Leveraging rhetorical style to reduce the existential threat of inclusive messaging

Abstract

Diversity and representation are among the most pressing issues facing the modern world. Communications designed to promote diversity involve numerous dimensions. Here, I focused on two separable dimensions: What is conveyed by a message (inclusive vs. exclusive messaging), and how that message is expressed (pluralistic vs. non-pluralistic rhetoric). Inclusive messages and pluralistic rhetoric emphasize the validity of many different solutions to life's challenges. Exclusive messaging and non-pluralistic rhetoric instead convey one valid answer. I tested whether non-pluralistic rhetorical style (vs. pluralistic rhetorical style) can be leveraged to buffer the existential threat posed by inclusive (vs. exclusive) message content. Study 1 (N [equals] 1,581) showed that exposure to inclusive messaging about what it means to be American led to lower meaning in life than exclusive messaging, or a control passage. Study 2 (N [equals] 1,218) showed that conveying an inclusive message about American identity using non-pluralistic rhetoric buffered this existential threat, leading to higher meaning in life than pluralistic expressions of inclusive ideals. Non-pluralistic rhetoric also enhanced certainty, and certainty mediated the effect of non-pluralistic (vs. pluralistic) rhetoric on meaning in life. Study 3 (N [equals] 556) sought to conceptually replicate these patterns in the context of university identity. Implications and future direction for the science of ideology, well-being, and diversity, are discussed.