This document outlines psychology principles for effective public engagement and summarizes a case study from Saint Paul, Minnesota. It discusses three rules of thumb for public engagement: 1) use a meticulous method by laying out the process and being transparent, 2) manage your message by carefully framing issues, and 3) ensure meetings foster insight rather than being platforms for venting by establishing ground rules and norms. The case study describes how following these principles led to much higher approval ratings and community buy-in for a bikeway project in Saint Paul compared to the first attempt.

1. Emily P.G. Erickson
Presented as part of Getting to Better
Outcomes from Public Engagement
December 17, 2014
Mind Your
Process:
The psychology
of public
engagement

2. Learning(objec-ves!
• Psychology*of*public*engagement*
– Three*rules*of*thumb*
– Psychology*at*play*
– How*to*apply*to*public*engagement*
• Case*study*from*Saint*Paul,*MN*

3. Freud says…
1. Meticulous method
2. Manage your message
3. Meeting not a mob

4. The fine print
• Caveats
– Politics will remain
– People will still
disagree
• Benefits
– Cultivate an
environment conducive
to good public process
– Learn
recommendations
– Invite buy-in to final
plan or project

5. Meticulous method
Lay out what you re going to do, do it to the best of your ability,
and show people you did it.
• Psychology at play
– Procedural justice (Thibaut & Walker,
1975)
– Higher procedural justice associated
with lower rule-breaking behavior and
perception that authorities have higher
legitimacy (Trinkner & Cohn, 2014)
• How to apply to public engagement
– Clarify rights and responsibilities
– Demonstrate freedom from bias,
consistency, good-faith effort
• Project timeline/next steps
• Up-to-date multiple channels of
information
• Early and easy-to-understand
notification
• Document and share
**

6. Manage your message
What we say (and don t say) and how we say it
has a very real impact on how people are likely to react.
• Psychology at play
– Linguistic determinism hypothesis:
different languages impose different
conceptions of reality (Whorf, 1956)
– Presenting issues in different ways
elicits different responses (Marteau,
1989; McNeil & others, 1988; Rothman
& Salovey, 1997)
– The way spoken material is expressed
vocally impacts how the speaker hears
that material (MacCluskie, 2010)
• How to apply to public engagement
– Frame your message
– Be aware of vacuums
• Say the thing you re most afraid they
will first

7. Meeting not a mob
In-person and online community engagement experiences should increase public
trust in the process and provide opportunity for insight, not be a platform for venting.
• Psychology at play
– Individuals
• Theories of self: Belief = self, change of belief =
annihilation of self (Schultz, 2010)
• Catharsis theory is questionable at best (Bushman,
2002)
– Group pressure and conformity
• Fundamental attribution error: Overestimating the
influence of personality and underestimating the
influence of situations (Heider, 1958)
• Mood contagion (Neumann & Strack, 2000)
• Compliance with social pressure dominant behavior
(Milgram, 1963, 1974)
• Normative social influence (Asch, 1955)
• Procedural norms do not evolve on their own; they
must be created (Yalom, 2005)
• We use space to communicate with others (Lawson,
2001)
• Seeing another person s eyes fosters empathy and
communication (Lapidot-Lefler, 2012)
• Foot-in-the-door phenomenon (Cialdini, 1993)
• How to apply to public engagement
– Select and arrange the space carefully
– Determine ground rules
– Establish group norms (e.g., caring and empathy)
– Get early buy-in on something

8. Saint Paul, Minnesota
Case Study

9. Jefferson Avenue Bikeway: Take 1
• February 2008: City applied
for FHWA Non-motorized
Transportation Pilot Project
funding for complimentary bike
boulevards on Highland
Parkway and Jefferson
Avenue. Only Highland
Parkway was awarded funding
at the time. The District
Council voted to discontinue
this project.
• March 2009: City reapplied for
funding for a project located
entirely on Jefferson, which
would establish a 4-mile east-
west connection on this
residential street

10. Jefferson Avenue Bikeway: Take 1
(What not to do)
• Message
– Staff instructed not to come across
as supportive of project
– Left a lot of information unsaid for
fear of being controversial
• Method
– No clear community engagement
plan communicated to public
– 13 public meetings with unclear
ownership
– Poor website (e.g., no contact
person, no handouts, etc.)
• Mobs
– Over a dozen public meetings
– No ground rules
– Auditorium style seating
– Yelling, etc. permitted

11. Jefferson Avenue Bikeway: Take 1
Outcome

12. Jefferson Avenue Bikeway: Take 2
(Intervention)

13. Jefferson Avenue Bikeway: Take 2
Meticulous methods
• Laid out the project
timeline, and stuck to it or
gave plenty of notice for a
change
• Established ground rules,
We ve got a lot to cover
in our limited time tonight,
so In the interest of
efficiency, I ask that you
keep your questions and
comments until the
appropriate time. I
appreciate your patience.
• Told public how input
would be used, and
proved it

14. Jefferson Avenue Bikeway: Take 2
Manage your message
• Traffic calming toolbox: Shared
benefits and drawbacks of each
potential treatment and project
cost, to provide similar context
for each
• Included slides on what wasn t
in traffic calming toolbox (e.g.,
stop light, stop sign, etc.)
• Framing public comments with
analysis cover sheet, e.g., Two
sided parking: 10 different
people concerned (11% of
those who provided feedback)

15. Jefferson Avenue Bikeway: Take 2
Meeting not a mob
– Ground rules
– Used active listening
and validation in
responding to
comments (e.g., I
understand that you are
worried about snow
removal, and we were
too, so… )
– Selected and arranged
the space as best we
could to promote civil
behavior
– Demonstrated honesty
and trustworthiness
through information
shared

16. Jefferson Avenue Bikeway: Take 2
Outcome
• 82% approval rating
on most controversial
design element
• City Council approval
of community
supported plan
• Added bonus:
Councilmember who
tweaked plan at last
minute was called out
by those who testified
for undermining public
process

17. The least you need to know…
1. Manage your
message.
2. Meticulous method.
3. Meeting not a mob.
Emily P.G. Erickson
epgerickson@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/epgerickson