Category: Persuasion

Every argument has at least two sides, even if sometimes, we’re not prepared to admit it. But in the heat of battle many people present their own side of the argument as though there’s no alternative.

You don’t have to go far online to find numerous examples of just that; take your pick of the issues from climate change to the Middle East. The instinct is to avoid drawing attention to weaknesses for fear of undermining our own point of view.

Counter-arguments

Over the years psychologists have compared one-sided and two-sided arguments to see which are the most persuasive in different contexts. Daniel O’Keefe at the University of Illinois collected together the results of 107 different studies on sidedness and persuasion conducted over 50 years which, between them, recruited 20,111 participants (O’Keefe, 1999, Communication Yearbook, 22, pp. 209-249).

The results of this meta-analysis provide persuasive reading. What he found across different types of persuasive messages and with varied audiences, was that two-sided arguments are more persuasive than their one-sided equivalents.

There’s one big proviso to this: when presenting the opposing view it’s vital to raise counter-arguments. Two-sided arguments which don’t refute the opposing view can be significantly less persuasive than a comparable one-sided argument.

This is probably where the common fear of raising opposing arguments comes from. We instinctively understand that the safest course is to present only our own side, otherwise we risk losing traction with the audience.

But if we bring up opposing arguments, then shoot them down, not only is the audience more likely to be swayed, we also see a boost in our credibility.

In his paper Daniel O’Keefe looks at whether there are exceptions to this general rule of using a two-sided argument in persuasion.

• Sympathetic audience: it was thought that one-sided arguments are more effective if the audience is already sympathetic, i.e. when preaching to the converted. O’Keefe found no evidence for this; even a sympathetic audience is more convinced by a two-sided argument.
• Low educational level: nowadays this would be called ‘dumbing down’. Again O’Keefe found no evidence that people with lower educational levels are more persuaded by a one-sided message.
• Advertising messages: this is the one exception to the rule about refuting the other side’s arguments. O’Keefe found that it doesn’t matter whether advertisers bring up counter-arguments or not, it makes little difference to audience persuasion. Perhaps this is because we still know it’s advertising, so we ignore the advertisers attempts to present a balanced argument.

Triumph of reason

Overall this is a nice conclusion, in that not only is a balanced argument more appealing morally, it is also more persuasive. And it doesn’t matter whether counter-arguments are introduced at the start, the end, or mixed in; as long as they are refuted, we are more likely to persuade the audience.

So, no matter how hard-line you are on a particular issue, remember that people aren’t idiots, they know there are two sides to every story and they’ll discount your message unless you acknowledge and counter the other side.

Image credit: Articulate Matter

Eighty per cent of adults in the US and the UK are moderate users of the psychoactive drug, caffeine.

Of all the effects it has on our minds—enhanced attention, vigilance and cognition—perhaps least known is its tendency to make us more susceptible to persuasion.

This was demonstrated in a study by Pearl Martin and colleagues at the University of Queensland in Australia (Martin et al., 2005). In their experiment they tried to convince participants to change their minds about the controversial issue of voluntary euthanasia.

Participants were told that some in the university agreed that people should be allowed to end their own lives under certain circumstances, while others did not. In fact participants were chosen because they agreed that voluntary euthanasia should be legal and the experimenters wanted to see if they could be persuaded otherwise.

Attitude adjuster

Before the attempt to change their minds, half the participants were given moderate doses of caffeine, while the other half took a placebo. Both groups were double-blinded so that neither the researchers nor the participants knew who had taken what. Then they were given six stories to read which argued against euthanasia.

When asked afterwards for their attitude to voluntary euthanasia, those who had drunk caffeine were more influenced by the persuasive message than those who’d had the placebo.

On top of this, participants were asked about their attitude towards abortion which, the experimenters guessed, would be indirectly influenced, since someone who disapproves of euthanasia is also likely to disapprove of abortion. And this is exactly what they found. The persuasive message had spread to a related idea and the effect was strongest amongst those who had consumed caffeine.

Pay attention!

But why? What is it about caffeine that opens us up to persuasion?

The reason that a lot of persuasive messages pass us by is simply that we’re often not paying much attention to them; our minds easily wander and we prefer not to think too hard unless it’s unavoidable. By increasing our arousal, though, caffeine makes us process incoming messages more thoroughly, potentially leading to increased persuasion.

So watch out, all that coffee isn’t just making you twitchy, it’s also making you more susceptible to influence, even if only by enhancing your attention.

Image credit: illuminaut

You ask someone for a favour and they say no. Where do you go from there?

According to two experiments conducted by Boster and colleagues, you ask: “Why not?”, then try to deal with the objections (Boster et al., 2009).

The key is transforming the ‘no’ from a flat refusal into an obstacle to be surmounted. If you can deal with the obstacle, the theory goes, your request is more likely to be granted.

Boster and colleagues tested this approach against these three other well-established methods of gaining compliance to a request:

• Door-in-the-face (DITF): first you make a very large request which is easily turned down; this is where the metaphorical door is slammed in your face. But, then follow up straight away with a much smaller request which now, comparatively, looks very reasonable. This has been shown to substantially increase compliance.
• Foot-in-the-door (FITD): better known as the ‘low-ball’ technique, this is the exact reverse of the door-in-the-face, in that you first ask for something small, then crank it up. Agreeing to the smaller request makes people more likely to agree to a second, larger request. The art is in judging the step up just right.
• Placebo information (PI): this is when you give someone a reason, but not a very good one. Like you say: “Can I use the photocopier before you, because I have to make some copies?” This example was used in an experiment by Langer (1978) who found that for small requests it boosted compliance from 60% to 90%.

To test all these methods, the experimenters asked 60 random passers-by to look after a bicycle for 10 minutes. In their first test the why not? (WN?) method was compared with DITF and PI. While 20% complied using the DITF technique, 45% complied with the PI technique, but fully 60% complied with the WN? method. Statistically the WN? method beat DITF and was as good as PI.

A second experiment added the FITD technique as well. This time, though, 67 random participants walking down the street were approached and asked if they would be willing to give up some free time for a good cause. The WN? technique fared best, producing an average compliance rate of 50%, compared with 36% for DITF, 26% for FITD and 13% for PI.

Cognitive dissonance

We don’t know from this research why the technique works so well in these situations, but Boster et al. wonder if it’s because of persistence. Repeated requests give the impression of urgency and this may better target people’s guilt and/or sympathy.

My favourite explanation, though, is to do with cognitive dissonance. This is the finding that we try to avoid inconsistencies in our thinking which cause us mental anguish. It feels dissonant—the two ideas butting up against each other—not to comply after objections have been effectively dealt with; after all, if there’s no reason not to do it, why not do it?

Although this experiment doesn’t test it, these techniques may well be even more powerful when used together, especially as ‘why not?’ can be tagged onto almost anything. The only down side of the WN? technique is that it requires the wit to dispel objections. Still, anticipating objections is a standard part of negotiation so many of these can be prepared in advance.

It might feel cheeky to keep asking ‘why not?’ when people refuse, but this experiment suggests it can be a powerful way to encourage compliance.

Image credit: Johnny Grim

Lack of passion can be fatal to our attempts to persuade others of our point of view. Even if all the right facts are trotted out in an intelligible order, even if the argument is unassailable, when the speaker doesn’t appear to believe it themselves, why should anyone else bother?

Show your passion, however, and people have one more emotional reason to come around to your point of view.

But how can we convince others of our conviction?

Up the intensity

One unconventional way is by using a little light swearing. The problem is that we run the risk of losing credibility and appearing unprofessional.

To see whether swearing can help change attitudes, Scherer and Sagarin (2006) divided 88 participants into three groups to watch one of three slightly different speeches. The only difference between the speeches was that one contained a mild swear word at the start:

“…lowering of tuition is not only a great idea, but damn it, also the most reasonable one for all parties involved.”

The second speech contained the ‘damn it’ at the end and the third had neither.

When participants’ attitudes were measured, they were most influenced by the speeches with the mild obscenity included, either at the beginning or the end.

It also emerged that the word ‘damn’ increased the audience’s perception of the speaker’s intensity, which was what lead to the increased levels of persuasion. On the other hand, swearing did not affect how the audience perceived the speaker’s credibility.

So it seems that light swearing can be useful, even in a relatively formal situation like a lecture. When you show some feeling, the audience notices, credits you with sincerity and takes your message to heart.

How far you can go is difficult to know. Certainly things have changed a lot. In the 1939 film Gone with the Wind, after Rhett Butler’s famous line “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn”, the producer, David Selznick, was fined $5,000 for this ‘shocking’ outburst.

That was a long time ago but audiences are diverse and will respond in different ways. It’s likely that stronger or more persistent swearing would adversely affect credibility. But a little damn and blast is more likely to be seen as a genuine display of emotion, which is refreshing. If nothing else, swearing is persuasive because it’s human.

Image credit: Jeff Gill

The art and science of persuasion is often discussed as though changing people’s minds is about using the right arguments, the right tone of voice or the right negotiation tactic. But effective influence and persuasion isn’t just about patter, body language or other techniques, it’s also about understanding people’s motivations.

In the scrabble to explain technique, it’s easy to forget that there are certain universal goals of which, at least some of the time, we are barely aware. Influence and persuasion attempts must tap into these to really gain traction.

Techniques of persuasion

To illustrate these universal goals, let’s have a look at six common techniques of influence that you’ll have come across either explicitly or implicitly (from Cialdini, 2001):

1. Liking: It’s much easier to influence someone who likes you. Successful influencers try to flatter and uncover similarities in order to build attraction.
2. Social proof. People like to follow one another, so influencers imply the herd is moving the same way.
3. Consistency. Most people prefer to keep their word. If people make a commitment, particularly if it’s out loud or in writing, they are much more likely to keep it. Influencers should try to gain verbal or written commitments.
4. Scarcity. Even when companies have warehouses full of a product, they still advertise using time-limited offers that emphasise scarcity. People want what they can’t have, or at least what might be running short.
5. Authority. People are strongly influenced by experts. Successful influencers flaunt their knowledge to establish their expertise.
6. Reciprocity. Give something to get something. When people feel indebted to you they are more likely to agree to what you want. This feeling could arise from something as simple as a compliment.

There are many more, but these six are often quoted, especially in business circles. The reason these work is that they tap into three basic human goals, and it’s these goals that are the key to understanding how to influence and persuade people (from Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004).

1. Goal of affiliation

In the most part humans are social so they want to be liked. Rejection is no fun and we’ll do almost anything to avoid it.

We reciprocate because it sends a message about our sociability. We try to elicit liking from other people by behaving in ways we guess will be attractive, like agreeing with them or complimenting them.

Not only do we want approval from specific people, we also want it from society at large (see this article on conformity). We want the things we do, think and believe to be broadly in line with what others do, think and believe. It’s not impossible to be different, but it is difficult.

The techniques of liking and reciprocity mentioned above both clearly play on our desire for affiliation, as do many other techniques of persuasion and influence. Most people are joiners and followers so influencers like to give us something to join and someone to follow.

2. Goal of accuracy

People who don’t care about doing things correctly never get anywhere in life. To achieve our goals in what is a complicated world, we have to be continually trying to work out the best course of action.

It could be accuracy in social situations, such as how to deal with the boss or how to make friends, or it could be accuracy in financial matters like how to get a good deal, or it could be accuracy in existential matters. Whatever the arena, people are always striving for the ‘right’ answer.

Influencers understand our need to be right and so they try to offer things that appeal to our need for accuracy. For example, experts or authority figures influence people heavily because they offer us a ‘correct’ view or way of doing things, especially one that we don’t have to think too carefully about.

The techniques of social proof and scarcity both nag at our desire to be accurate because we assume other people are likely to be right and we don’t want to miss out on a bargain.

3. Goal of maintaining positive self-concept

People want to protect their view of themselves because it takes a long time to build up a semi-coherent view of oneself and one’s place in the world.

We work hard to keep our world-views intact: we want to maintain our self-esteem, to continue believing in the things we believe in and to honour whatever commitments we have espoused in the past. In an inconsistent world we at least should be self-consistent.

Persuaders and influencers can leverage this goal by invoking our sense of self-consistency. A trivial but instructive example is the foot-in-the-door technique. This is where an influencer asks you to agree to a small request before asking for a bigger one. Because people feel somehow that it would be inconsistent to agree to one request and then refuse the next one, they want to say yes again.

People will go to surprising lengths to maintain their positive view of themselves.

Unconscious motivators

Everybody wants to be accurate, to affiliate with others and to maintain their concept of themselves, however little awareness we might have of these goals. Effective persuasion and influence attempts can target one or more of these goals.

With these goals in mind it is possible to tailor persuasion attempts to the particular characteristics of an audience, rather than relying on transparent generic techniques. Whether it’s at work, dealing with your boss, or at home negotiating with a neighbour, we can all benefit from thinking about other people’s unconscious motivators. Then we can work out how to align our message with their goals.

Image credit: ATIS547