Psychology Today Blogs - Yes!

Who Should Throw the First Persuasive Punch?

Noah Goldstein — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 09:18:02 -0800

Sometimes the first few minutes at the negotiating table are like the first few minutes in the boxing ring: Both opponents often dance around, reluctant to put themselves out there first. Just as some boxers are reluctant to throw the first punch, negotiators are often reluctant to put the first offer on the table. They may be worried that they will telegraph their strategy, or perhaps that they will reveal some sort of vulnerability. Are they right? Is it better to make the first persuasive move or let your opponent do so?

According to social psychologists Adam Galinsky and Thomas Mussweiler, you're far better off making the first offer in a negotiation rather than letting your counterpart make the first offer. In a series of experiments, the researchers found that regardless of the person's role in the negotiation (e.g. buyer or seller), negotiators who were given instructions to make the first offer obtained a superior outcome. For example, in one experiment, when parties looking to buy a factory made the first offer, the sellers ultimately agreed to a price of $19.7 million. On the other hand, when parties looking to sell the same factory made the first offer, the buyers ultimately agreed to a price of $24.8 million.

The reason for this effect is that the negotiator who makes the initial offer "anchors" the other party onto his or her numbers. This means that even though the other party should ideally determine the value of the negotiated items independent of the numbers provided by the initial offer, they don't. Instead, they anchor, as a starting point, on the initial numbers provided by their counterpart and insufficiently adjust away from those numbers when they continue the negotiation. So, an initial offer of $30 million might result in a settlement of approximately $25 million, whereas an initial offer of $15 million might result in a settlement of approximately $20 million. Keep in mind, though, that if one's initial offer is ridiculously unrealistic, getting it out there on the table first won't be of much help to you, as your opponents are unlikely to take you as a serious negotiating partner.

In sum, this research demonstrates that it's most beneficial to make the initial offer. If you fail to do so and let your opponent throw that first punch, you may find yourself down and out within a few minutes of the opening bell.

***

Noah Goldstein is a faculty member at UCLA Anderson School of Management. He is also co-author of the New York Times best-seller, Yes!: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive, with Robert Cialdini and Steve Martin.

For more on the science of persuasion, visit www.INFLUENCEATWORK.com and www.InsideInfluence.com.

© 2008 Psychology Today. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact blogs@psychologytoday.com so we can take legal action immediately.

Palin and Her Parasite

Noah Goldstein — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:02:52 -0700

Nearly everyone can agree that Tina Fey's near-perfect impersonations of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live have been entertaining. But what pundits cannot seem to agree on is whether these sketches have had, or will have, any impact on voter's perceptions of Palin as a qualified candidate for Vice President. The persuasion research suggests Gov. Palin should be worried.

To understand why, a history lesson is first in order. Whether it is alcohol, candy bars, fast food, fast cars, weight loss supplements, weight gain supplements, or the like, Americans today can hardly sit through an evening of primetime television or the broadcast of a weekend ballgame without viewing myriad commercials advertising the benefits of these potentially harmful projects. But noticeably absent from this list is cigarettes, a product whose advertisements were banned from the airwaves by the U.S. Federal Government over thirty years ago. What seems most perplexing at first about the ban is that the executives of Big Tobacco enthusiastically endorsed the proposed regulation. Why would the chief officers of the tobacco industry be excited not just to curb, but to completely eliminate, the promotion of their products from perhaps their most effective advertising medium? The answer tells us something about the extent to which Ms. Fey's characterization of Palin undermines the candidacy of the Alaskan governor, and more generally how to combat the repeated persuasive message of one's competitors.

Several years prior to the cigarette ban, the Federal Communications Commission had enacted the "fairness doctrine," which ordered radio stations and television networks that broadcasted controversial messages of public importance to also provide free air time to those with opposing views. Anti-tobacco groups capitalized on this ruling by initiating an ad campaign that provided viewers with effective counterarguments that refuted each supposed benefit of cigarettes "demonstrated" in Big Tobacco's commercials. A major reason why these anti-tobacco commercials were so potent was that these ads included recognizable features of the original ads, such as characters, settings, themes, and slogans that had been appearing in cigarette ads at the time. For instance, one commercial featured a Marlboro Man-like cowboy smoking a cigarette in a saloon. When he encounters a rival cowboy and attempts to draw his weapon, he starts wheezing, coughing, and gasping for air. The narrator gravely says, "Cigarettes - they're killers." After viewing counter-ads such as these, those who later viewed other cigarette advertisements-particularly ones featuring the Marlboro man or cowboy scenery-immediately conjured up the counterarguments, increasing their resistance to the cigarette ads' message.

Counter-advertisements such as these proved to be enormously successful; per capita cigarette consumption dropped almost 10 percent in the following three years, most of which has been attributed to the counter-ads. It's not so surprising then, that the industry's leaders decided it would be more profitable to reallocate their advertising budgets to the types of media that the fairness doctrine didn't apply, such as billboards and print ads.

The strategy of embedding a counter-message in the images and catchphrases of a target message has been dubbed the "Poison Parasite" by social psychologist Robert Cialdini because the counterarguments act as poison to the original message, while the parasitic mechanism ensures that the original message will now also "host" these poisonous counterarguments, activating them each time the message is heard or seen. Research on this phenomenon has revealed that the greater the similarity between the original message and the poisonous counter-message, the more potent the undermining effect.

Countless politicians have been caricatured on Saturday Night Live, but Ms. Fey's uncanny resemblance and dead-on impersonation of Gov. Palin, in addition to her ability to co-opt and ridicule many of Gov. Palin's standard phrases or keywords, should have a potent and far-reaching effect on voters. Her portrayal of Gov. Palin as a question-avoiding and "mavericky" know-nothing will no longer solely be available to potential voters on Saturday nights. Rather, as a parasite that has infected the Alaskan Maverick, it will be called to mind every time Sarah Palin speaks.

***

What Happens to the Value of Favors Over Time?

Noah Goldstein — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:51:30 -0700

When it comes to campaigning for the Presidential election, candidates typically stick to a limited universe of reasons for why the American people should cast their votes for them: They tout their proposals, experience, leadership qualities, and legislative accomplishments. But if you watched the GOP convention a couple of weeks ago, you might have noticed several of the headline speakers converging on a very unusual persuasive argument: You owe it to John McCain to vote for him.

This argument attempts to harness the power of the norm of reciprocity, which obligates us to return favors performed for us. In essence, these speakers were arguing that because John McCain has made sacrifices as a soldier and a prisoner of war for our country, we should feel obligated to pay him back for his service by voting for him. For example, after describing in excruciating detail how much pain McCain endured as a prisoner, Fred Thompson said, “Tonight we’re being called upon to step up and stand up with John just as he has stood up for our country.” Similarly, Sarah Palin stated, “And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always fighting for you, let us face the matter squarely. There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death... and that man is John McCain.”

Perhaps Mike Huckabee was most direct in calling on the electorate to pay back McCain for his sacrifices. He began by describing how “most of us can lift our arms high in the air to signify that we want something. [McCain’s] arms can't even lift to shoulder level, a constant reminder that his life is marked not by what he wants to receive, but by what he's already given. “ Huckabee then told the story of a Little Rock school teacher who decided to take away students desks one day and tell them they could have them back when they could tell the teacher how they earned them. After a day’s worth of incorrect guesses, the teacher finally opened the door, and in marched 27 veterans, each one carrying a school desk. She explained to the children, "You don't have to earn your desks... these guys, they already did. These brave veterans went halfway around the world, giving up their education and interrupting their careers and families so we could have the freedom we have. No one charged you for your desk. But it wasn't really free. These guys bought it for you. And I hope you never ever forget it. "

Huckabee continues: “I wish we all would remember that being American is not just about the freedom we have. It's about those who gave it to us. And let me remind those of you, John McCain is one of those people who helped buy the freedom that we enjoy and the school desks we had. It's my honor to do what I can to help him have a desk that he has earned -- one in the Oval Office. “

Although the accounts of McCain’s bravery, service, and sacrifice are certainly emotionally stirring, the events for which he is credited occurred a very, very long time ago. This begs the question, What happens to the influence of favors and gifts as time passes? Are favors like bread in that they become stale over time? Or are they more like wine, getting better and increasing in value with age?

According to Stanford University researcher Frank Flynn, the answer to this question depends on whether you are the favor-doer or favor-receiver. Flynn suggests that immediately after one person performs a favor for another, the recipient of the favor places more value on the favor than does the favor-doer. However, as time passes, the value of the favor decreases in the recipient’s eyes, whereas for the favor-doer, it actually increases. Although there are several potential reasons for this discrepancy, one likely possibility is that, as time goes by, the memory of the favor-doing event gets distorted; and since people have the desire to see themselves in the best possible light, receivers may think they didn't need all that much help at the time, while givers may think they really went out of their way for the recipient.

To test this idea, Flynn conducted a survey of employees working in the Customer Service department of a large U.S. airline. This particular business context is one in which coworkers commonly exchange favors by helping one another to cover shifts. The researcher asked half of the employees to consider a time when they had performed a favor for a coworker, whereas the other half of the employees were asked to consider a time when they had received a favor. All the employees in the study were then asked to indicate the perceived value of the favor and also to specify how long ago the favor was performed. Consistent with Flynn’s hypothesis, the results of the survey revealed that recipients of the favor perceived it as more valuable immediately after the favor was performed but less valuable as time passed. Favor-doers, on the other hand, showed just the opposite effect: They placed a lower value on the favor immediately after it was performed but then placed greater value on it as time went by.

These findings have implications for our effectiveness in persuading others both inside and outside of the workplace. If you’ve done a favor for a colleague or an acquaintance, that favor will likely have the most impact on that person’s desire to reciprocate within a short period of time following the favor. However, if you’re the recipient of a favor, you need to be aware of the tendency of people in your position to downplay that favor as time goes by. If you fail to recognize the full value of the favor weeks, months, or even years after it has occurred—which Flynn’s research shows is a natural inclination—this may ultimately damage your relationship with the favor-doer. If you are the giver of the favor, you might tend to think ill of the recipient due to his or her reticence to pay back what you have given previously.

So what can be done to maximize the value of the favors we provide if its value might diminish in the eyes of the receiver over time? One way might be to recognize the value of the gift or favor you have provided at the time by telling the receiver that you were happy to help because you know “that if the situation was ever reversed, I’m sure that you would do the same for me.”

A second, more direct strategy would be to jog the recipient’s memory about the value of the favor before making a subsequent request a short time later, which is somewhat akin to the GOP strategy. Of course, when using this information yourself, you should consider carefully the words you choose when taking this approach. Saying something like, “Remember when I helped you out a few weeks ago? Well now it’s payback time!” is clearly destined to fail. But a gentle reminder by enquiring “How useful did you find the report I sent to you?” would be an appropriate communication before you make your request.

Although there’s no universal method of influencing others 100% of the time, I’m certain that understanding all the factors that influence favor valuation is a good start. And if all else fails, just remember one simple rule of favor exchange: Just like you’ll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, you’ll definitely catch more favors with a bottle of vintage wine than with a loaf of stale old bread.

---

Noah Goldstein is a faculty member at UCLA Anderson School of Management. He is also co-author of the New York Times best-seller Yes!: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive.

Changing Minds and Changing Towels

Noah Goldstein — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:10:34 -0700

If you've stayed at a hotel anytime in the last several years, you've probably seen those little cards in your room asking you to reuse your towels to help save the environment. A survey of these persuasive messages communicated by scores of request cards from hotels around the globe reveals that these cards most commonly try to encourage towel recycling by focusing guests on the importance of the program to environmental protection. As it turns out, this persuasion strategy generally seems to be an effective one: It turns out that the majority of hotel guests who have the opportunity to participate in these programs do reuse their towels at least once during their stay.

Considering the success of these programs, my colleagues (Robert Cialdini of Arizona State University and Vladas Griskevicius of University of Minnesota) and I wondered why not a single sign that we encountered actually informed guests that the majority of their peers were participating in these types of programs. We thought an appeal of this nature, one that simply communicated the true social norm, might boost the likelihood of towel reuse even higher. So we decided to conduct some experiments at a local hotel, two of which are reported in the upcoming October issue of Journal of Consumer Research, and three of which are reported in my new book Yes!: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive. (No blog is complete without a shameless plug for the author's new book. Next I'll be hawking our bobbleheads, T-shirts, decorative spoon rests, and cologne.)

We found that by simply changing a few words on the standard sign, guests who learned that the majority of their fellow guests had reused their towels (the social norms appeal) were 26% more likely than those who saw the basic environmental protection message to recycle their towels. Not a bad improvement for a message that, to our knowledge, has never been used in those signs.

So, does this mean that we're just sheep? Not necessarily. But we're definitely more likely to follow the herd when we're uncertain about how to behave. And it turns out that we're also more likely to follow the herd to the extent that we perceive the herd as sharing our circumstances. Consistent with this notion, we conducted another experiment in which we included a towel reuse sign communicating the social norm of guests who had specifically stayed in the same room as the guest. It turns out that despite the meaninglessness of the connection, this wording produced a 33% increase in towel-reuse participation compared to the standard environmental appeal.

Is the behavior exhibited by the participants who saw the same-room sign logical? I can think of two reasons why it's not. For one, you shouldn't exactly view the previous occupants of your hotel room in an especially positive light. After all, these are the same people who have, by simple virtue of previously staying in that room, played a bigger role in diminishing the quality of your room and its amenities than any other guests in the hotel, engaging in activities that range from the mundane to the...well...who-knows-what (e.g. pillow fights). Second, there's simply no rational reason to believe that the behaviors of those previously occupying your hotel room are any more appropriate or valid than, say, the behaviors of those previously occupying the room next door. Yet, as psychologists are often keen to point out, people don't always behave rationally.

Despite the fact that it might not be particularly rational to give more credence to the norms of one's own hotel room, it is generally rational for us to follow the behavioral norms associated with the particular environment, situation, or circumstances that most closely match our own environment, situation, or circumstances. For example, when you're at a public library, do you follow the norms of other library goers, quietly browsing through the nonfiction section and occasionally whispering to your friends, or do you follow the norms of the patrons at your favorite pub, crushing books against your forehead on a dare and playing games where you take a drink from your flask every time you read a word with the letter ‘e'? If you want to avoid a lifetime ban from the premises, you'd clearly choose the former alternative rather than the latter.

Although using the power of similar others in persuasive communications seems obvious, countless organizations fail to take advantage of this influential factor. Besides simply remembering to convey how many people support your ideas, initiatives, or products, my co-authors and I advocate one particularly effective strategy: Invite both current and prospective clients who share something in common (e.g. industry, size of company, etc.) to a luncheon or educational seminar. Be sure to arrange the seating charts so that they can easily commingle. In this setting, they're likely to naturally strike up conversations regarding the advantages of working you're your organization.

Also, as our hotel experiments suggest, remember that when pitching an idea, proposal, or a product to your audience, the more similar the person giving the testimonial is to your audience, the more persuasive the message becomes. This means that in deciding which testimonials to show to a prospect, you need to take your ego out of the process. You should not make the common mistake of beginning with the testimonial you're most proud of, but with the one whose circumstances are most comparable to your audience's. For instance, if you were selling software to the owner of a string of local beauty salons, he or she would be more influenced by information about how pleased other salon owners are with your software than the big shots at General Motors. After all, he or she would be likely to think, "If others in my situation have gotten good results with this product, then it should be right for me, too." And if you're really lucky, you could truthfully inform them that the five previous prospects who sat in this very conference room agreed to sign a contract with your company...

****
For those interested in hearing more about the science of persuasion, here's a link to an NPR interview with my co-author Robert Cialdini, President of INFLUENCE AT WORK and Regents' Professor of Psychology and Marketing at Arizona State University:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93872977

Trouble with customer service agents? Try this.

Noah Goldstein — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:39:33 -0700

As somebody whose profession revolves around scientifically studying how and why people are persuaded, I'm often asked if there are any persuasion tactics that are guaranteed to get people to say "yes." The truth is that anyone who tells you that they can help you do anything all of the time is either selling you snake oil or peddling their new book. Although it is the case that I'm peddling my new book (Yes!: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive, co-authored with psychology and marketing professor Robert Cialdini and UK business consultant Steve Martin. Buy your copy today!), I'd never make such exaggerated claims. What I can say with confidence is that the science of persuasion helps us understand what approaches we can take to increase the likelihood -- sometimes by a modest amount, sometimes by leaps and bounds -- that others will give us what we want.

But when pressed recently to identify a particular strategy that I personally find to be highly successful, highly reliable, and soundly backed up by the science of persuasion, one stood out: If you've ever contested a mysterious charge on your credit card, tried to resolve a problem with your computer, or wanted to return an item to a vendor, you've probably encountered stubborn customer service agents -- people who seem nice at the outset but change their tune when they realize complying with your request will cause additional work on their part. To change their orientation toward you, try the following: If you find toward the beginning of your interaction that the customer service agent is being particularly friendly, polite, or responsive -- perhaps before you get to your toughest request -- tell the agent that you're so impressed with his or her service and knowledge so far that you're going to write a positive letter or e-mail about your interaction to his or her supervisor as soon as you get off the phone. After getting the agent's name and the supervisor's contact information, you can then get to the more complex issues at hand. (Or, even easier, you can tell the person that you're so happy with the service that you'd like to be transferred to the agent's supervisor when you're done so that you can pay the person a compliment.) Although there are a number of psychological reasons for why this might be an effective strategy, the norm of reciprocity -- one of the best-studied norms in psychology -- is a powerful factor here: You've offered to do a favor for that person, so now that person is going to be motivated to return the favor. So long as you follow through with your promise, the strategy is an ethical and effective one.

***

In future blog entries, I hope not only to detail the lessons that scientific research can teach us about how to be more persuasive, but also to analyze how communicators, marketers, and candidates go about persuading their audiences to support them. If you have any questions about the persuasion process that you'd like to see addressed in future entries, please leave a comment.