Opinion Science

Emma Levine is a professor of behavioral science at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. One of the main things she studies is the ever-present tension between honesty and kindness. Is it morally right to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Or is it our moral obligation to consider other people’s well-being, which sometimes means lying to protect them from hurt?

Also on the show: AJ Jacobs, writer and self-experimentation expert. He joins us to talk about his experiments in radical honesty, which he first wrote about in a 2007 article for Esquire. You can subscribe to his free Substack, Experimental Living with AJ Jacobs.

Join me over at the Opinion Science Patreon for a video of extra clips from my conversation with Emma, and in a couple of weeks, you can find a bonus video episode there featuring the rest of my conversation with AJ.

Join me over at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/OpinionScience

Learn more about Opinion Science and catch up on all the episodes at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/.

On a special bonus episode, we welcome back Dr. Vanessa Bohns, professor of organizational behavior at Cornell University. She recently released her second book, "Should I Say Something?: The Science of What to Share--And What to Keep to Yourself."

This episode is from the series of bonus video podcasts I've been doing over at Patreon. But this month, everyone gets the whole episode in the main feed. You can watch the video over at Patreon, though. These have been fun, casual conversations with behavioral scientists and interesting people.

Paid supporters of Opinion Science ($5/mo.) on Patreon get these bonus episodes every month. But you can also join as a free member and still get access to other bonus content + the chance to engage me and other listeners.

Check it out at: https://patreon.com/OpinionScience

Join me over at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/OpinionScience

Learn more about Opinion Science and catch up on all the episodes at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/.

Dr. Joshua Conrad Jackson uses a bunch of creative research tools to tackle big questions about psychology, culture, and history. By examining historical records, modern writing, and global surveys (among other things), he and his colleagues can trace the trajectory of cultures over time. 

In our conversation, he helps me understand what "cultural evolution" means, how cultures have gotten more different (not more similar), and how historical records can shed light on the psychology of prejudice.

Join me over at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/OpinionScience

Learn more about Opinion Science and catch up on all the episodes at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/.

Rhia Catapano studies what happens when people think of an opinion in terms of what they support versus what they oppose. It turns out that this simple difference carries important implications. Even if we're talking about the same basic opinion, something shifts when it's about support than opposition. In our conversation, Rhia shares her findings and what it means for people who want to communicate more effectively.

At the top of the show, I discuss Issue 1 in Ohio from 2023. Most of the background details for that were drawn from this NYT article.

Join me over at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/OpinionScience

Learn more about Opinion Science and catch up on all the episodes at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/.

Demi Oba is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Harvard Business School. He studies the nature of communication. In our conversation, Demi shares some recent research on the different types of "hedges" people make when expressing uncertainty in a claim. These types of uncertainty matter for how persuasive a person can be. In fact, sometimes, being the right kind of uncertain can be more influential than expressing confidence.

Join me over at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/OpinionScience

Learn more about Opinion Science and catch up on all the episodes at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/.

Jae-Hee Jung is an assistant professor at Rice University, where she studies party politics, political behavior, and political psychology in Western democracies. Her research focuses on the strategic use of moral rhetoric (i.e., appeals to fundamental notions of right and wrong) and how it shapes political competition and voter psychology.

We talk about her work analyzing political manifestos, the psychological mechanisms like pride that mobilize a party's base, and the surprising finding that inclusive moral messaging can actually build sympathy across the aisle without causing a partisan backlash. Along the way, we see how framing policies around core principles rather than simple costs and benefits changes the way voters connect with political parties over the long haul.

Dr. Jung's new book is Shared Morals: The Role of Moral Rhetoric in Party Politics.

Join me over at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/OpinionScience

Learn more about Opinion Science and catch up on all the episodes at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/.

Elizabeth Dunn and Jiaying Zhao are professors at the University of British Columbia, where they study social psychology and climate behavioral science, respectively. Together, they explore the intersection of human happiness and environmental action, challenging the traditional "guilt and shame" narratives that dominate climate communication. We talk about their new book: Leave the Lights On: How Joyful Decisions Can Save Our Species, which explores how you can address climate change by taking actions that make you feel happy. We see how reframing environmental choices around joy can create a more effective, contagious movement for behavior change. 

Join me over at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/OpinionScience

Learn more about Opinion Science and catch up on all the episodes at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/.

Yamil Velez is an assistant professor of political science at Columbia University, where he studies what makes political opinions hard to shift. He’s been using innovative new methods to test important ideas about how people arrive at their views and what it takes to change them. We talk about the relationship between beliefs and opinions, why correcting misinformation doesn’t necessarily move opinions, and what happens when persuasive messages are tailored to the specific reasons people hold their views. 

Yamil shares his work using large language models to generate personalized arguments, showing that people will update their beliefs pretty readily—but only some of those belief changes actually translate into attitude change. Along the way, we explore what this means for persuasion, polarization, and the future of using AI to study (and maybe influence) public opinion. 

Join me over at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/OpinionScience

Learn more about Opinion Science and catch up on all the episodes at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/.

Sylvia Perry is a social psychologist and Associate Professor at Northwestern University, where she directs the Social Cognition and Social Identity Lab. She studies the psychological mechanisms that shape how people recognize and confront their own biases, as well as how those biases are transmitted across generations.

We talk about her research on racial socialization, specifically focusing on how white parents navigate—or frequently avoid—conversations about race with their children. Sylvia shares insights from her research on facilitating parent-child discussions about race and racism. We discuss why color-conscious messaging is more effective than "colorblind" approaches at reducing children’s implicit biases and how addressing subtle microaggressions can be more impactful for a child’s development than discussing overt prejudice alone.

Along the way, we explore the privilege underlying the freedom to opt out of these difficult conversations and offer practical takeaways for parents looking to foster empathy and a sense of fairness in their own homes.

Join me over at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/OpinionScience

Learn more about Opinion Science and catch up on all the episodes at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/.

Alex Kustov studies public opinion about immigration—why it’s so durable, why it becomes so politically explosive, and what (if anything) can make it more popular. We talk about the surprisingly stable foundations of immigration attitudes, why only a small fraction of people are categorically opposed, and how partisanship shapes the debate. Alex also explains what he calls the “altruist’s dilemma”: why people who are genuinely altruistic can still be skeptical of immigration, and how policies that are demonstrably beneficial to receiving communities can shift that skepticism. Along the way, we explore what it would mean to design immigration policy not just to be good, but to be visibly and intuitively good to the public.

Dr. Kustov's recent book is In Our Interest: How Democracies Can Make Immigration Popular. He also writes the Substack Popular By Design.

The episode's introduction is from Episode 57: Media, Norms, and Social Change with Sohad Murrar.

Join me over at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/OpinionScience

Learn more about Opinion Science and catch up on all the episodes at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/.