Dr. Fauci's Persuasive Methods: Stay Calm, Give Information, Stick to the Facts. Will That Work?

Image: US Senate

A speaker can persuade people either by (1) playing shallow tricks or (2) giving in-depth information. Dr. Anthony Fauci, United States’ most prominent expert on pandemic viruses, testified yesterday by remote link to the United States Senate Health,Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Fauci’s rhetorical instincts led him to give a sober, detailed scientific analysis of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, providing information, adopting a scientific attitude, and trying his best to maintain his high credibility in a politically-charged environment.

Fauci’s opening statement gave people a chance to think about and analyze scientific information about the pandemic. Often, the best way to persuade people is to give them trustworthy information.

Fauci faced several persuasive challenges: first, he needed to present scientific information in a way that the general public could understand easily. Second, since President Donald Trump has given out enormous amounts of inaccurate scientific information, even to the extent of asking about injecting disinfectants into coronavirus patients, this televised hearing gave Fauci a chance to establish public health’s factual basis. Third, Fauci needed to ratchet down the raw emotions that have marred the coronavirus debate: to penetrate the fog and reestablish reality.

Speakers Need Research: Donald Trump Suggested Injecting Disinfectants to Cure the Coronavirus

Let’s start with Fauci’s introduction, which established the tone of a scientific briefing. He began by saying, “thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss with you today the role of the National Institutes of Health” in preparing research. He immediately previewed his points:  “The strategic plan we have is fourfold. One, to improve the fundamental knowledge of the virus and the disease it causes. Next, to develop new point-of-care diagnostics. Next, to characterize and test therapeutics, and finally, the most safe and effective vaccines.”

That preview laid out a scientific agenda with no hint of politicization. Public speaking teachers usually tell speakers to begin with an attention-getter, such as a story, interesting fact, or dramatic quotation. Dr. Fauci didn’t do any of that. He already had his listeners’ attention and showed no sign of wanting to get people more worked up than they already were. He just jumped to his points.

Fauci mentioned that progress had been made in developing coronavirus diagnostic tests and research in developing antiviral drugs and serum therapies. We all know that President Trump and other Republicans have promoted the antiviral drug Remdesivir as a potential cure. Presumably, they hope that effective cures will make it possible to shut down onerous public health measures like quarantines, lockdowns, and massive testing. Ignoring that controversy, Fauci simply explained that a large-scale trial of this medication gave a result that was “statistically significant but really modest.” Thus, not challenging the conservatives’ point, Fauci acknowledged the drug’s value but emphasized that Remdesivir would not by itself end the pandemic.

Fauci explained that various organizations were developing different vaccines, giving us “multiple shots at goal,” but cautioned, again, that there is no certainty that any one vaccine would work or not cause harmful effects. “The big unknown is efficacy,” he explained; in other words: “how durable it will be.” Again, he mentioned progress and promising research, but tamped down expectations just a little bit.

And Fauci threw in a certain amount of scientific jargon, just enough to clarify that he truly was an expert. For example, “in addition, we'll be looking at convalescent plasma, which is plasma from individuals who recovered from COVID-19 to be used in passive transfer either in prevention or treatment. In addition, hyperimmunoglobin, which can be used as a gamma globulin shot. We’ll be looking at repurposed drugs as well as immune-based therapies and host antibodies.” In general, he offered a long list of NIH research efforts into vaccines and possible therapies for the novel coronavirus.

The big issue on the public’s mind, course, is whether public health measures such as widespread shutdowns should continue. To summarize, Fauci made it clear that several medical procedures were being investigated, but that none was ready for widespread use. In their absence, the implication, which he left unspoken during his opening statement, is that global public health measures are the only remaining choice.

Fauci ended with optimism: “hopefully our research efforts, together with the other public health efforts, will get us quickly to an end to this terrible ordeal we are all going through.” But not only did this offer hope: it established credibility. Since conservative conspiracy theorists maintain that public health measures are a fascist plot to suppress America, Fauci reminded everyone that he endured the same burdens as everyone else.

So, what’s going on? The president and other politicians have been looking for quick, easy solutions. Fauci’s unspoken thesis was that there are no quick, easy solutions. Yet, unlike a political debater, Fauci never stated or refuted opposing points of view. This created the impression that, as a scientist, he intended to work far above the political fray and was merely conveying information. On the one hand, this could enhance his credibility with people who want to understand what’s going on. On the other hand, unfortunately, his fact-filled analysis inevitably aggravates people who do not want to devote time and effort to understanding the difficult scientific issues that we face.

So, let me bring up two points from communication theory. The first is that a long tradition in scientific talk requires scientists to be anti-rhetorical. That is, scientists expect each other to reject any effort to be eloquent, use flowery language, or appeal to people’s emotions. My graduate school professor Joseph W. Wenzel wrote an important article in the Quarterly Journal of Speech, 'way back in 1974, entitled “Rhetoric and Anti-Rhetoric in Early American Scientific Societies,” showing that early scientists placed great value on sounding sober, factual, and, well, “scientific.” That tradition continues. While politicians might try to be emotional and eloquent, scientists want the listeners to believe that they are simply presenting facts. Fauci may have hoped that his straightforward scientific approach would cool down the emotions and help people think. He gave cleverly non-rhetorical rhetoric. That leads to my next point:

Second, facts can persuade people. In-depth persuasion results when people receive and process information. I have blogged several times about the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion, which holds that people will process information when they have the time and ability and interest to do so, and otherwise resort to superficial cues such as the kind that President Donald Trump excels in giving them. I think most people listening to the hearing already knew what President Trump had been saying. Fauci did not refute Trump directly, which would merely have erupted into non-scientific controversy, but instead tried to give the public information that they could analyze and use better to understand what was going on.

Two Ways to Speak: Emotionally, or Reasonably? Elaboration Likelihood Model

Of course, angry people will not take time to analyze and process scientific information. The calmer Fauci sounded, the less risk that he would make people even angrier. And uninformed people have been getting truly angry.  Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh recently commented that: "All these blue state governors that want to keep their states locked down, it's purely political." Yesterday, conservative firebrand Michelle Malkin called Fauci a “public health fossil.”

Coronavirus public health measures like quarantines and lockdowns create terrific economic and social stress. Fauci is the target of numerous personal attacks and conspiracy theories. Most of these are launched by people who resent quarantines. His response yesterday took the high road. His persuasive methods were engineered to ratchet down the controversy. He gave people things to think about. Will that work? Some people will think about what he said and some won’t. Reality is not always popular. In the long run, however, information-based persuasion can be more effective and longer-lasting. So, there may be hope for all of us.

P.S.: I cannot overlook the contrast between Dr. Fauci, who courteously stood up for what he believed, and other experts who failed to correct President Trump's misinformation.

P.P.S. Fauci spoke from his book-littered home-office, which is just the kind of place that I would expect a scientist to have. The Internet noticed.