Have you ever heard of cognitive declinism? Yeah, neither had we. Yet it has become one of the most powerful forces in shaping how audiences receive messages – and communicators who ignore it do so at their peril. 

Let’s break it down…

‘Cognitive declinism’ is a term used to refer to the perception that the past was better and that the future is looking grim, for institutions and society at large. Perpetual collapse, heightened anxiety etc… All very doom and gloom. Scroll any news site, watch any feed – someone, somewhere, is likely making the case that “things were better before”. 

Amongst all of this discourse, there is also the perceived notion that people are becoming less intelligent, and this feeds into the overall sense of distrust that this type of messaging can create. In fact, this year’s theme for the Edelman Trust Barometer was ‘Trust Amid Insularity,’ with only 32% of people surveyed believing that things will be better for the generations to come. Yikes.

This is all well and good, but is cognition actually declining? Or does it only feel that way – and does the distinction matter for communicators trying to reach an audience marinated in pessimism? The short answer is yes.

Two things happening at once

Cognitive declinism is the result of two distinct phenomena. The first is measurable – the ‘Flynn Effect’ is a project which indicates that IQ has improved from generation to generation throughout the 20th century, with more recent research identifying a partial reversal in some Western countries. However, it’s still up for debate whether these statistics are reliable, due to changes in education standards over time and our evolving understanding of intelligence as a broader attribute than simple IQ measurement allows.

The second is cultural: a pervasive pessimism about intellectual and institutional life that exceeds what the data supports. This feeling, perhaps more than any scientific finding, shapes how audiences receive communication today.

The Edelman Trust Barometer frames the response to this as “trust brokering”- i.e audiences no longer extend default trust to institutions, routing it instead through individuals or organisations they personally consider credible. Trust must now be actively constructed. Institutional credibility has become a scarce and fragile resource.

What this looks like in practice

Of course, the mechanics of cognitive declinism are most visible across political messaging: the restore/reclaim frame (Brexit, MAGA) conjures up images of a golden past – complex issues collapse into shorter, more emotionally charged formats and distrust becomes the default – meaning nuanced messaging gets read as spin. Evidence doesn’t persuade audiences primed to distrust the people offering it. Identity and feeling have largely displaced policy arguments.

However, these dynamics are not confined to politics. Brand, corporate, and crisis communicators face the same audiences. Polished messaging increasingly reads as manufactured – rawness and candour signal honesty in ways that perfect brand voice cannot. (For more on this idea, check out our previous blog on imperfection and the new modes of authenticity here.) And for organisations navigating reputational difficulties, the landscape is particularly unforgiving: an audience primed by declinism arrives ready to believe the worst.

What communicators can do

Meet audiences where they are emotionally. Acknowledge anxiety without amplifying it.

Build credibility through transparency and consistency over time – not clever framing. Trust is accumulated slowly and lost instantly.

Audit your own messaging for decline framing. The rhetoric of restoration is seductive, but it reinforces the very pessimism that makes audiences hardest to reach.

Don’t oversimplify. Use evidence strategically. One well-chosen, clearly attributed statistic outperforms a barrage of figures with a sceptical audience.

Public relations is an industry that gets accused of spin on the regular, but the irony is that the belief in cognitive decline may itself be the most significant distortion at work. We have built information environments that make thinking harder, and rhetoric that profits from the feeling that everything is falling apart. In the world of comms, our job is not to pretend otherwise – but to be honest about complexity, consistent in character, and credible enough that audiences find it worth their time to listen.

That is what making communications great again actually looks like.