Methods of Persuasion: How to Use Psychology to Influence Human Behavior (14 page)

Evolution.
The first explanation is evolution (Lakin et al., 2003). From an evolutionary perspective, our ancestors were drawn toward others who appeared similar because they seemed less threatening; if someone appeared dissimilar, they needed to exert more caution because they posed a greater threat. People who failed to exert more caution were often killed, and so those types of people were gradually wiped away over time. Because our ancestors were smart enough to realize the importance of similarities, they lived to pass on their adaptive traits, which is why similarities continue to exert tremendous power over us even today.

Implicit Egotism.
Although evolution is one explanation, the explanation that has garnered the most support is
implicit egotism
, a concept suggesting that we all possess an underlying sense of self-centeredness (Pelham, Carvallo, & Jones, 2005).

Due to our egotistical nature, we possess a hidden psychological urge to gravitate toward things that resemble us in any way. People named Dennis are more likely to become dentists because they developed an affinity toward the letters in their name, and that affinity guided their behavior toward an occupation containing the same letters from their name (Nuttin, 1985).

It might sound ludicrous, but there’s ample evidence that shows our profound affinity toward the letters in our name, a concept known as the
name-letter effect
. Research shows that consumers significantly prefer brand names containing the same letters in their name (Brendl, et al., 2005), and this effect is so strong that those brands influence how people consume those products. For example, one study found that people named Jonathan will consume more of a Japanese drink called “Joitoki” (Holland et al., 2009).

Even beyond the name-letter effect, more support for implicit egotism can be found in our failure to recognize our own face. Imagine that someone took a picture of you and manipulated it to make new versions of that picture. Some pictures made you look more attractive, whereas other pictures made you look less attractive. If you were then presented with a line-up of your attractive and unattractive distortions, would you be able to recognize your actual picture? Of course, right? Well, it turns out that it might be harder than you think.

When researchers presented people with a line-up of attractive and unattractive distortions of their face, and when people were asked to choose their own true face, people consistently chose an attractive distortion of their face, rather than their own true face (Epley & Whitchurch, 2008). Our implicit egotism is so strong that we don’t even recognize our own face!

PERSUASION STRATEGY: REVEAL ANY SIMILARITIES

Now that you understand why we gravitate toward similarities, this section will teach you how to use that knowledge to increase your chances of gaining compliance.

Incidental Similarity.
Because we’re psychologically compelled to gravitate toward similar stimuli, you can use this pressure to guide your target toward your intended goal by emphasizing any type of similarity that you share with your target. This
incidental similarity
will help you appeal to his implicit egotism, while building greater rapport and increasing your chances of securing his compliance.

To examine the impact of revealing
any
similarity, Jerry Burger and his colleagues (2004) told people that they were conducting an experiment on astrology. During the astrology-related tasks, participants discovered that they shared the same birthday with a fellow participant (who was actually a confederate working with the researchers). The researchers wanted to see if that incidental similarity would make that person more likely to comply with a request from the confederate.

When people believed that the experiment was finished, they left the room with the confederate and walked down the hall together. While walking, the female confederate asked the participant if he would help her with her English assignment. What was the assignment? She needed to find a student who would review her 8-page essay and write a 1-page critique of her arguments (very far from an enticing request). However, the researchers found that people who discovered that they shared the same birthday with the confederate were significantly more likely to help with that demanding request.

After receiving those startling results, the researchers conducted a follow-up study to understand how the perceived rarity of a similarity fits into the equation. If we discover that we share a similarity with someone, does our propensity to help increase if that similarity is more uncommon?

The researchers examined that question by conducting the same experiment with new participants. This time, however, rather than discovering a shared birthday, participants discovered that they shared a similar fingerprint with the confederate. Some participants were told that the category of that fingerprint was common, whereas other participants were told that the category of the fingerprint was rare.

As expected, the percentage of compliance with the English assignment increased according to the rareness of the fingerprint.

• When people remained unaware that they shared a similar fingerprint, the percentage of compliance was 48 percent.
  
• When people discovered that they shared a similar yet common fingerprint, the percentage of compliance rose to 55 percent.
  
• When people discovered that they shared a similar and rare fingerprint, the percentage of compliance rose dramatically to 82 percent.
  

Although any similarity will make your target more likely to comply with a request, that pressure increases in accordance with the rarity of that similarity. But you should also keep in mind that the similarity doesn’t need to be relevant or important, only uncommon (e.g., a rare fingerprint).

How can you apply that principle? If you’re meeting your target for the first time, take a moment to learn about her: ask about her life, her interests, and anything else. Not only does this action show interest (another technique to build rapport), but more importantly, it allows you to pinpoint similarities that you might share with your target.

Upon discovering a similarity, don’t hesitate to reveal that shared similarity so that you can appeal to her implicit egotism, especially if that similarity is uncommon. Even if the similarities seem irrelevant or unimportant (e.g., a shared first name, mutual friend, similar interest, etc.), those incidental similarities can dramatically boost your persuasion.

You could even use incidental similarity in conjunction with social norms. In one interesting study, Goldstein, Cialdini, and Griskevicius (2008) examined how different messages would encourage hotel guests to reuse their towels. Take a guess which message had the greatest impact:

• HELP SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT. The environment deserves our respect. You can show your respect for nature and help save the environment by reusing your towels during your stay.
  
• JOIN YOUR FELLOW GUESTS IN HELPING TO SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT. In a study conducted in Fall 2003, 75% of the guests participated in our new resource savings program by using their towels more than once.
  

I’m sure you can guess by now that the second message elicited more compliance because it pointed the norm in the desired direction. And that’s exactly what happened. The first message had a compliance rate of 37 percent, whereas the second message had a compliance rate of 44 percent.

But something interesting happened when the researchers tweaked the second message to emphasize a more uncommon similarity:

• JOIN YOUR FELLOW GUESTS IN HELPING TO SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT. In a study conducted in Fall 2003, 75% of the guests who stayed in this room participated in our new resource savings program by using their towels more than once.
  

When the researchers described that guests from the same room had reused their towel (a stronger similarity than simply staying at the same hotel), compliance jumped even higher to 49 percent. Why was that small change so profound? The next section will explain why belonging to a perceived “ingroup” can trigger a higher rate of compliance.

Ingroup Favoritism.
A second application of similarities can be found in
ingroup favoritism
, the tendency for people to prefer groups that share a similar characteristic to themselves. Whether you attend the same school, play on the same sports team, or share the same hotel room, research shows that people generally prefer (and are more persuaded by) members of ingroups. In fact, when we merely view faces of people from an ingroup, there’s greater neural activity in our orbitofrontal cortex, the brain region associated with rewards (Van Bavel, Packer, & Cunningham, 2008).

Research shows that we’re easily persuaded by members of ingroups and easily dissuaded by members of outgroups. Consider a fascinating experiment. Imagine that you and a stranger are participating in a taste test, and both of you are allowed to take as much food as you want. The stranger takes a certain amount of food and walks away, and you’re left standing in front of the food, contemplating how much to take. Researchers found that the amount of food you take would be greatly influenced by the characteristics of the other person and how much food she took (McFerran et al., 2010b).

In that study, the stranger was actually a thin female confederate. In some trials, she was her normal thin self, but in other trials, she wore a professionally-designed prosthesis (a suit that made her look overweight). The researchers wanted to examine how her body type—thin vs. overweight—would influence people’s decision about how much food to take, and the results were startling.

The researchers found that people matched the confederate’s portion size when she seemed thin, yet they took the opposite portion size when she seemed overweight. When the confederate was thin and took a small portion, people also took a small portion; when she took a large portion, people also took a large portion. But when the confederate appeared overweight, people chose the opposite portion size. When the confederate seemed overweight and took a large portion, people took a small portion; when she took a small portion, people took a large portion.

What sparked those results? When people appear overweight, they’re perceived to be part of a dissociative group, a group from which other people try to “dissociate.” People in the previous study took the opposite portion size when they perceived the confederate to be overweight because they felt a nonconscious pressure to distance themselves from her.

But here’s a question. What if people in the previous study were on a strict diet? Wouldn’t dieters identify with someone overweight because they both share a desire to lose weight? If that were the case, wouldn’t the results flip because that similarity would make the confederate part of their ingroup? A second study examined whether that outcome occurs, and, it turns out . . . it does.

In a separate study that used a similar methodology, strict dieters identified with the confederate when she seemed overweight, whereas non-dieters identified more with the confederate when she was thin (McFerran et al., 2010a). In both cases, the dieters and non-dieters showed the greatest amount of persuasion (i.e., chose similar portion sizes) when they could identify with the confederate.

When trying to persuade someone, how can you demonstrate that you belong to the same ingroup? Not only can you use the first technique of revealing any type of similarity, but you could also simply use words like “we” and “us” to reinforce that you belong to the same ingroup. Research shows that these pronouns can trigger a feeling of pleasure because they convey that you belong to the same ingroup (Perdue et al. 1990).

When I was editing this book, I realized that I was explaining many of the psychological principles using 3rd person examples (e.g., “people experience implicit egotism”), and so I went through and changed all of the wording to 1st person examples (e.g., “we experience implicit egotism”). Did it help create rapport between me and you? Who knows. But it definitely didn’t hurt.

Chameleon Effect.
Here’s a quick exercise you can try (but you should read this
entire
paragraph first so that you know what to do, and
then
try the exercise). Hold your arms straight out in front of you, parallel to the floor, with your palms facing each other. Put about 3–5 inches of space between your palms, and then close your eyes. Once your eyes are closed, imagine that I placed two powerful magnets on the insides of both your palms, and then imagine that those magnets are pulling your hands together. Use all of your imaginative power to really
feel
those magnets pulling your hands closer toward each other. Do you understand what you’re supposed to do? Great. Put the book down and do that exercise for about 30 seconds, and then come back here (by the way, if you skip ahead and read why I’m having you do this exercise, it won’t have the same effect if you want to return to try it).

So did you do the exercise? Welcome back. I’m sure that some of you were pretty startled when you felt your hands actually press together. I’m also sure that some of you opened your eyes after a minute with no change in your hand position whatsoever, only a heightened skepticism of this supposed “psychology.” And I’m also sure that most of you kept reading without the slightest inclination to try the exercise because you’re too resilient to take instructions from a mere book. Well played, my friend.