Facts don't change minds...

There is a familiar instinct at the heart of most public debates (private ones too, tbf) if we present better facts, clearer evidence, and a more rigorous argument, people will change their minds and come to our way of thinking. It is an instinct rooted in rational ideals and good intent.

It is also, most of the time, completely wrong.

Few areas expose this illogical outcome more clearly than conversations about policing. Despite extensive research, public inquiries, reform efforts etc, the discourse remains highly polarised and emotionally charged. Facts circulate probably less widely than opinions or false information. Misinformation and information without any context can do some real damage and the logical follow up of detail, context or truth sometimes goes nowhere in the grand scheme of things, the damage is already done.

This is the landscape in which JAM is supporting the launch of the National Police Association (NPA) not simply as a new (needed) organisation, but as an opportunity to reset how the conversation about policing is conducted. Lofty goals indeed.

The dominant assumption is that persuasion is about information. If people resist change, it must be because they have not yet encountered the right data or the strongest argument, they haven’t understood the information. Experience (and psychology) suggest otherwise.

When individuals are presented with information that challenges held beliefs, they often become more entrenched in that belief, not more open. Think of this more as an identity issue than an information issue.

Being correct and changing someone’s mind are fundamentally different tasks. The first concerns truth (we use that word lightly given there can be a number of “individual truths” these days). The second concerns belonging.

We defend ideas or information that signals something about who we are, our values, our communities, our histories in addition to our experiences and perceptions. When a belief becomes bound up with identity, challenging it feels like an attack on the self not an invitation to consider information in an unbiased way.

David Ogilvy once observed: “The consumer isn’t a moron...” Stripped of its era-specific phrasing and I appreciate this is part of a line that we’re attributing great meaning to, but the principle is enduring: do not insult the intelligence of your audience.

This happens both ways in the discussion around policing, police officers are not given deserved respect for the difficulties, challenges and expertise required to do the job well. Be honest, could you be nice to someone and talk them down if they were waving a machete in your face and telling you they’re going to murder you and your family? The Police Bravery Awards show this has happened, to someone, a person, whilst they’re at work. The terror and fear I don’t think can be overlooked, but so often the commentary around policing is PC Plod or something akin to the show Piglets (which was an absolute disgrace).

At the same time we see so many instances of criminals being treated as less than, no longer being treated as people which jars us. The public find this confusing and horrifying in equal measure. The “dark humour” we hear so much about – essentially how officers manage their work related trauma is so far out of what feels appropriate or ok they become “aliens” neither can really understand the others’ point of view.

People are perceptive. They are quick to dismiss anything that feels patronising, manipulative, or performative. They trust their judgement and their lived experience more than they trust institutions or slogans, so when the police say they’ve changed or reformed after incidents we rarely take stock of that. When they sense they are being talked down to, they disengage.

Ogilvy’s insight to treat people as equals, as this makes them more likely to listen make sense as respect earns trust, and trust is the foundation of influence.

This applies just as strongly to public discourse as it does to advertising, particularly in conversations about policing, where distrust is already high and emotional stakes are significant.

Policing debates are uniquely resistant to change in a way. Resistance to changing one’s mind is not primarily intellectual; it is emotional and social. From an evolutionary perspective, we’re not designed to seek objective truth above all else.

For most of human history, exclusion from the group was dangerous. As a result, beliefs that signal group membership, political positions, moral frameworks, institutional loyalties are defended fiercely.

Policing occupies this territory, for some, it represents safety, order, and service. For others, harm, exclusion, and systemic injustice. These views are often reinforced by community narratives. Changing them can feel like abandoning one’s group or invalidating one’s own history.

If facts alone are insufficient, what does change minds? Not more in-depth arguments, but better conditions.

Persuasion depends on whether people feel safe enough, respected enough, and connected enough to reconsider what they believe. Three elements are consistently present when meaningful change occurs, safety, time and relationships. This is why the loss of community policing was felt so strongly.

Respect is literally the strategy.

For JAM, supporting the NPA is not about winning an argument about policing or being pro-policing. It is about helping to create a different environment for discussion, one grounded in respect and credibility. Ideally in reality.

As a new organisation, the NPA has a rare opportunity. It is not yet burdened by decades of institutional baggage. It can choose to engage without condescension, without denial, and without assuming that political games have to be played for contra with the government. 

This means we are really looking to:

• Prioritise relationships. Not just with the government. The audiences are so much broader than that, from officers to their extended families, policing touches so many people. They should all be considered in the conversation and the broader context.

• Reduce performative pressure. Public debates often entrench positions because no one wants to lose face. Progress is more likely to land positively in lower-pressure, relational settings. We need to think about how and where the NPA is engaging and with who.

• Embrace gradual change. Beliefs exist on a spectrum and really change happens incrementally. There is little point in thinking we can change the world immediately, but we can absolutely make waves of positive change.

• Amplify better ideas. Rather than just fighting/moaning about the bad ones By consistently researching and modelling constructive narratives and changes, new perspectives and ideas can help to affect positive change.

The aim is not to sanitise disagreement or erase difference, but to make disagreement actually productive and a lot less hostile.

The most important question is not whether one side is “right,” but what outcome we are actually seeking. Validation and change are not the same thing, and they require different approaches from the NPA. Any effort to shift public understanding and support of policing must take this seriously.

Supporting the launch of the NPA is, at its core, an investment in respect, for all audiences including officers, their families, criminals, the public, for lived experience, and for the complexity of the issue itself. It is a recognition that people are not problems to be corrected, but participants to be engaged, and we really need everyone engaged.

Keen to chat about what does work? Get in touch :)