Stubbornness may be alive and well in political discourse, but it is no less prevalent in our teams and organisations. Debates or disagreements can quickly descend into ego-driven battles causing individuals to double-down on their existing ideas as a form of self-preservation. But given the fact that we spend an estimated 40 percent of our work lives trying to persuade the thinking of others, we must be careful to avoid using 19th and 20th century techniques for trying to change 21st century minds. 

The vital first step in overcoming obstinance is to understand why people don’t change their minds – even when they want to and know they should.

The Psychological Sunk Cost

Many of us are familiar with the idea of an economic sunk cost. This describes what happens when we stick with an unfavorable decision or course of action simply because we have already invested so much money and time in it.

In much the same way, we have a tendency to hold onto opinions or worldviews simply because we have invested so much of our time, energy and – most importantly – our reputation into them. As a result, we will cling to old ideas, approaches, and ways of thinking rather than embracing ones we know will serve us better because the appearance of changing our mind can come at too great a cost for our dignity.

Sometimes this isn’t a matter of keeping up appearances, but of maintaining mental stability. If ‘the facts’ seem to be pointing away from an idea that we have built our career, status or authority on, then the price of following the evidence is simply too high. When confronted with inconvenient truths, many of us become afraid of what I call the Unravelling Effect, asking ourselves, “if this one thing is not true or accurate, what else have I believed to be true that may not be?”

Being “in-between beliefs” like this —where we are no longer sure of what we previously assumed but unconvinced about an alternative—can feel deeply unstable and unsettling. This psychological discomfort tends to be all the motivation we need to look for a resolution that will restore the safety of certainty—even if that means ignoring evidence and returning to old ideas despite a nagging sense that something’s not right.

Beyond the psychological aspects of stubbornness, there is a physiological process involved too. In their book Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us, Jack and Sara Gorman cite fascinating research that shows that we experience a genuine sense of pleasure in the form of a dopamine rush when exposed to information that reinforces our existing beliefs. “It feels good to ‘stick to our guns’ even if we are wrong,” according to the Gormans.

Put simply, feeling right feels good and as a result, many people would rather feel right than actually be right.

Reduce the Cost of Change

Given its real impact on our decisions, the influence of fear is something we cannot underestimate in our interactions with others. When we are the one being presented with a new idea, it’s essential that we remain conscious of whether our aversion to change might be blinding us. On the other hand, when we are attempting to persuade someone else, we need to use strategies that not only disarm their defensiveness but alleviate the fears behind it. In other words, we need to reduce the perceived cost of changing.

With the primary changed-related fears often centring around a perceived loss of dignity, certainty or power, the best strategies for persuasion work by restoring a sense of control to the individual and framing change as something that can be done without shame or embarrassment.

Bearing this in mind, persuasion is as much about allowing someone to save face as it is about winning them over. We need to ensure others feel able to acknowledge they may have been wrong without having to admit they are stupid.

Harness the Power of Doubt

The ancient masters of persuasion understood the power of self-disclosure. Before neuroscience and behavioural economics had studied it, Roman rhetorician Quintilian maintained that doubt and uncertainty were crucial to a persuasive argument. This idea came to be known as “dubitatio” from which we derive the modern English word “dubious.” 

Leading with vulnerability may feel deeply exposing, but it has a powerfully disarming effect on those we are seeking to influence. Numerous studies in recent years have confirmed precisely this dynamic. For instance, analysis by social psychologist Kip Williams found that jurors were more likely to view an attorney and their case more favorably if the attorney revealed weaknesses in their case before the opposition had the chance to do so. In doing this, the attorney signalled that they were fair-minded, balanced and honest. In fact, verdicts were statistically more likely to be given in favor of the party first to bring up a shortcoming in their argument.

Leading with self-disclosure might seem counterintuitive when our culture tells us that self-confidence and self-promotion are the key to getting cut through with our ideas. While we tend to assume that offering our strongest evidence and most polished arguments will prove most persuasive, winning hearts and minds is always a function of trust – and trust requires vulnerability.

By leading with your own doubts, you move the conversation away from the combative stance of, ‘I’m right, you’re wrong,’ and towards a place where both parties have the freedom to engage sincerely.

Familiarize the Foreign Idea

Our compulsion to cling to certainty means we are far more attracted to new ideas when they are framed as mere extensions of the past or are aligned with a belief we have already established. A new or foreign idea will always illicit a knee-jerk reaction from our limbic system because of the potential danger it may present. However, if it is familiarized by a connection to something we are already comfortable with, we are much more likely to stay open-minded. To this point, I’ve often marveled at the genius of eighteenth-century inventor, James Watt, in using “horsepower” to describe the capability of mechanical engines.

In his controversional but ground-breaking book, The 48 Laws of Power, Robert Greene suggests a series of ways to familiarize foreign ideas. “A simple gesture like using an old title, or keeping the same number for a group, will tie you to the past and support you with the authority of history,” he observes. “Too much innovation is traumatic and will lead to revolt. If you are new to a position of power, or an outsider trying to build a power base, make a show of respecting the old way of doing things. If change is necessary, make it feel like a gentle improvement on the past.”

Persuading stubborn people may be harder than ever but it is far from impossible. Those we are seeking to influence are far more likely to consider and embrace new ideas if we find ways to disarm resistance, aim for familiarity and reduce the cost of change.

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, change strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 10 books. His most recent book Mindstuck: Mastering the Art of Changing Minds explores the psychology of stubbornness and the art of 21st century influence. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

At the time, Stanford University social psychologist Leon Festinger became intrigued by this group’s rise to prominence. Having infiltrated the group with a group of colleagues under the guise of being true believers, Festinger uncovered some fascinating psychological findings about the nature of cognitive dissonance.

When December 21st came and went, with neither an alien visit nor a devastating global flood, Festinger assumed that the cult members would begrudgingly accept that they had been wrong and abandon the cult in short order.

Curiously though, the very opposite occurred.

Faced with the embarrassment that their certainty had been misplaced, the cult members doubled down in their commitment to both the cult leader and their belief that the world’s end was imminent. They merely changed the date and searched for an alternative explanation. Many concluded that the world had in fact been saved because of their devotion and faithfulness and so continued to preach their message with great vigour than ever.[1]

Festinger observed a common pattern: people have a powerful psychological need to maintain consistent attitudes and behaviour. [2]

In an attempt to make sense of this pattern, Leon Festinger introduced the term ‘cognitive dissonance’ which he defined as the distressing mental state in which people “find themselves doing things that don’t fit with what they know or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold.”[3]

The need to avoid cognitive dissonance was so strong in the cult members that even objective evidence against their beliefs was not enough to convince them otherwise. The desire to be and appear congruent in their beliefs and behaviours outweighed any alternative facts.

While it is easy to mock such groups, the reality is we all attempt to avoid the appearance of dissonance in this way. Instead of owning up to our hypocrisy, we will try any means possible of twisting our beliefs and judgements in a way that justifies our inconsistent behaviour.

Despite the obstinance that these habits often produce in people, harnessing the innate aversion to inconsistency can act as a powerful means of persuasion. Recent research into hospital hygiene – an area we all rely on to be consistent – highlighted precisely this principle.

While the value of hand washing in a medical context has been well-understood since the 1840s, one of the persistent challenges had been to turn this awareness into action. Many doctors, nurses and surgeons persisted in not adhering to proper hand hygiene procedures. This was especially pronounced among surgeons who washed their hands less than half as often as guidelines prescribed.

A few years ago, researchers Adam Grant and David Hofmann set out to address this. Grant and Hofmann were well aware of various interventions that had unsuccessfully changed the hand hygiene habits of surgeons. However, where other initiatives had focussed on educating, threatening or pleading with surgeons to do the right thing, Grant and Hofmann opted for a new approach.

In their experiment, they placed two different signs above various examination room soap and gel dispensers. The first of these said, “Hand hygiene protects you from catching diseases” while the second one read, “Hand hygiene protects patients from catching diseases.”

Although the difference between the two signs was only a single word, the impact was remarkable. The first sign saw barely any difference in the rate of hand washing while the second sign resulted in a 45% increase.

Why was this the case? The researchers concluded that the suggested change tapped into the self-personas and exposed how their behaviours and deeply-held beliefs were out of alignment. The reality is that most surgeons enter the medical profession with a passion for helping patients. And so being nudged with the idea that failing to wash their hands was putting their patients at risk caused dissonance that demanded a response. In this instance, the response was to start doing the right thing.[4]

The need to avoid incongruence can produce ugly habits in all of us, but it can also be used to guide others towards more positive practices. Nobody wants to feel like a hypocrite, even less to appear as one. This desire for congruence offers us a key way of motivating ourselves and others – by uncovering inconsistencies, we can move each other closer to the people we aim to be.

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, change strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 10 books. His most recent book Mindstuck: Mastering the Art of Changing Minds explores the psychology of stubborness and the art of 21st century influence. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

[1] Levinovitz, A 2017, ‘Trump Supporters Refuse to Believe Their Own Eyes’, Slate, 27 January.

[2] Kolenda, N 2013, Methods of Persuasion, Kolenda Entertainment, LLC, pp. 64-66.

[3] Burton, R 2009, On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not, St. Martin’s Griffin, UK, pp.12-13.

[4] Cialdini, R A 2016, Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade, Cornerstone Digital, pp. 230-231.

Contrary to what we would assume, rewards and incentives can often have the effect of demotivating others. According to researchers at the US National Institute of Health (NIH), the reason for this can be found in the part of the brain that they stimulate.

Brain function scans conducted by the NIH have found that traditional rewards like cash payments stimulate a brain region called the Nucleus Accumbens. This primitive part of our brains is often referred to as the pleasure centre and is responsible for the release of the powerful reward hormone dopamine. In effect, being offered a cash incentive gives us a dopamine hit that creates feelings of contentment, exuberance and ecstasy. It’s a process not unlike what occurs when someone takes a dose of cocaine.

In contrast, when asked to help, to contribute or to feel generally responsible to and for others, it is the Posterior Superior Temporal Sulcus that lights up. This is the part of the brain that is responsible for social interactions and powerfully influences the way we form human connections, relationships and perceptions of others. It is highly sensitive to altruism and the social cues of being connected to others.[1]

Here’s the trick. These ‘social’ and ‘reward’ parts of our brain cannot function simultaneously. One or the other takes over control of our thinking and decision-making. The result is that we are either motivated by an incentive, or by our natural sense of social responsibility, relationship and reciprocity.

Exploring the implications of this dynamic, Dan Ariely in his bestselling book Predictably Irrational offers a powerful example of how unhelpful it can be to confuse altruism with self-interest motivators. Ariely points to a daycare centre that was trying to address the issue of parents arriving late to pick up their children. In an effort to motivate punctuality, the daycare center instigated a fine for late pickups only to find that this resulted in more parents turning up late. In fact, the number almost doubled.[2]

The reason for this was that before the fine was implemented, there was an unconscious social pressure for parents to arrive on time. They knew that failing to do so would mean their child’s teacher would have to stay back, and so their natural sense of social responsibility would kick in. While not always preventing inevitable lateness, altruism, reciprocity and empathy meant that parents were motivated to be on time as much as possible.

However, once the fine was imposed, the decision to be on time or not became an economic one. Whether parents arrived on time or not became a cost-benefit analysis. The parents were in effect paying for their lateness and so if the cost of the fine was lower than the benefit of being able to squeeze more into their afternoon, lateness seemed like a reasonable choice – and more people made that choice.[3]

These findings are consistent with another study conducted in Switzerland in which researchers set out to examine the impact of reward-based incentives on people’s willingness to donate blood. A group of women interested in donating blood were separated into groups. The first group was thanked but offered no compensation, the second was offered a cash payment of the equivalent of $7 USD, while the third was informed a payment of that amount would be contributed to a children’s cancer charity if they chose to donate blood.

52% of women in the first group agreed to go ahead and become blood donors. In contrast, only 30% of those in the second group did the same. Significantly, the highest donation rate was amongst those in the third group where 53% agreed to give their blood. As Dan Pink suggests in his book Drive, the financial incentive “tainted an altruistic act” and “crowded out” the intrinsic desire to do something good.”[4]

This very term echoes the words of Ruth Grant in her book Strings Attached: Untangling the Ethics of Incentives. Grant agrees with Pink explaining that incentives “crowd out” the inherent desire to do things for altruistic reasons. “The incentive, or extrinsic motivation, diminishes the intrinsic motivation,” she suggests. “Incentives undermine altruism, reciprocity, and other non-self-interested motives in a manner similar to the way in which they undermine intrinsic motivation.”[5]

For leaders in a professional context, or any individual in a position requiring persuasion, the principle is this: we must make a choice as to which motivational engine we are aiming to appeal to in making our case or presenting our request. For example, if asking an employee to stay late at work to help meet a deadline, consider the different responses that would be evoked by expressing how much their help would mean to you and offering them a few extra dollars.

Granted, in many workplaces, people would be far more motivated by financial incentive than by a sense of responsibility, reciprocity and altruism. It may then be worth considering the kind of culture at play in the workplace, and focusing on building a team which facilitates people’s natural inclinations towards altruism. Create a culture where people want to help each other.

Trying to appeal to someone’s sense of both altruism and self-interest at the same time is both confusing and counterproductive. We must beware that when the social and reward parts of our brain go ‘head-to-head’, the self-interest will invariably trump social responsibility. But, before it comes to that, it is most persuasive and most charitable to appeal to our innate sense of altruism.[6]

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, change strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 10 books. His most recent book Mindstuck: Mastering the Art of Changing Minds explores the psychology of stubborness and the art of 21st century influence. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

[1] Brafman, O 2009, Sway, Currency Press, Sydney, p. 132-144.

[2] Pink, D 2011, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, Penguin Putnam, United Kingdom, 50-51.

[3] Weinberg, G. and McCann, L. 2019, Super Thinking, Penguin, London, pp. 222-223.

[4] Pink, D 2011, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, Penguin Putnam, United Kingdom, 45-47.

[5] Garvey, J. 2016, The Persuaders, Icon Books, London, p. 239-241.

[6] Brafman, O 2009, Sway, Currency Press, Sydney, p. 132-144.

The difference? Semantics!

It is easy to dismiss the adjustments and manipulation of words under the term of semantics, forgetting that semantics is a matter of crucial significance to the communication of ideas. We tend to believe that we are immune to the effects of the words and capable of comprehending the objective meaning they are relaying. However, evidence across every arena in which words play a crucial role suggests that we are far more vulnerable to the manipulation of words than we would like to believe.

Have you ever wondered why we don’t think twice in purchasing a packet of ‘veggie chips,’ but ‘potato chips’ feel like unhealthy indulgence? 

According to the Journal of Consumer Research, the assessments we make regarding the healthiness of food items gives a profound insight into human decision-making. For instance, data shows that people will genuinely believe that combination of pasta and vegetables is lower in carbs if it’s billed as a ‘salad.’[2]

My colleague and ad agency exec Adam Ferrier discovered just how powerful this principle can be when working with a client who produced sweet snacks named ‘Little Bites.’ By re-labelling the client’s product as small pieces of muffin rather than cake, the company saw an immediate 11% bump in sales.[3]

Similarly, marketing guru Roger Dooley points to the re-naming of ‘prunes’ to ‘dried plums’ as a branding masterstroke. In doing so, fruit makers reached out “to a new generation of young, vigorous, health-oriented consumers.” According to Dooley, the genius in this move is that “Not only did [fruit sellers] avoid an expensive image makeover for prunes, they could keep selling the wrinkled fruit to their traditional base with no loss of revenue.”[4]

To this point, consider how the reputation and connotations of the ‘gambling’ industry changed when two letters were removed from the name and it became simply known as ‘gaming.’

One of the architects of this rebrand, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee named Frank Fahrenkopf, knew the power of a carefully-chosen word. When Fahrenkopf was appointed the president of the American Gambling Association in June 1995, he immediately recognised the need to recast the industry in order to address negative connotations. 

In his book Words that Work, Dr Frank Luntz describes the astonishing success of Fahrenkopf’s efforts:  

“The switch from ‘gambling’ to ‘gaming’ in describing one’s behavior contributed to a fundamental change in how Americans see the gambling industry. All of the old, unsavoury associations gave way to a lighter, brighter image of good clean fun. ‘Gambling’ sounds like the pleas of a desperate degenerate trying to talk a pawnshop punter into paying a little more for his wedding ring… ‘Gaming’ is what families do together at ‘family-friendly resorts’ in Las Vegas. ‘Gambling’ is a vice. ‘Gaming’ is a choice. ‘Gambling’ is taking a chance, engaging in risky behavior.”[5]

The critical factor here is that the activity of gambling didn’t change. The slot machines, cards decks and dice were the same. What’s more, the negative social consequences associated with gambling addiction didn’t disappear. All that changed was the label. And that changed everything.

Similar wordsmithing efforts in the corporate arena have been similarly successful in recent decades. By recasting “drilling for oil” as “energy exploration,” the resources sector took much of the heat out of the environmental debate. Similarly, drug companies shifted public perceptions by changing the way they described their core business. In the case of Pfizer, this was by shifting the language from “disease management” to “prevention.”[6]

While unpacking the wordplays is interesting, many of us are fairly aware of the efforts of marketers to influence the way we think about products. Framing and branding are concepts familiar to us and though they can feel manipulative at times, we generally treat them as harmless. The stakes begin to heighten, however, when we enter the political arena. When serious public affairs begin to rest their weight on the voting public’s interpretations of words, the significance of semantics begins to become clear.

For instance, polls indicate that 68% of people believe the government is offering too little “assistance to the poor.” However, when asked their views on “welfare”, 42% of the very same people will complain the government is spending too much (and only 23% say welfare spending is too low). It goes without saying that ‘assistance to the poor’ and ‘welfare’ are the same thing, but the language used carries meaning with it. 

There are countless examples of this. Research from the US General Social Survey points to the fact that:

• People are more willing to favour policies that “protect social security” than merely “social security” policies
• “Solving the problem of big cities” is seen as more attractive than “assistance to big cities”
• Citizens are in strong support of “halting the rising crime rate” while wary of “law enforcement” initiatives. [7]

When framing and positioning ideas, the choice of language is of paramount importance. Words are not merely a means of communication – they are vehicles by which we create meaning. Beware of being quick to dismiss words as mere semantics – they are doing more work than you may think!

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, change strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 10 books. His most recent book Mindstuck: Mastering the Art of Changing Minds explores the psychology of stubborness and the art of 21st century influence. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Luntz, F. 2007, Words That Work, Hachette, New York, pp. 70; 279-288.

[2] Dooley, R. 2012, Brainfluence, Wiley, New Jersey, pp. 161-163.

[3] Ferrier, A. 2014, The Advertising Effect, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, pp 69-71.

[4] Dooley, R. 2012, Brainfluence, Wiley, New Jersey, pp. 161-163.

[5] Luntz, F. 2007, Words That Work, Hachette, New York, pp. 129-131.

[6] Luntz, F. 2007, Words That Work, Hachette, New York, p. xx.

[7] Luntz, F. 2007, Words That Work, Hachette, New York, p. 47.

Researchers across disciplines and cultures are showing that our bodies are far more involved in our thinking than we like to believe. Our cognitive processes are embedded in a system that involves various parts of the rest of our body, from our heart to our gut.

Despite the recent proliferation of this research, many of our standing structures already reveal our lack of rational thinking. Look no further than marketing. Marketers have been capitalising on the persuasive power of our physical instincts for decades. For example, it’s common knowledge that advertisements use colours to evoke particular emotions so that the consumer is hooked before they’ve even processed the ad. More recently, social media platforms are exploiting the brain’s proclivity to addiction by providing rapid and endless dopamine hits in the form of 10 second videos.

The research of recent years, however, provides a glimpse of just how deeply embedded our decision-making is in our physical body.

In their superb book Philosophy in the Flesh, cognitive scientists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson examine the significance of this new understanding of thought. “Reason is not disembodied, as the tradition has largely held, but arises from the nature of our brains, bodies, and bodily experiences,” according to Lakoff and Johnson.[1]

While our assumptions about reason and rationality are often seen as the defining characteristic of human beings, Lakoff and Johnson argue that this needs a radical rethink. “Our brains take their input from the rest of our bodies. What our bodies are like and how they function in the world thus structures the very concepts we can use to think. For two millennia, we have been progressively devaluing human life by underestimating the value of human bodies.”[2]

One physical dimension of our decision-making was explored in 2008 by psychologists Lawrence Williams and John Bargh. They were examining the degree to which bodily sensations influenced people’s instincts and thinking.

Looking specifically at the influence of temperature, Williams and Bargh’s study involved interactions between strangers when holding hot or cold beverages. One group clutched a cup of warm coffee during their interactions while the other group were given an ice-cold beverage to hold throughout the experiment. Immediately after meeting with and chatting to their new acquaintance, each participant was asked to describe the other individual’s personality. The overwhelming majority of those holding the warm drink described the person they had met using words such as “nice, generous, and caring.” In contrast, those holding the cold drink described the very same people as “difficult, stand-offish, hard to talk to” after meeting them.[3]

More significantly, a follow up study showed that temperature influenced people’s behaviour as well as their perceptions. The researchers had two groups of people judge the quality and appeal of a range of products – the first cohort were to hold a warm heat pack during the experiment while the second were given a cold pack to hold. At the end of the experiment, the participants were told they could choose one of the items to take home as a gift to keep or to give away. When all the results were tallied, 54% of those who had been holding the heat pack chose to give their item to someone else while only 25% of those holding the cold pack did the same.[4]

In assessing the results of both studies, Williams and Bargh concluded that “Physical warmth can make us see others as warmer people, but also cause us to be warmer—more generous and trusting-as well.”[5]

In a related study led by MIT’s Joshua M. Ackerman, it was found that the tactile sensation of hard objects made people more rigid in negotiations. In one of the experiments, a buyer was asked to make a price offer in a simulated car sale negotiation. After the initial offer was rejected, the buyer was instructed to make a second offer.

Immediately after this negotiation, both parties were asked to evaluate the other individual. Interestingly, a significant difference emerged between those who were sitting on hard versus those who were seated on soft chairs. Those seated in hard chairs judged their negotiating partner as being cold and unemotional. More significantly, the buyers who had been seated in soft chairs increased their offer by close to 40 percent.

According to Ackerman and his colleagues, the presence of the hard seating did more than change the perception of the people they were negotiating with – it also changed their behaviour – it made them harder bargainers.[6]

Most of the time, the feeling of certainty we have in our opinions, our impressions of people and our decision-making is not a result of objective, rational cognitive processes. Neither is our behaviour. On the contrary, our body has usually arrived at a decision before our mind has even begun to consider it. It’s likely that following our ‘gut instincts’, ‘feeling it in our bones’, and ‘listening to our heart’ are not as fanciful and unrealistic as we may think they are.

Far from putting our mind over matter, it’s more often than not our body that makes up our mind.

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, change strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 10 books. His most recent book Mindstuck: Mastering the Art of Changing Minds explores the psychology of stubborness and the art of 21st century influence. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

[1] Burton R A. 2009, On Being Certain, St. Martin’s Griffin, New York, p. 126.

[2] Lakoff, G, “Philosophy In The Flesh: A Conversation with George Lakoff”, Edge.

[3] McRaney, D 2012, You Are Not So Smart, Avery, New York, pp. 210-211.

[4] McRaney, D 2012, You Are Not So Smart, Avery, New York, pp. 210-211.

[5] Dooley, R 2011, Brainfluence: 100 Ways to Persuade and Convince Consumers with Neuromarketing, Wiley, New Jersey, p. 129.

[6] Dooley, R 2011, Brainfluence: 100 Ways to Persuade and Convince Consumers with Neuromarketing, Wiley, New Jersey, p. 137.

“Serena Williams* eats our cereal.

*She is a student from London and we paid her to eat it but the point still stands.”

Each statement came with an asterisk, leading the eye to the ‘fine print’ beneath the endorsement which acknowledged that it wasn’t actually the celebrity who gave the endorsement, but a random individual with the same name that they had paid for the glowing report. [1] The campaign went viral across social media, with the public appreciating the ironic humour and sarcastic self-deprecation.

It comes as no surprise that an advertising campaign attempting to appeal by means of self-deprecating humour was so successful in today’s cultural climate. As the last decade has seen scandals dominate some of our major institutions, and the last couple of years further erode public trust with confusion around fake news, misinformation and conspiracy, it is radical transparency that cuts through the noise and appeals to everyday individuals.

Aldi Australia went for a similar tactic earlier in the year, creating an ad campaign earlier in the year which emphasised one of the primary pain points of its customers. Conscious that the pay-off for its good deals is a more limited range of products than other grocery shops, marketing director Jenny Melhuish explained that “it [still] t makes sense to shop with ALDI first,” given the overall money you can save.

Creative agency BMF dreamt up an ad depicting a mock break up between Aldi and a customer who had one item yet to be crossed off her grocery list at the checkout. Beneath fake rain and dramatic lighting, the Aldi employee urges the customer, “Go get that smoked herring paste.”

The voiceover follows up, “We know you’ll see other supermarkets, but you’ll save more if you shop at Aldi first.”[2]

While the cultural climate makes this self-deprecation and transparency especially appealing, the dynamic is nothing new. Neuroscientist and author of The Trust Factor, Paul Zak, has spent years studying what builds trust between individuals and has found that the most important factor is our perceived ‘human-ness’. Appearing to be real, vulnerable and fallible results in the release of the chemical oxytocin in the brains of others. This is the neuro-mechanism humans have unconsciously used for centuries to determine who was safe enough to trust and work with.

While the instinct among both brands and individuals is to project sanitised versions of ourselves  through clever corporate spin, few things could be more detrimental to the cause of trust.

Radical transparency has a history of being a powerful tactic in building affinity and trust. When a potential drawback or flaw exists, flagging it up front in marketing messages has been shown to significantly decrease buyer resistance and increase sales.[3]

Over five decades ago, the marketers in charge of launching the Volkswagen Beetle in North America knew that the car wasn’t the most attractive vehicle on the market but that it was tough, cheap to buy, and economical to run. So rather than hiding the lack of aesthetic appeal or emphasizing only the car’s selling points, Volkswagen practiced radical candour with slogans like “Ugly is only skin deep,” and “It will stay uglier longer.” The ad campaign propelled the Volkswagen Beetle to cult icon status and is recognized as one of the most successful advertising campaigns of all time.[4]

This same approach has worked wonders for countless other brands. Avis didn’t try to inflate their image as a market leader but rather owned the fact that “We’re #2, but we try harder.” Similarly, Listerine billed its product as “The taste you hate three times a day” and L’Oreal touted “We’re more expensive, but you’re worth it.”[5]

Even when a national stuff-up has occurred, it is self-deprecating honesty that still wins people over.

A great example of this in action was the unconventional response by KFC in February 2018 after they ran out of chicken in 80% of stores across the UK. Rather than issuing a stuffy corporate apology or shuffling their leadership team in an act of contrition, KFC ran a full-page ad in the Sun and Metro newspapers featuring the picture of an empty bucket of chicken but the brands iconic 3 letters re-arranged on the bucket to spell FCK. Irreverent and unconventional by all means, but also incredibly effective.[6]

This dynamic doesn’t just apply to brands and advertising. While it seems totally counterintuitive, self-deprecating humour and the sincere expression of doubt is often one of the best approaches to persuasion at any level of human interaction.

Persuasion expert Robert Cialdini points to decades of research showing that “a communicator who references a weakness early on is immediately seen as more honest.” This matters because once trust and affinity has been established, our ideas or arguments are more likely to be believed and accepted by others.[7]

The power of this approach has been documented in numerous settings. Research by social psychologist Kip Williams found that jurors were more likely to view an attorney and their case more favourably if the attorney revealed weaknesses in their case before the opposition had the chance to do so. In doing this, the attorney established a perception of honesty. In fact, verdicts were statistically more likely to be given in favour of the party first to bring up the issue.[8]  

Despite all our natural impulses to project the most confident, attractive version of our identities and ideas, it is in reality our weaknesses, doubts and vulnerabilities that go the furthest in building affinity with others. In any encounter, it pays to put your worst foot forward.

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, change strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 10 books. His most recent book Mindstuck: Mastering the Art of Changing Minds explores the psychology of stubborness and the art of 21st century influence. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

[1] Tidwel, S 2023, ‘Why Surreal’s cereal advertisements featuring Michael Jordan, Serena Williams and others comes with a big asterisk’, Sporting News, 10 March.

[2] Green, R 2023, ‘ALDI says it’s okay with shoppers seeing other supermarkets in ‘shop ALDI first’ work via BMF’, Campaign Brief, 20 February.

[3]  Cialdini, R. 2016, Pre-Suasion, Random House, London, pp. 165-166.

[4]  Goldstein, N. et al. 2008, Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive, Simon and Schuster, New York, pp. 112-114.

[5]  Goldstein, N. et al. 2008, Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive, Simon and Schuster, New York, pp. 112-114.

[6]  2018, ‘KFC’s Apology For Running Out Of Chicken Is Pretty Cheeky’, BBC News, 23 February.

[7]  Cialdini, R. 2016, Pre-Suasion, Random House, London, pp. 165-166.

[8]  Goldstein, N. et al. 2008, Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive, Simon and Schuster, New York, pp. 112-114.

“Serena Williams* eats our cereal.

*She is a student from London and we paid her to eat it but the point still stands.”

Each statement came with an asterisk, leading the eye to the ‘fine print’ beneath the endorsement which acknowledged that it wasn’t actually the celebrity who gave the endorsement, but a random individual with the same name that they had paid for the glowing report. [1] The campaign went viral across social media, with the public appreciating the ironic humour and sarcastic self-deprecation.

It comes as no surprise that an advertising campaign attempting to appeal by means of self-deprecating humour was so successful in today’s cultural climate. As the last decade has seen scandals dominate some of our major institutions, and the last couple of years further erode public trust with confusion around fake news, misinformation and conspiracy, it is radical transparency that cuts through the noise and appeals to everyday individuals.

Aldi Australia went for a similar tactic earlier in the year, creating an ad campaign earlier in the year which emphasised one of the primary pain points of its customers. Conscious that the pay-off for its good deals is a more limited range of products than other grocery shops, marketing director Jenny Melhuish explained that “it [still] t makes sense to shop with ALDI first,” given the overall money you can save.

Creative agency BMF dreamt up an ad depicting a mock break up between Aldi and a customer who had one item yet to be crossed off her grocery list at the checkout. Beneath fake rain and dramatic lighting, the Aldi employee urges the customer, “Go get that smoked herring paste.”

The voiceover follows up, “We know you’ll see other supermarkets, but you’ll save more if you shop at Aldi first.”[2]

While the cultural climate makes this self-deprecation and transparency especially appealing, the dynamic is nothing new. Neuroscientist and author of The Trust Factor, Paul Zak, has spent years studying what builds trust between individuals and has found that the most important factor is our perceived ‘human-ness’. Appearing to be real, vulnerable and fallible results in the release of the chemical oxytocin in the brains of others. This is the neuro-mechanism humans have unconsciously used for centuries to determine who was safe enough to trust and work with.

While the instinct among both brands and individuals is to project sanitised versions of ourselves  through clever corporate spin, few things could be more detrimental to the cause of trust.

Radical transparency has a history of being a powerful tactic in building affinity and trust. When a potential drawback or flaw exists, flagging it up front in marketing messages has been shown to significantly decrease buyer resistance and increase sales.[3]

Over five decades ago, the marketers in charge of launching the Volkswagen Beetle in North America knew that the car wasn’t the most attractive vehicle on the market but that it was tough, cheap to buy, and economical to run. So rather than hiding the lack of aesthetic appeal or emphasizing only the car’s selling points, Volkswagen practiced radical candour with slogans like “Ugly is only skin deep,” and “It will stay uglier longer.” The ad campaign propelled the Volkswagen Beetle to cult icon status and is recognized as one of the most successful advertising campaigns of all time.[4]

This same approach has worked wonders for countless other brands. Avis didn’t try to inflate their image as a market leader but rather owned the fact that “We’re #2, but we try harder.” Similarly, Listerine billed its product as “The taste you hate three times a day” and L’Oreal touted “We’re more expensive, but you’re worth it.”[5]

Even when a national stuff-up has occurred, it is self-deprecating honesty that still wins people over.

A great example of this in action was the unconventional response by KFC in February 2018 after they ran out of chicken in 80% of stores across the UK. Rather than issuing a stuffy corporate apology or shuffling their leadership team in an act of contrition, KFC ran a full-page ad in the Sun and Metro newspapers featuring the picture of an empty bucket of chicken but the brands iconic 3 letters re-arranged on the bucket to spell FCK. Irreverent and unconventional by all means, but also incredibly effective.[6]

This dynamic doesn’t just apply to brands and advertising. While it seems totally counterintuitive, self-deprecating humour and the sincere expression of doubt is often one of the best approaches to persuasion at any level of human interaction.

Persuasion expert Robert Cialdini points to decades of research showing that “a communicator who references a weakness early on is immediately seen as more honest.” This matters because once trust and affinity has been established, our ideas or arguments are more likely to be believed and accepted by others.[7]

The power of this approach has been documented in numerous settings. Research by social psychologist Kip Williams found that jurors were more likely to view an attorney and their case more favourably if the attorney revealed weaknesses in their case before the opposition had the chance to do so. In doing this, the attorney established a perception of honesty. In fact, verdicts were statistically more likely to be given in favour of the party first to bring up the issue.[8]  

Despite all our natural impulses to project the most confident, attractive version of our identities and ideas, it is in reality our weaknesses, doubts and vulnerabilities that go the furthest in building affinity with others. In any encounter, it pays to put your worst foot forward.

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, business strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 9 books. His most recent book The New Now examines the 10 trends that will dominate a post-COVID world and how to prepare for them now. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

[1] Tidwel, S 2023, ‘Why Surreal’s cereal advertisements featuring Michael Jordan, Serena Williams and others comes with a big asterisk’, Sporting News, 10 March.

[2] Green, R 2023, ‘ALDI says it’s okay with shoppers seeing other supermarkets in ‘shop ALDI first’ work via BMF’, Campaign Brief, 20 February.

[3]  Cialdini, R. 2016, Pre-Suasion, Random House, London, pp. 165-166.

[4]  Goldstein, N. et al. 2008, Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive, Simon and Schuster, New York, pp. 112-114.

[5]  Goldstein, N. et al. 2008, Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive, Simon and Schuster, New York, pp. 112-114.

[6]  2018, ‘KFC’s Apology For Running Out Of Chicken Is Pretty Cheeky’, BBC News, 23 February.

[7]  Cialdini, R. 2016, Pre-Suasion, Random House, London, pp. 165-166.

[8]  Goldstein, N. et al. 2008, Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive, Simon and Schuster, New York, pp. 112-114.

The difference? Semantics!

It is easy to dismiss the adjustments and manipulation of words under the term of semantics, forgetting that semantics is a matter of crucial significance to the communication of ideas. We tend to believe that we are immune to the effects of the words and capable of comprehending the objective meaning they are relaying. However, evidence across every arena in which words play a crucial role suggests that we are far more vulnerable to the manipulation of words than we would like to believe.

Have you ever wondered why we don’t think twice in purchasing a packet of ‘veggie chips,’ but ‘potato chips’ feel like unhealthy indulgence? 

According to the Journal of Consumer Research, the assessments we make regarding the healthiness of food items gives a profound insight into human decision-making. For instance, data shows that people will genuinely believe that combination of pasta and vegetables is lower in carbs if it’s billed as a ‘salad.’[2]

My colleague and ad agency exec Adam Ferrier discovered just how powerful this principle can be when working with a client who produced sweet snacks named ‘Little Bites.’ By re-labelling the client’s product as small pieces of muffin rather than cake, the company saw an immediate 11% bump in sales.[3]

Similarly, marketing guru Roger Dooley points to the re-naming of ‘prunes’ to ‘dried plums’ as a branding masterstroke. In doing so, fruit makers reached out “to a new generation of young, vigorous, health-oriented consumers.” According to Dooley, the genius in this move is that “Not only did [fruit sellers] avoid an expensive image makeover for prunes, they could keep selling the wrinkled fruit to their traditional base with no loss of revenue.”[4]

To this point, consider how the reputation and connotations of the ‘gambling’ industry changed when two letters were removed from the name and it became simply known as ‘gaming.’

One of the architects of this rebrand, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee named Frank Fahrenkopf, knew the power of a carefully-chosen word. When Fahrenkopf was appointed the president of the American Gambling Association in June 1995, he immediately recognised the need to recast the industry in order to address negative connotations. 

In his book Words that Work, Dr Frank Luntz describes the astonishing success of Fahrenkopf’s efforts:  

“The switch from ‘gambling’ to ‘gaming’ in describing one’s behavior contributed to a fundamental change in how Americans see the gambling industry. All of the old, unsavoury associations gave way to a lighter, brighter image of good clean fun. ‘Gambling’ sounds like the pleas of a desperate degenerate trying to talk a pawnshop punter into paying a little more for his wedding ring… ‘Gaming’ is what families do together at ‘family-friendly resorts’ in Las Vegas. ‘Gambling’ is a vice. ‘Gaming’ is a choice. ‘Gambling’ is taking a chance, engaging in risky behavior.”[5]

The critical factor here is that the activity of gambling didn’t change. The slot machines, cards decks and dice were the same. What’s more, the negative social consequences associated with gambling addiction didn’t disappear. All that changed was the label. And that changed everything.

Similar wordsmithing efforts in the corporate arena have been similarly successful in recent decades. By recasting “drilling for oil” as “energy exploration,” the resources sector took much of the heat out of the environmental debate. Similarly, drug companies shifted public perceptions by changing the way they described their core business. In the case of Pfizer, this was by shifting the language from “disease management” to “prevention.”[6]

While unpacking the wordplays is interesting, many of us are fairly aware of the efforts of marketers to influence the way we think about products. Framing and branding are concepts familiar to us and though they can feel manipulative at times, we generally treat them as harmless. The stakes begin to heighten, however, when we enter the political arena. When serious public affairs begin to rest their weight on the voting public’s interpretations of words, the significance of semantics begins to become clear.

For instance, polls indicate that 68% of people believe the government is offering too little “assistance to the poor.” However, when asked their views on “welfare”, 42% of the very same people will complain the government is spending too much (and only 23% say welfare spending is too low). It goes without saying that ‘assistance to the poor’ and ‘welfare’ are the same thing, but the language used carries meaning with it. 

There are countless examples of this. Research from the US General Social Survey points to the fact that:

• People are more willing to favour policies that “protect social security” than merely “social security” policies
• “Solving the problem of big cities” is seen as more attractive than “assistance to big cities”
• Citizens are in strong support of “halting the rising crime rate” while wary of “law enforcement” initiatives. [7]

When framing and positioning ideas, the choice of language is of paramount importance. Words are not merely a means of communication – they are vehicles by which we create meaning. Beware of being quick to dismiss words as mere semantics – they are doing more work than you may think!

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, business strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 9 books. His most recent book The New Now examines the 10 trends that will dominate a post-COVID world and how to prepare for them now. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Luntz, F. 2007, Words That Work, Hachette, New York, pp. 70; 279-288.

[2] Dooley, R. 2012, Brainfluence, Wiley, New Jersey, pp. 161-163.

[3] Ferrier, A. 2014, The Advertising Effect, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, pp 69-71.

[4] Dooley, R. 2012, Brainfluence, Wiley, New Jersey, pp. 161-163.

[5] Luntz, F. 2007, Words That Work, Hachette, New York, pp. 129-131.

[6] Luntz, F. 2007, Words That Work, Hachette, New York, p. xx.

[7] Luntz, F. 2007, Words That Work, Hachette, New York, p. 47.

We live in an age that capitalises on the adversary in the argument. While the concept of debate originally focused on the collaborative pursuit of truth, our era views it much more as a battle between opponents resulting in a winner and loser.

The novelist Robin Sloan describes how this radical perversion of the purposes of debate reveals how our modern culture has “given up on debate as a tool for changing minds or achieving consensus. Instead, we use it as a stage for performance, for political point-scoring.”[1]

Given our contemporary approach to argument, dinner table debates can become especially fraught and can have divisive effects far beyond what might justified. While they are often a funny but feared element of family get-togethers, for many they can be genuinely anxiety-inducing and damaging to relationships.

In anticipation of this, here are 3 things to keep in mind as you head into such conversations this holiday season.

1. Aim for affinity.

In reflecting on the interpersonal cost of our modern adversarial approach to debate, leadership author and high-profile American pastor Andy Stanley puts it well when he suggests that “in any relationship, when one person wins, the relationship always loses.” Founder of the Fuller Brush company, Alfred Fuller, knew this when he famously said, “Never argue. To win an argument is to lose a sale.”[2]

When we seek to persuade others to consider our ideas and opinions, the goal must not be the win. Because while we may win the point or trump our opponent’s argument in that moment, if our victory has come at the cost of the other’s dignity or the relationship we have with them, ultimately we have both lost. Moreover, it’s highly unlikely that genuine persuasion has occurred.

The decision we all need to carefully make is whether we are more interested in making a point or making a difference. We can win argument but lose ability to influence depending on the way we engage with others.

2. Voice the other’s view.

Former FBI hostage negotiator Chris Voss suggests that the key element in building affinity is truly listening to the other party and summarising their perspective for them. “You especially want to focus on articulating any negative thoughts they have,” says Voss. This can be as simple as calling out what the other person is likely thinking or saying about you and the situation. You want to start out articulating their negative thoughts about you or the situation.

Articulating the very opinions and beliefs you are looking to challenge may seem counterintuitive, and Voss recognizes this. “Some people think that acknowledging how someone is upset allows them to dig in more. But it’s the opposite. As soon as you articulate the other side’s point of view, they are a little surprised. You’ve made them really curious to hear what you are going to say next. And you’ve made them feel that you are in this together.”

In any high-stakes interaction, it is vital to not deny or dispute the other person’s position or opinion. Affinity is not about being heard by the other person, it’s about them making sure they feel heard and understood. “And a person who feels understood is getting a feel-good wave of chemicals in their brain. Once they get a hit of oxytocin, everything is going to change. They’ll feel bonded to you. And if they feel bonded, whether it’s a little or a lot, that’s to your advantage,” says Voss.[3]

There’s a lot we can each learn from the tools and tactics of hostage negotiators like Chris Voss. Psychologist Jo Pierre also affirms these attempts at recognising the other’s perspective and suggests this is especially important when addressing deeply entrenched views or beliefs. “Changing ‘hearts and minds’ shouldn’t be about arguing and trying to convince the other side,” says Pierre. “Instead, discussions should start with empathic listening and validation.”[4]

3. Disarm with self-deprecation.

There are few things as disarming and endearing than self-deprecation. Not only can it diffuse tense moments with humour and light-heartedness, but it exhibits a level of humility that is antithetical to the egotism and grandstanding that often emerge during debates. It sets the stage for a discussion that is not about a winner or loser, but a collaborative effort between human beings.

If an interaction gets heated or voices started getting raised, Voss recommends interjecting with an admission like “I am being an idiot.” He suggests using “the strongest synonym you can: idiot, jerk, something stronger.” Naturally, this takes a good measure of humility and self-discipline – it is much easier to attempt to justify yourself and make your point. However, doing so may see you win the point-scoring battle but lose the persuasion ‘war.’

Such blunt self-deprecation is able to disrupt the argumentative trajectory of the conversation and reroute it towards something more optimistic and sincere. It is also undeniably endearing and invites the other to view you not as an opponent, but as an honest, vulnerable and likable ally – and who wants to argue with a likable ally?

Holiday season get-togethers may come with some relational risk, but the dinner table debates may not need to be dreaded as deeply as they are. Often, diffusing a debate, winning over the other, and keeping the peace can be achieved with a good dose of empathy and decent portion of humility.

Best wishes for your holiday season!

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, business strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 9 books. His most recent book The New Now examines the 10 trends that will dominate a post-COVID world and how to prepare for them now. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Stephens, M. 2020, ‘Ever wondered how someone could possibly believe their own words?’ The Canberra Times, 23 May.

[2] Pink, D. 2012, To Sell is Human, Riverhead Books, New York, p. 198.

[3] Bernstein, E. 2020, ‘Worried about a difficult conversation? Here’s advice from a hostage negotiator,’ The Wall Street Journal, 14 June.

[4] Pierre, J. 2018, ‘Flat earthers. Conspiracy thinking on a global scale,’ Psychology Today, 5 July

Intuitively, we all know we operate as a group. Anyone who has been caught up in the energy of a sports match or immersed in the atmosphere of a concert has witnessed firsthand the striking power of the herd. The group’s influence on the individual has been proved over and over in psychological studies, often to rather comical effects.

One such study was conducted by researchers at Cornell University and was set in an optometrist’s waiting room. An unsuspecting woman took a seat and began flicking through a magazine, totally unaware that the other ‘patients’ in the waiting room were actors.

Out of nowhere, there was an audible beeping sound. Everyone in the room immediately stood to their feet for a moment and then resumed their places sitting down. This happened once more, and again, until after the third beep and standing up/down cycle, the bemused woman joined her compatriots in standing to her feet when the beep sounded. In the coming minutes, each of the other waiting ‘patients’ were called in to their appointments. All the while, the beeping and standing routine continued.

Eventually, the woman was left alone in the waiting room and, amazingly, continued to stand each time the beep occurred. Gradually, new patients entered the waiting room – genuine patients and not actors – and they in turn slowly began complying with the standing routine every time the beep sounded. When one of the new entrants enquired as to why they were standing up, the woman responded, “everyone else was doing it so I thought I was supposed to.”[1]

This overwhelming conformity compulsion is not only revealed in such comical settings but plays out consistently in social and political contexts as well. A recent study invited participants to specify what they thought the most important problem facing society was. There were five alternatives offered: economic recession, educational facilities, subversive activities, mental health, and crime and corruption. When surveyed individually, just 12% of people said ‘subversive activities’ were the number one challenge. However, when people were informed that this had been the most common answer given amongst other individuals, 48% of respondents went with the perceived consensus vote.[2]

The human being’s herd instinct is one of the most reliable things about us. While this can manifest in ways both funny and frightening, it is essential knowledge for anyone in positions of influence as something that can be harnessed for the purposes of persuasion. One way the herd instinct can be both established and harnessed is by means of synchronicity.

There is something uniquely powerful and persuasive about acting in unison with others. Numerous studies have shown that by synchronising our actions or behaviour in a group setting, we begin to see ourselves as being more similar to those we were in unison with. More significantly, we begin to evaluate the individuals in our synchronous group more positively too.

Decades of research shows that when our gestures and body movements begin to match those of another, we actually begin to feel the same emotions as that person and a powerful form of affinity develops.

Duke University’s Tanya Chartrand is a social psychologist who specialises in the area of non-conscious influence and is famous for her research examining the role of physicality in building empathy.

In one of Chartrand’s more noteworthy studies, she paired up unwitting research participants with a ‘confederate’ (someone helping to facilitate the research by pretending to take part as a genuine participant). During a conversation exchange, the confederate was instructed to deliberately engage in a range of gestures and movements in a planned way. Some smiled excessively, others jiggled their foot and others still repeatedly touched their face throughout the conversation.

Chartrand and her team monitored the conversations closely and quickly found that many of the research subjects began to unconsciously copy the movements of their partner – 20% copied the face touching and almost half mimicked the behaviour of foot jiggling.

Curious to see how this imitation instinct shaped perceptions of the conversation, Chartrand reversed the process with a new set of subjects. This time, half of the confederates deliberately copied the movements of their counterpart while the other half did not. At the end of the conversation, the subjects were quizzed about their conversation partner and those who had been speaking with a confederate who unconsciously mimicked them were rated as significantly more likable.[3]

According to Columbia Business School’s Adam Galinsky, this ‘chameleon effect’ is not to be underestimated as a tool of influence and affinity. As Galinsky explains, this goes to our very roots as a species. Our inherently tribal instincts cause us to gravitate towards those who look and act like us. Historically, these subtle belonging cues allowed us to know who was from our group and was therefore both trustworthy and safe. However, as society has become more interconnected, diverse and complex, our brains have struggled to identify the familiarity cues that indicate trustworthiness. And so, we rely on unconscious signals of being “in synch with other people” by seeking out matches in behavioural patterns.

Galinsky concludes that “Synching our mannerisms and vocal patterns to someone else so that we both understand and can be understood is fundamental to attunement.”[4]

It goes without saying that using physicality to build affinity must be done sensitively and with discernment. As the process of imitation is deeply linked to trust, any hint that these approaches are being used to manipulate will be perceived, rightly, as a betrayal of trust. Irreparable damage will be done and affinity will be lost in an instant. However, when physicality is used well and in good faith, it is a powerful way to build rapport, trust and the permission to persuade.

The effective leader knows the secret of the herd instinct, and more importantly knows how to harness it. Establishing synchronicity with those within your sphere of influence will create a sense of the herd, even where one may not organically exist. Used with wisdom, synchronicity can be a powerful tool of persuasion, harnessing our inherent herd instinct.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, business strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 9 books. His most recent book The New Now examines the 10 trends that will dominate a post-COVID world and how to prepare for them now. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] 2019, ‘Social experiment: Information cascade,’ Cornell University, 4 December

[2] Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C. 2009, Nudge, Penguin, New York, p. 59.

[3] Weinschenk, S. 2013, How to Get People to Do Stuff, Pearson Education, London, p. 22.

[4] Pink, D. 2012, To Sell is Human, Riverhead Books, New York, pp. 76-77