Thread by @MattGoldberg100

Strategic communication has enormous value, but our knowledge on it is fragmented. How do we distill it all into a general overarching framework?

I spoke to @AbelGustafson about this question for the last two years. Here's what we've come up with... 1/x

First, we developed this framework for *strategic* communication, to be applied to purposeful, specific goals (e.g., increase vaccinations, convince people to take action on climate change, etc.).

This is familiar to our #scicomm #envcomm and many of our other colleagues.

2/x

We go way back and build on Lewin and others by conceptualizing the *driving force* as all the efforts, contexts, and systems that advance a campaign’s goals, and the *restraining force* as all the efforts, contexts, and systems that restrict a campaign’s goals.

3/x

We emphasize the importance of the idea that our strategic goals face competition, whether it be from explicitly oppositional efforts (e.g., fossil fuel corp. misinfo.) or other forces (e.g., structural or psychological barriers).

4/x

This is well understood in research on mis/disinformation. It isn't enough to come up with good messaging (i.e., increase driving forces), but we also need to mitigate the effect of competing messaging and structural barriers (i.e., reduce restraining forces).

5/x

We argue that the driving and restraining forces are each determined by reach, effect, and durability.

-Reach = % of target population reached w/ treatment
-Effect = impact on ppl treated
-Durability = a) how long effect lasts and b) how well it resists restraining forces

6/x

A key innovation of this framework, we argue, is that the relationship btwn reach, effect, and durability is *multiplicative*

If reach, effect, or durability is zero, the whole side of the equation drops to zero regardless of the other inputs.

7/x

One example of this is a treatment that works really well (high effect), but it's really hard to get people the treatment (low reach).

8/x

This multiplicative relationship also yields another important insight: reach, effect, and durability are exchangeable.

You can compensate for a weak effect by having high reach, and you can compensate for low reach if you can generate large and/or durable effects.

9/x

Here's an example with GOTV efforts. Should we knock on doors or phone bank?

We have estimates from excellent work (bit.ly/2XC3MYk) on how effective each tactic is, so that helps estimate how much reach each tactic would need in order to be the preferred one

10/x

If we assume canvassing gets 1 new vote per 14 contacts and phone banking gets 1/35, and the campaign can afford to knock on 100 doors, how many phone calls would one need to make in order for it to be the preferred strategy?

Answer: 250+

11/x

For sure, there will be tons of research questions for which there aren't great (or any) estimates for reach, effect, or durability, or if there are too many unknowns to come up with which factors to consider.

11/x

We still argue that this can serve as a strategic tool for researchers and practitioners for choosing which research questions need answering, understanding the strengths/weaknesses of a campaign, choosing tactics, and more...

12/x

You can find a lot more detail on this in the full paper: psyarxiv.com/5gfyk/

13/x

It was such a joy to work on this, in no small part b/c of the legends we got to talk to in the process: @johnfocook @aecoppock @ecotone2 @AndyLuttrell5 Kevonte Mitchell Robin Nabi @APotochnik Ron Rice @GreggRSparkman @Sander_vdLinden... 14/x

...members of @YaleClimateComm lab, @CSDMLab, and BSPL @Princeton @elkeweber

We appreciate your brilliant ideas and generosity 🙏🙏🙏🙏

And if you got this far in the thread, you should totally read the paper here: psyarxiv.com/5gfyk/

/end