Much of what you know about human behaviour and persuasion is wrong.
You believe you’re in control of your own behaviour. Yet a skilled persuader could persuade you to not only positive goals — like donating to charity — but also unthinkably negative acts, including stealing, lying, and even killing others.
You believe you know what you’re attracted to. For most women, it’s the classic “I want a man who makes me laugh” (and a laundry list of other generic characteristics). These “wishlist criteria” have little to do with the people we ACTUALLY end up with — yet we continue telling our friends the kind of guy (or girl) we want. Put simply, it’s unlikely that you can articulate what you actually like.
You believe that if “they” — crackpot Tea Partiers, or bleeding-heart liberals — just had the information you had, they’d realise you were right and come over to your side. You couldn’t be more wrong.
Today, 5 fascinating studies from the world of social psychology — and some of my favourites from my work in psychology at Stanford — that will show you the complexity of human behaviour…and challenge what you believe about yourself.
* * *
Myth: “I know who I’m attracted to”
Reality: You often cannot articulate who you are attracted to, and your attraction is subject to many variables — including proximity and context — and subject to manipulation
Ask anyone what they’re attracted to — what their “type” is — and you’ll often get a laundry list of characteristics like “tall” “interested in the environment” and “he makes me laugh” (my favourite catch-all, since most guys are not funny).
Yet how many people do you know with a strict list of characteristics who throw them out as soon as they meet someone they’re attracted to?
It turns out that the characteristics we SAY we’re attracted to are quite different than what our behaviour reveals. For example, in speed-dating trials by Simonson, Fisman, Iyengar, and Kamenica, there were substantial differences between what we “said” we wanted vs. what we actually found attractive.
From a report of the experiment:
“Men—rather predictably—said attractiveness, while women listed intelligence and sincerity.”
…However, when they moved through the speed dating process there was no appreciable difference between men and women. Both used attractiveness to make their decisions.
Another interesting finding was that women tended to be choosier the more options they had. In the smaller group (10 men and 10 women) both men and women said they would like to see any given person again approximately half the time. In the large dating group, men kept to the same proportion of yeses (10 out of 20 times). However, women only said yes 6.5 out of 20 times.”
Instead, here’s how attraction often works:
– We say we’re attracted to XYZ characteristics
– We meet someone and are attracted to them for whatever reason
– We cannot articulate precisely why, yet we believe we can, so we’ll create a list of reasons
– We systematically ignore or actively resist the suggestion that any external factors have anything to do with our attraction
– Later, we may return to our baseline claims of what we find attractive
The main point: Who you find is attractive is a mysterious force and is subject to many external forces. If you’re in a foreign country, or surrounded by many people, or online vs. offline attraction varies. Keep this in mind when you say the kind of person you’re attracted to. The next time someone asks you who you’re attracted to, a better response might be a shrug and, “I guess we’ll see.”
* * *
Myth: “I’m in control of my own behaviour.”
Reality: Your behaviour is highly susceptible to your environment and the context around you. You can unwittingly be persuaded to stay in a smoking room, shock someone to death, or donate more money — all things you would not “ordinarily” do.
In one 1979 study, researchers Beaman, Diener, and Svanum showed how a simple intervention could dramatically change behaviour. On Halloween, research assistants answered the doors of local houses and told the kids they could take one piece of candy. Then they left the room.
34% of children took more than one piece of candy.
But when a mirror was present — forcing the children to see their own reflection — that number dropped to 12.%.
Would you leave a room filling with thick smoke? You might think our behaviour is predictable during life-and-death matters, but it’s not. In a study by Latane and Darley, researchers filled a room with thick smoke. In one case, 75% of people left the room as you would expect. But in another case through experimental manipulations, only 10% left.
Notice the clueless YouTube comments saying she was “dumb” for not leaving. These commenters miss the point — they likely would do the very same thing under the very same circumstances…which is a cornerstone of social psychology. Intelligence has nothing to do with it.
Finally, when you accuse “those evil people” of doing bad things like beating prisoners, torturing others, or killing, know that it’s possible for most of us to do the same behaviours under the same conditions. This is one of the critical lessons of the famed Milgram experiment.
The main point: Most of us believe that we are in control of our actions, yet our surroundings exert powerful control over us. People get extremely uncomfortable when confronted with evidence that they are not in complete control of their behaviours. A skilled persuader — including companies, marketers, professors, or yes even bloggers — can cause you to take surprising actions. recognise what is going on around you.
* * *
Myth: “If [the other side — Tea Party crackpots, bleeding-heart liberals, union members, management] just had the same information I had, they’d see things as I do. They’re just ignorant.”
Reality: Even if they had your exact information, they would not come to the same conclusions as you. That’s because we filter information through our own biases.
If you’ve ever wondered how Republicans get poor people to vote for tax cuts for the rich, you may have said something like, “Ugh, these people don’t even read! They’re voting against their OWN self-interest. God if they just read XYZ, they’d realise…”
You could say the same for liberals who vote for budget-busting legislation.
We love to believe that if the other side simply had the same information — that if they “took the time to understand the issues” — they would get it.
In the principle of naiive realism, Lee Ross et al write how most people believe the world works like this:
1. I see reality, and my actions and beliefs are based on a rational interpretation of reality.
2. Other people would share my view and actions and opinions if they had access to the same information that I do and if they have processed that information in a reasonable way like I do.
3. If others don’t share my views, it’s because:
* they have different information, and by sharing information we can reach an agreement
* they are lazy, or are not making rational decisions based on the information
* they are biased by ideology or self-interest, or some other distorting influence
Indeed, people in politics are especially guilt of believing that the other side simply needs to “understand” and “get educated” about the issues — so guilty that I’ve created an entire section on political marketing.
Take this example, found on an internet forum:
He genuinely believed that she really needed to understand. But, of course, she didn’t. And when he over-explained, her eyes glazed over.
Let’s take another example.
In a famous study, two researchers analysed a 1951 football game between the Dartmouth Indians and Princeton Tigers. The game was unusually rough, with the Princeton quarterback being injured so badly that he had to leave the game.
One week later, researchers questioned students who had attended the game to understand their perception of what had happened. Who played dirtier? Who was responsible for the fouls and injuries?
When asked, “Do you believe the game was clean and fairly played or that it was unnecessarily rough and dirty?” a staggering 93% of Princeton students responded “Rough and dirty,” while only 42% of Dartmouth students agreed.
When asked, “Which team do you feel started the rough play?” 86% of Princeton students surveyed responded that Dartmouth had. Only 36% of Dartmouth students blamed their own team.
In a clever twist, the researchers then asked students to watch a film of the game and report how many infractions were made. Both groups watched the same game on video, but Princeton students reported twice as many infractions as Dartmouth students did.
These students watched the objectively same game, yet had astonishingly different perceptions of what “actually” happened.
Please read that last sentence carefully. You’ll notice that I wrote they perceived the game.
That is indeed what happened. Even though they physically “watched” the very same game, each set of students — Dartmouth and Princeton students — were unconsciously affected by their group membership and beliefs. Despite what we think, we do not objectively see what happens around us. You and I could be watching a clown walk across the street, and we would perceive two VERY different things. Our perceptions are coloured by a variety of factors, including our beliefs, history, group membership, culture, and more.
The truth? Education is not the answer.
Even if your opponent has all the same information as you, they will likely still disagree with you because they filter information through their own biases and world view.
* * *
Myth: “I need more information to make the right decision.”
Reality: In many cases, having more information causes “analysis paralysis” and actually prevents you from taking action.
Americans love to believe that if they just had more information, they could make a better decision.
Yet more information can be crippling and cause us to delay taking action.
Sheena Iyengar studied contribution rates to 401(k) plans and found a surprising result: “For every 10 mutual funds made available, the rate of participation in 401(k) investing goes down 2%.”
There are other variables more important than “more information” that help ensure compliance.
For example, “high-fear” appeals are known to work well in particular situations such as smoking reduction. But there’s something even more important.
in an experiment by Howard Leventhal, he tested how to persuade students to get a tetanus shot.
In one case, he simply provided them information. 0 students got the shot.
In another case, he provided a “high-fear” appeal and 3% of students got the shot.
But when he added the “high-fear” appeal plus specific instructions — a map to the health centre, times shots were available, and a request for the students to plan what time they’d go and what route they’d take — the number of students who got the shot soared to 28%. Even though these students likely knew where the health centre was!
The main point: Simply giving people more information rarely leads to behavioural change. In fact, more information can decrease the chances of someone taking behaviour, a finding you can investigate further in the excellent book, The Paradox of Choice. Another terrific book is Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive. There are many other, far more persuasive, techniques besides “more information” to motivate change.
* * *
Myth: “I know what I saw”
Reality: Your memory is unreliable and easily influenced
If you believe that you remember what happened during childhood, that conversation last week, or even in that commercial you watched yesterday, you may be in for a surprise.
Many of us think of our memory like a videotape — it records what it sees. But we “filter” the information before it comes to us, affecting the memory before it’s ever “recorded.” To complicate things, time and other variables also alter our memories.
In Pratkanis and Aronson’s “Age of Propaganda,” they write about the way that memories are easily altered:
“For example, in her research on human memory, cognitive psychologist Elizabeth Loftus frequently demonstrates that memories of, say, an accident or a crime scene can be modified and changed simply through the questions asked about the incident.”
Loftus has shown that asking carefully phrased questions — “How fast were the cars going when they smashed together?” — can produce distorted memories of watching the film. (In this case, as Aronson writes, “Subjects who were asked about smashing cars, as opposed to hitting cars, estimated that the cars were going significantly faster and, a week after seeing the film, were more likely to state that there was broken glass at the accident scene (even though no broken glass was shown in the film.))”
The main point: Your memory is not a videotape. Instead, think of it as a constantly changing ribbon of material, easily susceptible to suggestions and rewriting.
Interesting in learning more about the psychology of persuasion?
Tonight, 1/19 at 6pm Pacific, I’m holding a live 1-hour call with Stanford psychologist BJ Fogg, one of my mentors who taught me much of what I know. We’ll be discussing how to apply psychological techniques on a day-to-day basis, along with unconventional ways to influence others, get your dream job, and become an expert.
Sign up below to make sure you get:
- An invite to the live call TONIGHT (1/19)
- A recording of the call if you can’t make it
- A bonus psychology study that reveals a surprise insight about attraction and arousal
(Can’t see the above form? Click here to sign up.)
P.S. Also remember to add your “WEEK 2 RESULTS” to this post by midnight tonight.
Join the free 30-day course to hustle your way to the top
Here’s a sample of what I’ll be sending out:
– My 2-hour interview: How you can master personal finance by learning from pick up artists (Transcribed for you.) – How Michael Fishman got $20,000 of my time…free…over lunch – An 81-minute time-management clinic to learn how to reclaim 1.5 hours from your day
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.