Download Evaluation of the effectiveness of `myth

Evaluation of the effectiveness of ‘myth-busting’ and other
media/marketing approaches to combating prejudice/ promoting
cohesion
Literature search and review
“The Media” is often blamed for fuelling prejudice in society by propagating
negative stereotypes about certain groups, particularly minority groups.
However, it is also often assumed by public authorities that the media can be
similarly used to influence public opinion against this type of prejudice. The
exact method for doing this varies, and includes for example: propagating
positive images of groups or individuals; providing factual information to
counter myths; advertising services available to promote equality and
inclusion amongst groups experiencing prejudice.
Before embarking on a campaign of this type, we are seeking to assess their
effectiveness. Whilst a poster campaign or similar approach may present an
image of Newcastle which the Council would like to promote, it is more
important, before spending money on it, to understand whether such
approaches achieve any more lasting positive impact. Existing campaigns are
being ‘tested’ on a cross-section of Newcastle residents via focus groups.
These focus groups, together with a questionnaire targeted at a larger sample
of respondents, will also help to ensure that we understand what the most
prevalent prejudices are in the city, and what form they take. Meanwhile, this
paper summarises current policy advice and approaches to using the media
and communications on community cohesion issues.
Agencies responsible for sharing best practice and advising local government
consistently stress the importance of using communications to challenge
myths, put across positive messages and promote good relations. Both the
Local Government Information Unit (LGIU)’s Countering the Impact of
Myths and Misinformation and the Improvement & Development Agency
(IDeA)’s web-based Communicating Community Cohesion fall into this
category.
However, these and other sources are less likely to provide evidence from
evaluation as to what types of approaches are successful in changing
attitudes or improving community relations, or indeed whether there are some
approaches which could be counter-productive, for example by fuelling
resentment or alienating some audiences.
Mike Sutton et al’s 2007 publication for DCLG, Getting the Message Across,
on the other hand, specifically aims to determine what methods are effective
in communicating messages to counteract racial prejudice, in order to inform
decision-making about future media-based initiatives. In addition to
evaluating a number of campaign approaches, the report is based on a
thorough review of literature concerning effective communication in antiracism and discrimination. In the interests of avoiding duplication, this present
paper will summarise Sutton’s conclusions and recommendations rather than
1
review the same literature again. It will then go on to draw a number of key
points from a selection of other relevant material.
Sutton et al conclude that:



Whilst media based campaigns can be one way of influencing attitudes
on social issues, they also have the potential to reaffirm stereotypes,
thereby doing more harm than good
Little research or evaluation of such campaigns has been done, and
policy makers have largely ignored evidence from social psychology on
how to stimulate attitude change
This in itself makes it difficult to draw conclusions which point
definitively to specific strategies as examples of effective working.
However, several of the researchers’ conclusions do offer some general
guidelines and recommendations for those planning campaigns:











The source of a message should be seen as having credibility,
attractiveness, expertise, status and power
Repetition of a message is more likely to reduce prejudice
Use of facts and information is not sufficient to change attitudes
Be aware of the risk of patronising those who experience the impacts
of prejudice first-hand
Contrast is key – salient messages are more likely to get attention
Use straightforward, jargon-free language; avoid emotionally extreme
language
Emphasise similarities between groups, not differences
Use messages that contradict stereotypes
Each message should highlight only one prejudice or group at a time
Plan and budget for evaluation from the outset
Understand the social, political and dynamic context in which the
programme is to take place.
As the researchers point out, there is a need for anyone designing such
campaigns to understand the attitudes and opinions of their intended
audiences, test approaches before launching them, and monitor their effect
throughout. All three points support the actions being taken by Newcastle
City Council to ensure that any campaigns we launch provide value for money
in relation to the intended outcomes.
Key points from other relevant research
A review of evidence for Joseph Rowntree Foundation, The Housing &
Neighbourhood Impact of Britain’s Changing Ethnic Mix, points to
evidence from Peterborough and Glasgow that provision of information (by
both local authorities and voluntary sector groups) about matters such as
benefit entitlements can defuse tensions. This appears to suggest that a
basic commitment to ‘myth-busting’, i.e. providing accurate information where
2
inaccurate rumours are prevalent, is worthwhile. This, however, will depend
on context. In both the cited cases, it could be that the tensions and rumours
were recently-developed (linked particularly to rapid demographic change in
the areas in question) and therefore more easily dispelled than they would be
in a context where more deep-seated or long-standing prejudices and
tensions between groups are manifested.
Stonewall’s Profiles of Prejudice study found that those who report less
positive attitudes towards minority ethnic groups were more likely to be
influenced by television and newspapers, and less likely to be influenced by
parents, than average. This appears to support the common assumption,
referred to above, that ‘the media’ tends to exert a negative influence. It is
worth noting, however, that the pattern was not the same when respondents
were asked about attitudes towards gay and lesbian people. In this context,
religious belief was the most significant influence on those who felt less
positive. Nor do the findings exclude the possibility that the same media could
be used to exert a comparable positive influence over people’s views if
harnessed successfully. This points to the need to work with the media more
broadly, alongside any use of more direct campaigns.
Using Communications to Promote Cohesion, a forthcoming web-based
guide produced for DCLG by Nicola Sugden and Jo Broadwood, stresses the
value of campaigns, in addition to making use of the print, broadcast and
electronic media outlets which are already available. This is valuable partly as
an opportunity to repeat messages often - which, as Sutton finds, makes them
more likely to be effective. But the authors also highlight a number of
important caveats:
 Avoid embedding stereotypical views of particular groups
 Avoid leaving out (or appearing to leave out) certain communities by
targeting (or appearing to target) messages at other groups.
 Focus on commonalities rather than difference
 Facts are not sufficient to change attitudes
The last two points, converging as they do with points made by Sutton et al,
are particularly important. Public agencies are generally keen to emphasise
that they are committed to equality and diversity and this is often manifested
in projects and events which celebrate ‘difference’. Whilst this may be entirely
appropriate, the lesson here is that it should not be seen as necessarily
achieving attitude change in those who are resistant to such notions. There
are also implications for those involved in myth-busting, in that whilst this may
be necessary where the facts are challenged or unknown, it will not change
entrenched attitudes. This points to the value of a combination approach,
using myth-busting and other fact-based campaign materials as a foundation,
but building on them with other approaches to breaking down prejudice, such
as opportunities for discussion/ challenge and increased personal contact
between groups.
Challenging Attitudes, Myths and Perceptions, written by the Institute of
Public Policy Research (ippr) for the Commission on Integration and Cohesion
3
as part of its evidence base for ‘Our Shared Future’, points to multiple causes
or sources for hostility and racial prejudice, something which in turn supports
Sutton et al’s view that a range of targeted approaches to reach particular
groups, taking account of local circumstances, will be more effective than a
‘one size fits all’ approach such as a citywide poster campaign.
Again, ippr’s conclusions support the view that, in some cases, not only does
providing people with facts not provoke a positive attitudinal change – it can
actually make them more hostile. There are a number of possible reasons for
this:



Presentation: the common approach of ‘myth followed by fact’ can lead
to the audience fixing on the myth, which may fit with an existing
prejudice, and not even taking in the corresponding fact
Legitimisation: there is a risk of perpetuating the idea that a particular
myth is the prevalent view, thereby making it more likely to be seen as
an acceptable norm
Tone: Some people feel patronised or that their freedom to hold a
particular view is being questioned
Instead, ippr recommends locally-based dissemination of information, through
trusted sources including local front-line workers. Doctors and teachers are
found to be the most trusted; the police and ‘people on the street’ (which
could include a number of frontline public service staff) are also more trusted
than, for example, politicians and journalists. Front line workers in particular
have the advantage of being able to respond to particular myths as they arise,
rather than addressing a general range of myths which may not be pertinent
to the circumstances. It is possible that campaigns aimed at raising the
understanding and commitment of people at a stage of remove from the
public, equipping these workers with both the desire and the expertise to bust
myths, could prove more effective than a direct campaign aimed at the public.
However, thought needs to be given to exactly which frontline workers should
be included in such an approach. Some of the most trusted and effective
deliverers of positive messages (environmental wardens, for example) may
not currently see it as their job to do this, and may therefore require greater
levels of support to make it part of their role.
A final caution in the ippr work is that those devising campaigns must
recognise that there is a group of people, possibly a significant minority in
some situations, who are simply not open to having their prejudices
challenged through any media or marketing approach – those with very
entrenched racist or discriminatory views, who have no interest in engaging
with anyone who is in a position to challenge those views. In avoiding
‘preaching to the converted’, it is important that resources are not wasted
targeting those at the other end of the spectrum in ways which are unlikely to
have an impact.
This conclusion was borne out at a local level in the course of the Outer West
& North Community Development Worker (Asylum Seeker Issues) Pilot
Project which took place in Newcastle in 2004. The project sought to apply
4
various approaches to challenging prejudice aimed at asylum seekers and
break down barriers between new and settled community. The project found
that in priority areas “local people actively avoided or ignored discussions,
meetings, displays and events that focussed on issues relating to asylum”. A
greater level of engagement was achieved once this was noted and more
subtle attempts to introduce the topic were tried.
The suggestion is not, therefore, that any target group should be considered
‘beyond change’, but that it is clear that certain ways of communicating
messages are ineffectual where more entrenched or widespread prejudice or
unwillingness to engage exists.
Communicating Asylum, an unpublished further report by Newman & Lewis
for ippr finds above all that ‘meaningful contact’ with asylum seekers is the
single most important element in changing attitudes to this group. The
research identifies four key barriers to effective communication on asylum
issues:




Lack of interest in the message. The sheer choice of media outlets and
messages on offer means we have become adept at filtering out the
subjects we’re not interested in
Diversity of messages. In relation to asylum, ‘anti’ messages tend to be
clear, strong and repeated often. ‘Pro’ messages can be ‘drowned out’.
Existing public debate. As messages from Government and much of
the media frequently seem to reinforce existing hostility, it can be hard
for those with positive messages to ‘break the cycle’
Public attitudes. Attitude theory suggests that attempting strongly
persuasive messages is risky, often leading those on the receiving end
to feel their freedom of thought to be threatened.
These findings again highlight that even the most successful approaches to
communications can only be a partial solution. The research concurs with the
warnings in Challenging Attitudes, Myths and Perceptions regarding the use
of myth-busting facts and statistics, which can be distrusted. On the other
hand, it finds that personal testimony can be particularly effective, and that
broadcast media are more persuasive than written communications. Taken
together, ippr’s research would therefore seem to suggest that the most
appropriate ‘messengers’ are a combination of trusted professionals and
those who have themselves experienced prejudice.
It may or may not be possible to generalise about other groups commonly
subject to prejudice from these findings in relation to asylum seekers, but we
have not reviewed here any research which tests this. However, a similar link
has been noted (for instance, by Amir Saeed in Media, Racism &
Islamophobia – The Representation of Islam and Muslims in the Media)
between the development of Islamophobia as a form of racism and the
overwhelmingly negative presentation of Muslims and Islam in the British
media. At the same time, the JRF research cited above concludes that two
groups in particular – asylum seekers/ refugees and Muslims – feel
discriminated against by Government policy and language. These similarities
5
suggest that at least some of the barriers listed above in relation to
communicating asylum would hold true when attempting to communicate a
positive message about Muslims or Islam. Bearing in mind Stonewall’s
findings above, however, it is important not to make assumptions about the
nature and prevalence of particular prejudices, and to ensure that any
campaigns are based on a sound understanding of the views of the intended
audience.
Conclusion/ Recommendations
The first point to make is that comparatively little evaluation has been written
up of approaches to using communications and media to reduce prejudice
and promote cohesion. This makes careful planning and evaluation of any
new approaches particularly important, to monitor their impact.
However, there is considerable agreement between those studies that do
exist as to the limitations of this approach. Given the potential expense
involved in such campaigns, limited cost-effectiveness is a major drawback
and points to the value of smaller, more targeted campaigns which are more
likely to impact on their intended recipients.
 This gives rise to the overarching recommendation that policy makers
and practitioners need to be conscious of these limitations when
devising their approaches to using communications and media to
reduce prejudice and promote cohesion.
Accepting that, within limits, such approaches can be used effectively as one
part of a wider strategy to tackle prejudice and promote cohesion, the
following recommendations can be made as to how best to do this:
 The source of the message is important. Trusted professionals such
as doctors or teachers, or frontline staff seen to be close to their
communities and the issues they face, are the most effective sources.
Ensuring that these sources are equipped to challenge myths and
prejudices may be more effective than campaigns seen as originating
from less trusted sources such as journalists or local authorities.
 Those who have directly experienced prejudice, and their personal
testimony, can also be a trusted and effective part of a campaign
 Targeting: take account of local circumstances and issues; understand
the attitudes and opinions of the intended audience
 Simplicity: avoid jargon; focus on one prejudice or group at a time; use
one single, straightforward message at a time; repeat it often
 Find a middle ground between those whose minds are already made
up – whether because they are already ‘on side’ or because their
prejudices are too deep-seated to be impacted on by this approach.
6
 Emphasise similarities between groups, not differences. Celebrating
diversity has many benefits but a reduction in prejudice is not likely to
be one of them.
 Provide accurate factual information, particularly where myths and
rumours exist, but do not rely on it to change attitudes
Bibliography
Key:
DCLG: Department for Communities & Local Government
IDeA: Improvement & Development Agency
JRF: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
LGIU: Local Government Information Unit
IDeA: Communicating Community Cohesion (IDeA website)
Hilary Kitchin: Countering the Impact of Myths & Misinformation – What Local Authorities Can
Do (LGIU; October 2005)
Miranda Lewis & Naomi Newman: Challenging Attitudes, Perceptions & Myths (CIC/ ippr;
June 2007)
Miranda Lewis & Naomi Newman: Communicating Asylum (ippr [unpublished]; May 2007)
MORI: Citizenship 21 – Profiles of Prejudice (Stonewall/ Community Fund; October 2008)
Sandra Mutch: Outer West & North Community Development Worker (Asylum Seeker Issues)
Pilot Project – Final Report (Newcastle City Council [unpublished]; November 2004)
John Perry: The Housing & Neighbourhood Impact of Britain’s Changing Ethnic Mix (JRF;
October 2008)
Amir Saeed: Media, Racism & Islamophobia – The Representation of Islam and Muslims in
the Media (Sociology Compass Vol 1 Issue 2; October 2007)
Nicola Sugden & Jo Broadwood: Using Communications to Promote Cohesion (DCLG
website; forthcoming)
Mike Sutton, Barbara Perry, Jonathon Parke & Catherine John-Baptiste: Getting the Message
Across – Using the Media to Reduce Racial Prejudice and Discrimination (DCLG; December
2007)
Gill Valentine & Ian McDonald: Understanding Prejudice – Attitudes Towards Minorities
(Stonewall/ Community Fund; November 2004)
7