The Power of Relatability

The phrase "I can relate" speaks volumes.

Authenticity undeniably shapes our choices in positioning, messaging, and selecting voices for our campaigns. Its absence hurts reputations, as it should. Yet, relatability is potentially the most potent force in building trust, shaping perceptions, and driving behaviors.

Evaluating relatability from an audience-first perspective prompts questions the audience will ask naturally: Does a message and person mirror how I see myself or my aspirations? Do they resonate with my genuine interests? Relatability can trump all else due to our innate confirmation bias*, thus being a determining factor in the impact of the messenger and message, if not the determining factor. Even when we recognize a lack of authenticity or expertise, we still look for a relatable message to be true.

Relatability's flip side is its potential to fuel misinformation. It's the reason behind our politicians' diner visits or the adoption of blue-collar symbolism — they resonate with us, even if we know these gestures might lack sincerity and authenticity. It’s the same reason a neighbor’s medical advice can cast a doubt on a doctor’s advice, when it should be the other way.

Still, relatability is the required ingredient, it is authenticity, authority, and expertise that are foundations for effective campaigns. Trust in a source's expertise often determines whether audiences will act, provided they believe the source.

Authenticity and relatability work together as relatability is an emotion that plays a key role in trust's chemistry. Research by neuroeconomist Paul Zak shows that our emotional responses foster trust. Another study by Lisa DeBruine's reveals that people trust those resembling themselves or their social circles – people to whom they relate.

Authenticity builds reputation, affirming whether entities act as they claim. Relatability ultimately shapes whom we trust and the relevance of authenticity.

So, what are the implications for communicators?

First, disregard headlines declaring a universal distrust in media or authorities. Such claims are reductive to the point of risk. Trust aligns with relatability and the confirmation of personal beliefs, as a Nieman Labs piece smartly encapsulates. Pew, Ad Fontes, and many others have carefully tracked how people trust media that line up with their political and social beliefs. In other words, trust in journalism may have fallen, but trust in news sources that reflect your values remains high.

Second, people seek affirmation in what they already believe - confirmation bias. Effective opinion-shaping begins with relatable common ground, gradually bridging to new perspectives—a challenging but vital first step.

Third, trust transcends expertise or facts. It's an emotive condition, hence the power of emotionally stirring, relatable narratives often featured in TED talks. Chris Anderson, TED curator, advises that personal stories, especially those of adversity, foster profound connections.

In politics and society, relatability can even supplant actual expertise in determining perceived authority. To echo Michael Burry from "The Big Short": "People desire an authority to value things, not based on facts or outcomes, but because it feels authoritative and familiar."

Does this resonate? If so, I can relate.

*Articles referenced:

Confirmation Bias: How to convince someone who believes the exact opposite? - SUE | Behavioural Design Academy ( suebehaviouraldesign.com )

What Is Trust? | Psychology Today

Rethinking Trust ( hbr.org ) (includes overview of research mentioned in this post)

What makes a great talk, great: Chris Anderson at TEDGlobal 2013 - YouTube

?

Authors note: Articles are written with minimal editing and may be revised for style and grammar. Alternatively, any errors may be seen as having figurative hairy arms .

?