Behaviour Change & Technology

There are many ways of making people say “Yes”. Yes to buy a book, yes to vote for a political candidate, yes to do things to preserve the climate, and all the other yes’s in the world. According to Goldstein et al. (2009) latest book, there are at least 50 scientifically proven ways to make people say that one word. While some ways of making people say “yes” are well known and widely applied, others are less known. Here we present a few of the less known and perhaps surprising strategies of persuasion:

1.      Sometimes all you have to do is just to ask.

We often underestimate the likelihood that the recipient will comply with our requests (Flynn & Lake, 2008). It is important to recognize this because it can potentially lead to productivity losses and prevent accomplishing your goals. Moreover, holding a correct impression of how many say “Yes!” may not only increase staff motivation, but by applying the simple principle of requesting what you want, you appear open and honest. If openness and honesty does not persuade people into doing whatever you want them to do, at least it does not create much resistance.

2.      More options promote indecisiveness.

Startup and small businesses often offer only few options and products. If successfully managed, the business will grow and attract new customers which open up the possibility for expanding the product portfolio. Most people usually consider having more choices to be a good thing. However, as research shows, and as many businesses often painfully have experienced, this is not always a good business idea. An abundance of choices most often overwhelms customers and leads to indecisiveness (i.e. fewer purchases).

3.      Be the first to throw out the anchor.

During negotiations, the first meetings or first few minutes in a meeting, the parties often dance around the table reluctant to be the first to present their offer. Is this the right strategy for achieving the highest bid? No. Research shows that the one that first puts the bid out on the table achieves superior outcomes (Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001). Why? The first offer “anchors” the negotiation and the parties tend not to move that far away from the anchor. Remember, though, that the first offer should be realistic!

4.      Humor people.

Humor brings people closer together and helps establish relationships (Kurtzberg et al., 2009). Moreover, humor seems to make people put down their guard in negotiations by proposing less extreme offers. In business, the possibility for using humor is very limited and not all people find all jokes, cartoons, and other fun stuff equally humoring. So attempts at making people laugh and come in good mood should be made with caution, however, there is no doubt that interaction with users and business outcomes can become more effective when using humor.

5.      “I don’t mean to sound rude, but…”.

Have you ever found it difficult to say something and tried to get ahead of the situation by saying things like “I trust you will manage this situation, but don’t forget to…”? Well, guess what? Research shows that if you do say such things, you are going to be perceived as someone who doesn’t trust his co-workers or rude (see El-Alayli et al. 2008). In fact, it is better just to say things as they are: “Manage the situation and remember to …” or even better “I trust you will manage this situation.”

What are some of the practical implications of these principles?

First of all, if you want someone to participate in online projects, it can be more cost-effective just to ask people politely if they would like to join than spending a lot of time and effort finding clever ways to persuade them. No one really likes to be persuaded - they like to think it was a self-determined choice. Second, if you want users to start using or buying your online product, be selective about which products you wish to push. It is much easier for users to make a decision to buy or use products from a small sample than the entire range of your products. Third, as long as you are sensitive to what price people are willing to pay, you should not have to be afraid of displaying the price of your products. Most e-commerce sites already do this, however, a few do not. There is nothing that turns a buyer off more than seeing a price tag that is way beyond imagination at checkout. Do not quite know what people want to pay? Well, talk to them and find out what they are willing to pay - sometimes you will be happily surprised. Fourth, try using a bit of humor. Consider e.g. including a non-offensive and appropriate cartoon in your electronic meeting notice. Humor gives people something to talk about, loosens up the atmosphere, and brings people closer together. Fifth, avoid startups like “I don’t mean to sound rude, but…” when chatting with people regardless whether they are close and personal friends or professional relationships. It is very likely that you end up being perceived exactly the way you want to avoid being perceived. The same rule applies online as offline.

References

El-Alayli, A., Myers, C. J., Petersen, T. L., Lystad, A. L. (2008). “I don’t mean to sound arrogant, but…” The effects of using disclaimers on person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 130-143.

Flynn, F. J., & Lake, V. K. B. (2008). If you need help, just ask: Underestimating compliance with direct requests for help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 128-143.

Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 657-669.

Goldstein, N. J., Martin, S. J. & Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive . New York: Free Press.

Kurtzberg, T. R., Naquin, C. E. & Belkin, L. Y. (2009). Humor as a relationship-building tool in online negotiations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 20, 377-397.

Send article as PDF to

Most people adhere to their goals when they are both motivated and able. This is quite impressive in terms of the complex human social life people engage in and the multiple choices people face every day. But how is it that people who are highly motivated and proven to be capable of for instance studying or dieting suddenly may fail to do so? In this article, we discuss how making choices can impair subsequent self-regulation.

Ego depletion
Self-regulation refers to the ability to override or inhibit thoughts, feelings, impulses, and behaviours. It can be viewed as the active part of the self (i.e. agent), as opposed to the self as something known (i.e. identity) or the self as knower (i.e. knowledge). In other words, self-regulation is crucial for the ability to adhere to personal and social goals, but what happens when people’s self-regulatory capacity breaks down?

Vohs and colleagues (2008) conducted a series of experiments where a choice versus no-choice manipulation was followed by a task that required self-regulation. After for instance making active choices on a website, the researchers measured participants’ persistence on a subsequent self-regulatory task. In several of the experiments, participants were also led to believe that practicing or solving the self-regulatory task would help them on an upcoming task so that participants should have been highly motivated to perform well on the self-regulatory task.

The unanimous findings were that making choices leads to lessened tolerance to negative adverse events, lowered persistence, and more procrastination. In other words, making choices depleted the self of mental resources (i.e. ego depletion) that affected subsequent ability to self-regulate or adhere to goals.

Information architecture design
These findings are very interesting from an information architecture (IA) design perspective (see Danaher, McKay & Seeley, 2005). On the one side, we can depend on users to find the right information at the right time and give them complete freedom, including a range of choices and few restrictions (e.g. design digital interventions as matrices). Both users and designers may find it appealing to have a full set of choices and full self-determination although people often report feeling frustrated and overwhelmed with the intense cognitive demands that accompany large amounts of choices (Huffman & Kahn, 1998). And as Vohs et al. and related research shows (e.g. Baumeister, et al. 1998), providing people with many choices is not very helpful or supportive. In addition, from a therapeutic point of perspective, just providing people with choices would be equivalent to holding a laissez-faire attitude as the designer or therapist sort of lets the sequence of events take its own course and takes on a passive role and seeming lack of interest and involvement in the user (Rogers, 1951).

On the other side, we can guide users through a predetermined sequence and reduce or remove irrelevant information (e.g. tunneled IA design). A good example of these principles applied in action is e-commerce where users typically add items in a basket or shopping cart, proceed to checkout, enter shipping address, billing information, and place their order. This may be appropriate and desirable in e-commerce, but when it comes to health and well-being, such IA designs can easily end up objectifying a person’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviours, become too intellectualistic and didactic, and communicate a basic mistrust and lack of respect for the person and belief in his or her abilities to find solutions to their own problems.

Belief in the right for self-determination
The empirical evidence stand in stark contrast to the thought experiments by existentialist philosophers like Camus and early Sartre who portrait the self as an entity that is constructed by acts of free will. Most people strongly believe in the existentialist thought and would have a hard time accepting anything else because a rejection of the existentialist thought would entail that they reject the belief in their basic (human) right for self-determination. People feel it liberating and tend go to great lengths in protecting their freedom. When this freedom or opportunities for making choices is restricted, people become defensive, exhibit patterns of aggression, reactance, and imagine that they control events which they cannot possibly control (e.g. what other people think of them or the roll of dice at casinos). But let us assume that the empirical evidence and existentialist thought are equally true and neither is false, can we then find a solution which does not necessarily imply a compromise?

Is there a solution?
According to Rogers (1951), the counselor’s aim and role or, in our case, an intervention designer’s role is to perceive the phenomenological field as experienced by the person, wholeheartedly accept the person as he or she is which is already experienced critically by the person’s self as it is, and adopt an internal frame of reference. It means to see the world as the person sees it and put aside any preconceived ideas, preconceptions, and perceptions adopted from an external frame of reference (i.e. the counselor or designers perspective). It also means to move in the direction of greater self-responsibility; self-government, self-regulation, and autonomy. The paradox is not the right for self-determination, but it is the choice(s) itself which is the paradox.

Consequently, the potential solution is to help users make the right choices and be supportive of their decision even if it goes against every form of your personal and intellectual sense and understanding of users’ or clients’ problem. This can be an excruciating exercise for the counselor or designer because as human beings we tend to evaluate, compare, diagnose, guide, persuade, argue, teach, etc. quite automatically. Instead, help users decide the overall and important intervention components that strongly underscores that these decisions are fully self-determined rather than providing an excess of alternatives and options concerning nitty-gritty details which users might fancy, but which end up undermining users’ capacity for self-regulation. People want choices, but as Vohs and colleagues’ research shows, people eventually tire of the endless demands and stresses of making these choices. How liberating are these choices of freedom when they actually impair people’s optimal functioning, health, well-being, and social development?

Key reading(s):

Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Twenge, J. M., Nelson, N. M. & Tice, D. M. (2008). Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 883-898.

References:

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252-1265

Danaher, B. G., McKay, H. G. & Seeley, J. R. (2005). The information architecture of behaviour change websites. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(2), e12.

Huffman, C., & Kahn, B. E. (1998). Variety for sale: Mass customization or mass confusion. Journal of Retailing, 74, 491-513.

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy. London: Constable.

Send article as PDF to

It is very interesting to see how the perception of the information presented in choice items can influence people’s decisions and actions. The arrangement of choice alternatives can pertain to different underlying goals such as for example food enjoyment and concerns about weight which can elicit different psychological and behavioural consequences.

Together or separate?
Fishbach and Zhang (2008) found that it does actually make a difference if conflicting goals are presented alone (e.g. chocolate cake) or as choice alternatives (e.g. chocolate cake or vegetable soup). When participants were presented with conflicting choice items together, the choice items were perceived to complement each other and participants tended to evaluate the tempting items more positively. When people hold a positive attitude towards an item, they start balancing the conflicting goals as if they were complementary goals (e.g. “If I have the vegetable soup for entrée, I can have the chocolate cake as a treat for dessert”).

Fishbach and Zhang (2008) also found that when items were presented separately, they seemed to compete against each other and participants then tended to evaluate the goal item more positively. This is also the case when being presented to temptations only, as temptations seem to automatically activate the desired goal (Fishbach, Friedman & Kruglanski, 2003). What seems to happen is that the conflicting goals start to compete against each other when presented separately and thus the more important goal is highlighted (e.g. eating healthy).

Highlighting and balancing goals
There is an interesting link between highlighting or balancing goals and the way goals are represented or framed as discussed in the article How to increase motivation to goal adherence. When people highlight a goal they feel very committed to their goal and see their achievements as a result of their past actions or in terms of what has been accomplished to date. In other words, they exhibit a high level of intrinsic motivation or the feeling that the decision to adhere to their goal is fully self-determined. In contrast, people who balance conflicting goals see their actions as part of a progress (i.e. remains to be accomplished). Consequently, they start to balance the conflicting goals as if they were complementary (”If I eat pizza today, I can keep my diet tomorrow”; for example, see Fishbach & Dhar, 2005, Study 3). The problem is simply that today’s calorie intake is not re-set tomorrow. These effects suggests that a focus on commitment or progress promotes subsequent choices of action that either highlights the goal or balances between alternative goals.

Implications
Obviously, helping users or clients decide what goals are important, setting unambiguous goals, strengthening commitment towards change, and avoiding presenting or discussing conflicting goals at the same time seem to highlight important personal goals. However, one important consequence from this discussion is perhaps that we should abandon discussing barriers to treatment altogether as discussing barriers most often involves presenting information about conflicting goals at the same time which according to Fishbach and colleagues’ research results in a balancing of goals (”If I pack my gym bag now, I can go watch TV”). But this may be at odds with both treatment providers and users or clients who often consider addressing barriers very important.

Another very interesting implication of the perception of choice items that have underlying conflicting goals comes from priming studies (see e.g. Stroebe, Mensink, Aarts, Schut & Kruglanski, 2008). Priming refers to the phenomenon of activating concepts by exposing people to objects that increases the accessibility of the mental representation of that object or concept. For example, a website concerning nutritional counseling or weight management may present words or pictures relating to the semantic concept of food enjoyment (e.g. words like tasty or appetizing). At the same page, the website may present words or pictures relating to the semantic concept of eating healthy (e.g. words like slim or nutritious). This seems to trigger psychological processes such as balancing between conflicting goals, creating commitment uncertainty, making short-term goals more salient, etc. - processes that are all related to unsuccessful behaviour change. The implication is that one should avoid triggering a balancing of conflicting goals, but rather focus on food enjoyment or eating healthy separately to activate a highlighting.

Conclusion
It appears to be unproblematic to provide users with for example healthy and nutritious and delicious and tasty recipes or food items separately. The problem is when people are presented with both at the same time which unfortunately often is the case. Just imagine all the choices people have at their local grocery store. It is easy to see how people can end up thinking: “If I buy the low-fat milk, I can have the hot dogs” (i.e. balancing conflicting goals). Furthermore, imagine all the unhealthy products that are presented as healthy under labels such as “natural”, “no added sugar” or “50% less fat”. These products prime people with conflicting goals automatically which provides people excuses for purchasing the salami with 30% fat content because it is promoted as having 50% less fat. Well, it may be healthier relative to salami with 60% fat, but it is still unhealthy.

Key reading(s):

Fishbach, A. & Zhang, Y. (2008). Together or apart: When goals and temptations complement versus compete. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 547-559.

References:

Fishbach, A. & Dhar, R. (2005). Goals as excuses or guides: The liberating effect of perceived goal progress on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 370-377.

Fishbach, A., Friedman, R. S. & Kruglanski, A. W. (2003). Leading us not unto temptation: Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 296-309.

Stroebe, W., Mensink, W., Aarts, H., Schut, H. & Kruglanski, A. W. (2008). Why dieters fail: Testing the goal conflict model of eating. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 26-36.

Send article as PDF to