Campaign season is often a time of heightened emotions and passionate opinions, especially regarding elections. Imagine sitting down with family members, friends, or close associates—people who know you well and with whom you share a deep connection. The conversation turns to the upcoming election, and suddenly, it’s clear that you’re not on the same page politically.

These discussions can quickly become tense or awkward, whether it’s a difference in presidential candidates, a divisive issue, or opposing party loyalties. The challenge is not just in voicing your opinions but navigating the delicate task of influencing someone close to you without damaging the relationship.

The Subtle Art of Influencing Someone Close

Influencing a loved one’s vote isn’t about winning an argument or proving someone wrong. Instead, it’s about understanding where they are coming from, what motivates their choices, and finding common ground.

The theme of this approach is simple: meet them where they are—but what does that mean in practice?

Meeting Them Where They Are

Meeting someone where they are requires empathy. It’s important to remember that everyone enters an election with an individual frame of reference shaped by personal experiences, values, and the information they’ve been exposed to. Research on political communication underscores the importance of understanding the social context in which someone forms their political views.

For example, a study by Betsy Sinclair examined how social networks, particularly within close personal relationships, influence political behavior and attitudes. Sinclair found that individuals are significantly influenced by the political views of those around them, particularly within their social circles and families. The study highlighted that “political discussions within these networks often reinforce existing beliefs but can also challenge and reshape opinions when differing viewpoints are respectfully exchanged.” This emphasizes the need to approach political discussions with empathy and awareness of these underlying social dynamics.

When you engage in a political discussion with someone close to you, recognize that they may not share the same experiences or priorities as you do. For example, a family member might prioritize economic stability because they’ve faced financial hardship, while you might be more concerned about social justice issues. You have to actively listen, acknowledge their concerns, and validate their feelings to meet them where they are. This doesn’t mean you must agree with them, but recognizing their perspective can open the door to a more meaningful conversation.

Identifying What Motivates Their Vote

Understanding what truly motivates someone’s vote is critical to influencing their perspective. People’s voting decisions are often layered under propaganda, spin, and confirmation bias. To peel back these layers, you must ask open-ended questions, encouraging them to reflect on their choices. Questions like “What’s the most important issue for you in this election?” or “How do you think this candidate’s policies will impact our community?” can help reveal their core motivations.

David Nickerson’s (2008) research provides valuable insights into the power of direct, interpersonal communication in influencing voter behavior. Nickerson hypothesized that personalized, respectful engagement would significantly impact voter turnout and preference. His study, conducted through two field experiments, found that “direct interpersonal communication can be a powerful tool for influencing voter behavior, especially when it involves personalized and respectful engagement.” The experiments demonstrated that voters were more likely to be swayed by conversations that acknowledged their concerns and respected their perspectives, reinforcing the importance of understanding and addressing the underlying motivations of the voters.

It’s important to note that sometimes, these motivations may be deeply entrenched, and no amount of discussion will change them. In these cases, it’s crucial to recognize when you’ve reached a point where continuing the conversation will only lead to frustration for both parties.

Knowing When to Move On

Knowing when to move on is as important as knowing how to engage. If you’re dealing with someone whose position is rigid and unlikely to change, it’s often best to agree to disagree and shift the conversation to something less contentious. Signs that you’re dealing with a rigid position include repeated statements of belief without any openness to considering alternative views, a refusal to engage with facts or new information, or a conversation that turns hostile.

The concept of psychological reactance, as explored by Brehm and Brehm (1981), provides insight into why pushing too hard in a discussion can be counterproductive. The researchers hypothesized that when individuals perceive their freedom to choose or express an opinion is being threatened, they experience a psychological response that makes them more resistant to change. Their findings confirmed that “pushing too hard to change someone’s mind can lead to reactance, where the person becomes even more resistant to change.” This underscores the importance of recognizing when to back off in a discussion to avoid triggering a counterproductive defensive response.

Moving on doesn’t mean giving up. It means respecting the relationship enough not to let political differences create a rift is a good plan. Sometimes, the best course of action is to preserve the relationship and focus on areas where you agree.

Self-Awareness in Political Discussions

Finally, self-awareness is crucial when engaging in political discussions with those close to you. Your energy, mindset, and biases significantly affect how these conversations unfold. If you come into the discussion to change someone’s mind at all costs, you will likely meet resistance. On the other hand, if you approach the conversation with a willingness to listen and understand, you’re more likely to have a productive exchange.

The concept of cognitive biases and their influence on discussions was thoroughly explored by Lord, Ross, and Lepper (1979). They hypothesized that individuals tend to assimilate information to reinforce their preexisting beliefs—a phenomenon known as biased assimilation. The study found that “being aware of one’s biases and cognitive filters can help in engaging more constructively in discussions with those who hold opposing views.” This suggests that self-awareness of one’s own biases can mitigate the negative effects of biased assimilation, allowing for more open and effective communication. It’s about balancing your passion for the issues with a respect for the other person’s right to their own perspective.

Confirmation Bias versus Biased Assimilation – both work against active thinking.

Aspect	Confirmation Bias	Biased Assimilation
Definition	It involves selecting or favoring evidence that supports one’s existing beliefs while ignoring or dismissing contradictory information.	The tendency to interpret ambiguous or mixed evidence in a way that aligns with one’s existing beliefs.
Process	It involves interpreting mixed or ambiguous evidence in a way that reinforces one’s current beliefs.	A person who believes a political candidate is dishonest focuses on negative news stories about them and ignores positive ones.
Focus	Information Selection	Information Interpretation
Impact on Beliefs	Reinforces existing beliefs by selectively gathering supportive information.	Reinforces existing beliefs by interpreting evidence to align with those beliefs.
Example	It involves interpreting mixed or ambiguous evidence to reinforce one’s current beliefs.	Two people with opposing views on climate change interpret the same mixed report to support their respective beliefs.

Keep Your Head Up When the Going Gets Tough

Navigating political discussions with loved ones during campaign season is no easy task. By meeting them where they are, identifying what truly motivates their vote, and knowing when to move on, you can maintain healthy relationships while still advocating for your beliefs. Remember, self-awareness is critical, and understanding your mindset and biases can make these conversations more productive. Ultimately, preserving the relationship is often more important than winning the debate.