Using Stories Vs. Using Data To Persuade People
We hear a lot these days about the power of “telling stories” to persuade people to change their attitudes, to donate, etc. Although I’m a big fan of data and hard numbers, there’s good evidence that they do not make compelling outreach material for most audiences. This may be particularly true for animal issues, where the number of animals on farms and in shelters and laboratories is staggeringly high and difficult for many people to comprehend.
————————-
Marketing expert Andy Goodman writes frequently about using stories to advance nonprofit causes. In his December 2009 newsletter, Goodman highlighted research covering the use of data versus stories to persuade people. His article, (opens PDF) “Stories or Data? Which Makes the Stronger Case?” provides an insightful look at using numbers or personal stories for advocacy messages; ironically, the insight is based on data. Goodman discusses the “identifiable victim effect” and the work of a trio of Carnegie Mellon researchers. According to one of those researchers:
“When it comes to eliciting compassion,” Paul Slovic says, “the identified individual victim, with a face and a name, has no peer.” Put another way: people relate more to personal stories than to numbers, and when the numbers are particularly large (e.g., millions displaced and going hungry), we simply cannot relate and instead look the other way. |
In the end, animal advocates must be willing to go with what works, and the evidence suggests that stories rule. Fortunately for data junkies, Slovic mentions (intuitively, if not verifiably) that data can be used to good effect in some circumstances, though this is usually as context for the lead story that is focused on an impacted individual. From later in Goodman’s article…
Even with these results, Slovic adds, good causes may be able to combine stories with data to positive effect. If you tell a story about someone your organization has helped and then explain that she is just one among hundreds currently benefitting from your efforts, the supporting data may have a different impact. In this instance, says Slovic, the data “will indicate that [your] organization is trustworthy and effective. Donors care about that.” He is quick to add, however, that this is an assumption on his part that has not been confirmed by research. |
As an example from the animal world, about nine billion chickens are killed for food in the U.S. each year. This is nearly 1.5 times the human population on the planet, and it’s a number that most people understandably cannot grasp. When people do not fully comprehend something, however, they often respond by dismissing it; at a minimum, it doesn’t resonate with them.
On the other hand, a well-told story resonates with many more people. Take Viktor, for instance, the founding rooster of the Eastern Shore Chicken Sanctuary. Below is an excerpt from Viktor’s story and I encourage everyone to read the full article at http://sanctuary.bravebirds.org/viktor/. Once you’ve read it, I’m sure you’ll agree with me that, in this case at least, the story is far more compelling than the raw data.
Named for the concentration camp survivor, Viktor Frankl was the true founder of the Eastern Shore Chicken Sanctuary. He fell or leapt from a truck heading for the slaughterhouse and ended up in a ditch near our house. We brought him home, made a place for him in the garage, and fenced off a part of the yard for him.
We say “him” now, but we initially believed Viktor to be female and called him “Mosselle.” One day, Mosselle made a loud croaking noise and we ran around looking to see if “she” had laid an egg. Another day, we heard a strange gargling sound inside the coop one morning and worried that she was choking. Luckily, somebody with some sense came along and said, “that bird’s a rooster.” It was hard not to think of him differently, even though he was the same bird. That’s the incident that first got us thinking about the ways that people map their ideas about sex and gender onto animals. Viktor adapted very well to his new surroundings but was obviously lonely. He would run out to greet us whenever we stepped into the yard and would sometimes clamber up onto the back steps just to wait for us. Only later, when other chickens were living with him, was he fully able to live a normal chicken life. … Viktor died of a sudden heart attack on a spring day when the temperature soared and he became overheated. He was only about a year and a half old. Such heart attacks are common among birds like Viktor, because their muscles are too heavy for their internal organs. We will always miss Viktor and consider the sanctuary to be his legacy. We still feel his spirit hovering over the foraging yards, making sure that everyone is okay. |