It was not so long ago that investigators of human development thought that the empirical study of the child

was
almost completely impossible. The child was considered too variable a creature, during his first years of life, to
conduct experiments on, so that one could assess child development in the best of cases only by observations,
by keeping diaries and such THING.

All human societies are alive with the battle for influence. Every single day each of us is
subject to innumerable persuasion attempts from corporations, interest groups, political
parties and other organisations. Each trying to persuade us that their product, idea or
innovation is what we should buy, believe in or vote for.

In our personal lives the same struggle is played out for the supremacy of viewpoints, ideals
and actions. Whether it's friends and family, work colleagues, potential employers or
strangers, each of us has to work out how to bring others around to our own point of view.
We all play the influence game, to greater or lesser degrees.

Psychologists have been studying how we try to influence each other for many years. I've
been covering some highlights of this research, which are collected below.

Central to the art and science of persuasion is understanding three

goals for which everyone is aiming.
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.
Loudest Voice = Majority Opinion

[Photo by Roland]

New research reveals even if only one member of a group repeats their opinion, it is more
likely to be seen by others as representative of the whole group.
A group of us are sat around shooting the breeze, talking about this that and everything else
besides. Like all British people we always end up with a bit of weather-related chat when the
conversation flags. And sure enough, before long, James is complaining about the
unseasonably cool and wet weather that we're having at the moment.

"It just flies in the face of all that 'global warming' crapola, right?" says James.

Now, like the others I know a little bad weather in the short-term doesn't disprove a long-
term trend. But, for whatever reason, I don't say anything and neither does anyone else.

He goes on: "Doesn't it just make you wonder what's really going on with all these
environmental groups telling us we're ruining the planet and all the rest?"

The power of repetition

This is starting to get me going a little - I actually think humans are ruining the environment
and causing global warming. Again, though, I'm lazy and only mumble a few words in
disagreement. I half think James is just trying to wind us up to get the conversation going.
Still, I let it go.

There's no more talk on the subject until much later when I'm with one of the group on his
own. We start on about global warming and the environment again. It soon becomes clear
that he's been swayed by what James said earlier.

"Well no one really said anything against James and I just thought everyone agreed," he
explains. "I thought you guys were all up to date with this sort of thing being scientific
types?"
I explained to him that James' opinions probably bore no relation to what the rest of us
thought - it's just we hadn't expressed our own opinions. I don't think he believed me, which
was annoying. It seemed the simple act of one person expressing their opinion loudly and
clearly in a group setting had convinced him we all felt the same way. Unfortunately,
knowing that group, I saw nothing could be further from the truth.

Our strange brains

A study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology examined exactly this
situation to test how people judge the distribution of opinion.
The study, carried out by Kimberlee Weaver and colleagues, found we can tell that three
different people expressing the same opinion better represents the group than one person
expressing the same opinion three times - but not by much (Weaver et al., 2007).
In fact, if one person in a group repeats the same opinion three times, it has 90% of the
effect of three different people in that group expressing the same opinion. When you think
about it, that is strange. Indeed, I'm not sure I'd even believe it if I hadn't already read many
other psychology studies that point to the illogical and unreasonable ways our minds
sometimes work.

Where does this effect come from? The authors argue it comes down to memory. Because
repetition increases the accessibility of an opinion, we assume it has a high prevalence. In
everyday life we are likely to hear the same opinion many times in different places. We then
put all these together to judge the general mood of a group. When one person repeats their
opinion, we simply over apply the rule.

Familiarity doesn't breed contempt

The theme of this research is something that has been known and used by advertisers and
influencers for decades. Familiarity doesn't breed contempt at all, it breeds attraction.
Making your voice heard is the only way to let others know what you think. Otherwise they
will think you agree with the loudest person.

Similarly, and more worryingly, when an opinion is repeatedly broadcast at us by the same
organisation - think of a particular media conglomerate or an advertiser - we're likely to
come to believe it represents the general opinion. That's despite the fact it is analogous to
the same person repeating themselves over and over again.

So, next time James spouts off, I'll make a point of speaking up. And make sure I repeat
myself. Several times.
The Influence of Fleeting Attraction

Compliance to a simple request can be doubled by the most innocent

manipulation.
There’s little doubt that friends are easier to persuade than strangers. That emotional
connection and shared history is often enough to get the poor wretches doing things they'd
rather avoid, like helping us move home.

Forgive the mercenary language, but friendship is a fantastic lever for persuasion and
influence, a lever we happily push on every day.

But how much does someone have to like us before we can start to influence them? And,
more to the point, can only the most fleeting attraction help us persuade them to comply
with a request?

Mere similarity
Jerry Burger and colleagues at Santa Clara University used a sneaky experimental set-up to
test this out (Burger et al., 2001). On arrival at the lab, participants were told the study was
about first impressions and were asked to choose 20 adjectives which best described them
from a list of 50 supplied.
The idea, they were told, was that they would swap lists with another participant in the
experiment, then fill out some more questionnaires. After which, experiment over; back to
the student bar. In fact the real test was coming.

The 20 adjectives from the 'other person' weren’t really from another person, it was part of
the experimental manipulation. By varying the number of adjectives the 'other person' had
ticked, the researchers were dividing participants into three groups:

 Similar: this group thought the other person had ticked 17 of the same adjectives.
 Neutral: 10 adjectives matched.
 Dissimilar: had only ticked 3 of the same adjectives.
The experimenters were manipulating liking between participants and the 'other person' by
using what psychologists call the ‘mere similarity’ effect. This is people's tendency to like
others more because of some slight similarity with themselves. It could be a friend in
common or something as trivial as their names starting with the same letter.

So, when participants left the lab, what a surprise, the person they thought they had been
exchanging self-descriptive adjectives with just happened to be walking down the corridor
with them.

Then the moment of truth. In passing the participant was asked for a favour: would they
mind reading an 8-page essay and providing a page of feedback?

Compliance doubled
Even this seemingly trivial manipulation of adjectives-in-common had a measurable effect.
People who thought they were dissimilar only complied with the request 43% of the time.
This went up to 60% in the neutral condition. But in the similar condition, compliance went
up to an impressive 77%, almost double the dissimilar condition.

The experimenters also did the same experiment in a couple of other ways but reached the
same conclusion. Whether the fleeting attraction was caused by choosing the same
adjectives or sitting together silently for a couple of minutes, it was enough to double
compliance to a request.

This experiment suggests that fleeting attraction can be remarkably powerful in changing
'no' into 'yes'. We process relatively small requests in an automatic way, using simple rules-
of-thumb. When asked for a small favour by a stranger, we make a snap judgement on how
much we like them based on trivial information, and this can have a huge influence on our
response.

The Influence of Positive Framing

Emphasising the positive can be more persuasive than pointing out
the negative.
Say you're the government and you want to stop people smoking. Should you put really
scary warnings on the packets emphasising the health risks?

Or maybe you should tell people about the positive side of becoming a non-smoker, like
having whiter teeth, smelling better and being able to run more than 20 metres without
having a coughing fit.

Our instinctive reaction is to go with scaring people witless. Throw away the carrots and start
wielding the big stick. The theory being that people pay more attention to frightening
messages, so they are more likely to take them to heart.

As you'll have noticed, most government agencies agree. Billions are spent each year in
countries across the world on campaigns that focus on the negative. This is the way
persuasive health messages are normally targeted at the public. We, the downtrodden
masses, must be frightened into changing our foolish ways.

But what does the research say?

Originally it agreed that framing messages in terms of losses tends to get people's attention,
but research has begun to question this 'common sense' conclusion.

A recent analysis added up the results of 29 different studies, which had been carried out on
6,378 people in total (O'Keefe & Jensen, 2008). They didn't just include health messages like
smoking cessation, but also consumer advertising.
What they found was none of the expected advantage for loss-framed messages, indeed
there was a slight persuasive advantage for messages that were framed positively. But this
advantage for gain-framed appeals seemed to be mainly confined to disease prevention,
such as encouraging people to use sunscreen. However another review of the field also
found an advantage for gain-framed appeals in encouraging healthy eating (O'Keefe &
Jensen, in press).
All of these findings are weird because normally bad things attract our attention more than
good things and so they are processed more thoroughly. That's why the newspapers and TV
are full of alarming stories: like it or not, that's what we pay attention to.

We don't really know why loss-framed appeals turn out to be no more effective, and in some
cases worse, than gain-framed appeals. O'Keefe and Jensen suggest it might be because we
don't like to be bullied by the government—or by anyone for that matter—into changing our
behaviour.
Could be true but I prefer their second explanation which is simply that we
prefer to think about nice things. Given the choice between visualising lung
cancer and contemplating a dazzling white smile, I know which one I prefer to
think about. And if I spend more time thinking about it, then it's got a better

chance of persuading me than if I put it straight out of my mind. The

Illusion of Truth

Repetition is used everywhere—advertising, politics and the media—

but does it really persuade us? Psychology studies reveal all...
We see ads for the same products over and over again. Politicians repeat the same messages
endlessly (even when it has nothing to do with the question they've been asked). Journalists
repeat the same opinions day after day.

Can all this repetition really be persuasive?

It seems too simplistic that just repeating a persuasive message should increase its effect,
but that's exactly what psychological research finds (again and again). Repetition is one of
the easiest and most widespread methods of persuasion. In fact it's so obvious that we
sometimes forget how powerful it is.

People rate statements that have been repeated just once as more valid or true than things
they've heard for the first time. They even rate statements as truer when the person saying
them has been repeatedly lying (Begg et al., 1992).
And when we think something is more true, we also tend to be more persuaded by it.
Several studies have shown that people are more swayed when they hear statements of
opinion and persuasive messages more than once.
Easy to understand = true
This is what psychologists call the illusion of truth effect and it arises at least partly because
familiarity breeds liking. As we are exposed to a message again and again, it becomes more
familiar. Because of the way our minds work, what is familiar is also true. Familiar things
require less effort to process and that feeling of ease unconsciously signals truth (this is
called cognitive fluency).
As every politician knows, there's not much difference between actual truth and the illusion
of truth. Since illusions are often easier to produce, why bother with the truth?

The exact opposite is also true. If something is hard to think about then people tend to
believe it less. Naturally this is very bad news for people trying to persuade others of
complicated ideas in what is a very complicated world.

Some studies have even tested how many times a message should be repeated for
maximum effect. These suggest that people have the maximum confidence in an idea after it
has been repeated between 3 and 5 times (Brinol et al., 2008). After that, repetition ceases
to have the same effect and may even reverse.

Because TV adverts are repeated many more times than this, advertisers now use subtle
variations in the ads to recapture our attention. This is an attempt to avoid the fact that
while familiarity can breed liking, over-familiarity tends to breed contempt.

When repetition fails

Repetition is effective almost across the board when people are paying little attention, but
when they are concentrating and the argument is weak, the effect disappears (Moons et al.,
2008).
In other words, it's no good repeating a weak argument to people who are listening
carefully. But if people aren't motivated to scrutinise your arguments carefully then repeat
away with abandon—the audience will find the argument more familiar and, therefore,
more persuasive.

This suggests we should remain critical while watching TV adverts or the message will creep
in under our defences. You might think it's better to let the ads wash over you, without
thinking too much, but just the reverse is true. Really we should be highly critical otherwise,
before we know it, we're singing the jingle, quoting the tag-line and buying the product.

When the argument is strong, though, it doesn't matter whether or not the audience is
concentrating hard, repetition will increase persuasion. Unfortunately I find it's often people
with the best arguments who don't repeat them enough.

Persuading groups
When people are debating an issue together in a meeting, you can see a parallel effect.
When one person in a group repeats their opinion a few times, the other people think that
person's opinion is more representative of the whole group (see my previous article: loudest
voice = majority opinion).
The same psychology is at work again: to the human mind there is little difference between
appearances and truth. What appears to be true might as well actually be true, because we
tend to process the illusion as though it were the truth.

It's a depressing enough finding about the human ability to process rational arguments but
recent research has shown an even more worrying effect. We can effectively persuade
ourselves through repetition. A study has shown that when an idea is retrieved from
memory, this has just as powerful a persuasive effect on us as if it had been repeated twice
(Ozubki et al., 2010).
The aspiring sceptic, therefore, should be especially alert to thoughts that come quickly and
easily to mind—we can easily persuade ourselves with a single recall of a half-remembered
thought.

Image credit: Thomas Hawk

Persuasion: The Right-Ear Advantage

IF YOU WANT someone to comply with a random request for a cigarette, you should speak into
their right ear, according to a new study by researchers in Italy.
Marzoli & Tommasi (2009) had a female confederate visit a disco and approach 176 random
people asking for a smoke. Clubbers were about twice as likely to hand one over if the
request was directed at the right ear, whether or not the clubber was male or female.
Whether these findings will hold good for other types of request is unknown.
These findings confirm previous studies which have found a right-ear preference for
attending to and processing verbal stimuli. It is thought that this is because language is
preferentially processed by the left side of the brain, which receives its input from the right
ear.
This right-ear preference was confirmed in an observational study also carried out by Marzoli
and Tommas. Both men and women in the club were observed to use their right ear 72% of
the time to listen to their conversational partners.
Mobile phones
People's preferred ear when using a telephone, though, has proved more controversial. Early
studies carried out in the 80s suggested that people preferred to hold it to their left ear, not
their right. But this was in the days before mobile phones and perhaps people were more
used to leaving their right hand free for dialling or taking notes.
However more recent unpublished data from mobile phone users does suggest people
prefer holding their phone to their right ear (Sanchez et al., 2002).

Balanced Arguments Are More

Persuasive

The instinct to paper over weaknesses in our argument is wrong—so

long as we counter criticism.
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
Caffeine Makes Us Easier to Persuade

Experiment finds caffeine drinkers more influenced by a persuasive

message than a placebo group.
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.