Methods of Persuasion: How to Use Psychology to Influence Human Behavior (25 page)

Recall how the loss of $1 million drove you crazy, whereas the loss of $10 was forgotten immediately. That underlying concept applies here. Your loss seems more severe when more options are present because you seem to lose more potential benefits. If you choose Option A in the first set of mutual fund options, you only lose the benefits from Option B and C, but if you choose Option A in the second set, you lose the benefits that are offered in all of the 9 remaining options. Though you chose the same option in each set, the loss of additional benefits seems more severe in the second set, which causes you to be less satisfied with your decision.

Essentially, this situation triggers cognitive dissonance. On one hand, you see attractive benefits that are being offered in other options, but on the other hand, you actively give up those benefits by choosing only one option. That inconsistency leads to a feeling of discomfort and dissatisfaction with your decision.

In the consumer domain, we resolve that
postpurchase dissonance
—a more specific form of cognitive dissonance that applies to consumer purchases—in a number of different ways. For example, after our purchase, we might place greater importance on our product’s distinctive features (Gawronski, Bodenhausen, & Becker, 2007). However, we
do
typically resolve that discomfort, so the dissatisfaction that results from presenting too many options isn’t a
huge
problem. The bigger problem stems from the second negative outcome of the paradox of choice: decision paralysis.

Outcome 2: Decision Paralysis.
There are two main reasons why presenting more options can cause people to avoid making a decision altogether.

The first reason is simply an extension of loss aversion: when facing a vast number of options, people recognize the potential loss that will result upon choosing only one option, and so they avoid that potential loss by postponing their decision.

The second reason is known as
information overload
. When you present more options to people, you place more cognitive strain on your target to investigate each option to make an informed decision, which can be very demotivating, especially when the decision is complex or important.

Did your employer ever present you with an extensive list of possible 401(k) plans? If so, you might have felt overwhelmed, and if you postponed your decision, you’re not alone. Research shows that participation rates in 401(k) plans decrease in direct accordance with the number of plan options; the more options that are available, the lower the participation rate (Iyengar, Jiang, & Huberman, 2004).

Solution.
I know it might sound like I’m discouraging you from presenting more options, but that’s not the case. More choice is generally a good thing. As you learned in the previous chapter, presenting more options can lead to greater personal freedom, and it can also lead to a better solution to your issue (even though you might be less satisfied with your decision).

So why did I spend this entire section bashing choice when I’m now saying that more options are good? Despite this seemingly contradictory advice, the best strategy doesn’t change the number of options; it changes the number of
perceived
options. To demonstrate, try and remember this sequence of numbers:

7813143425

Remembering that sequence is doable, but difficult. But look at how much easier it becomes when you use a memory strategy known as “chunking” to divide those numbers into chunks:

781–314–3425

Yep, you guessed it. That’s a standard U.S. phone number. It’s amazing how much easier it becomes to remember a sequence of numbers when you separate those numbers into groups.

Although our working memory can only hold 5–9 pieces of information at a given time, the previous “chunks” are considered one piece of information, and so it becomes much easier for our brain to remember a sequence of numbers when it’s divided into groups (Miller, 1956).

Applying that concept to persuasion, you can prevent the two negative outcomes of the paradox of choice by grouping your options into categories (Mogilner, Rudnick, & Iyengar, 2008). By categorizing your options into groups, not only do you minimize the perceived loss of the other options, but you also reduce information overload.

Remember Set 2 that contained a large number of mutual funds? You could divide those original 10 options into one of three risk categories:

Set 2

Low Risk

Option A

Option B

Option C

Medium Risk

Option D

Option E

Option F

Option G

High Risk

Option H

Option I

Option J

Much like how adding chunks in the phone number reduced information overload, organizing the funds into three risk categories reduces cognitive strain because they combine the options into groups. Instead of viewing 10 different options, people essentially perceive 3 options now, even though the number of options never really changed. Research has even confirmed that adding category labels, even if they’re completely arbitrary, can make a list of options seem more appealing (a principle known as the
mere categorization effect
; Mogilner, Rudnick, & Iyengar, 2008).

Limiting the number of perceived options isn’t the only way to prevent decision paralysis. The next strategy will explain other ways in which you can use limitations to spur more momentum from your target.

Prevent Their Procrastination.
Albeit powerful, decision paralysis can be avoided. This section will teach you two limitations that you can implement to force your target to make a decision sooner rather than later.

Limit Time.
The first technique is to limit the amount of time available to comply with your request, which can easily be accomplished by setting a deadline.

Question: Which day of the week is the least effective at gaining compliance?

Answer: Tomorrow.

There’s something magical about tomorrow; it just never seems to come. No matter how many days go by, tomorrow forever remains at the same distance in the future. It’s quite magical. Setting a deadline is so powerful because it puts an end to that black magic by finally bringing “tomorrow” closer to the present. Even if the deadline is irrelevant or pulled from thin air, this time pressure can prevent procrastination.

Suppose that you’re tired one night and you want to persuade your spouse—a procrastinator by nature—to wash the dishes. You can increase your chances remarkably by setting a specific deadline (e.g., by 8:00 p.m. that night). Though this deadline might be irrelevant, it essentially starts the countdown timer and helps prevent your target from procrastinating.

Deadlines are also very powerful because they limit a potential opportunity; once the deadline passes, your target gives up that opportunity. Sure, washing dishes may not be perceived as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, but there
are
many other situations where a deadline
can
make your message seem much more desirable (e.g., marketers setting deadlines for product coupons and discounts).

Limit Availability.
You’re walking down the aisle of a liquor store looking for some white wine, and you reach the shelves that are displaying the wine. There are two brands left—both of which are the same price—but since you know nothing about wine, you’re clueless about which brand is better. What would you do in this scenario? Research on shelf-based scarcity suggests that you would likely choose the brand of wine with fewer bottles on the shelf (Parker & Lehmann, 2011).

If something is less available, people are more likely to spring to action for two reasons: (1) they need to act fast before they lose the opportunity (loss aversion), and (2) if the item is scarce, people assume that it must be popular (commodity theory and an indirect influence of social pressure).

You might think that this concept only applies to selling products, but there are many other applications. This principle can even help you when you’re applying for a job. Job applicants who indicate that they are considering other job opportunities (i.e., applicants who seem less available) are evaluated more favorably than candidates who don’t indicate whether they’re considering other job opportunities (Williams et al., 1993). Consistent with commodity theory, interviewers consciously or nonconsciously use availability as a heuristic to judge the quality of an applicant; if applicants are less available because they are considering other job offers, then they
must
be a better quality applicant.

A MAGICIAN’S PERSPECTIVE: MISDIRECTING THE AUDIENCE’S ATTENTION

Having performed as a stage magician for many years, I can confidently say that one of the most fundamental principles of stage magic is
misdirection
: controlling the audience’s attention to avoid seeing the “magic” occurring behind the scenes.

Despite that basic definition, performers interpret misdirection differently. Amateurs claim that misdirection is directing the audience’s attention
away
from the secret (e.g., sleight of hand), whereas professionals claim that misdirection is directing the audience’s attention
toward
something else.

Aren’t those interpretations the same? That’s what I thought for many years until I started recognizing the importance of limitations. Notice that amateurs try to
limit
the audience’s attention toward the place where they shouldn’t be looking, whereas professionals try to
direct
the audience’s attention toward something else. As you learned in this chapter, whenever a freedom becomes limited, we feel a natural urge to resist that limitation. Thus, amateurs who try to limit the audience’s attention are unintentionally creating more attention in that area.

Suppose that a magician is performing a trick where he makes a coin disappear. The entire trick rests on his ability to pretend that he places the coin in his left hand (but he actually retains the coin in his right hand). An amateur magician will be so focused on limiting the attention on his right hand that his actions will attract even more attention. For one, his peripheral vision will be focused on his right hand, an action that will cause the audience to direct their attention toward that spot. Even further, his hand will be more cramped because he’ll be trying harder to shield the audience’s view, a position that will look so unnatural that it will do nothing else but to attract
even more
attention toward his hand.

Compare that amateur to a professional who, instead, focuses on directing the audience’s attention
toward
his left hand. When he focuses solely on his left hand—the hand that supposedly has the coin—his full focus will cause the audience to place their entire focus on his left hand. Rather than pull his right hand (which secretly holds the coin) away from his left hand, professionals will move their left hand away from their right hand. This movement and focus on the left hand captures the audience’s attention, and their focus will inevitably be distracted from the magician’s right hand. The result: the magician slowly opens his left hand to reveal that the coin has disappeared, triggering a miraculous feeling in the audience. Even in magic, understanding limitations can help create a miraculous moment.

REAL WORLD APPLICATION: SELLING T-SHIRTS ONLINE

Suppose that you’re selling T-shirts via an e-commerce website and that your company can design a huge selection of T-shirts, including different types, colors, and designs. Rather than post an image of each T-shirt combination on your website, you could guide website visitors through a three-step process that categorizes those T-shirt combinations.

In the first step, visitors could choose the T-shirt
type(s)
that they’re interested in purchasing (e.g., short sleeve, long sleeve, etc.). Next, they could select the T-shirt
color(s)
that they’re interested in purchasing. Third, they could choose the T-shirt
design(s)
that they’re interested in purchasing (e.g., graphic tee, athletic, etc.)

After making those choices, they can be presented with a list of all T-shirt options that fit their criteria, and those options could be organized into groups of price ranges. That step-by-step process has many benefits:

• First, it substantially reduces the number of final options, which helps to reduce the perceived loss of other T-shirt options.
  
• Second, people choose among categories of options (e.g., type, color, design, and price range). Research has confirmed that the mere presence of categories increases customer satisfaction because it serves as a cue for greater variety (Mogilner, Rudnick, & Iyengar, 2008).
  
• Third, people are making a few choices among a manageable number of options (e.g., choosing short sleeve versus long sleeve) rather than making one choice among
  all
  possible T-shirt combinations. This setup helps reduce information overload because the options are more manageable within those categories.
  
• Fourth, because people are making numerous choices, you promote their autonomy and give them a personal feeling of control.
  
• Fifth, each consecutive choice is an action that helps them develop a congruent attitude that they’re interested in purchasing a T-shirt. Once they develop that attitude, they will be motivated to act in a manner consistent with that attitude (i.e., by purchasing a T-shirt). If you were to simply present a list of options, people won’t feel as committed to purchasing a T-shirt because they will not have performed an action or behavior to suggest that they’re interested in purchasing one (except for merely visiting the website).