Strategy. Innovation. Brand.
Persuasion and Self-Interest
Persuasive speakers often appeal to your self-interest. But which is more persuasive: appealing to your short-term or your long-term self-interest?
I’ve always guessed that the most persuasive arguments appeal to your short-term interests. I want results now … and I assume that most other people do, too. It just seems like common sense. But I haven’t had much empirical evidence to back up my position until I noticed an article on fitness and exercise by Jane Brody in today’s New York Times. (You can find it here).
The article purports to be about exercise but it’s really about persuasion. How do you persuade people to take up exercise and stick with it? Traditionally we have “pitched” exercise either as a long-term benefit (“you’ll live longer”) or as a punishment (“you’re overweight; you have to work out”). As Brody points out, such messages are often sufficient to get people off the couch but rarely sufficient to keep them exercising long term.
Brody sums up the the need to focus on short-term benefits with a quote from Michelle Segar of the Univeristy of Michigan: “Immediate rewards are more motivating than distant ones. Feeling happy and less stressed is more motivating than not getting heart disease or cancer, maybe, some day in the future.”
So how does this affect your persuasive techniques? We’ve all experienced the difficulty of persuading people based on long-term interests. Perhaps you’ve tried to convince your children to study or save for the future. Or argued the politics of long-term environmental dangers. Or debated the future of programs like Social Security or Medicare. You’ll be more persuasive if you can focus your arguments on short-term benefits (and emotions) rather than long-term abstractions.
This may mean that you’ll leaven your argument with feelings and emotions more than facts and data. For instance, if you’re trying to persuade your children to save for the future, you might argue that, “If you save a little each day, your future will be secure.” That’s factual, future-oriented, and long-term. It’s also very abstract and fuzzy, especially to a young person. So you might try a different tack: “You’ll worry less and feel better if you know that your future is secure.” It’s more emotional and more immediate. It’s also more persuasive.
The Economist Agrees: First is Best
Which idea is best? Most often, it’s the first idea.
I’ve written about the first-is-best bias before. This morning, I was pleased to see that The Economist‘s columnist, Schumpeter, agrees 
with me. This week, Schumpeter reports on new research that finds the first-is-best bias in everything from chewing gum preference to the costs of television advertising (the first ad slot costs more than the second and so on). When people are distracted (and who isn’t these days?), they often go with the first solution they hear.
So what does this have to do with persuasive communication? Two things:
- If you’re trying to persuade an audience that a given idea is best, it’s best to present that idea first. If you need to present several alternatives, present your preferred alternative first.
- If, on the other hand, you want a thorough and balanced discussion of all the alternatives, you need to overcome the first-is-best bias. You can do this through “synchronized” discussions. For instance, you could ask participants to write down their thoughts and submit them simultaneously. Since they’re submitted at the same time, they don’t influence each other. Your job, as the idea coordinator, is to ensure that all the submissions are discussed fully and fairly.
You can find the article that Schumpeter reports on — “First is Best”, by Dana Carney of UC Berkeley and Mahzarin Banarji of Harvard here.
Too Stupid to Save?
I’ve written before about how to recover from foot-in-the-mouth disease but the hits just keep on coming. Over the weekend, Todd Akin, the Republican candidate for the Senate in Missouri made remarks about how a woman’s system can “shut down” and prevent pregnancy in cases of “legitimate rape”. To say the least, his remarks created a firestorm.
Can he recover? There’s an old saying that a verbal gaffe is when you accidentally and unintentionally say what you think. No matter what Akin does now, some people will think, “He said what he truly believes. He can apologize all he wants but he said what he truly believes.” Akin has almost certainly lost these voters.
Can Akin recover other voters? To do so, he needs to do at least three things:
- Recant and apologize forthrightly — he has to change positions, no matter how awkward that may be. And he has to apologize, clearly and without reservation. So far, he hasn’t really done either — saying merely that he “misspoke”.
- Actions more than words — After a thorough and honest apology, Akin needs to be seen working and acting on behalf of rape victims. He could volunteer in health clinics, spend more time with women’s advocates, etc. He has to be seen, not just heard. This might be called the Michael Vick school of image rehabilitation. After Vick spent time in jail for illegal dog fighting, he apologized, recanted, and spent a great deal of time working for dog health causes.
- Change the subject — if Akin successfully completes the first two steps, he will ultimately be able to change the subject and focus on something more to his advantage. The problem is that this takes time and he doesn’t have much time — the election is barely more than two months away. By comparison, it took Tiger Woods — a hero to many — approximately two years to recover his reputation.
My guess is that there’s not enough time for Akin to recover before the election. From a purely political perspective, if the Republicans want to win the election, they need a new candidate.
Activate Your Friends, Energize Your Enemies
In highly political situations, your ability to speak eloquently may actually work to your disadvantage. By speaking forcefully about a political objective, you may activate your friends but thoroughly energize your opponents. Your friends may support your objectives but without a great deal of energy. Your opponents, on the other hand, may be thoroughly alarmed by your presentations and highly 
energized to oppose your initiative. You can provoke a strong immune response from your opponents that can swamp even the best laid plans.
This happens regularly in political situations — especially during election campaigns. When one side speaks for something, the other side is motivated to increase the volume when speaking against it. Even if it’s a perfectly logical proposal, the mere fact that one side is pushing it hard may cause the other side to push back even harder.
Does this happen in business situations? All the time. But in business, the immune response is often cloaked. (In politics, the conflict is right out in the open — which may be healthier). If your business is highly political, you may find that speaking strongly for an initiative simply activates your opposition and weakens your position. If you think that’s happening to you, don’t stop speaking for your initiative but be sure to reach out to the opposition to look for common ground and areas of agreement. You need to make the first move — your opponents are not going to come to you. Look for private, face-to-face meetings with your opponents to clear the air and bridge the gap. You can learn more in the video.
By the way, the book I mention in the video is Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate by France E. Lee. You can find it here on Amazon.
Group Behavior – The Risky Shift
If you’re shot down behind enemy lines, would you rather be alone or in a group of colleagues? According to research from the U.S. Air Force, your chances of survival are better if you’re alone. That may seem counter-intuitive but groups — especially temporary groups with
fluid leadership — often shift toward riskier behavior. Individuals tend to make fact-based decisions that often result in better outcomes.
In other words, an individual makes more conservative decisions. Operating alone, he or she focuses on and assesses the situation. In a group, members assess each other as well and may make decisions based on group dynamics rather than facts and evidence. This is what Robert Cialdini calls “social cues” — we look to each other for cues on how we should behave rather than making a hardheaded assessment of the situation.
To effectively lead groups, you need to understand how group dynamics and social cues can change your behavior. You may “go with the group” even if you feel uncomfortable with their decision. Watch the video — you might be surprised at what you would do if you find a man lying unconscious on the streets of Manhattan.
My Social Media
