
• Dr. Lara Aknin is an associate professor of Social Psychology at Simon Fraser University. She studies what makes people happy.
• Dr. Jeff Galak is an associate professor of Marketing at Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business. He also runs the YouTube channel, “Data Demystified.”
• Dr. Julian Giviis an assistant professor of Marketing at West Virginia University's John Chambers College of Business and Economics. He studies gift-giving.

Research in this episode:

Part I: Why give to others? Lara Aknin and her colleagues found that college students were happier when giving money to other people vs. spending on themselves (Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, 2008). She has replicated this finding all over the world, with kids, and other populations (see Dunn et al., 2020).

Part II: How gift-givers and gift-recipients disagree.

A. Gift-givers focus on the moment of giving whereas recipients are thinking more long-term (Galak, Givi, & Williams (2016)

B. Gift-givers think price matters more than receivers do (Flynn & Adams, 2009)

C. Givers avoid repeatedly giving the same thing, but recipients don’t mind (Givi, 2020)

D. People opt to give sentimental gifts less often than receivers would prefer (Givi & Galak, 2017); giving something as a gift can also imbue it with sentimentality and make the affection for the gift last longer (Yang & Givi, 2015)

E. Just ask people what they want (Gino & Flynn, 2011)

F. Giver-centric gifts make people feel closer to each other, even though we think recipient-focused gifts are the most appropriate (Aknin & Human, 2015)

Check out my new audio course on Knowable: "The Science of Persuasion."

For a transcript of this episode, vi

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.

Two guests! Drs. Eva Pietri and India Johnson stop by to share the important work they’re doing together on the power of role models for underrepresented groups in STEM fields.

Things that come up in this episode:

• Women and racial and ethnic minorities are under-represented in STEM fields (National Science Board, 2020)
• Encouraging identity-safety in STEM among Black (Johnson, Pietri, Fullilove, & Mowrer, 2019; Pietri, Johnson, & Ozgumus, 2018) and Latina women (Pietri, Drawbaugh, Lewis, & Johnson, 2019)
• Using videos to enhance relatability of scientists (Pietri, Johnson, Majid, & Chu, in press)
• Extending these ideas to encourage women to identify with male scientists (Pietri, Drawbaugh, Johnson, & Colvin, in press)

Check out my new audio course on Knowable: "The Science of Persuasion."

For a transcript of this episode, visit: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/intersectional-role-models-in-stem-with-india-johnson-eva-pietri/

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.

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 third 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.

Dr. Eric Hehman studies the geography of bias. Lots of research has looked at the prejudice that lives in an individual person’s head, but Eric looks at the average amount of bias in particular location. On average, some counties have more implicit bias than others, and some states have more bias than others. But what does it mean? That’s what Eric and I talk about this week!

Things we mention in this episode:

• Zippia’s collection of fun maps, including Thanksgiving sides, pickle fandom, and sandwich preferences. 
• Regional implicit biases are related to police use of force against African Americans in that region (Hehman, Flake, & Calanchini, 2018)
• Inspiration for Eric’s focus on regional bias (Motyl et al., 2014; Rae & Olson, 2015; Rentfrow et al., 2013)
• How same-sex marriage legislation affected anti-gay bias one state at a time (Ofosu, Chambers, Chen, & Hehman, 2019)
• Validating region-based measures of bias (Hehman, Calanchini, Flake, & Leitner, 2019)
• Searching for environmental features that relate a region’s level of bias (Hehman, Ofosu, & Calanchini, 2020)
• The “bias of crowds” model of implicit bias (Payne, Vuletich, & Lundberg, 2017)

Check out my new audio course on Knowable: "The Science of Persuasion."

For a transcript of this episode, visit: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/geography-of-bias-with-eric-hehman/

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.

Melanie Green studies stories. She’s a professor of Communication at University of Buffalo, and for years she’s been looking into whether stories can serve to persuade people. Are stories just entertainment or can they change our minds? In this episode, we talk about stories, her research on persuasion, and the experience of being transported by a story.

Topics that come up in this episode:

• People differ in their “transportability,” which is associated with their receptiveness to narrative persuasion (Mazzocco et al., 2010)
• Narrative persuasion depends on transportation (Green & Brock, 2000)
• Meta-analyses of narrative persuasion studies (Braddock & Dillard, 2016; Oschatz & Marker, 2020; Zebregs et al., 2015)
• Research by Jeff Niederdeppe’s lab on story-telling in health communication
• Stories continue to be persuasive after proven false (Green & Donahue, 2011)
• People make judgments of a person’s warmth or competence depending on whether they tell stories (Clark, Green, & Simons, 2019)

Check out my new audio course on Knowable: "The Science of Persuasion."

For a transcript of this episode, visit: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/persuasion-via-story-telling-with-melanie-green/

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.

Kristen Soltis Anderson is a pollster and co-founder of Echelon Insights. For five years, she co-hosted the podcast, The Pollsters, she hosts the SiriusXM show, The Trendline, and the Fox Nation show What Are the Odds? She also regularly appears on television to discuss the latest polls.

She’s spent a lot of time looking at polls of Millennials in particular. In 2015, she published her first book, The Selfie Vote: Where Millennials Are Leading America (And How Republicans Can Keep Up), in which she reviews data on millennials’ tendency to vote for Democrats and the unique features of modern life that may be driving this shift.

In this episode, we have a great conversation about her work, what political polling can reveal, and how young voters’ preferences may affect the 2020 U.S. election…and other elections to come.

Some things that come up in this episode:

• Generation Z enjoys mocking Millennials (Buzzfeed)
• The Bennington College study of political attitudes over one’s lifetime (Newcomb, 1943; Alwin, Cohen, & Newcomb, 1992)
• Kristen’s new report on Generation Z and Millennials’ optimism for the future (Walton Family Foundation, 2020)

Check out my new audio course on Knowable: "The Science of Persuasion."

For a transcript of this episode, visit: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/polling-young-voters-with-kristen-soltis-anderson/

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.

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: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/political-persuasion-with-alex-coppock/

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.

Vanessa Bohns studies the difference between how much influence people have and how influence they think they have. On the podcast, we talk about her studies, why people underestimate their influence, and whether this means we should try asking for more than we do now.

If you sit tight until next year, Dr. Bohns has a book coming out called You Have More Influence than You Think.

A few things that come up in our conversation:

• For a general overview of Dr. Bohns’ research on this topic, you can check out this article in Harvard Business Review or her review in Current Directions in Psychological Science.
• People underestimate how many people they have to ask in order to get someone to agree to do something (Flynn & Bohns, 2008).
• People even underestimate their influence in getting people to do ethically questionable things (Bohns, Roghanizad, & Xu, 2014).
• We don’t realize how uncomfortable it is for people to say no to requests (Bohns & Flynn, 2010).
• The influence process is different between in-person versus emailed requests (Roghanizad & Bohns, 2017).
• People’s biases about influence even extend to how they think about unwanted romantic advances (Bohns & DeVincent, 2019).
• We break down the difference between the “spotlight effect” and the “invisibility cloak” bias.
• Tory Higgins’ “saying is believing” effect shows how much power audiences have (Higgins & Rholes, 1978).

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.

Just a quick word about new episodes on the way and a switch to biweekly shows.

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.

Elliot Aronson has seen a long and influential career in social psychology. Aronson got his PhD in 1959 from Stanford University, working with Leon Festinger on some of the first experiments testing dissonance theory. He authored a celebrated social psychology textbook, now in its twelfth edition, and he pioneered the research on the jigsaw classroom--"a cooperative learning technique that reduces racial conflict among school children, promotes better learning, improves student motivation, and increases enjoyment of the learning experience."

Two weeks ago, I released a big episode on cognitive dissonance (check it out!), which pulled together interviews with several people who are experts in the field. Elliot Aronson was one of those experts, and I'm excited to share our full conversation with you this week. We talk dissonance but Elliot also shares how he became a social psychologist and what it takes to run a high-impact experiment.

Check out Elliot's writing:

• The Role of Cognitive Dissonance in the Pandemic: A recent article in the Atlantic by Elliot Aronson and Carol Tavris
• The Social Animal: Elliot's social psychology textbook
• Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): A popular book about cognitive dissonance and other biases.
• Not By Chance Alone: Elliot's autobiography
• Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of 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.

Last week's special episode on cognitive dissonance pulled together interviews with several people who are experts in the field. Joel Cooper is one of those experts! When I first started getting interested in the social psychology of cognitive dissonance, Joel's book (Cognitive Dissonance: 50 Years of a Classic Theory) was so useful.

You heard snippets of this interview in last week's episode, but I want to share it all on its own for anyone interested in more about Joel's story. We get into plenty of things that didn't fit into last week's show, including Joel's perspective on what made dissonance theory so influential, how dissonance can be felt vicariously, and why he used to use odd measurement scales.

For a transcript of this show, visit the episode's webpage: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/cognitive-dissonance-with-joel-cooper

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.

In 1957, Leon Festinger published A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Along with a collection of compelling experiments, Festinger changed the landscape of social psychology. The theory, now referenced constantly both in and outside of academic circles, has taken on a life of its own. And it’s still informing new research and analysis more than 60 years later.

For the grand 20th episode of Opinion Science, I want to give you an insider’s look at the theory–its inspiration, the people involved, the classic studies, and the remaining controversies.

Throughout the show you’ll hear from people who have studied cognitive dissonance and who knew the infamous Leon Festinger: Elliot Aronson, Joel Cooper, Jeff Stone, April McGrath, and Mike Gazzaniga.

To learn more about cognitive dissonance, check out these two books written by two of our guests: Cognitive Dissonance: 50 Years of Classic Theory and Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me).

For a transcript of this show, visit the episode's webpage: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/cognitive-dissonance/

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.

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.

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 show, visit the episode's webpage: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/political-humor-as-persuasion-with-danna-young

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.

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.

Allison Earl studies the challenges of getting health information to people who need it. Her research looks at how people react defensively to information about their health and how to improve it. In this episode, she shares her research on people's tendency to avoid threatening health information and how simple meditation exercises can make people more open to these kinds of messages.

Some things that come up in this episode: 

• Targeting health information to specific groups makes people feel judged (Derricks & Earl, 2019)
• Rejecting information about stimatized health issues (Earl, Nisson, & Albarracín, 2015)
• Race disparities in attention to HIV-prevention information (Earl et al., 2016)
• Trigger warnings as a way to get people ready for emotional information (Gainsburg & Earl, 2018)
• Meditation makes people more open to threatening health information (Takahashi & Earl, 2020)

For a transcript of this show, visit the episode's webpage: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/health-communication-with-allison-earl

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.

Kristof Dhont studies the psychology behind humans’ complicated feelings about animals. In particular, his research looks at how the existence of “speciesism” can stem from the same psychological factors that also produce other social prejudices. In this episode, Kristof and I talk about how people avoid connecting meat to the animals it comes from, how a social dominance worldview gives rise to speciesism, and what psychology can (and can’t) tell us about effective advocacy.

Check out Dr. Dhont’s new book: Why We Love and Exploit Animals: Bridging Insights from Academia and Advocacy

And as I mention at the end of the episode, a few years ago, I wrote my own vegan cookbook: Vegan Spanish Cooking.

Some of the things that come up in this episode:

• How people disconnect “meat” from the animals it comes from (Kunst & Hohle, 2016)
• Why people still eat meat even when they object to its production (“the meat-paradox”; Bastian & Loughnan, 2016)
• Denying animals’ “minds” to justify meat-eating (Bastian, Loughnan, Haslamn, & Radke, 2011) 
• “Social dominance orientation” (see this helpful summary)
• Connecting social dominance and speciesism (Dhont et al., 2014; 2016)
• How dehumanization reflects treating animals as lesser beings (Costello & Hodson, 2010)

 
For a transcript of this show, visit the episode's webpage: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/how-we-think-about-animals-with-kristof-dhont/

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.

Mahzarin Banaji is a professor of psychology at Harvard University. In the 90s, she and her colleagues pioneered the research in social psychology on implicit bias. They are perhaps best known for creating the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which purports to measure the preferences that people are unable or unwilling to say they have. Using this tool, psychologists have arrived at fascinating findings about bias, which have spawned a productive (and sometimes contentious) field of research. Together with Anthony Greenwald, Dr. Banaji wrote the popular book, Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People.

I talked with Mahzarin about her early days studying psychology and what prompted her to study implicit bias. She also shared new research on how implicit biases have changed over time and what this means for how to achieve social progress.

If you’re interested in the IAT—the test that researchers use to measure implicit bias—you can take one yourself at the official Project Implicit website.

You can also check out one of Mahzarin’s recent projects: Outsmarting Human Minds. It’s a website devoted to bringing insights from social psychology to the public.

Finally, I usually link to a bunch of primary articles that come up in the episode, but we covered a lot of ground in this one! However, we spent a lot of time on a recent paper led by Mahzarin’s graduate student, Tessa Charlesworth, on how implicit biases have changed over time (Charlesworth & Banaji, 2019). For an accessible summary of this research, check out their article in Harvard Business Review.

For a transcript of this show, visit the episode's webpage: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/implicit-bias-with-mahzarin-banaji/

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.

Joe Fuld founded the political consulting firm, The Campaign Workshop, and he also co-hosts the podcast, "How to Win a Campaign." In this episode, he shares his background in political and advocacy campaigns and what you need to consider if you're thinking of running for office yourself.

At the top of the show, I also talked to Pavan Parikh. He's currently running for Probate Court Judge in Hamilton County, Ohio. You can learn more about Pavan at https://www.pavanforjudge.com/ or follow his campaign on Facebook or Twitter.

A few articles related to topics that Joe Fuld mentions:

• The Tully Message Box
• The Seven Cs of Campaign Messaging

For a transcript of this show, visit the episode's webpage: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/political-campaigning-with-joe-fuld/

Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Additional music this week: Firefly by Podington Bear, licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 International License. 

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. Zakary Tormala is a professor of behavioral science and marketing at Stanford University’s business school. He studies how people can become certain of an opinion and what that means for their willingness to share their views. We talk about what certainty is, how it affects people's choices and resistance to change, and how the research about certainty can inform best practices in persuasion.

Some of the things that come up in this episode:

• Robert Burton's article, "The Certainty Epidemic" (also see his book, On Being Certain)
• The difference between "clarity" and "correctness" (Petrocelli, Tormala, & Rucker, 2007)
• The relationship between certainty and advocacy (Cheatham & Tormala, 2015; 2017)
• How successfully resisting persuasion can boost certainty (Tormala & Petty, 2002)
• How apparent social consensus increases certainty (Clarkson, Tormala, Rucker, & Dugan, 2013)
• Why uncertainty can get people to pay attention (Karmarkar & Tormala, 2010)
• For an overview of some of the ideas in this episode, check out Dr. Tormala's brief article in Current Opinion in Psychology: "The role of certainty (and uncertainty) in attitudes and persuasion" or his article in Harvard Business Review: "How certainty transforms persuasion."

For a transcript of this show, visit the episode's webpage: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/certainty-with-zakary-tormala

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.

Dr. Gordon Pennycook studies why people share misinformation. His research has used many techniques to understand people’s ability to judge the accuracy of information, their willingness to share that information, and what we can do to encourage people to only spread true information.

Some of the things that come up in this episode:

• There’s lots of coronavirus misinformation out there
• Seeing fake news repeatedly makes it feel more true (Pennycook, Cannon, & Rand, 2018)
• Believing fake news is more about not paying attention than partisanship (Pennycook & Rand, 2019)
• Encouraging people to think about accuracy reduces sharing of false and misleading news (Pennycook et al., preprint)
• Using Twitter bots to get people to think about accuracy
• Interventions to stop the spread of COVID-19 misinformation (Pennycook et al., in press)
• The problem with biased thinking or “motivated reasoning” (Tappin, Pennycook, & Rand, 2020; preprint) 

For a transcript of this show, visit the episode's webpage: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/fake-news-with-gordon-pennycook/

Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Additional music and sound effects obtained from https://www.zapsplat.com.

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.

Shannon Odell is a comedian and neuroscientist, and she uses comedy as a tool to teach people about science. She’s done this through hosting live shows, a YouTube series, a podcast, and other ways of getting the word out about how cool neuroscience is. In this episode, we talk about how she got into science, how she got into comedy, and how she thought to combine those two worlds.

Be sure to check out some of Shannon’s work:

• “Your Brain on Blank”: a YouTube series about how your brain processes different life experiences (drinking, meditating, listening to music) 
• The Science of Self-Care Podcast: a group of comedians take a deep dive into a self-care practice (e.g., acupuncture, yoga, aromatherapy) and explore the science behind it 
• Drunk Science: Live show (turned Zoom show) where comedians defend their “research” to scientists

 
For a transcript of this show, visit the episode's webpage. 

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.

Dr. Sharon Shavitt is a professor of marketing at the University of Illinois. Her research has looked at consumer behavior from lots of angles, and she has been a pioneer in thinking about the role of culture in the persuasion process. In this episode, we talk about how she started to consider how the success of an advertisement depends on the audience’s cultural values and other effects of culture. She also shares her experience connecting social psychology with the world of marketing, which wasn’t that common when she was in graduate school.

Links for more on some of what we talked about:

• Individualistic vs. collectivistic cultures (check out the great book, Clash!)
• Dr. Shavitt’s research on culture and persuasion (Han & Shavitt, 1994)
• The effect of political values on successful persuasion (Feinberg & Willer, 2016)
• "Preferences don't have to be personal" (Riemer, Shavitt, Koo, & Markus, 2014)
• Holistic vs. analytic thinking and price-quality judgments (Lalwani & Shavitt, 2013)

For a transcript of this show, visit the episode's webpage.

Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Music in this episode by YOUNG BLOOOD (https://www.facebook.com/YOUNGBLOODMUSIK/). Young Blood YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwWoMQ7Y7rdXob2MQnIJe_g?sub_confirmation=1 

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.

Deion Hawkins is an assistant professor of Communication Studies at Emerson College. He uses in-depth interviews with members of a community to understand health communication and the effects of police brutality. In this episode, he shares his dissertation work about where members of Black community get information about police brutality and the psychological toll that information takes. We also talk more generally about the recent Black Lives Matter protests and the role of race in academic research.

For a transcript of this show, visit the episode's webpage on http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/


Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Music in this episode: Stomps Claps & Beatbox by MusicToday80; Composed by: Anwar Amr Youtube Channel; Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0); Music provided by Free Vibes.

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.

Phia Salter takes a cultural psychology approach to studying racism. She’s an associate professor of Psychology at Davidson College, and in this episode she draws a contrast between thinking of racism as an individual bias versus thinking of it as systemic. She talks about her research on the “Marley hypothesis” and the ways in which our environments’ discussion of racial issues shapes our own views.

For more resources on understanding racism in the U.S., you can start by checking out Smithsonian magazine's Resources to Understand Racism in America.

 Things we mention in this episode:

• Dr. Salter's summary of research related to systemic racism (Salter, Adams, & Perez, 2018)
• The "Marley Hypothesis": Historical knowledge associated with recognizing contemporary racism (Nelson, Adams, & Salter, 2013)
• Research on preferences for different Black History Month materials (Salter & Adams, 2016)
• Writings of Derrick Bell on Critical Race Theory (For an overview of the movement, Dr. Salter recommends Delgado and Stefancic's introductory book)
• George Lipsitz's "The Possessive Investment in Whiteness"

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.

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 first 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.

William Brady studies how messages spread online--especially on social media sites. By mixing psychology experiments with analyses of millions of messages on social media websites, he's learned what kinds of language cuts through the clutter. Specifically, he finds that moral emotional language plays a hefty role in online communication. In this episode, Billy talks about this research and his other work on moral outrage to give us an idea of how opinions spread online.


Things we mention in this episode:

• NYU’s Center for Social Media and Politics 
• Paul Rozin’s research on “the process of moralization”
• Statistically analyzing patterns of words (check this out for a quick intro)
• Moral emotional language captures attention and prompts retweets (Brady et al., 2017, 2020; also see this Scientific American article)
• Moral outrage online (check out Molly Crockett’s article for The Globe and Mail)

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.

Nathan Kalmoe is a political scientist at Louisiana State University. He studies public opinion and mass political behavior. In 2017 he co-authored the book, Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. In this episode, we talk about his research on how political ideology means different things to political leaders than to the general public, how lots of people tend to avoid describing themselves and liberal or conservative, but how they nevertheless seem perfectly comfortable identifying as Democrat or Republican.

Things we mention in this episode:

• Early research and writing by Phillip Converse and Walter Lippman
• Nathan's recent article in Political Psychology: "Uses and Abuses of Ideology in Political Psychology"
• Nathan's book with Donald Kinder: Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public
• His upcoming book: With Ballots and Bullets: Partisanship and Violence in the American Civil War

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.

Alissa Wilkinson is a film critic and culture reporter for Vox and an associate professor of English and Humanities and The King's College in New York City. We talk about how she translates her own thoughts and feelings about a film into a written piece of criticism and the role that criticism plays in society. She shares thoughts about the job of a film critic and the delicate art of rating, reviewing, and recommending movies.

This episode also features snippets from a conversation with Cody Duckworth. If you're interested, you can hear our full conversation as a bonus episode on the Opinion Science website (here!).

In this episode, we mention a few things Alissa has written about before, so for full context, check out these articles:

• "The case for spoilers" (11/7/19)
• "Rotten Tomatoes, explained" (7/14/18)
• "Do not see The Emoji Movie" (7/29/17)
• Alissa's review of "The Assistant" (4/28/20)
• Alissa's review of "Bad Education" (4/24/20)

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.

Laura Wallace studies what happens when people perceive a communicator as biased. In this episode, we talk about why bias is different from trustworthiness, how perceived bias affects a person's ability to be persuasive, and how we think about biased communicators in general.

Things we mention in the episode:

• Gallup poll on Americans' perceptions of media bias
• NPR's complaints that they have both pro-conservative and pro-liberal biases
• Bias and trustworthiness are separate cues to credibility (Wallace, Wegener, & Petty, 2019)
• Flip-flopping as a problem for persuasion (Wallace, Wegener, & Petty, 2020)

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.

Matt Goldberg is a soon-to-be associate research scientist at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. He uses established research from the psychology of persuasion to understand how the public thinks about climate change and how to convince people to adopt new beliefs and behaviors to stave off the threats of global warming. We talk about the differences between theoretical and applied research and what leaders can do to guide the world through this difficult time.


Things we mention in the episode:

• Global warming's "Six America's"
• Using meta-cognition to understand hurricane evacuation behavior (Goldberg et al., 2020)
• Perceived consensus about climate change attitudes (Goldberg et al., 2019a, 2019b)
• The effects of discussing climate change with others (Goldberg et al., 2019c)

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.

Yoel Inbar is a social psychologist at University of Toronto. He studies the feeling of disgust and how it shapes people's moral judgments. We talk about how disgust is associated with certain opinions, and why moral emotions can make people hold onto negative beliefs about genetically modified crops (even when the science supports their safety and usefulness).

Yoel is also co-host of another psychology podcast, Two Psychologists, Four Beers.


Things we mention in the episode:

• The relationship between “disgust sensitivity” and political beliefs (Inbar, Pizarro, & Bloom, 2008)
• The “behavioral immune system” (see this article by Schaller)
• Disgusting smells and attitudes toward gay men (Inbar, Pizarro, & Bloom, 2012)
• Reasons to be skeptical that disgust amplifies moral judgments (Landy & Goodwin, 2015)
• Facial expressions of disgust during moral judgments (Chapman et al., 2009) 
• Public opinions of genetically modified food (check out Scott, Inbar, et al., 2018)
• Evaluating evidence in a way that fits your current opinion (Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979) 

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.

Jehan Sparks studies how positive vs. negative information informs our opinions. One of the things she looks at is something called a "negativity bias" where negative events loom larger than positive events when we're forming a summary impression. We talk about the nature of good vs. bad, how the order in which we learn information matters, and how different people think about information differently.

Things we mention in the episode:

• How “good vs. bad” can be too simple (Sparks, 2020)
• The “negativity bias” (Baumeister et al., 2001; Rozin & Royzman, 2001)
• How opinions depend on the order in which you learn information (Sparks & Ledgerwood, 2017)
• Negativity bias to explain risk-taking (Pietri, Fazio, & Shook, 2013)
• The effects of age on the negativity bias (Sparks & Ledgerwood, 2018)

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.

This week I talk to Jake Teeny about his research on word of mouth. When do people pass their opinions along to others? Jake tells me that businesses count word of mouth as a leading form of marketing, but it can be tricky to know exactly how to control it. We talk about when and why people share their opinions, according to the research in social psychology.

(By the way, Jake and I co-author a blog for Psychology Today called "A Difference of Opinion.")

Things we mention in the episode:

• Arousal increases social transmission of information (Berger, 2011)
• Certainty as a reason to persuade (Cheatham & Tormala, 2015)
• Hypocrisy as a form of cognitive dissonance (Stone & Fernandez, 2008)
• Atypical things are more popular (Berger & Packard, 2018)
• Hit Makers by Derek Thompson (Amazon)

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.

Coming Soon: The Opinion Science Podcast

Visit opinionsciencepodcast.com for more.

I’m Andy Luttrell, and I’m excited to introduce the Opinion Science Podcast. It’s a show about the science of people’s opinions, where they come from, and how they change. I’m a social psychologist, and I’ll be talking to other social scientists who study public opinion and persuasion, but I’ll also talk to other experts in the business of understanding and shaping the world’s views. The ideas we’ll explore in this show will give you a glimpse into the psychology of political attitudes, consumer preferences, public health communication, and social activism, just to name a few. But I’m even interested in more mundane opinions…like why some people inexplicably prefer cake over pie. So subscribe now and tune in every other week for these conversations. I think you’ll like it…but form your own opinion.

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 Groovesto 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 episode

• A 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.

-Andy

Featured 2023 episodes:

• Episode 72: Fighting Against Misinformation with Sander van der Linden
• Episode 77: Opinions in the Brain with Uma Karmarkar
• Episode 83: The Fundamental Nature of Opinion with Russ Fazio
• Episode 85: Having Curious Conversations with Mónica Guzmán
• SciComm Summer #18: Alie Ward on Making Ologies
• SciComm Summer #19: Latif Nasser on Making Radiolab

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.

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.