In the two GOP debates of January 14 and January 28, a group of registered Republican voters were sitting in a Southern California lab with sensors hooked up to their torsos and fingers. The sensors were collecting six types of brain signals which, according to 10 years of published research by Dr. Paul J. Zak of Claremont Graduate University, have been shown to be 80% accurate at predicting whether or not a person is likely to take action after hearing a message.
Zak believes that neurological responses are a more accurate way to measure political and advertising messages than asking people who or what they like. “The brain doesn’t lie,” says Zak. Zak’s experiments are intended to identify messages that trigger action—votes, sales, charitable giving.
I’ve pored over Zak’s papers for my own research into storytelling in business and I’ve spoken to him about his latest political debate experiments. Zak’s conclusions reinforce my experience working with many of the world’s most successful brands and leaders. Ideas (and political candidates) that trigger action do so for two reasons: 1) they grab attention and 2) they create empathy by making emotional connections, or what Zak calls “emotional resonance.”
The winning formula is: Attention + Emotional Resonance = Action
“Attention is a scarce brain resource so attention is necessary to induce action,” says Zak. However, grabbing attention messages aren’t enough to trigger action. Emotional resonance must also be present. Zak measures emotional resonance through the release of the brain chemical, oxytocin, which Zak calls ‘the moral molecule.’ When oxytocin levels are high, people are more likely to give money to a charity or give their vote to a candidate. And how does a message trigger oxytocin release? The message must be delivered in the form of story. “A compelling story with an emotional trigger alters our brain chemistry, making us more trusting, understanding, and open to ideas,” according to Zak.
Zak’s experiments during GOP debates uncovered some interesting trends. In the January 14 debate in which Donald Trump was present, it was difficult for any candidate to score high on ‘emotional resonance’ because they were all vying for attention. In Zak’s experiment Trump scored highest in the first debate because his attention score was off the chart [messages that instill fear, shock or surprise successfully grab attention]. Trump scored very low, however, on emotional resonance. Remember, both attention and emotional resonance must be present for a message to trigger votes and action. Trump declined to participate in the January 24 debate, which, according to Zak’s neurological focus group, Florida senator Marco Rubio ‘won’ because he earned the highest combination of attention and emotion. This result led Zak to predict a Rubio surge in the Iowa caucuses. Zak was proven correct while many pundits expressed ‘surprise’ at Rubio’s momentum.
Three months ago I wrote in this column that Marco Rubio is the one to watch in the Republican field based on my analysis of his communication skills. But while I found him to be a speaker who grabs attention because he’s articulate and humorous (“I think Bernie Sanders is a good candidate for president…of Sweden”), I thought he was missing an opportunity to connect more emotionally through personal stories. Interestingly, Rubio seems to be learning the lesson that voters react positively to storytellers. A recent front page article in The New York Times titled, “Marco Rubio Turns Toward the Personal on the Campaign Trail,” featured many examples of Rubio telling far more personal stories than ever before in his campaign. According to the article,
“When a retired voter here [New Hampshire] despaired over the sinking value of his home, Mr. Rubio surprised the audience by recalling, in painful detail, his own real estate travails, right down to the cost of having a next-door neighbor’s home slip into foreclosure… When a mother described the toll of raising an autistic child, Mr. Rubio spoke for seven emotional minutes about watching the 2-year-old daughter of a family friend wrestle with the disorder. And when a libertarian asked him about the excesses of the criminal justice system, Mr. Rubio told the story of his own run-in with the police when he was 18… At his rallies and town hall forums across Iowa and now New Hampshire, he keeps finding ways to open up, with personal vignettes and spontaneous humor.”
The New York Times article may have identified the very qualities which voters find engaging about Rubio: “personal vignettes” and “spontaneous humor.”
Rubio delivers talking points exceptionally well and that helps to get attention. But if Rubio hopes to garner enough votes to be the Republican presidential candidate, he’ll have to appear less scripted, more spontaneous and yes, even more emotional. During the February 6th Republican presidential debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, New Jersey governor Chris Christie landed a punch when he pointed out Rubio’s answers come ‘scripted’ in the form of a stump speech. “Marco, when you’re the governor of a state or the president of the United States, the memorized 30-second speech where you talk about how great America is at the end, doesn’t solve one problem for one person. They expect you to plow the snow and get the schools open,” Christie said to loud applause.
If Rubio continues to grab the attention of his audience and connect with them emotionally, I’ll double down on my prediction that Rubio will be the 2016 Republican presidential candidate. The next few weeks should continue to get very interesting for both democrats and republicans who hope to win the hearts and minds of the American voter.