American Understanding of Canada-U.S. Trade
Goodbit · May 15, 2026 · 3 min read
Goodbit engagements combine short game-based learning with AI-moderated conversation and measurement. Participants first respond to claims or scenarios, then talk through what surprised them, what felt credible, and what they would repeat. The results below combine those layers: what people knew, what shifted, what held, and what the conversations revealed.
At a glance
- Approximately 1,000 voters across 11 congressional districts in Arizona and Colorado completed the engagement.
- About two-thirds did not know Canada was their state's top trade partner; most guessed China.
- After correction, 80% retained the right answer.
- The largest single-item attitude shift was +0.517.
- Relationship valuation shifted by +0.493.
- Tariff support barely moved, shifting only +0.067.
- Tucson and southern Arizona showed the lowest trade-partner awareness; Colorado Springs showed the highest belief shift.
- Engagement depth predicted reframing more strongly than party affiliation.
- 78.5% of participants wanted to share what they learned.
Summary
The Canada-U.S. relationship is often described as close, stable, and familiar. That description is not wrong, but it can hide a weakness. Many Americans feel positively toward Canada without understanding the economic and strategic relationship that connects Canada to their own state.
In March 2026, Goodbit ran a cross-border engagement with approximately 1,000 voters across 11 congressional districts in Arizona and Colorado. The campaign measured beliefs about Canada, trade, energy, alliance history, and tariffs. It also tested whether misconceptions could be corrected at scale and whether corrected information would change what participants valued, trusted, or wanted to share.
The assessment found real warmth, limited understanding, and a clear opening: once participants could see the relationship more concretely, many became more willing to value and repeat it.
Methodology
Participants completed a 25-claim true-or-false game focused on the Canada-U.S. bilateral relationship. Claims covered trade, energy, alliance history, state-level economic ties, and tariff mechanics. The experience was designed to identify baseline assumptions and then measure what changed after correction.
The engagement also included an open-ended AI-moderated conversation. Participants were asked what surprised them, what felt relevant to their lives, and whether they would share what they learned. The measurement layer combined knowledge, belief, recall, reassurance, willingness to share, and conversation depth.
Findings
The most important knowledge gap was basic and consequential. About two-thirds of participants did not know that Canada was their state's top trade partner. Most guessed China. After correction, 80% retained the right answer.
The attitude shifts showed that information could move some parts of the relationship more than others. The largest single-item attitude shift was +0.517. Relationship valuation shifted by +0.493. Participants became more likely to see Canada as economically relevant and more likely to understand the relationship as something connected to their own state.
Tariff support barely moved, shifting only +0.067. That result shows the limits of factual correction. Some attitudes are anchored by broader political or economic beliefs and do not move simply because a person learns one new fact.
The geography sharpened the picture. Tucson and southern Arizona had the lowest accuracy on the trade-partner question, at 28.6%. Colorado Springs, where NORAD makes the relationship more visible, showed the highest belief shift. In Pima County, the gap was especially striking because the local economy includes major Canadian-linked projects and employers, including Hudbay, South32, Bombardier, and thousands of jobs at Canadian-owned companies.
Party differences were specific rather than uniform. Democrats shifted most on trade awareness. Republicans shifted most on trust. Canada-as-economic-partner moved both groups by roughly the same amount. Engagement depth mattered more than party: word count and conversation turns predicted whether someone reframed, while party affiliation did not.
The engagement also produced a social signal. Forty-two percent of participants felt reassured, and 78.5% wanted to share what they learned. That willingness to share matters because a relationship is more resilient when people can explain it to someone else.
Methodology portability
This case study shows how Goodbit can expose hidden weakness inside an apparently positive relationship. Positive sentiment alone is not enough if people cannot explain the relationship when it is challenged.
For institutions, the lesson is practical. If a public relationship depends on support, it is not enough to know whether people feel warmly. The better question is whether they understand what the relationship does, where it shows up in their lives, and which parts of that understanding can survive political pressure.
Goodbit can identify those gaps before they become vulnerabilities.
About Goodbit
Goodbit is a Canadian engagement and measurement platform for understanding how people think and talk about contested issues. We combine short game-based learning, AI-moderated conversation, and campaign analytics to reveal where information lands, where trust breaks down, and what makes people more willing to engage.
Contact: hello@madebygoodbit.com
Goodbit · May 15, 2026