Harmful Narrative Response Research
How Gradient helped The Just Trust design effective responses to fear-based narratives around criminal justice reform
Project Overview
Gradient partnered with The Just Trust to identify which counter-messages are most effective in response to recurring “tough on crime” narratives, and how to avoid responses that unintentionally backfire.
1. Identifying narrative risk and resonance: Understand how voters respond to “tough on crime” narratives and the potential for backlash across partisan lines.
2. Optimizing language for cross-partisan appeal: Identify the most persuasive narrative responses that boost support for reform without alienating key audiences.
3. From insights to messaging strategy Provide targeted, high-impact recommendations to guide public-facing communications and rapid response efforts.
- Deploy Messages Wisely
- How to Respond
- Lean Into Principles
These rebuttals work best as responses to harmful narratives, not as standalone messages to lead with.
- Pro-reform messages tested in isolation were less effective across audiences.
- But when paired directly against a harmful “tough on crime” narrative, well-design responses consistently persuaded voters to support reform-minded perspectives.
Not all response strategies are equally effective.
The most successful counter-messages either pivoted away from the harmful narrative or calmly reframed its core assumption. These strategies outperformed messages that took a more direct or confrontational tone.
Effective responses follow shared principles, even when tailored to different narratives.
- Across message types, the strongest performers shared key characteristics: they were grounded in shared values, avoided jargon and ideological language, and positioned reform as a practical, commonsense solution.
- These patterns held across audience segments and geographic contexts, reinforcing that persuasive messaging is less about finding the “perfect line” and more about maintaining a consistent strategy and voice.
Research Approach
Survey Development
Gradient conducted an online survey with 5,958 registered voters across the U.S., including targeted oversamples in California and Colorado.
A/B Message Testing
Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a control group (no message), a group exposed to a harmful “tough on crime” narrative, or a group exposed to a pro-reform message written in The Just Trust’s voice.
Isolate Persuasiveness
All respondents answered a consistent battery of questions on criminal justice reform, including general support, willingness to vote for reform-aligned candidates, and views on crime and sentencing in their communities. This randomized design enabled us to isolate the persuasive impact of each message.
Measuring Emotional Impact
In addition to message preference, we measured emotional impact including the degree to which each message evoked hope. Social science research shows that hopefulness is associated with greater openness to new ideas, making it a key indicator of persuasive potential.
Messaging Playbook
Findings were synthesized into a messaging playbook organized by narrative category, providing clear guidance on which responses to lead with, which to reserve for specific audiences, and which to avoid.
As a result of our messaging components research:
The Just Trust gained a playbook to share with grantees looking to respond to harmful narratives with persuasive, audience-specific counter-messages.
The research offered strategic clarity on which messages work best in contrast to “tough on crime” rhetoric, and how different responses perform with Democrats, Independents, and Republicans
By understanding what works (and what backfires), The Just Trust is helping partners speak more effectively to skeptical or swing audiences.
The findings revealed which narratives improve support for reform and which provoke backlash, helping grantees anticipate voter reactions and stay focused on high-impact frames.
