You’re walking through a clinic lobby or skimming through a public bulletin board when a flyer catches your eye—but something about it feels off. The title reads: Do You Suffer From Mental Illness? Beneath it, a short sentence invites you to participate in a study so researchers can “assess your symptoms.” No explanation of what the study involves. No details about who’s running it, aside from a university logo in the corner that’s barely visible. The language feels medicalized. Blunt. Almost accusatory. If the goal was to encourage people to engage in the research study, it falls flat. If anything, it might deepen the very stigma the study hopes to understand.

Now imagine a different version. This one has brightly colored letters in a large, clear font. The opening line asks, Do you sometimes struggle with feeling down or anxious?  The message is phrased gently, like someone checking in rather than diagnosing. The next line explains that researchers at a local university are studying a new talk therapy to support people managing stress and anxiety. No jargon. Just an open invitation to engage in research that can shape something meaningful for others. The contact details are impossible to miss: a phone number, an email, and a QR code that leads directly to the study site. It’s clear. Warm. Respectful.

Both posters are about the same study. However, they each tell very different stories. One signals discomfort—even risk—like signing up might come with judgment. The other signals agency, centering the participant as a collaborator, not a subject. The difference between the two recruitment flyers isn’t luck—it’s the result of two distinct communication choices. From tone to layout, every element either invites participation or makes it harder to imagine stepping in.

This is what a communication strategy does: it goes beyond the content itself and focuses on the thinking that shapes it. It influences how a message feels, who it reaches, what assumptions it carries, and how likely it is to spark engagement. Every choice, from phrasing to format to visuals, can change how the message is understood.

Whether it’s a research flyer, a public health initiative, or a fashion campaign launching a new collection, communication strategy influences what people hear, how they feel about it, and what they choose to do next.

Shannon-Weaver Model: A foundational concept in communication theory that breaks down the act of sending information into distinct components—sender, message, channel, receiver, and noise—allowing each stage to be analyzed separately.² For example, when a weather alert is sent from a meteorological agency (sender) to the public (receiver) via text message (channel), technical glitches (noise) can disrupt the message and affect how it’s received.

Elaboration Likelihood Model: According to this dual-process theory, persuasion takes two main routes: central, where individuals thoughtfully evaluate arguments, and peripheral, where snap judgments are made based on surface cues, such as a speaker’s confidence, visual appeal, catchy slogans, or emotional tone.³ When a topic feels meaningful or personally relevant, we engage in deeper processing; otherwise, peripheral cues tend to drive our responses. 

Social Identity Theory: Rooted in psychology, this theory explains how our sense of self is shaped by the social groups we belong to.⁴ We are more likely to accept messages when they align with the values or identity of groups we feel connected to. 

High-Context Communication: A communication style where much of the meaning is conveyed through body language, tone, and shared understanding rather than direct wording.⁵ This is common in cultures where maintaining social harmony or respect takes precedence over directness. Misunderstandings can happen when people from more direct backgrounds expect meaning to come through words alone. 

Low-Context Communication: A direct approach to communication, where clarity and explicit language are prioritized over subtlety.⁵ Here, the meaning of a message is largely contained within the words themselves, regardless of setting or social cues. 

Persuasion: The process of shaping attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors by appealing to logic, emotion, or credibility. Persuasion underlies most efforts to change minds or motivate action.

Manipulation: A deliberate, often subtle strategy to influence people’s choices or perceptions without their awareness, for instance by withholding information or exploiting biases.

Native Advertising: A form of advertising where the promotional content is designed to match the look, feel, and function of the surrounding media format. Native advertisements blend in with editorial content, often making it difficult for audiences to distinguish between advertising and organic material.

Deepfake: Synthetic media created using artificial intelligence to mimic real audio, images, or video, often making it hard to distinguish from authentic content. Deepfakes can spread misinformation or erode trust in what people see and hear.

People have been crafting communication with intent for thousands of years, even if its formal study arrived much later. The earliest groundwork of communication strategy was philosophical. In ancient Greece, Aristotle outlined three core elements of persuasion: ethos, or the speaker’s credibility; pathos, the emotional pull of the message; and logos, the logic behind it.⁶ His ideas were meant for orators and lawmakers, but the same principles appear in nearly every modern campaign, from public health to corporate branding.

Efforts to persuade became more structured over time, but one of the sharpest turning points came in the early 20th century. During World War I, governments across Europe and North America used mass media not only to inform, but to influence.⁷ Posters, speeches, films, and pamphlets weren’t casual notices—they were coordinated efforts designed to mobilize citizens and shape belief. One of the most iconic examples is the “I Want YOU for U.S. Army” poster designed by James Montgomery Flagg in 1917.⁸ Featuring Uncle Sam pointing directly at the viewer, the poster used visual salience and personal address to instill a sense of urgency and duty. The image didn’t merely suggest action. It demanded it.

By the mid-20th century, scholars began to treat communication not only as art, but as science. In 1948, engineers Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver introduced a formalized model of communication that broke the process down into technical parts: a sender, a message, a channel, and a receiver, all vulnerable to interference or “noise.” Originally developed to optimize telephone signals, the Shannon-Weaver Model helped formalize communication as a process with mechanics that could be studied and revised.

Around the same time, another idea was beginning to take hold: that public opinion could be sculpted. Edward Bernays, often credited as a founding figure in public relations, believed influence worked best when it appealed to the unconscious. Drawing from Freudian theory, Bernays argued that successful communication should appeal to unconscious desires, and not just rational thought. In his landmark 1945 essay The Engineering of Consent, Bernays claimed that public opinion could be deliberately shaped by carefully curated media, a belief that would go on to influence advertising, political campaigns, and corporate branding for decades.⁹

In the decades that followed, communication strategy began drawing more heavily from psychology and cognitive science. In the 1980s, psychologists Richard Petty and John Cacioppo introduced the Elaboration Likelihood Model.³ According to the model, we evaluate messages through two possible routes. The central route involves deeper processing. It kicks in when we’re alert, invested, or skeptical, like when comparing two insurance policies or debating policy reform. In these moments, we tend to scrutinize claims, weigh evidence, and consider counterarguments. The peripheral route, by contrast, is quicker and less effortful. It responds to surface cues: a speaker’s confidence, the tone of their voice, a flash of authority or familiarity. When we make a decision based on a logo we trust or a voice that “sounds right,” the peripheral route is doing the work. 

By the early 2000s, communication strategy had become a formal discipline across sectors.¹⁰ Governments developed frameworks for crisis messaging. Corporations hired brand strategists to control the narrative. Nonprofits applied behavioral insights to design messages that felt approachable, relatable, and emotionally resonant. Today, with the rise of AI and machine learning, communication strategies have become increasingly tailored—no longer based solely on demographics but also shaped by behavioral patterns in real time.¹¹ Platforms have begun using predictive models to test which words, colors, or visuals make users more likely to click, share, or act. Algorithms don’t just track what people respond to; they also learn when and how to deliver a message for maximum engagement.

What began as persuasion in the public square now unfolds through algorithms, headlines, and click-through rates. The tools may be modern, but the question remains ancient: what makes someone listen, and what moves them to act?

Aristotle

A foundational thinker in Western philosophy, Aristotle’s work in the 4th century BCE shaped the earliest theories of persuasion. His formulation of ethos, pathos, and logos provided a lasting blueprint for how speakers influence audiences, and these principles continue to underpin public speaking, political debate, and brand messaging.⁶

Claude Shannon & Warren Weaver

Pioneers of information theory, Shannon and Weaver introduced the Mathematical Theory of Communication in 1948, forever changing how scholars conceptualize the flow of information.² Their model broke complex exchanges into sender, message, channel, receiver, and noise, turning communication into a process that could be measured. 

Edward Bernays

Often considered the father of public relations, Edward Bernays shaped the field from the 1920s through the 1950s by applying Freudian psychology to mass media and persuasion. His influential work—including The Engineering of Consent—demonstrated how public opinion could be steered by appealing to unconscious desires as well as rational argument.⁹

Richard Petty & John Cacioppo

Psychologists whose collaboration in the 1980s marked a pivotal shift in persuasion research. By introducing the Elaboration Likelihood Model, Petty and Cacioppo demonstrated that people process messages through both careful reasoning and quick, surface-level cues.³ This theory continues to shape the study of communication and attitude change.

Edward Hall

A pioneering American anthropologist, Edward T. Hall transformed the study of communication from the 1950s through the 1970s by introducing the concepts of high-context and low-context cultures. Through influential works like Beyond Culture, Hall revealed how cultural norms and context shape the ways we convey and interpret meaning, laying the groundwork for cross-cultural communication research.⁵

Communication strategy isn’t merely about what gets said. It hinges on how messages are framed, received, and remembered, and its impact ripples across public health, climate action, and even the brands we buy into.

Changing Opinions on Addiction

Mental illness and substance use disorders remain among the most stigmatized health conditions in public discourse.¹² That stigma doesn’t just shape opinion, but it also influences policy. People who hold stigmatizing views about mental illness or addiction are less likely to support funding for mental health services, less likely to back insurance parity laws, and are more likely to see treatment as a personal failing rather than a public responsibility.^13,14

This matters. Especially in the context of the ongoing opioid crisis in the U.S., where fatal overdoses continue to climb and political resistance to harm reduction policies persists.¹⁵ If the public sees people who use drugs as undeserving or morally compromised, communication efforts aimed at supporting those individuals are likely to fall flat, regardless of the science behind them.

That’s why communication strategy plays a central role in shifting perception and shaping support for public health interventions. A randomized study using a nationally representative U.S. sample tested how different messaging styles influenced support for naloxone policies—the life-saving medication that can reverse opioid overdoses. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) factual information about naloxone, (2) a sympathetic narrative about a mother who lost her daughter to overdose, or (3) both messages combined.¹⁶

The results were striking. Each approach increased support for key policies like training first responders and distributing naloxone to families. But the combination of storytelling plus facts had produced the strongest support across the board. People were twice as likely to endorse policies protecting those who administer naloxone or call 911 in an overdose emergency.¹⁶ The findings of this study show that combining factual information with personal storytelling can significantly boost public support for harm reduction policies. When rational arguments are paired with real-life narratives, communication strategy not only reframes policy debates but also makes life-saving interventions more likely to gain broad acceptance.

Spurring climate action

Climate change is one of the most pressing and far-reaching challenges facing humanity today.¹⁷ It threatens not just the natural environment, but the systems we rely on—economic stability, public health, geopolitical order, and social equity, to name a few. Yet, the major roadblocks we face are no longer rooted in scientific uncertainty or technological limitations. In large part, the issue has become a social one. Today, the major barriers come in the form of political polarization, misinformation, competing priorities, and widespread disengagement.¹⁸

In this landscape, communication plays a central role—not merely in raising awareness, but in changing minds, influencing policy, and sparking action. Crucially, the way we communicate the dangers of climate change needs to be adapted to the audience we are trying to reach.

For example, while 97% of climate scientists agree that human-induced global warming is real, a smaller fraction of the public is aware of this level of agreement.¹⁹ According to a 2021 study, approximately 1 in 4 Americans believe that there is disagreement on the strength of scientific consensus regarding climate change.²⁰ This misunderstanding isn't just limited to the public—it extends to educators and even journalists, allowing misinformation to echo through classrooms and headlines.

Encouragingly, public opinion has shifted in recent years. More Americans believe global warming is happening, more understand it’s caused by human activity, and more report being personally concerned. However, this change hasn’t been evenly distributed. The increase in climate concern has primarily occurred among Democrats, while Republicans have remained comparatively skeptical.²⁰ That’s a problem, not because consensus is inherently valuable, but because climate policy requires broad, bipartisan support to be effective and durable.

So, how do we close that gap?

According to behavioral scientists, strategic communication and tailored messaging can make a meaningful difference. When climate messages are delivered by trusted in-group messengers—such as Republican veterans, evangelical scientists, or conservative policymakers—they’re more likely to be accepted by right-leaning audiences.²⁰ Even subtle changes in language, such as framing climate action as a matter of stewardship or national security, can boost receptiveness among those who would otherwise tune out.

These insights were put to the test in a field experiment from 2021 called New Climate Voices, which targeted two Republican-leaning congressional districts in the United States. Instead of relying on generic appeals to science or urgency, the campaign featured persuasive videos that resonated with conservative values.¹⁹ A retired Air Force general framed climate change as a military risk. A climate scientist emphasized how her Christian faith inspired her environmental commitment. A former Republican congressman called for solutions grounded in personal responsibility and fiscal prudence. How did these campaigns perform? Republicans who saw the videos were significantly more likely to believe climate change was real, caused by humans, and personally important. They were also more worried about its consequences, suggesting stronger emotional and cognitive engagement with the issue. In short, it worked. 

When it comes to global challenges like climate change, strategic communication isn’t just helpful; it’s essential. Thoughtfully tailored messages can bridge divides, shape public understanding, and spark action at scale. Real solutions spread not through facts alone, but through messages that resonate, persuade, and mobilize.

Shaping brand & consumer identity

A standout product might catch eyes, but only a thoughtful communication strategy turns customers into loyal advocates. That’s because brands aren’t just selling what they make—they’re selling what it means to own the product. The language they use, the images they choose, and even what they leave out all send cues about identity. Who is this for? Who is it not for? What does this say about you once it’s yours?

Think about Red Bull. Its ads rarely dwell on taste or ingredients. Instead, the brand floods its channels with images of cliff dives, motocross stunts, and wingsuit jumps. The message? Red Bull isn’t a beverage; it’s a mindset.²¹ The brand aligns itself with people who crave risk, speed, and adrenaline. Apple takes a different route. Its campaigns are steeped in forward-thinking language and minimalism to underscore a specific message: this brand belongs to people who value simplicity and innovation. Apple isn’t just selling devices but is also inviting you to be a part of a future-facing, design-driven world.²² 

Luxury branding pushes this even further. In this world, communication strategy isn’t simply about showcasing craftsmanship or quality—it’s about signaling status through deliberate restriction. In luxury, scarcity suggests limited materials or collections, while exclusivity frames ownership as a privilege reserved for the deserving few.²³ Together, they manufacture desire by making the product feel rare, even if it’s not. The French fashion house Hermès leans into this: the iconic Birkin Bag isn’t displayed or sold on demand. Customers often spend years buying belts, perfumes, or tableware to demonstrate brand loyalty before they’re considered for the opportunity to purchase one.²⁴ That barrier isn’t about logistics. It’s about communication. Hermès uses scarcity and exclusivity as a silent language that reinforces status, mystique, and cultural capital.

According to social identity theory, we define ourselves not only through individual traits but also by the social groups that we associate with.⁴ Brands that excel in communication strategy understand this dynamic intimately. Their messaging doesn’t just describe a product—it also constructs a community around it. Every slogan, advertising campaign, and product helps signal who belongs, who aspires to belong, and what that belonging says about a person’s values, lifestyle, or status. In other words, consumers aren’t just buying things. They’re buying into an identity the brand has carefully constructed and strategically communicated.

While strategic communication can build trust, align teams, and shape public opinion, it’s also a source of friction and ethical risk. From cross-cultural breakdowns to subtle manipulation and synthetic media that distorts reality, the same tools that inform us can also deceive.

Misunderstandings in multinational teams

As globalization expands, so do the teams it brings together. In nearly every industry, professionals are now expected to collaborate across time zones, disciplines, and—perhaps most challengingly—cultures. While these multinational teams offer the promise of creativity and innovation, they also raise a thornier question: what happens when your communication style feels completely mismatched with your supervisor’s?

American professionals, for instance, often come from what anthropologist Edward Hall described as a low-context culture.⁵ This means they tend to communicate explicitly and directly. A deadline means exactly what it says. A meeting is a place for decisions, not small talk. By contrast, Chinese professionals are more likely to operate within a high-context framework, where messages are shaped by nonverbal cues, social roles, and the desire to maintain group harmony. In this world, confrontation can be viewed as disrespectful, and saving face—preserving dignity and avoiding embarrassment—is a deeply embedded norm.²⁵

One well-documented example comes from Beijing Jeep, a 1980s joint venture between American and Chinese partners. American executives expressed frustration that their Chinese colleagues seemed reluctant to take initiative, indifferent to timelines, and unwilling to speak up.²⁶ Chinese managers, on the other hand, found the Americans brash, transactional, and dismissive of relationships. These clashes weren’t about personality. They were about perspective, and more specifically, communication strategy. What works in one cultural context may backfire in another. Thus, while it’s tempting to default to “universal” workplace norms, communication is never one-size-fits-all.

Fortunately, research points to actionable strategies for navigating these gaps. Business communication expert Maureen Guirdham emphasizes the value of cultural mindfulness.²⁷ That includes pausing before judgment, showing empathy when messages are ambiguous, and asking questions to clarify instead of jumping to conclusions. In a world where your closest collaborator might be halfway across the globe, understanding these cultural dynamics isn’t just helpful; it’s essential for clear communication and collaboration.

Persuasion vs. manipulation

Strategic communication has the power to do more than deliver a message. It shapes how we understand issues, envision solutions, and act—especially in high-stakes contexts like marketing, media, and public policy. With that power comes responsibility. Communicators must constantly ask themselves: Are they offering meaningful guidance, or subtly controlling the outcome?

Persuasion is a communication strategy that aims to inform or guide choices by presenting arguments, evidence, or emotional appeals, while still respecting the recipient’s freedom to decide. Manipulation, by contrast, seeks to control or steer decisions by hiding intent, withholding key information, or exploiting vulnerabilities. One of the murkiest examples comes from native advertising. These are promotional pieces that blend into the format and tone of their surroundings. On TikTok, that might look like a sponsored post from someone who seems like any other creator in your feed.²⁸ In other forms of media, it might appear as an “article” in The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal that’s complete with matching font, layout, and style. The only signal that it’s paid content? A faint “sponsored” label that’s easy to miss if you’re skimming.

Artificial intelligence adds a new layer to this ethical puzzle. Algorithms can now analyze behavior in real time, predicting the exact image, phrase, or timing that will most likely grab your attention. The result is hyper-personalized content: ads that seem designed specifically for you—because they are. When a system understands not just what you like, but when you’re vulnerable to influence, the line between persuasion and manipulation becomes easier to cross without detection.²⁹

This doesn’t mean every targeted message is unethical. Tailoring content can enhance clarity and relevance. The concern is whether the purpose is to support thoughtful choice or to influence action without consent. As AI tools become more advanced and these strategies become more widespread, many are beginning to ask: Should there be stronger rules in place? 

Deepfakes and weaponization of communication strategies

On March 2, 2022, a clip aired across Europe showing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky urging citizens to surrender to invading Russian forces. His voice was familiar, the words carried weight, and the setting mimicked official state addresses. Even so, something felt wrong. Viewers spotted mismatches in skin tone and glitches around the edges of his figure. The video wasn’t authentic—it was a deepfake.³⁰ While the hoax was quickly debunked, its implications were far-reaching. It marked one of the first times synthetic media entered an active conflict zone with the aim of reshaping real-world events.

Deepfakes are audio, images, or videos digitally manipulated using artificial intelligence to fabricate content. In the hands of bad actors, they can erode public trust, provoke chaos, or impersonate leaders in times of crisis. Unlike traditional media outlets, which rely on verification and editorial oversight, social media platforms reward virality. That means engagement—not truth—decides what spreads.³¹ In this landscape, falsehood travels fast and far.

What makes deepfakes especially dangerous is how convincingly they tap into emotion. In 2023, Jennifer DeStefano testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, describing a phone call that sounded like her daughter sobbing for help. The voice begged for ransom.³² In reality, her daughter was safe. The voice had been cloned. The moment was chilling and provided proof that synthetic media can now reach into the intimate corners of everyday life.

Governments are beginning to respond, though progress in enacting laws remains widely variable across regions. A handful of U.S. states, including Texas, California, Virginia, and New York, have passed laws limiting deepfake use in elections. Companies are also stepping in. Meta launched a Deepfake Detection Challenge to crowdsource solutions. Google imposed limits on AI training datasets to curb abuse.³²

These actions signal momentum, but they still lag behind the speed of the problem. Anyone with an internet connection can now generate synthetic footage convincing enough to disrupt conversations or derail reputations. Communication professionals once debated which words to use. Today, they must also ask whether the messenger is even real.

How Jacinda Ardern used communication to lead through crisis

The COVID-19 pandemic tested more than governments—it tested trust. As infection rates climbed and panic took hold, leaders weren’t only tasked with making the right decisions. They had to explain those decisions in a way that people could accept, understand, and act upon. In New Zealand, that task fell to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. From the moment the country confirmed its first COVID-19 case on February 28, 2020, her approach became a standout example of how communication strategy could shape real-world outcomes. By late April, New Zealand reported just 1,132 cases and 19 deaths. On April 27, the government declared that community transmission had been effectively eliminated.³³

Part of what made this outcome possible was Ardern’s distinct leadership style, which was a combination of decisiveness, emotional intelligence, and constant public presence. She didn’t rely on dramatic speeches or top-down directives. Instead, she consistently framed her messaging around collective care and personal responsibility, themes that aligned with her Labour Party’s emphasis on social welfare.³³ Communication, in her case, wasn’t an afterthought to policy. It was the strategy.

Scholars like McGuire et al. (2020) have examined how Ardern’s communication strategy spanned multiple media, including daily press briefings, podcasts, and Facebook Live sessions, and how each was carefully adapted to suit its audience.³³ Her use of diverse platforms wasn’t just about reach; it was about resonance.

Rather than deliver information from a distance, Ardern embedded herself in daily public life. The six Facebook Live broadcasts in particular stood out because they weren’t glossy, pre-scripted appearances, but informal chats streamed from her home, sometimes in a sweatshirt, often after putting her child to bed. She explained policies in plain terms, took live questions, and acknowledged shared anxieties. It wasn’t a performance but instead felt like a conversation with a close friend on Zoom. The content of her messages mattered, too. She introduced the idea of a “team of five million,” reinforcing national solidarity and reframing compliance as contribution rather than obedience.³³ Daily briefings included timelines, clear benchmarks, and repeated reminders of why restrictions mattered. This style of communication, which highlighted measurable goals and visible progress, stabilized public morale even amid uncertainty.

There was also intention in how tone and content were calibrated across channels. In formal settings, she maintained authority. Casual broadcasts had extended empathy. Scientific updates were paired with affirmations of kindness. It was a full-spectrum communication strategy that was designed to meet audiences where they were, both emotionally and cognitively.

Crisis communication is never neutral. It is shaped by ideology, power, and the narratives leaders choose to amplify. In Ardern’s case, her strategy didn’t just inform: it reassured, mobilized, and helped deliver one of the most effective national responses to COVID-19, marked by public trust and high rates of adherence.

Rethinking real beauty: lessons from Dove’s campaign

In the world of beauty advertising, where perfection is curated and flaws are edited out of existence, Dove did something unexpected. In 2004, the brand launched its now-iconic Campaign for Real Beauty—a global initiative built around a simple question: what if women didn’t need to be retouched to be seen as beautiful?³⁴

It started with a modest rollout. Billboards appeared across Canada, Germany, and the UK, each showing a woman’s face. Not a celebrity. Not a model. Just someone who looked like your neighbor, your coworker, maybe even your aunt. Their wrinkles, freckles, and laugh lines were left untouched. No digital smoothing. No heavy-handed edits. What made the campaign memorable wasn’t just the visuals—it was the interactivity. Each photo came with a prompt: “Fit or fat?” “Gray or gorgeous?” People walking by could vote by text and see results online. This progressive campaign turned an everyday ad into a public reflection on how beauty is seen, defined, and judged.

Dove’s strategy reversed the traditional industry approach. Instead of dictating beauty ideals, it gave everyday people a voice. The campaign generated free media exposure valued at thirty times its initial investment, and their website attracted over 1.5 million visitors.³⁵ More importantly, the message stuck.

From there, Dove extended its message to other platforms, continuing to center real people over unrealistic beauty standards. In the Real Beauty Sketches campaign, women first described their own appearance to a forensic artist, and then strangers described those same women to him. The resulting sketches revealed that strangers often saw the women in a much more positive and compassionate light than the women saw themselves.³⁶ The Self-Esteem Project also followed, offering workshops and toolkits designed to help young people build a healthier relationship with their bodies. More than 60 million individuals have been reached so far, with a goal of 250 million by 2030.³⁷

By creating campaigns that felt personal, participatory, and rooted in real experience, Dove used communication strategy as more than a tool for visibility. It became a framework for shifting cultural norms and helping girls of all ages see confidence as something they already own.

Persuasion

The subtle science of influencing what we believe, feel, and do, persuasion underlies everything from a nudge at the checkout counter to world-changing political campaigns. This article unpacks the psychology and history of persuasive techniques, revealing how these strategies shape decision-making in marketing, politics, and everyday life.

Political Persuasion: Rethinking The Rhetoric That Resonates

How does the language we choose shape our political conversations, and can ordinary words really bridge ideological divides? In this piece, Kaya Foster explores why political persuasion is not just about facts, but about the rhetoric and linguistic strategies that help us connect, build trust, and actually get heard across different ideologies. Drawing on new research and real-world AI tools, the article reveals how subtle shifts in phrasing can change minds and turn down the temperature of heated debates.

1. McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. MIT Press.
2. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press.
3. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer-Verlag.
4. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
5. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Books.
6. Aristotle. (2007). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G. A. Kennedy, Trans., 2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published ca. 350 BCE)
7. Farwell, J. P. (2012). Persuasion and power: The art of strategic communication. Georgetown University Press.
8. Lasswell, H. D. (1971). Propaganda technique in World War I. MIT Press.
9. Bernays, E. L. (1947). The engineering of consent. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 250(1), 113–120.
10. Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., Van Ruler, B., Verčič, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2007). Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), 3–35.
11. Kotyrlo, O., Naboka, R., Nestor, V., Tyshko, D., & Panasenko, O. (2024). Ways to use artificial intelligence to improve the personalisation of marketing strategies and improve the effectiveness of communication with consumers. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 8.
12. Volkow, N. D., Gordon, J. A., & Koob, G. F. (2021). Choosing appropriate language to reduce the stigma around mental illness and substance use disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology, 46(13), 2230–2232.
13. Barry, C. L., & McGinty, E. E. (2014). Stigma and public support for parity and government spending on mental health: A 2013 national opinion survey. Psychiatric Services, 65(10), 1265–1268.
14. Corrigan, P. (2004). How stigma interferes with mental health care. American Psychologist, 59(7), 614–625.
15. Cheetham, A., Picco, L., Barnett, A., Lubman, D. I., & Nielsen, S. (2022). The impact of stigma on people with opioid use disorder, opioid treatment, and policy. Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation, 13, 1–12.
16. Bachhuber, M. A., McGinty, E. E., Kennedy-Hendricks, A., Niederdeppe, J., & Barry, C. L. (2015). Messaging to increase public support for naloxone distribution policies in the United States: Results from a randomized survey experiment. PLoS One, 10(7), e0130050.
17. Cologna, V., Kotcher, J., Mede, N. G., Besley, J., Maibach, E. W., & Oreskes, N. (2024). Trust in climate science and climate scientists: A narrative review. PLOS Climate, 3(5), e0000400.
18. Gounaridis, D., & Newell, J. P. (2024). The social anatomy of climate change denial in the United States. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 2097.
19. Goldberg, M. H., Gustafson, A., Rosenthal, S. A., & Leiserowitz, A. (2021). Shifting Republican views on climate change through targeted advertising. Nature Climate Change, 11(7), 573–577.
20. Rode, J. B., Dent, A. L., Benedict, C. N., Brosnahan, D. B., Martinez, R. L., & Ditto, P. H. (2021). Influencing climate change attitudes in the United States: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 76, 101623.
21. Gschwandtner, G. (2004). The powerful sales strategy behind Red Bull. Selling Power. http://www.sellingpower.com/content/article/index.php?a=9437/the-powerful-sales-strategy-behind-redbull&page=3
22. Li, Z. (2023). Strategic marketing-marketing analysis of Apple company. International Journal of Management Science Research, 6(4), 19–26.
23. Radón, A. (2012). Luxury brand exclusivity strategies—An illustration of a cultural collaboration. Journal of Business Administration Research, 1(1), 106–112.
24. Wang, Y. (2021, June). Analysis on the marketing strategy of Hermes. In 2021 International Conference on Enterprise Management and Economic Development (ICEMED 2021) (pp. 268–272). Atlantis Press.
25. Kim, K. O. (1993). What is behind “face-saving” in cross-cultural communication. Intercultural Communication Studies, 3(1), 39–47.
26. Young, M. N., & Tan, J. (2001). Beijing Jeep at a crossroads: Facing the challenge of China's entry into the WTO. Asian Case Research Journal, 5(01), 1–26.
27. Guirdham, M., & Guirdham, O. (2017). Communicating across cultures at work. Bloomsbury Publishing.
28. Yoon, H. J., Huang, Y., & Kim, T. (2023). The role of relevancy in native advertising on social media. International Journal of Advertising, 42(6), 972–999.
29. Rubin, V. L. (2022). Manipulation in marketing, advertising, propaganda, and public relations. In Misinformation and disinformation: Detecting fakes with the eye and AI (pp. 157–205). Springer International Publishing.
30. Samoilenko, S. A., & Suvorova, I. (2023). Artificial intelligence and deepfakes in strategic deception campaigns: The US and Russian experiences. In The Palgrave handbook of malicious use of AI and psychological security (pp. 507–529). Springer International Publishing.
31. Kumar, A. M., & Gupta, S. (2023). Governance of social media platforms: A literature review. Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 15(1), 3.
32. Busch, E., Ware, J., & Brief, I. P. (2023). The weaponisation of deepfakes. ICCT Policy Brief, 2023-12.
33. McGuire, D., Cunningham, J. E., Reynolds, K., & Matthews-Smith, G. (2020). Beating the virus: An examination of the crisis communication approach taken by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern during the Covid-19 pandemic. Human Resource Development International, 23(4), 361–379.
34. Podoshen, J. S., & Wheaton, S. (n.d.). Dove’s “Real Beauty” campaign: Body positive promotion or genderwashing? Open Case Studies, The University of British Columbia. Retrieved July 21, 2025, from https://cases.open.ubc.ca/doves-real-beauty-campaign-body-positive-promotion-or-genderwashing/
35. Taylor, M. (2023, February 22). The enduring power and impact of Dove’s ‘Real Beauty’ campaign. Impact. https://strixus.com/entry/the-enduring-power-and-impact-of-doves-real-beauty-campaign-18095
36. Dove. (n.d.). Our mission. Dove Self Esteem Project. Retrieved July 21, 2025, from https://www.dove.com/ca/en/dove-self-esteem-project/our-mission.html
37. Dove. (n.d.). Welcome to the Dove Self-Esteem Project. Dove. Retrieved July 21, 2025, from https://www.dove.com/uk/dove-self-esteem-project.html