Theory of Planned Behaviour with Melanie Paradis

In this episode, Elizabeth Dubois chats with Melanie Paradis, President of Texture Communications, to dissect the theory of planned behaviour and its application in political communication. With Melanie’s extensive background in political strategy and public relations, and her roles on high-profile political campaigns, this discussion explores how psychological principles underpin effective political messaging and voter engagement strategies.

Additional Resources: 

• Elizabeth relies on The Theory of Planned Behaviour: Reactions and Reflections and Knowledge and the Prediction of Behavior: The Role of Information Accuracy in the Theory of Planned Behavior to explain the theory. 
• Melanie underlines the role of third-party advertising as it relates to elections and advocacy in Canada. You can learn more about this through an article published by Policy Options titled Third parties strive to become a driving force in elections. 
• Melanie describes the Conservative Party of British Columbia’s "I’m trying something new" advertisement, released in October 2024, as an example of an advertisement targeting swing voters.
• Throughout the episode, both Elizabeth and Melanie refer to foreign interference  and how misinformation and disinformation are impacting the Canadian political communications environment. Similar themes were discussed in the Wonks and War Rooms episode Propaganda, Government Comms, and Disinformation with Shuvaloy Majumdar. 
• Melanie makes several references to the 2017 Conservative Party of Canada leadership race, where Andrew Scheer beat 13 other candidates by a narrow margin. You can learn more about this leadership race, and the lessons learned from it, in Eric Grenier’s analysis titled What the 2017 Conservative leadership race told us about what it takes to win. 

Check out www.polcommtech.ca for annotated transcripts of this episode in English and French.

Transcript

Season 7 Episode 2
Theory of Planned Behaviour with Melanie Paradis

Elizabeth: [00:00:05] Welcome to Wonks and War Rooms where political communication theory meets on the ground strategy. I'm your host, Elizabeth Dubois. I'm an Associate Professor and University research chair in politics, communication and technology at the University of Ottawa. My pronouns are she/her. Today we're talking about the theory of planned behaviour with Melanie Paradis. Melanie, can you introduce yourself, please?

Melanie: [00:00:24] My name is Melanie Paradis. I am the president of Texture Communications. Prior to founding my own communications company, I worked in politics for many years and in the private sector in public relations for about 15 years. But in politics, I worked on both provincial and federal conservative leadership campaigns in national and provincial war rooms, and had probably too much fun working in the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, albeit for a short period of time, while Erin O'Toole was the Leader of the Opposition.

Elizabeth: [00:00:58] Wonderful. Thank you so much for chatting with me today. We're talking about the theory of planned behaviour, and I think all of your experience in war rooms and in political communication in various roles is going to be really, really interesting. I'm excited to dive into some examples. Before that, we'll start off with that kind of academic definition.

Elizabeth: [00:01:20] The theory of planned behaviour [consult: The Theory of Planned Behaviour: Reactions and reflections] is a model for understanding human behaviour, particularly in social settings. It comes from, and builds off of, the theory of reasoned action ], which takes this idea of rationality to [the] core and focuses on the idea that humans are going to be rational beings. But, what the theory of planned behaviour does is it adds in focus on perceived behavioural control, which is this idea of the extent to which we think we have an easy or difficult time performing a particular behaviour. And [the theory of planned behaviour is] influenced by our own personal past experiences and how we anticipate potential obstacles, that kind of thing. The idea with the theory of planned behaviour is [that] we take that perceived behavioural control and pair it with perception about subjective norms, whether or not a given action is something that we feel social pressure to perform or maybe social pressure not to perform.

Elizabeth: [00:02:19] [For example,] if the action is voting: Is our community one that is really encouraging and normatively suggesting this is a really good choice? Or is [voting] 'too cool for school' and ‘we're not going to do that’. Then there's the attitude toward the behaviour, which is tied to those social norms. That's the degree to which a person has a favourable or unfavourable evaluation of whatever that behaviour is. So again, [for example,]: Do we think that voting is really, really difficult and it's stressful and it's hard? Or do we think it's super easy and really fun? Those are the kinds of things that come in. That's the real quick overview of the theory of planned behaviour. Is that making sense to you?

Melanie: [00:03:00] Yes it is.

Elizabeth: [00:03:00] Cool, okay.

Elizabeth: [00:03:01] Next then, when we're thinking about the actual job of creating political messages and figuring out how to get them to people, does the theory of planned behaviour come in? Now, I'm sure it's not used in that particular phrasing in the war rooms, but do you see inklings of it in the kind of work that you've done?

Melanie: [00:03:23] Absolutely. So the first thing that it makes me think of, [] in the private sector, I would refer to this as third-party advocacy or third-party validation campaigns [consult: Elections Canada, Questions and Answers for Third Parties and Third parties strive to become a driving force in elections]. This is something where we get people who are trusted names you might recognize to speak about a particular issue, to advocate for it, whether it's a pipeline that needs to be built or [another] project of national significance. Maybe it's the need for foreign interference inquiry [consult: Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions] and having a variety of different voices - not just the political voices that you're used to hearing in Ottawa, but having trusted academics talk about it. Although, I would argue that, unfortunately, even academics are starting to feel the pains of a loss of trust that we've also seen impacting journalism in the past couple of years [see: Canadian media bosses tackle how to regain citizens' trust]. And it's all about elevating those voices so that it's someone that you can relate to. So when you see that they're talking about a particular issue, it makes you want to get involved or it makes you open to thinking about something from a different perspective because you respect that person.

Melanie: [00:04:31] Another way of looking at it is social licence.Iit gives you social licence to vote a particular way, think a particular way, take a particular action, [or] join a movement. I see it very much in terms of third-party advocacy in the political world and in campaigning. I think this is most relevant when we're trying to get out the vote. One of the first things I think about in politics is funny enough, “sign wars”. So during any election campaign there are signs and we often, in war rooms, scoff at whether signs are actually relevant or if they move the needle at all. Like, who cares if they see signs? But, there is a certain element of, you know your neighbours on your street and if you see that they're voting in a particular way, that might make you pause and think, "huh, that's interesting, I didn't expect that from them," or, "I didn't know that that's what their political leanings were". Maybe, I might have a conversation with them about that and why that is. Or maybe, if the first day of an election (of a writ period), you are driving to work in the morning and you see that the vast majority of the signs are one particular colour that's going to make you think, "Wow, there's a lot of people in this community that vote this particular way". And again, that might get you thinking about why that is. And perhaps [it might also encourage you to] be[] open to changing your views on things, because the people around you are behaving in a particular way.

Elizabeth: [00:06:02] Yeah. I think those signs are a really good example of making visible what we talk about as subjective norms. Because it shows, in a very visual way, streets covered in lawn signs all of one colour, [which] really gives you a sense of not only do people in this community think that the election is important and we need to pay attention to it (and probably voting is a thing you should do), but [also that] there is a particular person that is really supported well in this community. And then you have this sense - we all do as human beings - of wanting to be part of a group. [As humans,] we like to have social connection. We need social connection to exist. And so you're [thinking], "Well, everybody is voting for that particular candidate, maybe that's the candidate I should be voting for too". You feel a bit of social pressure and support here. And, as you're describing, the hope is [that] it might spark you to go do some additional research or have some additional chats, or those kinds of things.

Melanie: [00:07:03] Yeah. And I say in a party leadership race [consult: Elections Canada, FAQs on Leadership Contests] - and maybe this is true in a general election too, but more so in a party race - this notion of momentum for a leadership candidate is really important. Showing momentum, showing that they're going to win, [promoting the idea that] "you've got to get on this bandwagon because this person's going to win". That's very compelling. It's especially compelling, and this I think would be an interesting subsection of [the theory of planned behaviour], with ethnic communities. The focus on ethnic community votes, especially in leadership races, is definitely around [the idea of] “back the lead”. I think that this is because, in other countries, they aren't as democratic as we are here, and so there is a different set of social pressures and social norms around voting. And there's more stress that, if you don't back the right person, there might be consequences for that (in other countries). And there are people who bring that fear and that stigma with them when they come to Canada. And so then you have political parties that take advantage of that and operatives who, [as] part of their campaign tactic, [turn]  to these groups - who are already inclined to be a bit afraid of picking the wrong horse - and tell[] them, "This is the person that you need to back because they're winning [and] they've got endorsements".

Melanie: [00:08:22] From a communications perspective, the way that I would set up momentum and show momentum is to have a cadence of endorsements from high-profile people or other politicians. So [that] every other day you're coming out with another one - another big endorsement and a quote from them as to why they're endorsing this person. Then you want to put out a poll that has really good results for your candidate. And then you want to show them winning a debate or winning an interview. All these things you need to show that momentum in order to keep pushing this narrative that, “They're going to win, so you should get on this bandwagon.”

Elizabeth: [00:08:59] Yeah, andnd, that, “This is the winning team. You want to be part of it. Come be part of our group. Because this is the future.” Right?

Melanie: [00:09:07] Yeah. I remember in 2017 - or 2019, I can't remember how many leadership races we've had in the Conservative Party of Canada now, there’s been too many of them. But the one where Andrew Scheer won and Maxime Bernier came in second, I think that was 2017. [Melanie is referring to the 2017 Conservative Party of Canada leadership race where Andrew Scheer won by a slim margin in a field of 13 candidates, consult: What the 2017 Conservative leadership race told us about what it takes to win]. I remember Bernier's team putting out a message to Conservatives saying, "This is it, my team has given me a list of names of people who have donated to my campaign and who are on my team, and I want your name on that list or ‘dot dot dot’." It was not an “or else” [in the literal sense], but it was definitely an implied, "You better be on this team or you're going to miss out". He ended up losing by [] a very small margin. But that was absolutely part of their momentum tactic that they were trying to leverage in order to push [Maxime Bernier] over the top.

Elizabeth: [00:09:58] That's such a good example that starts to move from the subjective norms component of the theory of planned behaviour to also the perceived behavioural control component. So, that perceived behavioural control is, on the one hand, this idea of how easy or difficult [] you think it's going to be to perform the behaviour. But, it's also your perception about power dynamics and how much there are these internal and external factors that are going to facilitate or hinder your performance. [For example,] if the behaviour is going to be who to vote for in this leadership race, we could think narrowly about, “How easy or difficult is it to actually show up at a convention?” But, if it's actually about how to be involved in the Conservative Party of Canada and how to have your voice heard, then there's this major control and power dynamic that comes in when it's, "Well, you're either going to be on the list or you're not". And we see that play out in lots of different ways.

Melanie: [00:10:58] Absolutely.

Elizabeth: [00:10:58] So I want to go back to the idea of building momentum. You gave examples of [the fact that] you want to have endorsements, you want to have good polls, you want to have won the debate (or at least be able to say you won the debate). What do you imagine the response is from the average potential voter when that's happening? Is the goal to reach particular potential voters? Is [the goal to reach] targeted demographics? Is it [reaching] the news media who then reach the voters? How are you thinking about who the message is getting to?

Melanie: [00:11:27] So you have multiple audiences, always, and media is one of them. You want them to be writing positive stories about you. A good poll will help generate that. Part of it is that, with everything you're doing around momentum, you're planting a seed with the general population - with the average voter - [that] this person is a viable option. [That] this person could very well be the next Prime Minister or Premier (whatever the election is about), you should take a look at what they're saying, and you should be thinking about this. Especially if it's a change election - that's one of the tones that we're seeing right now across Canada. There's a lot of change election polling that indicates that people want [political change], so presenting [potential voters] with a viable alternative to who is in power right now is really important. Showing that momentum, showing that Pierre Poilievre is way up in the polls [and] that 40% of the population wants to vote for him. (I'm making up numbers now.) [Or showing that] 30% of the population thinks that [Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau is not a great leader. Whatever the numbers are. People see that and they think, "Am I in that 30%? Am I in that cohort of people? Does this reflect me? And, if I agree with this cohort of people, then does that mean I should also vote the way that they're voting?” Really, it all is to get people thinking about that and open them up to being receptive to our key messages and to what it is that we're trying to sell them (which is to vote for a particular party).

Elizabeth: [00:12:50] That's really interesting. And the way you just described that, the beginning felt a lot like the attitude toward the behaviour component - get people information that might change their attitude or reinforce their existing attitude about voting for whichever candidate. And then, as you were describing [] more the idea of, "Oh, am I in that 30%?”, that's when you start overlaying the attitude about the behaviour with the subjective norms and the social context. And so I really like how you're describing this sort of layering approach that flows through the theory.

Melanie: [00:13:24] Now, where this gets messy and problematic is on social media, where we are increasingly stuck in algorithmic prisons. People listening to this podcast need to understand that the internet is not real. It has been curated for you based on small decisions that you've made on your phone, on your computer, over the course of years, and data that they've gathered about those decisions that you've made. The things you've clicked on, videos you've watched, likes that you've had, things you've shared: all of that feeds into your personal algorithm. And you're basically in a bubble now [consult our previous podcast episode: Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles with Adi Rao]. Where this gets really problematic in politics is [that] we have so many people who are only seeing what they want. They're only seeing things that align with their beliefs. And it becomes almost impossible to not only change their mind about a particular issue, but even just to open up a conversation and inform them about the issue from a different perspective. They get their ideas really baked in and they believe [them]. Their perception of what social norms are has completely changed, because everything they're seeing on YouTube, on social media, is reinforcing that their position is correct, that there aren't any others who have different opinions, because they're never seeing them. They're never interacting with people [who have] different opinions. And so they just wonder, "How could anybody possibly vote for that guy? I've never met these people before. This [candidate’s] not going to win because I don't see any coverage [of them]. I don't see anything on my social media feed that indicates to me that they're doing well." And I think that's pretty dangerous.

Elizabeth: [00:15:01] Yeah. Because it can feed into a very particular kind of apathy that is not based on reality.

Melanie: [00:15:10] Also extremism.

Elizabeth: [00:15:11] We see it with extremism. We see it with conspiracy theories. This is not a partisan thing. You see it all over the place.

Melanie: [00:15:19] Yeah.

Elizabeth: [00:15:19] There are people, regardless of who they would normally vote for, who do end up kind of down a bit of a rabbit hole. That then gets reinforced over and over. I've done some research, it's about five years old now, but at least at that time, what we were seeing was that the  pipeline to more and more extreme views was there, but it was very minimal. The bigger [pipeline], [which]scares me a lot, is the differentiation between the groups of people who care about politics and are going to get any political information, and the people who are just like, "Whatever, I'm out. This is not not my jam. I'm just gonna remove myself from it. It's too stressful. It's too confusing. I can't trust anyone. I can't trust anything." Is that something you think about? That group of people who are opting out using these tools?

Melanie: [00:16:11] Totally, even if they aren't intentionally doing it. Like Meta, [which is] Instagram and Facebook, have banned political ads unless you opt-in [consult: Meta's news ban changed how people share political info — for the worse, studies show and Meta Bans Political Ads From Using Its Generative AI—And Requires Disclosures For Other Fake Images]. Most of the population isn't going to do that  and isn’t  going to know that they need to. And so there you have like the 70% female audience on those social media platforms that you can no longer reach with your political ads unless they're following a politician - which they are unlikely to be doing, let's be honest. [Editor’s note: as of September 2024, almost 53% of Canadians using Facebook are women and 55% of Canadians on Instagram are women.]

Elizabeth: [00:16:36] Yeah, and the ones who already are following the politicians, they're [already] getting the information.

Melanie: [00:16:41] And their vote is already decided. If you're following a politician, you know how you're voting. You're no one's target voter because you can't be persuaded. That decision by the big social media conglomerates to [require opt-ins for political ads], I understand why they did it. They did it in lead-up to the US election [see: ​​How Meta Is Planning for Elections in 2024]. They're doing it because there's so much misinformation. There is AI, there are fake videos being produced, not just for parties. There [are also] foreign bad actors who have an interest in influencing North American elections and [the social media conglomerates] don't want to be responsible for any of that being shared on their platform. So, they're saying it's easier to just remove all that content than to take the risk of being blamed for an election going a particular way. It's completely rational what they've decided to do, but the unfortunate consequence is [that] there is a big segment of the population who is going to get missed by a lot of the sharing of political information and advertising. It creates a bigger challenge for political parties to figure out how [to] going to reach those people? How do you reach a younger audience now when we're limited in how we can actually get to you? Like even TikTok - most politicians in Canada no longer use it because it was banned by Parliament [Melanie is referring to the Canadian federal government’s TikTok ban on government-owned mobile devices, additionally the Conservative Party of Canada has banned caucus members from using TikTok. Consultalso: Federal government banning social media platform TikTok from government phones]. So, how are you reaching people on the platforms where they are engaging with others? And maybe we're going to see a move back to the good old days of just plain old door knocking and politicians having to talk to human beings face to face.

Elizabeth: [00:18:12] Do you think that's what's going to happen? When social media became more popular, it was around the time that I first got involved in politics and got involved in researching this area. Social media [at the time] was this dream that was going to allow us to connect with young people; it was the way to meet them where they are. That's not how it's panning out right now, as you've described.

Melanie: [00:18:34] It's actually become kind of a nightmare. I think it's going to be interesting not for this cohort of elections (so not this round of the US election and whenever the election in Canada is - either this year, or probably next year), but I think it will be really interesting when the kids with the cell phone bans in high school [see: Ontario Cracking Down on Cellphone Use and Banning Vaping in Schools] right now are old enough to vote.

Melanie: [00:18:52] So, let's give them four more years, right? In four years, how are we reaching those kids who are then young adults who are in college, university, in that cohort? Because they will have grown up with better bumpers, I want to say, around their social media usage than we've seen for the past 15 years. Where they have some kind of guardrails around how to use it, when to use it, and my hope for them is that these bans in schools will help them to distance themselves from the addictive nature of these social media platforms and learn to relate to humans again on a face to face level instead of everyone being buried in their phones. And then, perhaps, the natural extension of that [will be seen] in politics. Maybe there will be a return to [thinking that], “We're only going to trust you if I see you face to face. If I shake your hand and look you in the eye.” And, “I don't care what you put in a video, because that can all be edited. But if I see you in person, I can get a sense of who you are.” So maybe there will be a shift back to that.

Elizabeth: [00:19:53] Yeah, it's going to be really, really interesting to see how it plays out and how the information environment and the media we have access to, and the tools we have access to, really impact how we make choices about how to engage, whether to engage, and that kind of thing. I want to come back to some of those choices and the idea of rationality here. One of the big critiques of the theory of planned behaviour is that it is far too rational, and it assumes that people make choices purely rationally, when in reality, I think we all know that humans are creatures of habit and very emotional, and so we end up making a lot of choices that are more based in habit and emotion than pure rationality. Is that something that you observe in your work? How do you think about rationality versus emotionality?

Melanie: [00:20:48] Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that when we talk about target voters - [meaning] people who are open to voting differently in each election, perhaps who can be persuaded, who don't have a set diehard party that they are aligned with those individuals who vote - I think rational decision-making applies more to them. You still need to present a rational reason why you should vote for this person, but there needs to also be an emotion behind it. In your communications, you need to do both [rational and emotional strategies]. One of the emotions we often play on, in the past couple of years anyway, has been this notion of things being unfair. “You're doing all the right things. You're working hard, [and] you still can't get ahead. Because of inflation, because of the cost of living, the cost of the housing market. You've done all the right things. You went to college and university, you've got a job, and yet you can't afford to buy a home. You can't afford to start a family. You can barely afford your groceries. It's not fair.”

Melanie: [00:21:46] That's emotional, but there's also a rational element to it. The rational element is: the finances of this country are a mess, and you need to vote to change it. There's no disputing that. So it's definitely a bit of both. From a communications lens, you've got to have both elements. That being said, if your audience is people who are already baked in with their vote, we would refer to them as the [political] base. So your base voters - people are going to vote for you no matter what [and] no matter what your policies are, they're going to get out and vote for your political party - in that case, the communication is entirely emotional because you're trying to just motivate them to get out. And so it can be fear based - that if you don't get out to vote this is going to be really close, the other guy is going to win and then imagine how terrible that's going to be for that group. And then the other thing you're trying to do is get money from them. So it's a fundraising question. Those are almost always emotional.

Elizabeth: [00:22:36] Yeah. And those are the ones where it's like, you've probably already indicated that you are supportive of us, and so you already have that loyalty and a bit of the buy-in. So you don't necessarily have to do as much of the rational building work, you can go straight to the emotional.

Melanie: [00:22:52] Yeah. For the swing voters, and just touching on some advertising that we've seen lately in Canadian politics - I think [a video by] the Conservative Party of British Columbia [where] the key message is, "I’m doing something I’ve never done before". And it's a bunch of different people [featured in the video]. There's a nurse. I remember there being several women in this video, people in roles you wouldn't imagine them voting conservative, and it's them explaining why they're doing this for the first time. They're going to vote conservative. And that to me is, first of all, it's a very powerful message, a powerful ad [consult: the Conservative Party of British Columbia’s "I’m trying something new" advertisement, released in October 2024]. It's directly targeted at those potential swing voters; that smaller cohort of people who might be open to voting in a different way if they see other people like them doing it too and talking about it. Then they'll say, "Oh, interesting, that nurse is going to vote Conservative. Then maybe I should think about that too. I should think about why it is that she is willing to do that again". It's opening people up to the possibility of it, and then they are more able to receive information from you, and again, engage in the political messaging that you're pushing out.

Elizabeth: [00:23:59] We'll try and find that advertisement and add a link to it in the show notes for people who want to get a first-hand experience of it [consult: the Conservative Party of British Columbia’s "Try something new" advertisement (October 2024)]. I took a look at it before we started chatting and I think it’s  one that does a really good job of building off of those subjective norms and kind of saying, "Hey, these are people who you might see as your peers - as part of your social group - and they're doing something that you wouldn't normally have thought of." And so it might get them just on that ladder, [making them] a little bit more open to the next line of messaging. On the flip side, we also know that there's lots of pretty negative campaigning that happens. And attack ads are, for better or for worse, definitely a part of the Canadian political sphere. Do you see them playing in any differently from the more positive, engaging ones? What's your feel on that?

Melanie: [00:24:54] Attack ads are, in my opinion, generally focused on vote suppression, for lack of a better word. And the example that I'll use is when the blackface scandal happened with Prime Minister Trudeau [see: What we know about Justin Trudeau's blackface photos — and what happens next]. Pushing out content related to that, the whole push behind that is you're not going to convince people to vote for Andrew Scheer in that election instead of Justin Trudeau because of blackface, but rather, you're going to convince liberals who were going to vote for Justin Trudeau to instead stay home, which is sometimes just as good in an election. It's not enough to just get out all of your viable voters. You want some people, like your opposition, to be just so disgusted and so demoralized by the person that is the candidate for their party, that they're not going to bother. They're not going to hold their nose and go vote for the other guy, but they're going to stay home. They're going to sit this one out. That's absolutely a tactic. It's very a very cynical tactic, but it is one that is used widely in Canadian elections.

Elizabeth: [00:25:56] The idea of when you're thinking about changing the attitudes and behaviours of people like you're saying you're thinking of, "how do I get people to like me and my candidate and their policies"? But you also are trying to make them less likely to enjoy those of the opponents, and that's part of the game. If the goal is to have more votes than the other person, it's the both sides of the equation that kind of come into play.

Melanie: [00:26:22] There's two ways to get more votes. Literally have more people show up and vote for you, or have less people show up and vote for the other guy.

Elizabeth: [00:26:29] In this context, we've talked very briefly about foreign interference. And I'll put a plug-in for a couple of episodes that are coming out later in the season. We've got one on astroturfing and one on foreign interference in nomination races, but we've talked about foreign interference, we've talked about how social media and the algorithms underpinning those tools can really skew the variety of information that people see. There's the cynical attack ads that happen. There's general apathy that has existed for quite some time among certain demographics. How, in that context, do we build trust among the electorate, among potential voters?

Melanie: [00:27:14] That's the million-dollar question. You should want to encourage aspiring academic minds to research that and find some solutions for us. I think the first step is awareness and education about it. The more that we can do to make the general voting population in Canada aware that they are being influenced by bad actors and sometimes foreign entities, that aren't necessarily nefarious or malicious in their intentions, but are still being influential one way or another. That awareness and knowing what to look for. There's so much work to be done in that space that I hope the key thing that comes out of the foreign interference inquiry is not only do we need, within Canada, someone who is a watchdog for this, whose job it is to tell Canadians that this is going on, but we need a whole third party campaign that is arm's length, neutral, and is able to point out misinformation, and when from other governments, disinformation [Propaganda, Government Comms, and Disinformation with Shuvaloy Majumdar], to the Canadian population and correct it. I think it's Dale Smith who's the journalist who does like fact-checking for Donald Trump live [Melanie is referring to Daniel Dale, a journalist who has been fact-checking former President Donald Trump during the 2024 US Election Presidential Debates. See: CNN Fact-Checker Says This Donald Trump Ad May Be ‘Most Deceptive’ Of 2024 Election]. He's somehow able to just fact-check him through throughout a debate. We need that. But we need it for the internet in a weird way.

Melanie: [00:28:27] It's very disturbing how effective and insidious foreign interference has become. [For example], if you go on social media, [and] I continue to be astounded by advertisements that I see on X (formerly known as Twitter) that look like real National Post news stories that are absolutely fake. In that case, they're just trying to sell me Bitcoin through some weird story about Michael Bublé or some other Canadian celebrity that gets just clickbait. But those tactics are being deployed to get you to look at geopolitical issues. A different way, to look at the war in Ukraine in a different way. It's scary. I think we see, because we're so obsessed with the United States and with their electoral process and with their news cycle, we consume so much American media in Canada, you can really see how it has impacted the Republican Party And their positions, how wildly they varied from their historical positions on certain things like support for Ukraine against Russia. That's shifting. And the reason it's shifting is because of foreign interference, both in terms of social media clickbait.

Melanie: [00:29:41] But this echo chamber that you've created on social media that all your constituents now are part of, so if you are the elected official and you're hearing from vocal constituents who are in an echo chamber bubble where they're only seeing these things, and that's the only thing they want to talk to you about, then you, even if you're not in an echo chamber on the internet because you don't have time, because you're an elected official, you're still kind of in this weird bubble because your constituents keep telling you that this is important. They keep telling you that whatever the misinformation lies about Ukraine may be, and you bring that with you to Washington, right?

Elizabeth: [00:30:21] Right. And you want to get votes, you want to be responding to the needs of your constituents. And particularly if your base, your core that you always depend on to vote for you and donate to you and support. You are all saying "this is what matters. This is what's happening". You have to give attention to it.

Melanie: [00:30:39] And that's how you end up with, Donald Trump telling a crazy story about people eating dogs [during the Presidential debate]. That was an internet conspiracy theory. It was a story shared on Facebook. And it became real in the minds of the political class because enough people had shared it [see: Donald Trump doubles down on debunked claim that immigrants are eating pets].

Elizabeth: [00:30:59] This is a topic for a whole other podcast episode and we are coming to time. I think what's really interesting about the example of how foreign interference is kind of infiltrating our information environment is it's building off of some of those same exact principles of the theory of planned behaviour. It's building off the social norms, creating new norms, creating a new sense of community and making use of it, trying to rebalance our perceived control over our own behaviours and what the impacts of those behaviours are going to be. It's trying to change how we even perceive things in the first place. How we perceive Russia in the first place, for example. So lots more to dig into on some other episode, but for now, I want to finish the way we finish each episode. It's time for a quick pop quiz. If you were a student in one of my classes and you had a short answer question of how do you define the theory of planned behaviour? After our conversation, what do you think the key components are?

Melanie: [00:32:03] I'd call it like social license or social permission.

Elizabeth: [00:32:07] I think that that's a really good quick indicator. I think the social permission  / social license component is one of the three core components. There's what I call subjective norms you call social permission or social license. I would add on that attitude towards behaviour and perceived behavioural control. But that social permission really does seem to be the core thing that underscores a lot of the political communication strategies and messaging strategies at play.

Melanie: [00:32:40] Yeah.

Elizabeth: [00:32:40] Thank you so much. This was a great conversation.

Melanie: [00:32:43] Thanks for having me.

Elizabeth: [00:32:44] All right. That was our episode looking at the theory of planned behaviour. I hope you enjoyed it. As always, we've got lots of links to other resources and examples we talked about today in the show notes. And over at Polcommtech.ca you can find annotated transcripts available in English and French. I also want to acknowledge that I am recording from the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin people, and I want to pay respect to the Algonquin people, acknowledging their long-standing relationship with this unceded territory.