Changing minds without breaking hearts

In this episode, we’re exploring how to effectively influence others’ thinking, without pushing too hard or creating resistance. As enablers of change, we often find ourselves in conversations where we’re trying to shift perspectives. But as we know, facts alone rarely do the trick. So how can we guide someone toward a new viewpoint while maintaining trust and collaboration?

Let’s delve into some practical strategies drawn from behavioural science, extension experience, and communication research. We’ll include lessons from John Cook and his colleagues at the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change on navigating misinformation and polarised beliefs. Whether we’re encouraging a change in farm practice, talking about climate resilience with growers, or working with policy stakeholders, these insights help us do our jobs better.

Empathy is our starting point. It sounds simple, but it’s a surprisingly radical act when people feel defensive or misrepresented. One helpful tool is the Empathy map, developed by Dave Gray. It prompts us to reflect on what the other person is seeing, hearing, thinking, and feeling, what pressures they’re under, what fears they have, and what might motivate them. For example, when working with a grain grower who’s sceptical about transitioning to no-till, we might recognise that they’re under financial pressure, have had patchy results in the past, and feel judged by younger advisors pushing new ideas. That context shapes how we engage.

Source: Dave Gray

Once we’re clear on their perspective, we can consider what might trigger resistance. The SCARF model, developed by David Rock (2008), outlines five key domains: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness and Fairness. These are social drivers that activate a threat or reward response in the brain.

Source: Allegra Consulting

Take a livestock producer being encouraged to shift towards carbon-neutral certification. If they feel their long-standing methods are being criticised (Status), the carbon markets are volatile (Certainty), they’re being told what to do (Autonomy), the advice is from a government agency they distrust (Relatedness), and the costs seem disproportionate to the benefits (Fairness), then they’re unlikely to be open to change. We can ease those tensions by affirming their existing efforts, explaining what’s known and unknown, giving them choices, building a trusted advisory relationship, and ensuring the benefits of certification feel fair.

Now let’s turn to Permission structures. These are the ways we give people ‘cover’ to change their minds without losing face. It’s hard to admit we were wrong, especially when the original decision was public or emotionally charged. But reframing the story can help. A broadacre farmer who once dismissed cover cropping might change their position if we say, ‘With recent weather extremes, a lot of growers are re-evaluating soil health strategies.’ This repositions it from contradicting their past, to responding to changing conditions. This repositioning allows new thinking without losing face.

Framing plays a key role too. We often assume people will be persuaded by data, but framing the message in line with someone’s values is usually more powerful. As John Cook and colleagues note, people use mental shortcuts—heuristics—like trusting a consensus of experts. This ‘wisdom of the crowd’ approach means they’re more likely to believe something if it comes from a group of reputable voices they identify with (Cook et al., 2018).

Which brings us to a critical lesson from climate change communication: highlighting scientific consensus. This is one of the most effective ways to shift beliefs. The Gateway belief model shows that when people believe that experts agree—like the 97% of climate scientists who concur that global warming is human-caused—they’re more likely to accept the science themselves, worry about it, and support action (van der Linden et al., 2015). This insight matters well beyond climate change, it applies to vaccinations, GMOs, or any other contentious topic.

Source: Cook & Jacobs, 2014, p. 3.3

But there’s a catch, misinformation works too! Cook’s research shows that misinformation about scientific consensus, such as fake petitions or alternative think-pieces, can cancel out the impact of factual messages unless we inoculate against it first. Inoculation theory tells us that, just like vaccines, we can build resistance to misinformation by exposing people to a weak version of the argument and explaining the tactics used to mislead. For instance, we might say: ‘You may hear that thousands of scientists disagree on this issue, but many of those signatories aren’t climate scientists. Some aren’t even real people.’

We can also use the Estimation-and-reveal technique. Ask someone what they think expert agreement is on an issue (e.g. climate change), then reveal the actual number. This makes the gap in understanding visible and creates a sense of surprise, which supports learning (Myers et al., 2015).  For example, many people guess that around 60% of climate scientists agree on human-caused warming, but when we reveal it’s actually 97%, it challenges assumptions in a non-confrontational way. That shift—from thinking something is fringe to realising it’s a growing norm—can make people more open to change.

There’s a lot to be learned from understanding climate change sceptics. The key takeaway? Don’t lead with science, lead with shared values. When someone doesn’t ‘believe’ in climate change, arguing over facts can backfire. But if they care about their grandchildren’s future, the quality of their soil, or the viability of their business, we can start there. As an extension practitioner having a conversation with a sceptical grazier, we could ask, ‘What kind of legacy do you want to leave?’ That could open up space to talk about long-term resilience, not just carbon emissions.

This aligns with Cook’s findings that consensus messaging doesn’t need to be confrontational. It’s not about pushing ideology, it’s about showing that people like them, and experts they respect, have come to a similar conclusion. And when it’s framed around identity-neutral territory, it avoids triggering defensiveness.

There are other lessons here too. Social proof is powerful. People look to their peers when making decisions. That’s why local champions, demonstration sites, and peer-to-peer learning are useful tools for enablers of change. Hearing a neighbour talk about switching to variable rate application is far more persuasive than a consultant quoting some figures. We also know that change often comes incrementally. Behavioural science confirms that asking for a small first step (the ‘foot in the door’ technique) is more effective than pushing for a major overhaul. A grower might trial one paddock, not their whole farm. That’s good! Progress builds trust.

And don’t underestimate humour and satire. Cook points to a memorable moment when comedian John Oliver staged a statistically accurate climate ‘debate’ with 97 scientists and three sceptics. It was funny but it also powerfully corrected the perception that the science was still undecided. Sometimes levity opens minds where logic alone cannot.

Source: Last week tonight with John Oliver

So what does this all mean for us as enablers of change? Changing minds is rarely about just providing more information. It’s about building rapport, reducing threats, offering permission to shift perspectives, and making it socially and emotionally safe to change. The goal isn’t to win an argument. The goal is to enable reflection, exploration, and ultimately, better decisions.

We’ve shared our thoughts, now it’s your turn! Add a comment below with your experiences, tips, and ideas on how to effectively change someone’s mind in the context of agricultural extension. We’d love this to be a conversation—your insights are invaluable to the community. 

Thanks for reading this Enablers of Change episode! Don’t forget to subscribe to our newsletter to catch future episodes, and share this post with friends who might enjoy the discussion. 

References

Cook, J., & Jacobs, P. (2014). Scientists are from Mars, laypeople are from Venus: An evidence-based rationale for communicating the consensus on climate. Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 34(6), 3.1–3.10. https://reports.ncse.com

Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S.A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R., Jacobs, P., & Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 024024+.

Cook, J., van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., & Lewandowsky, S. (2018). The Consensus Handbook. Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University. Download PDF.

Myers, T. A., Maibach, E., Peters, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: The results of two experiments. PLOS ONE, 10(3), e0120985.

Rock, D. (2008). SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others. NeuroLeadership Journal, 1, 44–52.

van der Linden SL, Leiserowitz AA, Feinberg GD, Maibach EW (2015) The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence. PLoS ONE 10(2): e0118489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489