Emily P.G. EricksonPresented as part of Getting to Better Outcomes from Public EngagementDecember 17, 2014

Mind Your Process: The psychology of public engagement

Learning(objec-ves!

•  Psychology*of*public*engagement*–  Three*rules*of*thumb*–  Psychology*at*play*–  How*to*apply*to*public*engagement*

•  Case*study*from*Saint*Paul,*MN*

Freud says…

1.  Meticulous method 2.  Manage your message 3.  Meeting not a mob

The fine print

•  Caveats –  Politics will remain –  People will still

disagree •  Benefits

–  Cultivate an environment conducive to good public process

–  Learn recommendations

–  Invite buy-in to final plan or project

Meticulous method Lay out what you�re going to do, do it to the best of your ability,

and show people you did it.

•  Psychology at play –  Procedural justice (Thibaut & Walker,

1975) –  Higher procedural justice associated

with lower rule-breaking behavior and perception that authorities have higher legitimacy (Trinkner & Cohn, 2014)

•  How to apply to public engagement –  Clarify rights and responsibilities –  Demonstrate freedom from bias,

consistency, good-faith effort •  Project timeline/next steps •  Up-to-date multiple channels of

information •  Early and easy-to-understand

notification •  Document and share

**

Manage your message What we say (and don�t say) and how we say it

has a very real impact on how people are likely to react.

•  Psychology at play –  Linguistic determinism hypothesis:

different languages impose different conceptions of reality (Whorf, 1956)

–  Presenting issues in different ways elicits different responses (Marteau, 1989; McNeil & others, 1988; Rothman & Salovey, 1997)

–  The way spoken material is expressed vocally impacts how the speaker hears that material (MacCluskie, 2010)

•  How to apply to public engagement –  Frame your message –  Be aware of vacuums

•  Say the thing you�re most afraid they will first

Meeting not a mob In-person and online community engagement experiences should increase public

trust in the process and provide opportunity for insight, not be a platform for venting.

•  Psychology at play

–  Individuals •  Theories of self: Belief = self, change of belief =

annihilation of self (Schultz, 2010) •  Catharsis theory is questionable at best (Bushman,

2002) –  Group pressure and conformity

•  Fundamental attribution error: Overestimating the influence of personality and underestimating the influence of situations (Heider, 1958)

•  Mood contagion (Neumann & Strack, 2000) •  Compliance with social pressure dominant behavior

(Milgram, 1963, 1974) •  Normative social influence (Asch, 1955) •  Procedural norms do not evolve on their own; they

must be created (Yalom, 2005) •  We use space to communicate with others (Lawson,

2001) •  Seeing another person�s eyes fosters empathy and

communication (Lapidot-Lefler, 2012) •  Foot-in-the-door phenomenon (Cialdini, 1993)

•  How to apply to public engagement –  Select and arrange the space carefully –  Determine ground rules –  Establish group norms (e.g., caring and empathy) –  Get early buy-in on something

Saint Paul, Minnesota Case Study

Jefferson Avenue Bikeway: Take 1

•  February 2008: City applied for FHWA Non-motorized Transportation Pilot Project funding for complimentary bike boulevards on Highland Parkway and Jefferson Avenue. Only Highland Parkway was awarded funding at the time. The District Council voted to discontinue this project.

•  March 2009: City reapplied for funding for a project located entirely on Jefferson, which would establish a 4-mile east-west connection on this residential street

Jefferson Avenue Bikeway: Take 1 (What not to do)

•  Message –  Staff instructed not to come across

as supportive of project –  Left a lot of information unsaid for

fear of being controversial •  Method

–  No clear community engagement plan communicated to public

–  13 public meetings with unclear ownership

–  Poor website (e.g., no contact person, no handouts, etc.)

•  Mobs –  Over a dozen public meetings –  No ground rules –  Auditorium style seating –  Yelling, etc. permitted

Jefferson Avenue Bikeway: Take 1 Outcome

Jefferson Avenue Bikeway: Take 2 (Intervention)

Jefferson Avenue Bikeway: Take 2 Meticulous methods

•  Laid out the project timeline, and stuck to it or gave plenty of notice for a change

•  Established ground rules, �We�ve got a lot to cover in our limited time tonight, so In the interest of efficiency, I ask that you keep your questions and comments until the appropriate time. I appreciate your patience.�

•  Told public how input would be used, and proved it

Jefferson Avenue Bikeway: Take 2

Manage your message •  Traffic calming toolbox: Shared

benefits and drawbacks of each potential treatment and project cost, to provide similar context for each

•  Included slides on what wasn�t in traffic calming toolbox (e.g., stop light, stop sign, etc.)

•  Framing public comments with analysis cover sheet, e.g., �Two sided parking: 10 different people concerned (11% of those who provided feedback)�

Jefferson Avenue Bikeway: Take 2 Meeting not a mob

–  Ground rules –  Used active listening

and validation in responding to comments (e.g., �I understand that you are worried about snow removal, and we were too, so…�)

–  Selected and arranged the space as best we could to promote civil behavior

–  Demonstrated honesty and trustworthiness through information shared

Jefferson Avenue Bikeway: Take 2 Outcome

•  82% approval rating on most controversial design element

•  City Council approval of community supported plan

•  Added bonus: Councilmember who tweaked plan at last minute was called out by those who testified for undermining public process

The least you need to know…

1.  Manage your message.

2.  Meticulous method. 3.  Meeting not a mob.

Emily P.G. Erickson epgerickson@gmail.com

https://www.linkedin.com/in/epgerickson