Causal arguments are one of the more effective approaches that we can use when we want to change false beliefs, ingrained but biased views, or when debunking all sorts of misinformation.
Causal arguments inform us about the underlying mechanisms and explain why something happens. They are persuasive because they target one of our fundamental needs — to understand the causes of events, why things happen. Such causal knowledge allows us to predict events better, and this gives us a sense of stability and predictability.
Changing Erroneous Beliefs with Causal Arguments
Let’s say you want to change people’s belief that HIV is transmittable by contact. Many people, observing that flu and other viruses spread through casual contact, think that HIV/AIDS virus spreads the same way.
You could tell people that there was never a single proven case where the AIDS virus was transmitted by casual contact. Moreover, you could mention various statistics or expert reports supporting your point.
Or you could try explaining the underlying mechanisms of AIDS and why the virus couldn’t be transmitted through casual contact.
A 1996 study by Morgan Slusher and Craig Anderson tried to change such erroneous beliefs about AIDS. They tried to persuade some of participants with statistics, such as this passage:
A study of more than 100 people in families where there was a person with AIDS without the knowledge of the family and in which normal family interactions such as hugging, kissing, eating together, sleeping together, etc., took place revealed not a single case of AIDS transmission.
With others, the researchers tried causal arguments, such as this one:
The AIDS virus is not concentrated in saliva . . . The Virus has to be present in high concentration to infect another person, and even then, it must get into that person's bloodstream . . . This virus is very fragile . . .[S]tomach juices would kill the virus . . .[W]orkout partners did not get the virus because it was not present in sweat.
As expected, causal arguments proved much more effective. One reason is that causal arguments replace readily available explanations.
One difficulty in changing erroneous beliefs is that people already have a readily available explanation, albeit an erroneous one. What’s more, the most “intuitive” explanations are also the most easily available explanations. Such explanations normally create beliefs which persevere even when rational evidence shows them to be illogical.
That’s why statistics or other non-causal arguments normally will not replace erroneous beliefs because they leave the existing and easily available erroneous explanation untouched. But causal arguments make alternative explanations more available.
Causal structure also accounts, in part, for the persuasiveness of storytelling. That’s because stories are based on causal structure. Normally, stories make causal relations very clear, and we can easily understand why particular events happened and what motives led people to do what they did.
So whenever you want to debunk misinformation or change erroneous beliefs, explain the underlying mechanisms driving an event or underlying the problem.
References
Morgan P. Slusher and Craig A. Anderson. “Using Causal Persuasive Arguments to Change Beliefs and Teach New Information: The Mediating Role of Explanation Availability and Evaluation Bias in the Acceptance of Knowledge.” Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 88, 110-122 (1996).