The Anatomy of influence: Using the latest Social psychology, decision-making, persuasion, and new brain science resear

1. The Anatomy of influence:Using the latest Social psychology, decision-making, persuasion, and new brain science research to create cooperation • Bill O’Hanlon • billohanlon.com

2. Introduction

3. Three Small Words • An infomercial copywriter (Colleen Szot) changed the “call to action” from: • “Operators are standing by; please call now.”; to • “If operators are busy, please call again.” • Sales increased significantly; shattering a 20-year sales record • Why? You’ll soon find out and know very well.

4. ONE WORD: Because • Students were waiting in a long line for a busy copy machine at a major university library • A person comes to the front of the line and asks if he or she can use the copy machine, with no explanation • 75% of people agree to let the person use the machine • In another condition, the person asking adds a phrase beginning with “because” (sometimes “because I have to make a some copies”) and compliance increases to 96% • E. Langer, A. Blank, and B. Chanowitz, (1978). “The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of placebic information in interpersonal interaction,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36:635-642.

5. Two Words: Warm or Cold • Students at Harvard Business School were told they had a guest instructor and were asked to rate him since he was being considered for a faculty position • They were all given a description of him, with one slight difference. In one, he was described as “very warm” and in the other, “rather cold.” Otherwise, the descriptions were identical. The class got the same lecture, but at the end, when asked to rate the instructor for possible hiring as an instructor, the students who had read the description of a “very warm” person rated him as “good-natured, considerate of others, informal, sociable, popular, humorous, and humane,” while those who read that he was “rather cold” rated him as “self-centered, formal, unsociable, unpopular, irritable, humorless, and ruthless.” • Reference: Kelley, H.H. (1950). “The warm-cold variable in first impressions of persons,” Journal of Personality, 18, 431-439.

6. These influence principles are based on recent research • Persuasion research • Social influence/social psychology research • Non-rational/non-conscious decision-making research • The new brain science

8. The 3 Major PrinciplesOF INFLUENCE • SOCIAL FOLLOWING • PRIMING • LOSS AVOIDANCE

9. Influence Principle #1:Social influence factors

10. Humans are social animals

11. Social Comparison, following and Norms • People tend to look to others, especially a majority of others, to decide how to behave in and perceive situations • Any messages that show that many (or most) others are doing or perceiving a certain way will influence one’s actions, choices and perceptions

12. The Hotel Re-Use Studies • Social psychologists, led by Dr. Robert Cialdini, investigated how the percentage of re-using towels more than once per stay was influenced by messages about how others behaved • When a message was left saying it was good for the environment to re-use towels, a certain percentage of people re-used • When the message was changed to suggest that most people re-used towels in that hotel, re-use went up 26%; when it was more specific (most people who stayed in that particular room re-used) re-use increased 33% • Goldstein, Noah; Cialdini, R.B.; and Griskevicius, Vladas. (2008). “A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate conservation in hotels,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (2), 214–20.

13. Petrified Forest Study • In an effort to reduce stealing of wood pieces from the Petrified Forest, officials put up a sign reading: • “Your heritage is being vandalized every day by theft losses of petrified wood of 14 tons a year, mostly a small piece at a time.” • The study was suggested when a graduate student reported that his fiancée, who was usually scrupulously honest, read this sign and nudged him andwhispered, “We’d better get ours now.”

14. Petrified forest study • Researchers specially marked wood pieces so they could measure theft on various trails. • Then they created alternate signs: • “Many past visitors have removed petrified wood from the park, changing the natural state of the Petrified Forest.” This sign showed people picking up wood. • “Please don’t remove wood from the park, in order to preserve the natural state of the Petrified Forest.” This one showed a lone person picking up wood with a red X superimposed.

15. Petrified forest study results • Compared to a control condition (no sign); 2.92% stolen: • Social following sign: Increased theft to 7.92 % of pieces stolen. • Lone wolf sign: Decreased theft to 1.67%.

16. We all think we aren’t going along with the crowd • Why do you have to be a nonconformist like everybody else? - James Thurber • You are unique; just like everybody else. -Bumper sticker

17. Perceptual acuity Test Choose the line, A, B, or C, that matches the line without a letter under it

18. Asch perceptual studies • Subjects were put in a room and told they were being tested for perceptual acuity • Unbeknownst them, there were three confederates of the experimenter in the room • They were shown three lines of various lengths and asked which of the three a fourth line matched. It was very obvious.

19. Asch perceptual studies • When three subjects all gave the wrong answer, the subject also gave the wrong answer 75% of the time • But when even one of the subjects dissented, even giving another incorrect answer (even if that dissenter was shown to be visually impaired), the subject gave the correct answer almost all the time • Asch, Solomon. "Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgment," in Groups, Leadership, and Men, ed. by Harold Guetzkow (Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press, 1951), pp. 177-190 • Asch, Solomon, (1955). "Opinions and Social Pressure," Scientific American, 193:31-35. • Allen, Vernon and Levine, John, (1971). "Social Support and Conformity: The Role of Independent Assessment of Reality," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7: 48-58.

20. Gazing skyward study • Stanley Milgram had a person in NYC gaze skyward; most people ignored him. When he was joined by 3 others gazing skyward, 4 times as many people also stopped and looked up. • Milgram, S.; Bickman, L. and Berkowitz, L. (1969). “Note on the drawing power of crowds of different sizes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13:79-82.

21. Mirror Neurons • The ice cream cone and the monkey • Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). “Action recognition in the premotor cortex,” Brain, 119:593-609. • Fogassi, L., & Ferrari, P.F. (2007). “Mirror neurons and the evolution of embodied language,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 136–141.

22. Subtle social mimicry • A researcher subtly mimicked half the subjects while asking them survey questions, then “accidentally” dropped some pens; those who had been mimicked were 2-3 times more likely to pick up the pens as those who hadn’t • Van Baaren, Rick; Holland, Rob; Kawakami, Kerry; and van Knippenberg, Ad. (2004) “Mimicry and Prosocial Behavior,” Psychological Science, 15, 71-74.

23. Subtle social mimicry • 37 Duke students tried out what was described as a new sports drink, Vigor, and answered a few questions about it. The interviewer mimicked about half the participants. • The mimicry involved mirroring a person’s posture and movements, with a one- to two-second delay. If he crosses his legs, then wait two seconds and do the same, with opposite legs. If she touches her face, wait a beat or two and do that. If he drums his fingers or taps a toe, wait again and do something similar. The idea is to be a mirror but a slow, imperfect one. Follow too closely, and most people catch on. • By the end of the short interview, those who were mimicked were significantly more likely than the others to consume the new drink, to say they would buy it and to predict its success in the market. In a similar experiment, the psychologists found that this was especially true if the participants knew that the interviewer, the mimic, had a stake in the product’s success. • Chartrand, T.L., & Bargh. J.A. (1999). “The Chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893- 910. • Chartrand, T.L., Maddux, W.W., & Lakin, J.L. (in press). “Beyond the perception-behavior link: The ubiquitous utility and motivational moderators of nonconscious mimicry.” In R. Hassin, J. Uleman, & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought 2: The new unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press.

24. Subtle social mimicry • At Stanford, a computer figure, an avatar, was programmed to mimic the movements and gestures of study participants. If the avatar’s movements were immediate and precise, people picked up on them, but if they were slightly out of sync (delayed 4 seconds) people did not pick up on them and rated the avatars as warm and convincing. • Bailenson, J., & Yee, N. (2005). “Digital chameleons: Automatic assimilation of nonverbal gestures in immersive virtual environments,” Psychological Science, 16, 814–819.

25. Take-Away • You probably already mirror people naturally, but you might be able to improve your skill at gaining rapport if you attend to people more closely. Listen to and watch them as they speak and interact with you.

26. Neurological Empathy • When study participants are asked to imagine how they would feel in reaction to emotion-laden familiar situations, including painful events, and to imagine how another person would feel if she was experiencing the same situations, common neural circuits are activated both for the self and the other. • Another study using fMRI showed that when children and adults attend to other people in pain, the neural circuits underpinning the processing of first-hand experience of pain are activated in the observer. • Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2006). “Human empathy through the lens of social neuroscience,” The Scientific World Journal, 6, 1146-1163. • Decety, J., Michalska, K. J., & Akitsuki, Y. (2008). “Who caused the pain? An fMRI investigation of empathy and intentionality in children,” Neuropsychologia, 46, 2607-2614. • Jackson, P. L., Brunet, E., Meltzoff, A. N., & Decety, J. (2006). “Empathy examined through the neural mechanisms involved in imagining how I feel versus how you feel pain,” Neuropsychologia, 44, 752-61.

27. Take care how you use Social Norm messages • Women’s Voices, during the 2004 presidential campaign, sent out 1 million postcards with this message: “Four years ago, 22 million single women did not vote.” • Oops! Voter turnout for single women was especially low that year, even lower than in 2000.

28. Take care how you use Social Norm messages • An anti-littering campaign ad showed people waiting for a bus. After the bus left, it showed the empty bus stop with lots of litter. Then it cut to a poster of the well-known pervious anti-littering ad, with a Native American on horseback with a tear running down his cheek. The message said: Back by popular neglect. • The inadvertent message was: “Littering is common and the social norm.”

29. Take Care how you use Social Norm messages • California households’ energy use were monitored and then doorknob cards were delivered to each house telling them how their energy use compared to the norm (some had used more than average and some less). • Over the next few weeks, those households who had had above average usage reduced their consumption by 5.7%; but those whose usage was below average increased their consumption by 8.6%. [Don’t worry, they figured out how to fix this “middle magnet” by putting smiley faces on the cards or those whose energy use was low and frowny faces on the cards of those whose usage was high.] • Schultz, P. W.; Nolan, J.M.; Cialdini, R.B; Goldstein, N.J.; and Griskevicius, V. (2007). “The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms,” Psychological Science, 18:429-434.

30. Modeling • Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory posits that people learn from one another, via observation, imitation, and modeling. • Famous for the Bobo Doll studies, which showed social learning through modeling.  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

31. Bobo Doll Studies • Bandura made a film of one of his students beating up a doll that bounced back up after being punched. The woman punched the clown, shouting “sockeroo!” She kicked it, sat on it, hit with a little hammer, and so on, shouting various aggressive phrases. Bandura showed his film to groups of kindergartners. They then were let out to play. In the play room were several observers with pens and clipboards in hand, a brand new Bobo doll, and a few little hammers. • Most of the kids beat the daylights out of the Bobo doll.  They punched it and shouted “sockeroo,” kicked it, sat on it, hit it with the little hammers, and so on. They imitated pretty closely what they had seen. • Responding to criticism that Bobo dolls were supposed to be hit, he even did a film of the young woman beating up a live clown.  When the children found the live clown in the other room after watching the film,  they proceeded to punch him, kick him, hit him with little hammers and so on.

32. Social Proof • Testimonials • Indirect evidence of popularity (It sold out last time; Billions served) • Success stories about others • Statistics that show a majority of people are doing something desirable: • 97% of visitors do not take pieces of wood from the Petrified Forest • 93% of Americans are on time with mortgage payments in the midst of economic crisis

33. A SIMPLE USE OF SOCIAL FOLLOWING/NORMS • “Studies have shown that most people get and feel better after they come to therapy.”

34. Questions to ponder • How can you use this social following/social norms principle in your work? • How have you been inadvertently using social comparisons and norms ineffectively? • What is one small shift you can make in the way you work that reflects what you have learned or clarified in this section?

35. RECIPROCITY • This is another social phenomenon • People feel obliged to return the favor if they are given something by someone • Free samples or gifts • Acts of kindness

36. Reciprocity • A waiter brought a piece of candy to each diner at a table at the end of the meal; compared with a no-candy condition, tips increased an average of 3.3%. • In another condition, the waiter brought two pieces of candy to each diner; tips went up 14.1%. • In the final condition, the waiter gave each diner a piece of candy, then as he was leaving the table, pulled more candy out of his pocket and gave each person another piece of candy. Tips increased 23%. • Strohemtz, D.B.; Rind, B.; Fisher, R. and Lynn, M. (2002). “Sweetening the till: The use of candy to increase restaurant tipping,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32: 300-309.

37. What Makes a Difference with reciprocity • Gifts/favors are more valued when they are perceived as: • Significant • Unexpected • Personalized

38. Liking • This is another social phenomenon • People are more likely to be influenced by people they like • People they see as similar to themselves are usually liked better • Compliments and praise increase liking for the praiser

39. Similarity • One experiment showed that people were more likely to do things (loan some money or sign a petition) for people who dressed/looked like them • Emswiller, T.; Deaux, K.; and Willits, J.E. (1971). “Similarity, sex, and requests for small favors,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1:284-291. • Suedfield, P.; Bochner, S; and Matas, C. (1971). “Petitioner’s attire and petition signing by peace demonstrators: A field experiment,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1:278-283. • Another experiment showed that people were more likely to buy insurance from a person who was like them in terms of age, religion, politics, and cigarette-smoking habits • Evans, F.B. (1963). “Selling as a dyadic relationship: A new approach,” American Behavioral Scientist 6:7:76-79

40. Take Away • Find as many commonalities as you can with the people with whom you work and find a way of letting them know about those commonalities

41. Psychotherapy outcome research • The quality of the therapeutic relationship and working alliance accounts for 30% of the positive results in psychotherapy • Hubble, M. A., Duncan, B. L., & Miller, S. D. (Eds.) (1999). The heart and soul of change: What works in therapy. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. • Lambert, M. J. (1992). “Psychotherapy outcome research: Implications for integrative and eclectic therapists.” In J. C. Norcross & M. R. Goldfried (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy Integration. (pp. 94-129). New York: Basic Books.

42. Compliments • Men in a study were given three kinds of statements by someone who needed a favor from them • Positive • Negative • Neutral • The person who gave the men pure positive praise was better liked, even when the men knew the praise was untrue and the person wanted a favor from them • Drachman, D.; deCarufel, A.; and Insko, C.A. (1978). “The extra credit effect in interpersonal attraction,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14:458-467.

43. The Kind of Compliment Can Matter • Carol Dweck and colleagues gave children a fairly simple puzzle and told half the kids a comment that told them they were smart and the other half that they must have worked hard to solve the puzzles. • Then they offered them a choice of simple or challenging puzzles. • 90% of the kids who were praised for effort chose the difficult puzzles; • A majority of the kids who were praised for intelligence chose the easier ones. • Then all the kids were given some difficult puzzles. Then some that were about as easy as the initial ones. • The “work hard” kids did 30% better than they had in the initial scores, while the “intelligence” kids scores declined by 20%. • Cimpian, A. et. al (2007). “Subtle Linguistic Clues Affect Children’s motivations,” Psychological Science, 18:314-316.

44. Recency • Several studies have shown that whatever the most recent or last part of an experience is tends to color and strongly influence our overall memory or sense of that experience. A particularly graphic example involves people who were undergoing proctological exams. Patients were divided into two groups: • 1. Standard proctological exam; • 2. The scope (or digit) was left in but not moved for an extra minute at the end (sorry for the pun) of the exam. • Those patients who experienced the longer exam were more willing to undergo the procedure again in the future. Ending on a good note makes a difference in how the whole (sorry again) experience is remembered. • Redelmeier, D., and Kahneman, D. (1996). “Patients’ memories of painful medical treatments: Real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures,” Pain, 116:3-8.

45. Take Away • End sessions on a neutral or positive note; people are more likely to schedule another appointment • Compliment people on their efforts rather than just praise them generally

46. Influence Principle #2:perceptual priming/biases

47. PRIMING • CONTEXTUAL PRIMING • PERCEPTUAL PRIMING • CONCEPTUAL PRIMING • LINGUISTIC PRIMING • Associative priming • For example, dog would prime cat; dog would prime log and frog • Semantic priming • For example, dog would prime wolf

48. Happiness influences Up to 3 degrees of separation • Emotions such as happiness, seem to be contagious. In contrast to behaviors (like smoking or obesity), people must have direct contact with others (even by proxy) to “catch” the emotions in a social network. • People who are happy and have friends, or friends of friends, tend to be happier. The amount of influence: • Next door neighbor 34% • Friends 25% • Close living sibling 14% • Spouse 8% • People at the center of the “happy” social network tend to be happiest (vs. people on the periphery. The more people one is connected to, the happier. • Happiness spreads more readily than unhappiness. Fowler, James and Christakis, Nicholas. (2008). “Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study,” British Medical Journal, 337:a2338.

49. anchoring • Whatever numbers or words are mentioned before something is asked will strongly influence the answer or response to that question or request

50. Anchoring • The experimenter had students write down the last two digits of their social security number • Then they were asked whether they would pay that amount for several items that were to be auctioned • The social security numbers influenced what students bid; For example, for ne item, students with the highest numbers bid highest (e.g. $56 average for the highest) and those with the lowest numbers bid the lowest ($16 average) • Ariely, D.; Loewenstein, G.; and Prelec, Drazen. (2003). “Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1):73-105.