Concept

Noun-Based Identity Framing

Also known as: Be a Voter Effect, Identity Framing

language identity persuasion voting

Describing a behavior as an identity ("be a voter," "be a helper") rather than as an action ("vote," "help") makes people more likely to actually do it — because people are motivated less by isolated actions than by a desire to see themselves, and be seen, as holding a particular kind of person they want to be. The reverse also works: framing an unwanted behavior as an identity to avoid ("don't be a litterbug," "don't be a cheater") suppresses it more than a plain prohibition ("don't litter," "don't cheat").

The foundational finding is about perceiving others, not persuading them. Psychologists Susan Gelman and Gail Heyman told 115 children aged 5-7 about a hypothetical girl, Rose, either as "a carrot eater" (a noun) or as someone who "eats carrots whenever she can" (a verb phrase, deliberately worded even more strongly than the noun). Asked whether Rose would still eat carrots if her family didn't like them, children were 13-23% more likely to say yes if she'd been described with the noun label — even young children infer that a noun-labeled trait is a more stable, essential part of someone's identity than the identical fact phrased as a habitual action (see Gelman Heyman Carrot-Eater Identity Study).

Christopher Bryan extended this from perceiving others to changing one's own behavior, inspired directly by the Gelman and Heyman finding. A precursor study by Greg Walton and Mazarin Banaji had participants write self-descriptive sentences either as nouns ("I'm a Coke drinker") or verbs ("I drink Coke"); participants who wrote the noun form reported liking Coke more afterward, and rated the trait as more stable (see Walton Banaji Coke-Drinker Self-Perception Study).

Bryan's own escalating series of voting studies is the field's headline result. Framing a survey question as "how important is it to you to be a voter" rather than "...to vote" raised voter registration among eligible-but-unregistered students by roughly 20 percentage points in an initial small pilot, then 14 percentage points in a larger Stanford sample matched against actual voting records, then 10.9 percentage points in a nationally representative TESS probability sample ahead of a New Jersey election — a huge effect by the standards of get-out-the-vote research, where even an in-person canvassing visit typically moves turnout by only a few percentage points (see Bryan Be-a-Voter Turnout Studies). The finding was subsequently built into California voter-registrar messaging and into behavioral-science recommendations used by the 2012 Obama re-election campaign.

The same noun-framing raised honesty and helping, not just voting. In a coin-flip game offering real cash for self-reported (unverifiable) correct guesses, telling participants "please don't be a cheater" produced no detectable cheating at the group level, while "please don't cheat" still allowed a small but statistically real amount of cheating through (see Bryan Cheater-Framing Coin-Flip Study). Preschoolers asked "how do you feel about being a helper" were 75% more likely to help tidy up toys than preschoolers asked "how do you feel about helping" (see Bryan Helper-Framing Nursery Study).

The technique has real failure modes, which Bryan is explicit about. A noun label only works when the audience actually wants that identity and believes they can plausibly hold it. Framing energy conservation as "being an energy saver" suppressed Stanford undergraduates' actual energy-saving behavior, because the label read as childish and patronizing to that specific audience. Inviting arts-mailing-list subscribers to be "a supporter of the arts" produced fewer donations than simply asking them to "support the arts," because "supporter" implied an ongoing, burdensome commitment (meetings, committees) that "support" (a one-off check) didn't. A noun should also not be polarizing (not everyone who drives a hybrid wants to be called an "environment lover") or imply more effort than the audience is willing to give. A study inviting children to extracurricular science classes framed as "we will be scientists" (versus "we will be doing science") increased interest among boys but decreased it among girls — Jonah Berger attributes this to the cultural stereotype of "scientist" as a male-coded identity, meaning girls didn't feel entitled to claim it (see Science-Class Scientist-Framing Gender Study).

Anti-littering campaigns show the same mechanism working in reverse, with real variance in execution quality. The classic US "don't be a litterbug" campaign worked well on children, for whom "bug" is an undesirable identity. Britain's "litter hero" campaign is judged a weaker application, since "litter hero" isn't an identity people are already primed to want or reject. Australia's "don't be a tosser" campaign, in New South Wales from 2013, produced a 40% reduction in littering — "tosser" was already understood locally as a genuinely undesirable identity, giving the framing something real to push against (see Litterbug and Tosser Anti-Littering Campaigns).

Discussed in

Episode 154 — 154-the-hidden-impact-of-the-words-you-use-feat-dr-jonah-berger
Episode 158 — 158-voter-vs-vote-how-one-letter-changed-elections
Episode 213 — 213-i-watched-300-tv-ads-here-s-how-they-nudge-you (above-average-citizen labeling study)

Noun-Based Identity Framing

Discussed in

Related