Criminal Legal System Messaging Research
How Gradient helped our client challenge its communications assumptions by testing messages against oppositional and middle-of-the-road narratives.
Project Overview
Gradient partnered with our client to evaluate how messages about safety, accountability, and justice perform when placed alongside more punitive narratives, identifying which approaches resonate most with voters and influence public dialogue.
1. Evaluate message strength in a competitive environment: Test how messages that reflect the [Client]'s voice hold up when placed side-by-side with alternative narratives emphasizing punishment or fear.
2. Understand how voters navigate conflicting views on safety and justice: Measure how Americans respond when presented with contrasting messages and reveal which language choices build trust and move audiences toward constructive, reform-minded perspectives.
3. Equip communicators to shift the boundaries of public support: Provide clear guidance for engaging Americans with messages that both affirm the [Client]'s values and expand what’s accepted as a viable, compelling stance on public safety.
- Acknowledge Fears
- Center Proven Solutions
- Be Wary of Shorthand
Messages that acknowledge public safety concerns can hold their own against the strongest opposition narratives.
- Even when facing high-performing, emotionally charged opposition messages, such as those focused on fentanyl and crime, response messages that opened with a recognition and validation of safety concerns remained competitive.
- Americans responded well to language that centered shared values and real-life concerns, even when the tone was more neutral than traditionally used in [client] communications.
Staying grounded in the [Client]'s voice continues to resonate, especially when rooted in solutions.
- Messages that reflected the [Client]'s broader messaging style consistently performed well across voters, particularly when they emphasized proven solutions, community investment, and the need for practical alternatives to incarceration.
- The results reaffirm that the [Client]'s voice can be persuasive without shifting tone; as long as the message connects clearly to voters’ lived experiences and offers a constructive path forward.
Shorthand labels like “criminal justice reform” can be detrimental when used in isolation.
- When Americans were introduced to a hypothetical candidate using only the label “criminal justice reform,” they were significantly less likely to express support.
- But when the same policies were described in plain terms (without invoking the label), support increased.
Research Approach
Survey Development
Gradient conducted a representative national online survey of 1,390 American adults.
Messaging Component Analysis
At the core of the survey was a Messaging Component Analysis (MCA), powered by a choice-based conjoint. Americans evaluated randomized combinations of message components, each reflecting different messengers, villains, problems, and policy benefits. This design enabled us to isolate the persuasive impact of each component by estimating its relative importance and favorability.
Competitive Messaging Analysis
To simulate real-world message competition, the study incorporated a mix of oppositional and centrist message elements alongside messages aligned with the [Client]'s voice. This approach allowed us to understand what Americans prefer in isolation and how they respond to messages in a contested narrative environment.
A/B Testing
A separate A/B test measured the impact of using the phrase “criminal justice reform” in a candidate’s introduction. Americans evaluated candidates described either with the label alone, with policy content, or with both. This allowed us to quantify how political shorthand affects candidate support relative to substantive policy-specific messaging.
Messaging Optimization
The research quantified which combinations of message components are most likely to maximize support, and revealed the tradeoffs of different messaging strategies. By comparing performance across affirming, neutral, and oppositional language, Gradient identified where the [Client]'s voice is most effective, and where alternative framings may underperform or undermine the message (and by how much).
