Adapt your message to the audience’s interests or values
There are lots of barriers to communication about inequality being ‘heard’ by the public in the first place. Every environment is made up of more information than individuals can monitor, so we attend to environments selectively. Information can therefore be missed, either because it is not relevant to a person’s current situation or because it has been presented too often in the same way, leading to an overfamiliarity with the message. It is therefore important to consider how the information you wish to share can be targeted to avoid being missed or ignored by the public. Audience segmentation might be a useful strategy; the target audience is divided according to their probable interests to help identify effective communication channels and messages for each group. This might include the targeting of specific groups by a shared interest or circumstance, such as:
• Specific professions about a particular social policy which impacts their work
• Supporters of a local football team about an issue related to their area
• Commuters on public transport about wage levels and increasing travel costs.5
When communicating about inequality, it can be helpful to think about the values underpinning the arguments. There is some research which suggests that people who believe in ‘liberal’ politics highly value the prevention
of harm and whether something is fair. In comparison, people who believe in ‘conservative’ politics draw upon these two factors as well as considering loyalty to their group, whether something respects hierarchy and whether something is pure. Based on this, arguments against inequality appealing only to values of justice and fairness are not appealing to the range of values which members of the public may be drawing upon. This suggests that appealing to the virtues of loyalty, duty and purity are as important as appealing to fairness and justice in widening discussion beyond those who already wish to reduce inequality.7 This might include thinking about the dutiesof citizens to reduce inequality or loyalty to an ideal of a better society.
It is also useful to consider what issues are likely to engage a broader range of people. For instance, when asked to place themselves on a spectrum of income distribution, people often place themselves in the middle (even if they are actually at the top or bottom of the distribution)4,8 and they focus on the gap between ‘the middle’ and the ‘super rich’, rather than the gap between the richest and poorest. They also have a tendency to demonstrate more judgemental attitudes towards those at the either ends of the spectrum. For example, the ‘super rich’ are more likely to be considered as less deserving of their very high income, whereas those earning the very least are more likely to be blamed for their situation. It could be helpful to focus on information about the extremes of wealth, for instance that the combined wealth of the richest 1 per cent will overtake that of the other 99 per cent of people in 2016 unless world governments develop international policies which address tax avoidance, living wages and agree a global goal to tackle inequality.9
Local campaigning resources
The Equality Trust10 has a variety of resources to support local campaigns, such as a‘Make my Council Fair’pack which
outlines the key issues, how to find out the facts, how to engage the council and gain local support and other useful information
References
1 Orton, M. & Rowlingson, K. (2007). Public attitudes to economic inequality. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
2 Curtice, J. & Ormston, R. (2015). Key findings. The Verdict on five years of coalition government [online]. NatCen Social Research. Retrieved 19.02.16 from http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/38973/ bsa32_keyfindings.pdf
3 Ipsos MORI (2013). Perils of perception. London: Market and Opinion Research International Limited.
4 Barnfield, L. & Horton, T. (2009). Understanding attitudes to tackling economic inequality. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
5 Delvaux, J. & Rinne, S. (2009). Building public support for eradicating poverty in the UK. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
6 Hall, S., Leary, K., & Greevy, H. (2014). Public attitudes to poverty. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
7 Haidt, J. & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognise. Social Justice Research, 20, 98-116.
8 Evans, M. & Kelley, J. (2004). Subjective social location: data from 21 nations. International Journal ofPublicOpinionResearch,16,1,3–38.
9 Hardoon, D. (2015). Wealth: Having it all and wanting more. Oxford: Oxfam International.
There are lots of barriers to communication about inequality being ‘heard’ by the public in the first place. Every environment is made up of more information than individuals can monitor, so we attend to environments selectively. Information can therefore be missed, either because it is not relevant to a person’s current situation or because it has been presented too often in the same way, leading to an overfamiliarity with the message. It is therefore important to consider how the information you wish to share can be targeted to avoid being missed or ignored by the public. Audience segmentation might be a useful strategy; the target audience is divided according to their probable interests to help identify effective communication channels and messages for each group. This might include the targeting of specific groups by a shared interest or circumstance, such as:
• Specific professions about a particular social policy which impacts their work
• Supporters of a local football team about an issue related to their area
• Commuters on public transport about wage levels and increasing travel costs.5
When communicating about inequality, it can be helpful to think about the values underpinning the arguments. There is some research which suggests that people who believe in ‘liberal’ politics highly value the prevention
of harm and whether something is fair. In comparison, people who believe in ‘conservative’ politics draw upon these two factors as well as considering loyalty to their group, whether something respects hierarchy and whether something is pure. Based on this, arguments against inequality appealing only to values of justice and fairness are not appealing to the range of values which members of the public may be drawing upon. This suggests that appealing to the virtues of loyalty, duty and purity are as important as appealing to fairness and justice in widening discussion beyond those who already wish to reduce inequality.7 This might include thinking about the dutiesof citizens to reduce inequality or loyalty to an ideal of a better society.
It is also useful to consider what issues are likely to engage a broader range of people. For instance, when asked to place themselves on a spectrum of income distribution, people often place themselves in the middle (even if they are actually at the top or bottom of the distribution)4,8 and they focus on the gap between ‘the middle’ and the ‘super rich’, rather than the gap between the richest and poorest. They also have a tendency to demonstrate more judgemental attitudes towards those at the either ends of the spectrum. For example, the ‘super rich’ are more likely to be considered as less deserving of their very high income, whereas those earning the very least are more likely to be blamed for their situation. It could be helpful to focus on information about the extremes of wealth, for instance that the combined wealth of the richest 1 per cent will overtake that of the other 99 per cent of people in 2016 unless world governments develop international policies which address tax avoidance, living wages and agree a global goal to tackle inequality.9
Local campaigning resources
The Equality Trust10 has a variety of resources to support local campaigns, such as a‘Make my Council Fair’pack which
outlines the key issues, how to find out the facts, how to engage the council and gain local support and other useful information
References
1 Orton, M. & Rowlingson, K. (2007). Public attitudes to economic inequality. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
2 Curtice, J. & Ormston, R. (2015). Key findings. The Verdict on five years of coalition government [online]. NatCen Social Research. Retrieved 19.02.16 from http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/38973/ bsa32_keyfindings.pdf
3 Ipsos MORI (2013). Perils of perception. London: Market and Opinion Research International Limited.
4 Barnfield, L. & Horton, T. (2009). Understanding attitudes to tackling economic inequality. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
5 Delvaux, J. & Rinne, S. (2009). Building public support for eradicating poverty in the UK. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
6 Hall, S., Leary, K., & Greevy, H. (2014). Public attitudes to poverty. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
7 Haidt, J. & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognise. Social Justice Research, 20, 98-116.
8 Evans, M. & Kelley, J. (2004). Subjective social location: data from 21 nations. International Journal ofPublicOpinionResearch,16,1,3–38.
9 Hardoon, D. (2015). Wealth: Having it all and wanting more. Oxford: Oxfam International.
