Every day, you are persuaded by those around you. Whether it is to make a quick decision, buy a product, or
read an article with an evocative headline like this…
…We are likely to be open to suggestion during critical
moments of non-thinking; what Kahneman famously refers to as System 1 processing. This is when our emotions take
precedence over rational strategies while making decisions.
We are vulnerable when we seek emotional security, when we
need reassurance of our own worth, when we need our egos stroked, when we are
seeking creative outlets, when we crave love and validation, when we desire
power over others, when we identify with things that have shaped our sense of
self, and when we desire to leave our mark on the world.
These states share two things: high emotional investment and
a fair degree of tunnel vision. When we are focused on fulfilling an emotional
need, we tend to apply less rational evaluation to all other decisions.
Taking advantage of the powerful human need to love and
belong is a popular persuasive strategy with advertisers. Emphasising social similarities and inducing feelings of obligation give people a sense that they are connecting with others.
Social connectedness is likely an evolutionary trait. In The Consuming Instinct, Gad Saad identifies reciprocal
altruism as an evolutionary driver. When people do things for us, we
feel obligated to return the favour. In more dangerous times, staying together
and helping others was key to survival.
Another popular persuasive strategy is to take advantage of
the numerous mental shortcuts and biases we call
on daily. Any good advertiser will try and find a point of interjection at the
precise moment when we are not thinking at all.
Retail and car salesmen are masters of this. Any product is
only worth the amount it is sold for, yet even the most logical of us are
influenced by sales, package deals, and false comparisons daily.
These strategies work because of the way we process
information. Generally, there are thought to be two methods of processing. Heuristic processing is the lazier of the two,
when we rely on past experience and existing knowledge structures to evaluate
new or overly complicated information.
Usage of these knowledge structures depends on how easily
they can be retrieved from memory and how relevant they are to the information
being judged. Information that we care little about and have less ability to
process is likely to bypass our rational decision making system.
At an individual level, persuasive behaviour tends to be
more deceptive and contextual. And although we like to believe we are good at
spotting when others are trying to deceive us, even the
most trained of us often get it wrong.
In fact, we almost always get it wrong. Recent research has
shown that we are only 0.25% accurate at spotting when someone is lying.
A lot of this is due to the common belief that body language
and micro-expressions give away someone’s true intentions. This is not the case, mostly because such cues vary
wildly between individuals and contexts.
Instead, expert negotiators look for reasons for lying and ‘flood the circuits’ to
detect deception. This involves triggering a cognitive overload via open questions
phrased in uncommon ways. Asking someone to recount a series of events in
reverse, for example, can expose inconsistences in their story.
Noting changes in behavioural tics can also expose
deception. Many believe that a person who is anxious while telling a story is
lying, however if they have a naturally anxious demeanour, there would be no
reason to suspect them of lying.
But if a generally anxious person is calm and collected
while recounting a story, it is grounds for suspicion.
It is possible to train oneself against persuasion and
deception to reduce susceptibility. The mere act of being forewarned that
persuasion is likely can reduce susceptibility, since persuasive messages often
play on unconscious cognitive processes.
Inoculation is one way to build resistance to persuasion. This
is where a deliberately weak argument is presented to counter an individual’s
existing attitudes. By rebutting the weak argument, they are inoculated (protected) against stronger, more persuasive arguments in future. Very useful to defend against those who deny science to support their beliefs.
The goal with inoculation is to strengthen pre-existing beliefs in the face
of persuasion without being blind to non-persuasive, critical arguments. This
has the added effect of making people aware of their own confirmation bias.
And it makes you think twice before clicking on the next ‘emotional
story with an ending you won’t believe!’
a.ce
a.ce
No comments:
Post a Comment