Activists have argued that statistics alone cannot make the privileged see injustice. Charts and numbers tend to impress academics. But these rarely touch nerves. Researchers from Denmark suggest that both sides of the persuasion war have been right all along. Numbers matter. Stories matter more. And when the two collide, even hardened skeptics begin to listen.
Study Suggests An Approach to Convincing Skeptics: What Actually Makes People Believe Discrimination Exists
Background
Political scientists Peter Thisted Dinesen, Clara Vandeweerdt, and Kim Mannemar Sonderskov set out to answer a deceptively simple question: What convinces ordinary citizens that discrimination is real? The answer is not outrage or ideological underpinning. It is clarity. Discrimination must be undeniable before anyone will feel compelled to act.
The researchers tested 4 distinct message formats, including an experimental audit result, a personal account of discrimination, a summary of survey responses, and an anecdote about daily racism. Participants received random assignment across message types in order to measure changes in perception and behavior among respondents nationwide.
Participants answered questions measuring belief in discrimination, support for anti-discrimination policies, and willingness to donate funds to an organization promoting minority rights. Political ideology was also recorded to determine variations in message effectiveness across different ideological groups within national samples collected digitally.
Key Findings
The findings illustrate how different forms of evidence influenced public perception, behavioral intent, and emotional engagement. They further reveal which communication strategies proved effective in reducing skepticism toward discrimination and which approaches delivered minimal or negligible impact across participants. Take note of the following:
• Strong Emotional Response: Personal narrative accounts triggered sadness and anger among participants. This leads to higher support for anti-discrimination legislation and increased willingness to contribute monetary aid.
• Credible Statistical Impact: Experimental data improved belief in discrimination without depending on emotion. This is a reconfirmation of the notion that factual confirmation remains effective among various ideological groups.
• Limited Effect of Abstract Evidence: Survey summaries and ambiguous anecdotes failed to produce significant behavioral change. This comes from the absence of a clear and precise demonstration of discriminatory treatment.
• Cross Ideological Persuasion: Both liberal respondents and conservative respondents responded positively to clear and strong evidence. This shows that political alignment or ideological underpinning did not prevent opinion shifts.
• Neutral Impact of Identity Language: Inclusion of terminologies related to structural discrimination did not reduce message effectiveness, indicating that framing concerns may be overstated when content remains compelling.
Implications
Personal stories generated stronger emotional responses than any other format. Readers expressed sadness and anger after viewing a clear account of workplace rejection involving an individual. Note that emotional activation significantly increased both policy support and donation behavior compared to survey summaries or ambiguous anecdotes.
Experimental audit data also persuaded participants by establishing factual credibility regarding unequal treatment. Unlike narrative accounts, statistical evidence did not elicit strong emotion, yet it improved recognition of discrimination across ideological boundaries. Both liberal respondents and conservative respondents demonstrated similar directional shifts.
The results indicate that advocacy campaigns must prioritize clarity and relatability rather than relying on abstract data or moral instruction. Persuasion occurred when discrimination became undeniable through either empirical demonstration or human experience. Specificity matters more than volume when attempting to alter entrenched assumptions.
Organizations promoting equality can benefit from balancing statistical credibility with emotional resonance. Data build trust among skeptical audiences, while narratives trigger empathy and action. Combined use of both formats may therefore generate a stronger civic response than either approach used independently across media and institutional channels.
Political polarization did not prevent belief revision when evidence appeared concrete. Ideological resistance weakened in the face of blatant injustice. This indicates that productive dialogue remains possible when communication strategies avoid ambiguity. The findings thereby challenge fatalistic claims regarding immovable public opinion on sensitive social issues.
FURTHER READING AND REFERENCE
- Salari, V., Seshan, V., Frankle, L., England, D., Simon, C., and Oblak, D. 2025. “Imaging Ultraweak Photon Emission from Living and Dead Mice and from Plants under Stress.” The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters. 16(17): 4354-4362. DOI: 1021/acs.jpclett.4c03546