Deep Canvassing

Takes practice

A structured ten-to-twenty-minute conversation in which you ask someone's view without judgment, invite a story from their own life, share one of yours, and let them do the reasoning aloud; it is one of the few approaches shown in field experiments to shift attitudes durably.

How to do it

  1. 1Ask for their view and mean it. A zero-to-ten scale helps ("where are you on this, zero to ten?") because it gives you both something concrete to return to.
  2. 2Listen without correcting. Ask why they chose that number and reflect back what you hear. The first minutes are for making it safe to be honest, including about views you dislike.
  3. 3Ask for a relevant experience, not an opinion: a time they were judged unfairly, needed help, or saw someone they love treated badly. Let them tell it fully.
  4. 4Share a short, true story of your own or of someone you know that connects to the issue. Stories, not statistics, are the active ingredient in the studies.
  5. 5Make the link lightly and ask them to reflect: "does any of that connect for you to what we are talking about?" Let them voice the connection; do not voice it for them.
  6. 6Address concerns honestly when they raise them, then ask the scale question again. Accept whatever answer comes, thank them, and leave the relationship intact.

What to say

  • “On a scale of zero to ten, where are you on this? There is no wrong answer; I am curious what is behind that number for you.”
  • “Has there been a time when someone showed you compassion when you really needed it? What was that like?”
  • “I appreciate you telling me that. Hearing it, I would not try to argue you out of how you feel.”

When to use it

  • •One-to-one conversations on divisive issues with a neighbour, voter, relative, or colleague, where you have at least ten unhurried minutes.
  • •Community organizing and outreach where the goal is lasting change in attitudes, not turnout.
  • •Situations where facts and arguments have already been tried and produced only resistance.

Counters

In-Group/Out-Group BiasDehumanizationEnemy Image ConstructionScapegoatingWedge IssuesIdentity-Protective CognitionReactance ExploitationFear MongeringBelief PerseveranceThought-Terminating ClicheDivide and ConquerDog WhistlingMoral PanicSpiral of Silence Exploitation

Evidence and how strong it is

Broockman & Kalla (2016) ran a preregistered field experiment in which canvassers held roughly ten-minute conversations of this kind with Miami voters; attitudes toward transgender people improved, and the change persisted for at least three months and withstood exposure to opposing campaign messages. Kalla & Broockman (2020) replicated the approach in three field experiments on immigration and transgender rights and isolated the key component: conversations that included a non-judgmental exchange of narratives changed attitudes, while the same conversations stripped down to arguments did not. This is notable because the same authors (2018) found in a meta-analysis that ordinary campaign contact in general elections has an average persuasive effect close to zero. History matters here: an earlier high-profile study reporting large effects of canvassing (LaCour & Green 2014) was retracted after Broockman, Kalla and Aronow showed its data could not be genuine; the 2016 study is the properly conducted successor. Evidence strength: strong for a method in this field (randomized field experiments with follow-up), with limits: effects are modest (a few points on a hundred-point scale), most tests so far concern topics chosen by progressive advocacy organizations, and the mechanism is not partisan in principle but has been tested less on other issues.

Cautions
  • It is slow and labour-intensive, and many conversations change nothing. Judge it over many conversations, never by one.
  • The non-judgment must be real. Using the form as a script to extract a concession is manipulation, and people feel the difference.
  • It is a persuasion method and works for whoever uses it. When it is used on you, the fair test is whether the stories are true and whether you were free to end the conversation unchanged.
  • Door-to-door and stranger conversations carry safety risks. Work in pairs, leave when someone is hostile, and do not push a person who is distressed.
  1. Broockman, D., & Kalla, J. (2016). Durably Reducing Transphobia: A Field Experiment on Door-to-Door Canvassing. Science, 352(6282), 220-224 · link
    The field experiment showing a ten-minute conversation produced attitude change lasting at least three months.
  2. Kalla, J. L., & Broockman, D. E. (2020). Reducing Exclusionary Attitudes Through Interpersonal Conversation: Evidence from Three Field Experiments. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 410-425
    Replications showing that the non-judgmental exchange of narratives is the component that produces durable change.
  3. Kalla, J. L., & Broockman, D. E. (2018). The Minimal Persuasive Effects of Campaign Contact in General Elections: Evidence from 49 Field Experiments. American Political Science Review, 112(1), 148-166
    The baseline finding that conventional campaign persuasion has near-zero average effect, against which deep canvassing stands out.
Last reviewed

More in Civic and political life

Sunlight Against Astroturf

When a "grassroots" campaign, citizens' coalition, or flood of public comments appears, establish who organized and paid for it and make that public, because manufactured support loses most of its force once the audience knows it is manufactured.

Moral Reframing

When you argue across a political or cultural divide, make your honest case in terms of the values the listener actually holds, not your own, because arguments grounded in the other side's moral vocabulary are heard as arguments while those grounded in yours are heard as noise.

Perspective-Getting, Not Perspective-Taking

To understand what another person thinks or wants, ask them and listen, instead of imagining yourself in their shoes; imagining feels insightful but in controlled tests does not improve accuracy, while asking does.

Metaperception Correction

Check what you believe the other side thinks of your side against actual survey data, because partisans in many countries greatly overestimate how much their opponents dislike, dehumanize, and wish to obstruct them, and that exaggerated belief itself drives hostility.

Superordinate Goals and Structured Contact

Reduce hostility between groups by having them work together, as equals, toward a goal that both want and neither can reach alone; mere exposure or exhortation does little, but cooperative contact under the right conditions reliably lowers prejudice.

The Spirit of Motivational Interviewing

When you want to help someone reconsider a belief or a habit, stop arguing for the change and instead draw out their own reasons for and against it, because people are persuaded by what they hear themselves say and push back against what they are told.