(Image by Mircea Iancu from Pixabay)

In a previous blog, I wrote about how presenting people with plain facts is often not enough to get them to change their minds about something. This is because our psychology evolved not to help us reach the truth, but to help us survive in groups and tribes. This means that when attempting to persuade someone of your point of view, how you communicate facts to people is as important as what facts you communicate – or perhaps even more important.

One mistake people can often make when prioritising facts over all else is to assume that showing any kind of weakness, making any kind of concession or ceding any ground at all is bad. We are drawn to the idea that in order to persuade anyone of our point of view, we have to make our case as strong as possible in order to make it convincing. However, that’s not how most people reason or think. In fact, people are far more likely to change their minds on something if you show that you yourself have changed or are open to changing your mind. To understand why, we need to take a look at the principle of reciprocity.

This is quite a simple principle: if you give someone something, they are more likely to give you something in return. If you’ve ever eaten at a restaurant that gives you some mints along with the bill, this is not the restaurant simply trying to give you a little present – the restaurateur knows that if they give you a few sweets, you’re more likely to reciprocate by giving a (bigger) tip. This applies in many other contexts, including conversations.

If you give some ground in your conversation, the other person is more likely to give some ground back. If you show you are not afraid to allow that their side and their perspective have good points, they are more likely to extend the same courtesy to you and your side. If you show that you have changed your mind on something, they are more likely to consider changing their own mind – or at least be less hostile to doing so.

One simple way to give some ground in your conversation is in your terminology. I tend to use the terms “foetus” instead of “baby”, “woman” instead of “mother” and “pro-choice” instead of “pro-abortion” in conversations about abortion. Many pro-life people strongly disagree with this approach, as they believe using these terms is borderline dishonest – we are hiding the facts, and failing to boldly stand by what we believe to be true. However, this is where we need to remember what the goal of the conversation is. If the goal is to boldly declare the truth no matter what, then sure, use the word that you think is closest to the truth. On the other hand, if your goal is to change someone’s mind, use the word that is most likely to (a) put them at their ease, (b) minimise the likelihood that they will get angry with you, (c)  make them think well of you, (d) make them think they understand you, (e) make them think you may have something in common and (f) make them more likely to concede some ground themselves. I put it to you that using terms the pro-choice person would choose themselves is more likely to fulfill these aims than using terms that boldly declare the facts with no regard for how those facts fall on the other person’s ears.

Another way to give some ground is to start off with something both parties agree on. For example, let’s say you’re talking to someone about recently-passed legislation for “safe access zones” around abortion provision facilities. One way you could start laying out your stall is to say “I think it’s really important to realise just how incredibly far-reaching and draconian this legislation is – it means it’s illegal to say anything that might persuade someone against having an abortion anywhere near any GP clinic, for example”. However, I think a far better way to start would be with the following: “I think it’s really important to start with something that I’m sure we both agree on – no one should be harassed, threatened, disrupted, or in any way prevented from accessing a medical facility, whether that’s a woman seeking an abortion, another patient who is accessing the facility for another reason, or a healthcare worker or staff member who works at the facility. I fully support any legislation that is required to prevent such scenarios ever happening. I do think though that it’s really important to realise…” and from there, you can make your original point. However, by taking a few seconds to first let the person you’re talking to know that you recognise any concerns they may have, and reassuring them that you echo their concerns, you just made it far more likely that they’ll listen to the concerns you in your turn have about the legislation.

One final way to use the principle of reciprocity is to acknowledge something about this issue that you changed your mind on yourself, especially if you changed your mind to the position the other person holds. For example, did you previously use certain anti-abortion arguments that you now no longer think are valid? Go ahead and say so! Have you ever straw-manned the pro-choice position? Acknowledge this fact! Are there any anti-abortion activists whose strategies or policies you do not, or crucially, no longer, support? It’s worth mentioning this too.

Using the principle of reciprocity takes practice, and it can be difficult to believe it will work. If you’re suspicious, don’t take my word for it – try it yourself! See if it yields results – and let us know how you get on!

Muireann