Social Influence BriefingA daily communication practice for people who influence through ideas

Deep Conversations: Experience First, Argument Second

Published · Last reviewed

A deep canvass conversation asks about the other person's own experience, listens, shares one true story, and then asks what they make of it. In field experiments by Broockman and Kalla, conversations of this shape were followed by lasting attitude change in follow-up surveys. The effects were small, the topics were attitudes toward two specific groups, and follow-up lasted months, so use it as a patient one-to-one practice and keep your expectations modest.

Durable practice (not new). This is established communication practice, not a discovery or a trend.

What it fixes

Arguments offered first give the listener a position to defend. You then spend the conversation answering counterarguments instead of hearing a reflection. In the second field paper below, conversations built on arguments alone showed no measurable change in attitudes toward unauthorized immigrants, while conversations that also exchanged personal stories did.

The deep canvass structure fixes the order: their experience first, your story second, their reflection last.

How to run it

  1. Ask where they stand today, in their own words, and thank them for the answer whatever it is.
  2. Invite a story from their life that touches the issue: “Can you tell me about a time this came up for you?”
  3. Listen, then reflect back one sentence of what you heard and ask one follow-up about how it felt. Hold your rebuttal.
  4. Share one short true story of your own, or of a person you know, about how the issue played out in a real life.
  5. Ask for their reflection: “Having talked it through, where are you now?” Accept any answer and thank them.

Opening: “The city is voting on a change to school start times. Where do you land on it today?”

Invitation: “Can you tell me what a weekday morning looks like at your place?”

Reflection: “So the early start already squeezes everyone. Did I hear that right?”

Keep your own story short, specific and true, with a named situation and a feeling in it. Statistics can wait for another conversation. If they ask for your argument, give it briefly and return to their experience.

Say it out loud

“I would like to hear your experience first, then share one story from mine. I hold a view on this vote, and you are free to stay exactly where you are.”

Why it still works with the listener fully informed: the structure asks for a story and offers a story. A canvasser at the door has already said who they are and what they are there for, and nothing in the practice depends on hiding it. A story you invented would fail this test, so use only true ones.

Profile translations

How to tell it worked

Action
Ask for an experience before you state your view.
Why
The person's own story gives your story something to connect to.
Verification
Their answer is longer than a one-line opinion and contains concrete details such as a name, a time or a place.
Action
Reflect one sentence back before you speak.
Why
A check that you heard them keeps the exchange from becoming a rebuttal.
Verification
They say yes, or they correct your summary in their own words.
Action
Share one story of under two minutes.
Why
A short story is easy to follow and gives them something to react to.
Verification
They ask a follow-up question about it or offer a related story of their own.
Action
Ask for their reflection and accept the answer.
Why
Reflection is theirs to make, and a hurried closing line takes it away.
Verification
They say something about their view that they had not said at the start, even if their position holds. Write it down afterwards.

Failure signs: stop if you see these

  • You are talking more than the other person (the talk-time check will show it).
  • Your story turns into a lead-in for “so you see why you are mistaken”.
  • You interrupt their story to correct a detail.
  • They repeat the same sentence twice, or ask to end the conversation. Stop and thank them.

Why it works, and how strong the evidence is

Evidence. Two peer-reviewed field-experiment papers by the same research team, with random assignment and follow-up surveys. Effects were small and measured as survey attitudes, not later behavior. Topics were attitudes toward transgender people and toward unauthorized immigrants in the United States. Follow-up ran three to four months. We did not locate independent replication by a different team, so treat this as one team's program of work. Effect on topics beyond these two: Not reported.

Broockman and Kalla (2016, Science) tested door-to-door conversations in South Florida aimed at prejudice toward transgender people. In a randomized trial with 501 voters, a conversation of about ten minutes that encouraged perspective-taking was followed by reduced prejudice that lasted at least three months. Transgender and non-transgender canvassers were both effective, and support for a nondiscrimination law rose even after voters heard counterarguments.

Kalla and Broockman (2020, American Political Science Review) reported three pre-registered field experiments: 230 canvassers, 6,869 voters, seven locations in the United States. Conversations that exchanged narratives in a non-judgmental way reduced exclusionary attitudes for at least four months. Arguments alone produced no measurable change in the immigration experiment.

The limits are worth stating. The measured change is small. The outcomes are survey answers from people who spoke with canvassers and completed follow-ups, so ask how far the finding travels to your setting. Whether the approach works for topics that are not about attitudes toward a group is not established by these papers. A conversation also takes time, so reach is narrow by design.

Worked example

An illustration, not data. A volunteer who supports a proposed park entrance fee knocks on a door.

Before

“The fee pays for maintenance and it is small. Surely you can see the park needs the money.” The neighbor lists three reasons the fee is unfair and the exchange ends politely.

After

“Where do you land on the fee today? … What does the park mean to your family? … So your kids learned to ride bikes there and you worry about cost. I hear that. Last summer my father could no longer walk to the park because the path was not repaired, and it changed how he spent his days. Having talked it over, where are you now?”

What changed: the neighbor spoke first and longest, the volunteer's story was specific and true, and the closing question accepted any answer. A volunteer who opposes the fee can use the same five steps with their own true story. Watch for who is doing most of the talking, and end warmly whatever the neighbor concludes.

Frequently asked questions

What is deep canvassing?

A conversation structure in which the canvasser asks about the other person's own experience, listens, shares a personal story, and asks for the person's reflection. Broockman and Kalla tested it in field experiments on attitudes toward transgender people and unauthorized immigrants.

Does deep canvassing work on any issue?

The published field experiments cover attitudes toward two groups in the United States. Whether it carries over to a budget vote, a zoning decision or another topic is Not reported, so test it on a small scale first.

How long do the effects last?

The papers followed voters for at least three to four months and reported effects over that window. Longer durability is Not reported here.

How big are the effects?

Small in standardized terms (read the 2020 paper for the estimates). Plan around a few conversations moving survey attitudes a little, and avoid expecting a doorstep conversion.

Do I need a script?

A loose structure helps: their experience, your story, their reflection. The research describes conversations that responded to the person at the door, so rehearse the steps, not a monologue.