Art of Persuasion: Try Not to Trigger a Detailed Analysis
By Michael StelznerThose of us in the business of persuasion could learn something from a very telling research study.
A 1981 study at the University of Missouri (Petty, Cacioppo and Goldman), asked students to listen to a persuasive audio recording.
Students were to consider if a comprehensive exam should be implemented before college seniors would be allowed to graduate.
HOWEVER, one important variable was altered among test subjects. Some students were told the exam would be implemented before they graduated and others were told it would be long after they had graduated.
The results were VERY interesting.
If the exam would not personally impact them, students were overwhelmingly persuaded that this was a good idea. However, when students were told they were going to be personally impacted by such a decision, the tables turned.
As Robert B. Cialdini, author of Influence: Science and Practice puts it, “Those subjects with no personal stake in the topic were primarily persuaded by the speaker’s expertise in the field of education; they used the ‘If an expert said so, it must be true’ rule, paying little attention to the strength of the arguments. Those subjects for whom the issue mattered personally, on the other hand, ignored the speaker’s expertise and were persuaded primarily by the speaker’s arguments.”
As Cialdini discusses in his book, most people rely on innate decision making processes, such as “is the author credible” when making decisions. However, when you cross a line, such as the above study did, credibility is not important. Rather, readers will put on their critical reading glasses and be ultra-critical of your proposal.
THE LESSON: Authority and expertise can persuade when the target reader has no personal stake in the topic. However, strong arguments prevail when the reader will be personally impacted by the topic.
Have you experienced this?
If you're new here, be sure to signup for my newsletter and join 20,000 others. Thanks for visiting!
Receive email updates when new articles are posted.>> Related Articles on This Blog
October 30th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Can you give me an example of how to NOT trigger a detailed analysis ?
Sorry, I’m not disagreeing, just having trouble figuring out how to avoid it.
October 30th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Mike;
I think the angle is this.
When you are targeting a group that does not have a personal stake in the solution (i.e.; it will not directly impact their jobs, life, wellbeing, etc.), you can hang your messaging on being a reliable source. Thus, being an expert will buy you persuasion points with these folks. They will rely on your expertise first, rather than the substance of your message.
However, if you are trying to persuade someone who is likely to be personally impacted by your message, you had better have real strong arguments and support your claims.
Think of it this way. If I was a border safety expert and was arguing that a bigger fence needed to be placed between the borders of San Diego and Mexico, many businesses would support the idea. However, farmers in Southern California that rely on migrant workers are going to be extra-critical of such a proposal because it will directly impact them. Thus, if targeting farmers, I should have all my arguments carefully crafted with details. But if targeting other businesses, I may not need as much detail. My expert status alone might get me the persuasion I need. Not the best example, but hopefully you get the idea.
Mike
October 31st, 2006 at 6:27 am
Now I got it. Thanks Mike.
The more targeted the audience, the finer the sieve.
October 31st, 2006 at 10:59 am
Hi Mike,
I’m reading a book that touches on a lot of what your sources speak of. It’s called Stumbling on Happiness, by Damiel Gilbert. Might provide some interesting follow-up posts.
Cheers,
Luigi
October 31st, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Luigi - Share a bit about the common thread? - Mike
October 31st, 2006 at 1:16 pm
About the common thread - make me think here, will you Michael?
Grumble, grumble, #%^#@$^@%^
OK, here goes:
In his book, Gilbert gives numerous examples of how human nature itself subverts what we might like to call “objective decision making” (By the way, the spell check on this blog is nice! Too bad it didn’t stop me from misspelling my own name in a previous post.)
The book is chock full of studies and research that suggest any focus on perceived expertise, arguments and details is far too narrow when you seek to persuade those who would disagree with you.
Of all things, a movie drives this point home more effectively than any book I’ve ever read. It’s probably out on DVD by now as well. Look for “Thank You For Smoking.” It’s very entertaining and explains A LOT about what works and what doesn’t when you’re trying to persuade.
Cheers,
Luigi
October 31st, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Hey Luigi;
I wish this thing had a spell checker! I am on a Mac and Safari has a built in spell checker, but Wordpress does not.
Anyhow, great comments!
Mike
October 31st, 2006 at 2:53 pm
No problem, Mike.
About the Mac:
I’m using Firefox as my web browser. Even Mac fans I know like Firefox in the Mac. Maybe Firefox would give you the spell checker in this Wordpress window.
Cheers,
Luigi
June 15th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I can confirm Firefox on the Mac has a spell checker - it rocks! Maybe Safari 3 is better, but Firefox has so many extensions I would never go back.
Anyway, interesting post. I love Cialdini, his book is on my ‘Desert Island’ list (although if ever I was stuck on a desert island, I doubt there would anyone around to persuade to do anything).
But I think there must be more to this than just using a finer sieve. There must be a way of leveraging that personal stake in any debate, and using it for persuasion. After all, any kind of compliance professional (love that term) is likely to be trying to persuade someone who has a personal stake in the outcome - be it buying something, selling something, or whatever.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:22 am
nice
July 26th, 2007 at 11:41 am
That book is one of my favorite books on business/marketing. The fun thing is that he writes it from each and ever perspective (the customer/target and the marketer). I haven’t experienced the example you wrote of though…
February 9th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
The great thing about that book, is that it applies to social settings as well.
Some of those persuasion techniques in the book apply directly to seduction.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:19 pm
The business of persuasion sounds like a very interesting career. Seems like it can be used in so many different situations, which makes this skill very useful. Great post.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:46 am
thx for that post. I’ve never heard about that before.