Persuasion

The Hidden Forces That Influence Negotiations

Jasper Kim

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780815361954
• eBook ISBN: 9781351113694
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Regional Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

Persuasion: The Hidden Forces That Influence Negotiations represents the first book of its kind to package and present persuasion principles in an innovative, international, and interdisciplinary fashion.

This easy-to-understand book is the culmination of seminal research findings spanning across decades and disciplines – psychology, philosophy, negotiations, decision-making, logic, law, and economics, among others – from esteemed experts around the world. Persuasion provides a series of short, simple-to-use intellectual tools to go above and beyond merely describing "what to think"– but "how to think" in a persuasion, influence, and negotiation context –across a diverse array of disciplines, sectors, and situations from boardrooms to classrooms for the twenty-first century.

Part I
Behavioralists

Pride and prejudice

1
Influences

Invisible influences of persuasion

Influence

One of the most noted experts in the area of social psychology and influence is Robert Cialdini. Based on his research, Cialdini has proposed six specific principles of influence, which he argues serve as invisible influencers (Cialdini 1993).

Specifically, the six principles of influence are:

• Reciprocity
• Scarcity
• Authority
• Consistency
• Liking
• Consensus

The following section delves inside the six principles of influence.

The first principle of influence is reciprocity. Reciprocity reflects how certain individuals feel obliged to return to others what they have received first. If a friend or colleague gives a gift, then the recipient of such gift generally feels obligated to reciprocate in kind. Behavior linked to reciprocity may make intuitive sense to many people already. However, what is noteworthy in the relevant research findings conducted by Cialdini (1993) and others is the level or amount of reciprocity that is given back after something is received. In a series of studies involving customers in restaurants, giving a simple mint by a waiter increased tips by around 3 percent. When the amount was doubled to two mints, tips quadrupled (not just doubled) to 14 percent. Research also noted the impact of not just what amount was given, but how it was given. Specifically, when a waiter initially provided just one mint, then turned around and said, “For you nice people, here’s another mint,” tips surged to 23 percent (rather than doubling to 6 percent). Thus, the takeaways are, first, to initiate the giving; second, make such giving personalized to the parties at issue; and third, ensure that such giving is unexpected (that is, the recipient should gain a sense of specialized and personalized treatment) (Strohmetz, Rind, Fisher & Lynn 2002).

The second principle of influence is scarcity. When a good or service is viewed as scarce, then human behavior often desires more of such good or service (Novotney 2014). Such scarcity can appear in various written forms, such as with “limited edition,” “first come, first serve,” and “for a limited time only” branding. Even the threatened or actual banning of a particular item may trigger individuals to want more of a particular thing, perhaps out of fear of not having access to such opportunity in the future. The instant selling out of Nike Air Jordans or other coveted products is a form of scarcity, as are flash sales and pop-up stores, which often triggers individuals to want more of the thing perceived as scarce. This also conforms to the economic principle that “scarcity drives value up,” as in the case of diamonds (which has a limited or set supply). Cialdini suggests that the scarcity principle should be augmented not only by communicating the benefits of having such perceived or actual scarce item, but also to demonstrate what is unique about the item or service in question, and what parties may lose as a result of not having such item or service (Cialdini 1993).

The third principle of influence is authority. It reflects the notion that individuals tend to follow the requests or recommendations of actual or perceived knowledgeable, credible experts. Signaling such authority can come in various forms, such as the displaying of academic diplomas by medical doctors. Separate from actual expert knowledge, even perceived, but not actual knowledge can trigger the authority principle. Studies found that individuals were more willing to give money to complete strangers if such strangers were simply wearing some kind of uniform (Bickman 1974). As a further example, many doctors wear stethoscopes even though their particular medical specialty often does not require using stethoscopes on a routine basis. Authority in the form of clothing must also be specific to the industry. Often wearing a suit and tie signaled authority and knowledge in the twentieth century. But today, in fields like technology and start-ups, wearing a suit and tie may have the opposite effect, while wearing jeans and a hoodie may instead reflect authority and expert knowledge.

The fourth principle of influence is consistency. In general, people were found to try to remain consistent with their past behavior. Based on this, a strategy of soliciting small initial concessions followed by larger subsequent concessions can be used in line with the consistency principle. As demonstration of the consistency principle of influence, a seminal study found a 400 percent increase over a control group in allowing large “Drive Safely” signs to be placed in front of individuals’ homes simply because those same homeowners had allowed a postcard-sized sign indicating a similar message a few weeks earlier (Freedman & Fraser 1966). In sum, such commitments should be voluntary, active, and public, ideally in written form.

The fifth principle of influence is liking. Individuals generally were more likely to cooperate with persons they like. Specifically, such liking principle was a function of interacting with people who were viewed as most similar to the person in question, those who gave genuine compliments, and those who cooperated together toward similar goals. In a study involving online negotiations (e-negotiations) between two top-tier business schools, one group was told, “Time is money,” and then, immediately began the negotiations. Meanwhile, a separate group was told to first take a few minutes to talk with their negotiation counterparty, emphasizing points of mutual similarity with one another (a form of social lubrication), followed only then by engaging in the negotiation at hand with the same party. In this latter group, 90 percent reached successful, negotiated outcomes worth 18 percent more to both parties compared with the group that was told to skip the small talk and enter straight into the negotiation (Morris, Nadler, Kurtzberg & Thompson 2002).

The sixth, and final, principle of influence is consensus. The consensus principle suggests that individuals often benchmark or reference the actions and behaviors of others to determine a particular course of future action or behavior, particularly in cases of uncertainty (Cialdini 1993). The consensus psychological phenomenon occurs in cases where no rational reason exists for such consensual action, such as when a group of bystanders collectively looks up toward the top of a tall building while standing on a sidewalk simply because others are doing the same thing. The work attire at various organizations also often reflect a very narrow band of clothing and hairstyles chosen by both men and women in a conscious or unconscious effort to conform to the consensus principle of influence.

In addition to Cialdini’s findings, a plethora of other methods and techniques exist to get one individual to like another individual; these methods are discussed next.

Persuasion and self-focus

The persuasion and invisible influence of others is also, based on several studies, linked to steering a focus on or toward the other party.

In studies at Stanford University and the University of Arizona, participants preferred to be paired with other people who had aligned views. This may be because individuals may want to be perceived by others in a way that most closely conforms with the participants’ own view of themselves (Robinson & Smith-Lovin 1992).

Other research conducted at Harvard University suggests that allowing individuals to talk about themselves increased an internal reward mechanism not too dissimilar from money, food, and sex (Tamir & Mitchell 2012). In this study, participants were placed in an fMRI machine to monitor their cognitive function. Activity in the brain region associated with reward and motivation were most active when participants shared information publicly about themselves.

Persuasion and influence are also based on the words individuals use to describe other people. In a published study, this “spontaneous trait transference” phenomenon applies in both positive and negative contexts. If positive language is used by a person to describe others, then others will tend to take a more positive view of that person. However, if negative language is used by a person to describe others, then others will tend to take a more negative view of such person (Skowronski, Carlston, Mae & Crawford 1998).

Revealing one’s weaknesses to increase trust and likability was also confirmed by a study at the University of Texas, Austin. In the study, students who did well on a quiz but spilled coffee afterward were rated higher in likability compared who those who did not spill coffee. This phenomenon is known as the “pratfall effect,” in which likability increases after mistakes are made. But this comes with a caveat: to create such perception, observers must first believe that such person is a competent person already (Aronson, Willerman & Floyd 1966). This effect is a version of the “stereotype content model,” coined by psychologists at Princeton University, which proposes that individuals judge others based on the individual’s level of warmth and competence (in this order) (Fiske 2013).

The simple act of smiling when focusing on others has also been shown to have a demonstrable effect in both in-person and virtual (online) contexts. A University of Wyoming study tasked nearly 100 undergraduate women with viewing photos of other women in (1) smiling, open-body positions; (2) smiling, closed-body positions; (3) not smiling, open-body positions; and (4) not smiling, closed-body positions. The photos with a woman smiling – regardless of body position – were viewed most favorably in the study (McGinley, McGinley & Nicholas 1978). In another study conducted at Stanford University and the University of Duisburg-Essen involving the online interaction among avatars, those online interactions involving avatars with bigger smiles recorded more positive experiences. Thus, in a persuasion context, smiling face-to-face both in a conference setting or through an online platform will tend to lead to higher likability rates and reviews compared with not smiling (Righi, Gronchi, Marzi, Mohamed & Viggiano 2015).

Persuasion and emotion

Persuasion is also shaped by perception based on an individual’s state of emotion.

Before going further, stop reading. Next, think about what the reader focused on while reading up this point – perhaps it was the black letters written on the page? This may give a skewed sense and focus on the color black, when as the reader well knows after thinking about it, the page is composed mostly of the color white. Linked to this focus and attention tendency, an intriguing study was done in which participants were asked to count the number of times a basketball was passed among a group of people in a circle formation (Chabris & Simons 1999). The goal of participants who watched this was to correctly count the number of times the ball was passed. During the middle of the video, however, was a person explicitly dressed in an ape costume walking right through the middle of the people passing the ball around – even going so far as to gesture wildly to the camera while doing so. One would think that most, if not all, study participants viewing the episode would notice the ape strolling across the screen. However, because of the acute focus of participants trying to complete their given counting task, the majority of them failed to see the large ape at all – although most accurately guessed the number of passes made. If curious, this very popular clip, entitled “Selection Awareness Test,” can be seen on YouTube.

Studies have also shown that people are more likely to make choices based on the need to avoid a negative experience rather than a positive experience, known as “prospect theory.” Individuals also allocate more cognitive resources to negative information. In a study at the University of California, Berkeley, participants took longer to name a color that was associated with a negative personality trait relative to colors associated with positive personality traits (Pratto & John 1991). This difference in response times was attributed to participants devoting more attention to processing the trait itself when the associated personality trait was more negative than positive. Such research implies that individuals tend to recall negative traits more readily compared with positive traits. It also helps to explain why many individuals tend to recall past negative memories more easily than positive memories, leading to a tendency to underestimate past and future positive outcomes. Thus, to recall a person’s memory, for better or for worse, a negative memory or experience will more likely be recalled than a positive one (arguably based on a survival bias innate in the human condition).

Studies have also demonstrated that people afford more respect to those who view and see things as negative rather than positive. A Stanford University study showed that people with a negative perspective on world affairs were viewed as more intelligent than those who took a more positive perspective on world affairs. In a related corollary, the English dictionary allocates 62 percent of all emotional words to those words with negative meanings or connotations (Gawdat 2017). As a senior fellow at the University of California, Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center stated, “The brain is like Velcro for negative experiences but Teflon for positive ones” (Hanson 2016).

Focusing more toward the positive impact of positive emotions, studies suggest that they have a strong effect on the mood levels of other individuals. In a paper from the University of Hawaii and Ohio University, researchers noted that participants were found to unconsciously feel the emotions of people around them – referred to as “emotional contagion.” The authors argue that this phenomenon may occur because, as social animals, humans tend to mimic the movements and facial expressions of those within similar social groups (Hatfield, Cacioppo & Rapson 1993).

Positive emotions in the form of displaying a sense of humor have also been shown to increase attraction among individuals. In a study at DePaul University and Illinois State University, displaying humor when first meeting someone made participants like each other more (Treger, Sprecher & Erber 2013). Other research at Illinois State University and California State University, Los Angeles, demonstrated that participants sought humor in both their romantic partners as well as in their ideal friends (Sprecher & Regan 2002). Thus, the virtues of a sense of humor may have serious social value.

Persuasion and the personal touch

Research further suggests that similarities and shared belief systems increased likability. In a classic study, a “similarity-attraction effect” was found in the form of subjects liking their housemates more who shared similar attitudes on controversial topics, such as politics and sex (Newcomb 1956). In more recent research conducted at Washington University in St. Louis and the University of Virginia, Air Force recruits were found to view one another more favorably based on similar negative personality traits compared with shared posi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• PART I Behavioralists: pride and prejudice
• PART II Rationalists: sense and sensibility
• Index