Republican Party Shows Us How to Fundraise
The Republican party is having a bad public relations moment. Many appear to have thrown over traditional conservative values (see—limited government spending) to follow Donald Trump’s lead. That changed outlook also applies to what happened on January 6th.
Examining their behavior and attitudes can be very helpful to those in social good who are out there trying to change the world. Understanding some of the dynamics behind the behavior of some Republicans can be turned into tools you can use to raise money and gain engagement.
Follow this line of thought to land where the Republican leadership has landed:
Situations drive behaviors more than dispositions. “Disposition” is a word from psychology that describes things that make people different from one another, like beliefs, temperament, honesty, kindness, generosity, etc. Taken as a whole, these things make up one’s character. When observing other’s actions, we are biased to think that they are behaving that way because of their dispositions. Psychologists have named this bias the “fundamental attribution error.” But behavior is actually much more driven by situations. The same person can be honest in one situation and dishonest in another. When you ask a social psychologist their take on someone’s behavior, they’ll often say, “Well, it depends.” What it depends on is the situation, and that’s what makes human behavior so complex.
The situation Republican leaders find themselves in is driving their behavior more than their beliefs. Last month we watched the first meetings of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol (the January 6th committee). Prior, there was a lot of discussion about the striking behavior of Republican lawmakers. These folks must feel terribly conflicted. During the hearings, numerous video clips were shown of Republicans in the chamber during the riot. They were adamant about Trump's culpability in the moment and in the hours that immediately followed. But later, they changed their stories—dramatically. They went from (generalizing here) "it was unforgivable" to "what's the problem?" The contrast is jarring. This is an example of responding to the situation; then, when the situation changed (the insurrectionists left the building), these individuals snapped back to their pre-riot attitudes and behaviors. There was a lot of pressure to do so, because the Trump wing sets the social norms of the Republican party. Go against these norms, and you’ll not last long as a congressman/congresswoman.
Cognitive dissonance goes to work. People like for their beliefs and attitudes to be consistent. Our minds hate inconsistencies and work to resolve “dissonance” whenever possible. For example, among Republicans one belief is that Trump is good. The January 6th committee presented them with evidence that the insurrection was bad; and even worse, that Trump incited it. They find themselves in a position where they must resolve this dissonance. So, two things can happen: either Trump must be perceived as being bad, or the insurrection must be framed as something good. In the case of the January 6th riot, it seems “good” was a bridge too far, so instead we heard a lot of things like comparing the rioters to tourists or minimizing the attack as a “spontaneous uprising” rather than a full-on coup attempt. [Note: Congressman Andrew S. Clyde, (R-Ga.) who compared the mob’s breaching of the building to “normal tourist visits,” was photographed barricading an office door during the attack.] This way, Trump can remain “good” because the riot was recast as being “not so bad.” The other option to resolve dissonance regarding the January 6th attack is to take the position that the attack, while bad, was not Trump’s fault. This leads us to point #4...
Some Republican leaders now honestly believe they were initially wrong in their assessment of the January 6th insurrection. Some folks now believe January 6th either was not an insurrection or was not Donald Trump’s fault. They are resolving their cognitive dissonance by changing their minds about the situation. What’s important to understand is that resolving dissonance requires changing beliefs or attitudes. So, many now honestly believe, unlike those who acknowledge (to themselves) that Trump was responsible, but outwardly professed him to be innocent. The latter are craven politicians who will lie to further their careers.
What about Liz Cheney? How did this Republican never waver? Consider her situation. Her family's history created different social norms for her. Her Republican pedigree far outdates (and outweighs) Donald Trump. Those family social norms are apparently stronger than the norms that are being applied by Wyoming’s Republican voters, who seem poised to oust her in the next election. For Cheney, family values trumped (sorry) political ambition. She said, "...dishonor will remain" for those who would not judge the January 6th insurrection as an insurrection. The situation she found herself in — withering pressure from a Republican base devoted to Trump — was not enough to sway beliefs or attitudes.
History is unfolding before us; it’s on C-SPAN and most cable news outlets. How can we use what we’re witnessing to help us in social good? Repeat to yourself... people respond to situations. We can use this idea to design programs to create situations that trigger the types of attitudes and behaviors that we’re seeing as a result of the January 6th hearings.
For example, consider copy that reads, "You’re the kind of person who would never let an animal suffer. You can put an end to animals' suffering." This puts you in an awkward situation. Are you that kind of person? If so, wouldn't you donate to ensure animals don't suffer? We marketers are trying to create situations in which you resolve, in this case, your cognitive dissonance by donating, rather than by deciding you don't care if animals suffer. That feeling of guilt if you don’t donate? Cognitive dissonance.
As we have seen, social norms are powerful influencers of behavior. How about copy that reads like this: "Most of our customers reuse their towels for the sake of the environment. What would you like to do?" Studies show this is incredibly effective in reducing the amount of laundry that hotels must do, saving energy (and money).
Clever event design can do the same thing. Habitat for Humanity puts you to work building a house. If you're committed enough to give up your time to build a house, you're the kind of person who would donate to the same end—housing people who need it. Behavior leads to belief.
These are all the same techniques applied in different ways. But they come down to the same thing—change the situation, change the behavior.
