Broadening the moral values addressed in a news story can increase trust

Americans who value loyalty and authority most highly tend to be the most skeptical of the news media. In experiments with readers, however, we see promising signs that emphasizing these values in stories when they are relevant could broaden the appeal of those stories and of the media generally, without alienating people who revere other values.

The findings are provocative in part because some suspicion of authority and caution about the dangers of excessive loyalty are embedded in journalistic norms. That is why journalists put a high premium on keeping an eye on the powerful. While many people value loyalty and authority, journalists tend to worry that power corrupts, that people in power need to be watched, and that too much loyalty or trust can allow bad actors too much room.

Yet moral values, as well as other demographic and partisan characteristics, connect to how people perceive, trust, and consume news media as a whole. Further, people’s support for moral foundations values relate to the kind of journalism values they consider important, and to the type of stories or news they are most interested in or more likely to engage with.

So, how should journalists operate? Can they both stay true to their journalistic vocation and refine their stories to resonate with people who may prioritize different values? Can they expand their audience while not turning off loyal followers? That’s what we set out to test.

We tested variations of some common types of news stories to see whether changes in the way they were framed, or even just changes to the headlines, could change and broaden the appeal of those stories. We tested three different news stories. For each one, respondents might have seen one of two different versions. Each was based on an actual news story, slightly modified to make it more generic. The first version was a standard story written fairly closely to the original. The second included elements designed to explicitly touch on the values of loyalty and authority while still maintaining the parts related to care or fairness. The goal was to see if emphasizing these additional values could broaden their appeal, without alienating people who do not place as much importance on these values and who are already more trusting of the news.

Importantly, we changed little else. The two versions of the story were identical except for two elements: 1) The headline and first sentence were different in the revised version to touch on themes related to loyalty or authority; and 2) The revised version also has an additional paragraph that emphasizes the authority or loyalty angles of the news story. In other words, the facts were the same but what was emphasized changed.

The unaltered stories, inspired by real news stories, mostly emphasized moral values of care or fairness. Care and looking out for those who may be harmed—by policy, a person, or an event—and fairness for all are also somewhat embedded in journalistic norms. Further, people who value care and fairness tend to also see media favorably and also are more supportive of journalism values. In offering an alternative to these stories that also emphasized authority and loyalty, our experiment tested what might happen if journalists composing their stories think about the values of their most skeptical readers.

Respondents were randomly assigned to read one version of each story, and then asked a series of questions about the story, including the headline and first sentence, and the additional paragraph if they received the revised version. The goals of the experiment were to see if the revised version led to more positive views about the story among those who place the most importance on loyalty and authority (broadening the audience), and no negative impact on views toward the story among those who most value care or fairness (without alienating those who already trust media).

Overall, the experiment was promising and found reasons for journalists to try to write and frame stories more broadly. Some revisions were more effective than others. But in general the revisions helped broaden trust. And in some cases the revised version made the story more appealing even to people who already tended to trust the media. For example, a story about government corruption was seen generally as more balanced, more trustworthy, and more likely to get readers’ attention.

The three short news stories were designed to be similar in style and presentation to articles in local news outlets. They concerned one of three fairly common news topics: 1) local environmental issue (polluted water); 2) local corruption (mayor’s misuse of funds); or 3) state election laws (photo identification and voter registration). One might expect differing values to play out prominently in national news, but we wanted to look at their salience at a community-level as well.

STANDARD VERSION:

New recreation center for low-income neighborhood a casualty of parks scandal

A project aimed at helping the city’s most marginalized, low-income neighborhood has been abandoned in the wake of a misuse of city funds by the Parks Director, according to documents obtained by a local media investigation.

The Mayor had designated the money for a recreation center in the city’s poorest district, but the director funneled the money to a series of unauthorized projects.

The documents show the director misled city officials about how the funds were being spent, and the city no longer has the money to build the recreation center to help both low-income seniors and at-risk youth.

REVISED VERSION:

Parks boss deceived Mayor, misused taxpayer money

The city’s Parks Director intentionally defied the orders of the Mayor and diverted city money from a key recreation project to businesses owned by his friends and family, according to documents obtained by a local media investigation.

The Mayor had designated the money for a recreation center in the city’s poorest district, but the director funneled the money to a series of unauthorized projects.

The Parks Director bypassed protocols in order to send money to businesses with close connections to his family and friends, the investigation finds. Emails from the Parks Director reveal that he repeatedly disregarded instructions from the Mayor’s office about the funds and the project that residents voted to fund.

The documents show the director misled residents and other top city officials about how the funds were being spent, and the city no longer has the money to build the recreation center to help both low-income seniors and at-risk youth.

Other standard versus revised story text can be found in Appendix III

To understand the impacts of the changes, the study looked at three sets of questions:

1. How do the elements relate to overall views of a story?
2. How does changing the headline and first sentence impact people’s views of those parts of the story?
3. How do people view the additional paragraph highlighting the loyalty and authority elements of the story?

Overall effectiveness of revised version

In no case was the revised version of the story—the one designed specifically for people who put more value on loyalty and authority—less appealing overall. And while not every revision in every story enhances trust, we find some changes were effective in reaching broader audiences and making those readers less skeptical of the media. Moreover, we find some instances where the generalized appeal of the revised version was even greater than the appeal of the standard version. For example, half of respondents who read the revised version of the corruption story are more likely to say they would pay attention to the rest (compared to 42% of those who saw the standard version). The revised version of the election story was also more likely to be seen as more balanced (62% versus 44%) and trustworthy (78% vs. 70%) than the standard version.

Generalized appeal of revised version across all moral values

Across the three stories—about pollution, local corruption, and election law—there were no instances where the revised version alienated those more trusting of the news.

Indeed, some of the revised versions were even more appealing than the original version to those audiences. This was the case for both the pollution and corruption stories.

For the pollution story, every audience group preferred the revised version, the one emphasizing more moral values. As an example, people who put a high value on fairness (a group associated with high trust in the news media) more likely to pay attention to other stories from the same news source after reading the revised version than those who read the standard version (59% versus 34%). The response was even more positive among people who most valued authority (57% versus 28%).

[chart slug=”values-18-pollution-story-more-engaging”]

The corruption story also tended to engender more trust across the board when it was revised to make it more appealing to people whose values make them more skeptical of the press. As an example, about 6 in 10 respondents who highly valued purity said they were more likely to pay attention to similar stories about government corruption after seeing the revised version of that story, compared to 39% percent who said that about the standard story. The numbers were similarly boosted among people who value fairness highly, a group highly trusting of the press. In all, 63% of this fairness group said they would pay attention to similar stories after reading the revised version, versus 45% who said that after reading the standard account. Unlike the pollution story, we did not see a significant effect for those who most emphasize other values like care, loyalty, or authority.

These findings indicate that making a story touch on more values with the intent to appeal to those with more often conservative values may make it more appealing overall.

The election story significantly improved feelings of trustworthiness for those who most emphasize values such as purity or loyalty. The revised headline for this story downplayed details about minority and economic status, provided more information on how the proposed law would change the experience of voting generally, and provided an additional paragraph that mentioned state legislators’ concerns about voter fraud within the story’s body.

These minor alterations in the revised story improved perceptions of trustworthiness significantly across respondents in two groups who tend to be less trusting of the press—people who most value purity or loyalty. Seventy-four percent of those who most emphasize loyalty think the revised version of the election story was more trustworthy, compared to 60% who say the same for the standard version. The increased perception of trustworthiness in the revised version compared to the standard one was also more prevalent among those who most emphasize purity (81% versus 64%).

Effects driven by headline and first sentence

The findings from the pollution and corruption stories provide evidence that changing the headline and first sentence (or lead) alone can improve the appeal of the story to those who tend to be most skeptical of the media.

The revised versions of the headlines and first sentences in the pollution and corruption stories made the stories more appealing to those who most value authority, loyalty, or purity.

How did those headlines and leads change?

For the corruption story, the headline shifted from:

New recreation center for low-income neighborhood a casualty of parks scandal

To:

Parks boss deceived Mayor, misused taxpayer money

The lead, or first sentence, shifted from this:

A project aimed at helping the city’s most marginalized, low-income neighborhood has been abandoned in the wake of a misuse of city funds by the Parks Director, according to documents obtained by a local media investigation.

To this:

The city’s Parks Director intentionally defied the orders of the Mayor and diverted city money from a key recreation project to businesses owned by his friends and family, according to documents obtained by a local media investigation.

The information in the headline and first sentence was the same, but the revised headline and lead was more popular and more trusted. Americans who place most emphasis on authority, loyalty, and purity, for instance, were more likely to say the revised headline and opening sentence focused on the most important part of the story.

[chart slug=”values-19-political-corruption-skeptical-audiences”]

We saw the same effect for the pollution story.

Here the headline changed from:

At-risk neighborhood now facing new health threat from toxic drinking water

To:

Local community at risk after state officials ignore military study

And the first sentence changed from this:

A toxic chemical has polluted drinking water at a local mobile home park, making it the latest low-income community to face a public health crisis due to the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure.

To this:

After state officials failed to act on warnings from a military study last year, the local community is now facing a public health risk as a toxic chemical has been found in the community’s drinking water.

[chart slug=”values-20-pollution-story-all-audiences”]

The revised versions of the headlines and first sentences also motivated respondents to read the whole story. Those who placed most importance on authority and loyalty, for instance, were more likely to think the revised version of the first sentence in the pollution story makes them want to read the rest. Only 45% of those who highly valued authority say they would want to keep reading the standard story. But that number jumped to 72% for the version with the different headline and first sentence.

Yet far from pandering to one audience, those revisions did not make the story less trustworthy for audiences who put more emphasis on the so-called liberal values of care and fairness. They were just as likely to read the pollution story with the revisions as the standard version.

The revised openings to the stories improve the likelihood that those who most value authority, loyalty, or purity see their personal views reflected in the story. Only 32% of respondents who most value authority think the standard pollution story represents the views of people like them, but 55% say so when reading the revised version. Those most valuing loyalty and purity show similar findings. The revisions were able to add the views of people valuing authority, loyalty, and purity without losing the views of people valuing care and fairness. Those who place most emphasis on care and fairness don’t have a significantly different reaction to the revisions in the pollution story.

[chart slug=”values-21-pollution-story-reflects-views”]

Effects driven by explicit added paragraph

We also made a second revision to the story—a new paragraph in the middle—in addition to a different headline and lead sentence. This new paragraph, emphasizing values of loyalty and authority, also made a material difference with audiences. This suggests that framing elements of story text to include a broader range of values, not just changing headlines and leads, can help broaden the appeal of news stories and address trust.

The additional paragraphs in the revised stories emphasized angles of the stories designed to be more appealing to those more attracted to values like loyalty, authority, and purity. Respondents who saw the revised versions of the stories were asked a series of questions designed to measure whether the added content made the story easier to understand, reflected the views of people like them, and how relevant it was for the story overall. Respondents who saw the standard versions of the stories with no changes, and thus without the additional paragraphs, were later asked to read the additional paragraphs separately and then answer whether they would have made the story more trustworthy, less trustworthy, or had no effect.

The findings suggest that including those paragraphs helped people think the media reflected their values and increased the chance that they would engage with the story. People who put a premium on loyalty and authority, for instance, were both more likely to say they saw their perspectives reflected in each story. This evidence shows that emphasizing such values can help people believe that their views are included in the story and increase the chance they engage with the story overall.

For the pollution story, a majority of those who most emphasize fairness, care, and loyalty report the additional paragraph is helpful and reflects their views on the issue of water pollution compared to fewer of those who least emphasize these values.

[chart slug=”value-22-pollution-story-care-fairness-loyalty”]

For the corruption story, over half of those who most emphasize care (59%) or fairness (55%) say their opinions are reflected in the story compared to about a third of those who least emphasize each value: care (34%); fairness (31%).

Americans who most emphasize values like loyalty and authority are more likely to say the additional paragraph in the election story helps the story reflect views of people like them. Forty percent of those who most emphasize loyalty say the additional paragraph reflects their point of view compared to just 19% of those who least emphasize it. The same is true for those who most emphasize authority compared to those who least emphasize it (37% versus 17%).

The additional paragraph also helps with people’s understanding of the pollution story, particularly for those who most emphasize values like care, fairness, and loyalty. Again, this provides evidence showing how the broader angle in the story effectively engaged respondents, even among readers who value care and fairness, as well as those who emphasize loyalty. For example, a majority of those who most emphasize fairness, care, and loyalty say the added paragraph helped them understand the topic or theme of the pollution story compared to those who least emphasize each value. Put another way, the new text may also help the story feel more robust.

[chart slug=”value-23-pollution-paragraph-understanding”]

In the case of the pollution story, the additional paragraph also appealed to everyone who held any of the tested moral values as particularly important. Across all moral values—care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity—those who fell in the top quartile for each were more likely to say the additional paragraph provided important information to the story than those in the lowest quartile.

[chart slug=”value-24-pollution-story-paragraph-important”]

The findings show the additional paragraph in the election story could significantly improve the trustworthiness of the story for those who most emphasize authority, purity, and loyalty. Among those who read the standard version of the election story (i.e., the version without the additional paragraph) and were asked about the additional paragraph later in the survey, those who most emphasize authority, purity, and loyalty are more likely to say the standard story would have been more trustworthy with the added paragraph than those who least emphasize each value. The different versions of the story did not show significant difference in trustworthiness among those who most and least emphasize care (56% versus 56%) or fairness (54% versus 57%).

[chart slug=”values-25-election-story-paragraph-trust”]