Narrative change is a concept that is gaining popularity; it comes about through widely shared stories that guide our values and shape how people make sense of information and experiences. There is no one way to approach narrative change. However, for narrative change to ‘stick’, it would need to take place with wider audiences, such as reaching a majority of the population at the state or country level, depending on the aim of the intended change. To get a common understanding, let’s imagine one concrete way to benchmark and track narrative change.

Understanding organic narratives

Digital research, such as collecting GDPR-compliant (The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation) data from social media, can allow us to identify a ‘universe of people’ (such as users on X/Twitter or public Facebook Pages) engaging large audiences in debate. By looking at the most engaging content on an issue, we can understand which stories are being told, retold and are spreading to millions of people in a given period. Analyzing that content, we can distill the main storylines (narratives) that provide a framework for sense-making on an issue.

Let’s take an example and look at what a community narrative analysis of users would look like. Let’s start by imagining a community analysis that depicts the posts of Members of Parliament (MPs) on Platform X/Twitter and everyone who engages with MPs.

For this generalized X/Twitter network analysis, the users are dots, and the interactions are lines between users. The more interactions between users, the closer those two dots are grouped. Using an algorithm called the Louvain algorithm, we can group users into communities by affinity on this social media platform, meaning those that interact and agree with one another most. To understand narrative change in this case, via the content that created the most engagement on a given topic, we would assess the narratives in each community at Time 1 (T1) and then at Time 2 (T2). Each platform and/or digital space allows for a different approach to narrative network analysis. The key to tracking narrative change is to observe shifts in narrative over time for the ‘universe of people’ that are important for shaping the narrative on a given subject.

The limits of fact-checking

There are many approaches to narrative change. One of these approaches is to move people away from false information through fact-checking. This approach relies on the assumption that if a person can be shown that information is false, they will reconsider their views and change their mind. If enough people are shown the error in their factual reasoning, there will be a more significant shift in attitudes toward an issue, bringing narrative change. However, drawing from neuroscience research, we know that emotions are the primary drivers of decisions. Most of our thinking (up to 90%) is driven by the unconscious mind.

Additionally, approaching people with a “you’re wrong, I’m right” confrontational narrative and providing them with a fact with instructions to read it is unlikely to have the intended attitudinal shift. The user experience of being fact-checked is not something anyone would seek out on their own. Also, fact-checking is likely to be shared only within communities that already can identify false information and is unlikely to spread to communities that believe false information. Emotional connection and engagement are key to shifting narratives into pro-democracy frames. Emotions that can trigger empathetic concern, bridge in/out-group thinking, and reduce the feeling of threat or uncertainty are essential to pro-democracy narrative change.

The power and risks of emotions

Another approach to narrative change is stimulating strong emotions, such as polarization into us vs. them, and promoting a strong sense of unity within an ingroup. Emotions are not all equal motivators of action, nor does ‘empathy’ always motivate people to act in a caring way. Humans experience different types of empathy, such as empathic distress and empathic concern. Empathic concern motivates positive action, while empathic distress can lead to avoidance of the person who needs help. Empathic distress is a complicated emotional trigger. It can result in intense initial reactions, but this type of empathy will ultimately result in someone wanting to flee from the source of distress, which is a negative emotion. Distinguishing between types of empathy is crucial for effective messaging and shaping wider public narratives (for more information on this, please see Mindbridge). Continued engagement and prospects to improve a situation (potential solutions) are essential when it comes to creating empathetic concern and avoiding empathetic distress.

Us vs. them dynamics can foster hostility and risky behavior. Professor of Psychology Mina Cikara at Harvard studies how factors like group membership and competition lead to in-group thinking and an increased willingness to harm out-group members. This is particularly relevant in polarized social contexts, especially when we view extremism through the prism of advocating for the advantage (supremacy) of one group over another. The hardening of us vs. them ideologies can evolve into extreme intolerance and the desire to harm an outgroup, increasing the likelihood of violence.

This insight also explains why narrative change approaches that emerge only in one like-minded community (or bubble) are unlikely to ever spill over into communities with a competing narrative. In other words, a messenger not part of one’s own group will likely be rejected. Narrative change requires bridge communicators and an approach that can penetrate communities with competing narratives and spread to a majority. Through digital research at Comms Hub, we can detect how far narratives are spreading and who is amplifying them. We can also identify existing cross-community communicators to inform narrative change strategies.

The digital space and human decision-making

To form impactful, pro-democracy narrative change strategies, it is crucial to understand how narratives evolve in the digital space and recognize that human decision-making is rarely purely rational. The recent (November 2024) presidential elections in Romania, where far-right YouTube influencer Calin Georgescu took a shock lead in the first round, underscored the importance of monitoring online engagement across influential digital spaces. Without this awareness, we risk missing significant shifts in attitudes and social or political preferences. We can also observe that both state and non-state actors are implementing narrative change strategies as part of their efforts to erode freedom and democracy around the globe.

What we can do

Emotions significantly influence decisions, even when facts are presented. Engaging with the world requires emotional connection and continuous effort. A Narrative Tracker, serving pro-democracy groups per country, would bolster democratic efforts by providing insights, ideation space, and a chance to engage wider audiences with real-world solutions.

A Narrative Tracker is urgently needed as pro-democracy civil society globally struggles against a flood of authoritarian narratives, intolerance, and misinformation. Without access to insights into prevailing organic narratives and their amplifiers, civil society is at a disadvantage. No single organization can afford to hire digital researchers, analyze engaging content, and build stories that create emotional bridges. Duplicating such infrastructure across multiple CSOs in the same country would be wasteful. Comms Hub specializes in scalable narrative change infrastructure, enhancing CSOs' ability to connect with the public. By leveraging shared resources and expertise and collaborating with pro-democracy groups, we can effectively counter disinformation and foster more informed, democratic communities.