When Facts Don’t Matter: How to Communicate More Effectively about Immigration’s Costs and Benefits

"At a time when people have more information at their fingertips than ever, it feels as though it has become equally easy to share it widely or to ignore, discount, and discredit it. Meanwhile, public figures curate and splice data to fit their ideological goals, with tremendous consequences for public perceptions of reality...""

This document from the Transatlantic Council on Migration, an initiative of the Migration Policy Institute, looks at two trends in the European and North American media environment as they affect the debate on immigration: first, the proliferation of "expert opinions" and media platforms that provide unvetted and often, as stated here, politically motivated information on current events and policy debates - tactics that proliferate information that is dubious or debunked but suit political means, creating a cycle of electoral success that disincentivises dealing with proven facts - and, second, a loss of trust in academic institutions - and skepticism of the experts they produce - in favour of a wave of populism linked to anti-elitism and emotional appeals.

Because, according to this policy research, individuals deal with information on a personal level - how it affects themselves and their communities, while data deals with averages such as unemployment rates and gross domestic product (GDP), there may seem a disconnect between a populist approach and a fact-based approach. Effective communication on the debate needs to account for how people absorb and process information. "[P]olicymakers, media professionals, and other stakeholders concerned with communicating more effectively about complex policy topics may wish to anchor their strategy in a deeper understanding of two things: how human brains absorb and retain information and the circumstances under which publics are more likely to believe messages on controversial issues."

The human mind, the driver of the problem, seeks to fit new information into established, rigid mental frameworks, thus causing the individual to seek out and retain information that supports or affirms existing beliefs, which are easily reinforced by the four steps of information consumption: contact, consumption, credibility, and recollection. Messages that are likely to appear credible and memorable resonate on a personal level, in part, by appealing to one's sense of identity. What is remembered easily is generally thought to be true, making fragmented messages and "fake media" as effective as or more effective than well documented news.

Key lessons include the following:

• "Cost-benefit analysis may miss the point." This lens is just one of many and may not be of primary importance to people - lessons appealing to morals may succeed better than economic lessons.
• "Avoid arguments that may be viewed as personal attacks." Outright criticism results in defensiveness, especially if it focuses on self or group identity.
• "Give people a way out instead of trying to prove them wrong." Acknowledging concerns allows people to "save face."
• "Avoid repeating false ideas - even to debunk them." Focusing on a new narrative is a better strategy than debunking the old one.
• "Engage credible messengers across the aisle.... People are more likely to hear and absorb new information from messengers within their own circles of identity."
• "Start building a culture of critical thinking long before an election cycle or crisis." Voters' positions are bound to personal identities long before electoral debates. Critical thinking among the public needs to be fostered as a habit of daily life.

In short, policymakers must "grapple with why people are so wedded to their beliefs" if they are to communicate effectively on critical issues and foster thoughtful debate.