The Small BIG: Small Changes That Spark Big Influence (3 page)

W
hether it’s choosing the busy restaurant over the quieter one, being swept along by the momentum of a wave
1
at a sporting event, or, as detailed in the previous chapter, persuading people to pay their taxes on time, social proof can be a hugely efficient decision shortcut, serving to help us not only make mostly accurate decisions but also form bonds and connections to others. Such is the draw of wanting to follow the behavior of others that going against the pull of the crowd is not only emotionally distressing but, according to recent neuroscience research, it can even be painful.

In a modern-day replication of Solomon Asch’s classic conformity studies from the 1950s, a team led by neuroscientist Gregory Berns told a group of people that, as part of a study on perception, they would be shown a series of 3-D objects and would later be asked to identify which objects were the same in terms of size and shape and which were different. The researchers also pointed out that while everyone would be involved in the study, only one member of the group would be hooked up to the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) brain scanner in the next room and that everyone should remain in the waiting room while they set up the machine. However, all this was just an elaborate ploy, because everyone in the group was part of the study and in on the act. Everyone, that is, except for the person hooked up to the MRI—the genuine study participant—who was about to become the subject of a fascinating experiment designed to identify what happens in our brains when we go against the group consensus.

Having been “selected,” the study participant was then connected to the scanner, shown a series of pairs of 3-D images, and asked which were the same and which were different. However, before answering, the participant was first informed that the “volunteers” in the other room had also been shown the images and for each pair of images had made a decision about what the correct answer was. Sometimes the group gave a deliberately wrong answer in order to see whether the person would cave to the social pressure. Despite the fact that most “selected” participants knew the group’s wrong answers didn’t seem right, they still conformed to them about 40 percent of the time.

Perhaps more interesting, though, was the finding that when the study participant made an independent judgment that went against the consensus of the group, the areas of the brain associated with emotion were activated, suggesting that there is a real emotional cost to going against the group and the price we pay is a painful one.

It can be especially hard to go against those groups that we consider to be particularly important to our own social identity—in other words, groups that help us define who we are and how we see ourselves. For example, recall in the previous chapter how officials from the UK tax office were able to increase the number of people persuaded to pay their taxes on time simply by pointing out prominently on reminder letters that most people already do pay on time. Remember also that when extra specificity was added to the letters, informing recipients that the majority of people living in the same zip code had paid on time, response rates rose to 79 percent compared to a standard response rate of 67 percent.

A third letter was also used, one that tugged much harder on each individual’s social identity. Instead of pointing out that the majority of people who lived in the same zip code had submitted their taxes on time, these letters included the name of the town. This small change led to an even bigger increase in response rates, with almost 83 percent of people taking action.

These results show that one
SMALL
BIG that communicators can employ is to ensure that their message aligns closely with the social identity of their target group. For example, the online world provides a piece of data that can be leveraged for greater persuasiveness in this way: IP addresses. Organizations could use IP addresses, which provide the location of visitors to their websites, to convey the social proof of people from a specific area. In other words, rather than conveying the same, less specific social proof information to website visitors from New York City and Houston (“81 percent of people choose the premium package!”), the site could be programmed to provide even more tailored social identity information (“82 percent of New Yorkers choose the premium package!” and “80 percent of Houstonites choose the premium package!”), assuming of course those numbers were true.

The highlighting of more similar social proof information doesn’t just extend to locational similarities. It can work for people’s names too—a concept we refer to as
nominative
similarities. During the 2012 US presidential election one notable email appeal from the Obama for America campaign invited registered voters to see how many other people who shared the same name as them had voted early. For example, one read, “Hey Emily, this is cool. You can see exactly how many other people called Emily have already voted.”

Having taken a look, users were then invited to send the link to their friends. “Now share it with some people you know—like
M
egan
, Tom, Carrie, Abby, Mo and Danny so they can see how many people with their names voted too.”

But just as people are often motivated to match the common behaviors of the groups to which they belong or want to belong, they are also motivated to avoid the common behaviors of those groups to which they don’t want to belong. In one fascinating examination of this idea, Jonah Berger, researcher and author of the bestselling book
Contagious
, together with Chip Heath, the bestselling coauthor of
Switch
and
Made to Stick
, examined how students in one college dormitory who had recently purchased a charity wristband would react to seeing that students in a comparatively “geeky” dormitory had adopted the practice of wearing the same wristband. To answer this question, they first had research assistants go door-to-door in the “target dorm” (i.e., the nongeeky one) offering the wristbands to students in exchange for making a donation of any amount to a certain charity. A week later, these research assistants did the same thing at a nearby “academic dorm”—one that had a reputation for being geeky because these students engaged in additional academic activities, such as taking extra courses and leading group discussions. The researchers knew that those in the target dorm would see those in the geeky dorm wearing the wristbands because the two dorms ate at the same dining hall.

It’s important to note that, at the same time research assistants were offering wristbands to the target dorm, they were also offering wristbands to a control dorm on the other side of campus. Although target dorm students were expected to interact with the students from the geeky dorm, neither set of students was expected to interact much with the control dorm students due to the distance between them.

The results were most revealing. The researchers found that following the purchase of the wristbands by the geeky dorm, there was a 32 percent decrease in the number of target dorm students who wore the wristband. How did the researchers know that this huge abandonment of the wristband was primarily due to these students wanting to avoid associating themselves with the geeky dorm, rather than simply becoming bored wearing the wristband? It turns out that there was only a 6 percent decrease in the number of control dorm students (the ones who didn’t interact with the geeky dorm students) who wore the wristband over the same time period.

Berger and Heath suggest that the motivation to disassociate oneself from groups is strongest when the behavior in question is openly public to other people. To test this idea, the researchers conducted another experiment, this time in the domain of food choice. They told some undergraduate participants that the biggest consumers of junk food on campus were undergraduates; others were told it was graduate students (a group with which undergrads typically don’t want to associate). The researchers then had the participants choose products to eat (some healthy and others junk food), either in public view of other participants or in private. Berger and Heath found that when the participants chose privately, there was no difference in the number that chose  junk food between those told that undergrads were the biggest consumers of junk food on campus and those told that it was grad students. However, when their behavior was made public to other undergraduates, the participants were far less likely to choose junk food when they were told that grad students were the biggest junk food consumers.

Taken together, this research suggests that companies looking to gain new market segments need to be careful to avoid situations in which adoption of the product by the new segment might cause its current users to abandon it in order to disassociate themselves from the new adopters. More generally, this research suggests that anyone looking to discourage certain behaviors—be it unhealthy eating, littering, or showing up late for work—should consider pairing those behaviors with an undesirable identity.

We are reminded of a recent television commercial that Samsung put out against its arch nemesis, Apple. It features a number of teenage Apple users waiting in line for the next iPhone. One person in line reveals that he recently bought a Samsung phone and that the only reason he’s on line is that he’s saving a spot for a couple of other people. A little later we learn the identities of the people for whom he was saving a spot. It turns out to be the people that teenagers definitely want to dissociate themselves from the most: their middle-aged parents!

I
n the previous chapters we described how the effectiveness of your proposition or request can be significantly improved by making a small shift in your message that signals to your audience that similar others are already behaving in desirable ways. We also provided evidence that if those people also share a social identity with your audience and belong to the same in-group, then your message will likely be more persuasive still. But there is another important consideration—one that might lead you to make another small change to your approach that could lead to a big effect. It concerns the framing of your message to reveal how common, or uncommon, the behavior you’re advocating is. Let’s take an example.

Imagine for a few minutes that a friend has the nasty habit of never covering his nose or mouth when he sneezes. Should you highlight the positive aspects of those who cover their faces when they sneeze, or would you be more effective if you instead emphasized the negative aspects of those who don’t?

Psychologist Hart Blanton and his colleagues believed that the successful framing of your message will depend on your friend’s perceptions of the relevant social norms. As we mentioned earlier, people are motivated to conform to social norms. Yet, people often seek to define themselves based on what makes them unique. This means that in situations in which they are led to think about the implications of their behavior for their identity, they are typically more attentive to the costs and benefits of deviating from, rather than conforming to, the perceived norm. Thus, attempts to influence other people’s actions should be more successful when messages are framed in terms of
deviating
from the perceived social norm rather than
conforming
to it.

For example, if your friend believes covering one’s face while sneezing is the norm, then a message framed to accentuate the negative characteristics of those who deviate from the perceived norm should be most effective (e.g., “Those who
don’t
cover their face when sneezing are very irresponsible”). However if he believes that not covering one’s face while sneezing is the norm, then a message framed to accentuate the positive characteristics of those who deviate from the perceived norm might work better (e.g., “Those who
do
cover their face are very responsible”).

In an experiment designed to test this hypothesis, Blanton and his colleagues asked study participants to read one of two newspaper articles in which the majority of students opting for flu shots was varied: One article claimed that most students were getting the shot, whereas the other claimed that the majority of students were
not
getting the shot. Next, the participants read a second article characterizing the behavior of those who do and don’t get flu shots. The message from this second article was framed one of two ways: Either the decision to get immunized was linked with positive characteristics (e.g., “Those who
do
get immunized are considerate of others”) or the decision not to get immunized was linked with negative characteristics (e.g., “Those who
don’t
get immunized are inconsiderate of others”).

Consistent with the researchers’ expectations, participants in the study were more influenced by the message that described the characteristics of people who deviated from, rather than conformed to, the norm: In other words, when participants thought most other students were getting flu shots, they were more persuaded by the message characterizing those who did
not
get flu shots, and when they thought most other students were
not
getting flu shots, they were more persuaded by the message characterizing those who
did
get flu shots.

This study provides a neat demonstration of how, by first informing people about the social norms of a behavior in question, your subsequent message can be improved by describing the characteristics of those who might deviate from it. A health club, keen to maintain high standards of cleanliness in its changing rooms, might point out to new members that most other members place their towels in the laundry baskets rather than leave them on the floor, and the few members who do not are being disrespectful to others. Recently hired employees might be informed during their orientation program that most of their colleagues accurately and honestly complete their expenses by the due date, and those who don’t are letting down their department. A newly diagnosed diabetic could be informed that most patients like them quickly get into the habit of checking their blood sugars before they drive, and the few who don’t could be putting other drivers at risk.

But wait a minute. With the gym member, new employee, and diabetic patient examples, as well as the flu shot study, the people being informed of the social norm of the situation really aren’t already aware of the norm. The question is, would a similar approach work for those individuals who have preexisting beliefs about how common or uncommon certain behaviors already are? It turns out that it can.

In a separate experiment that Blanton conducted with Regina Van den Eijnden and other researchers, study participants were first asked to report on their perceptions of certain healthy practices on their university campus. Two weeks later, they read a set of phony testimonials from other students that either ascribed positive traits (e.g., mature, smart) to those who do engage in healthy behaviors, or negative traits (e.g., immature, stupid) to those who don’t. The researchers found that the more common the participants perceived healthy practices to be, the more they were influenced by the message that negatively depicted those who do
not
have healthy habits. In contrast, the less common that the participants perceived healthy behaviors to be, the more they were influenced by the message that positively portrayed those who
do
have healthy habits.

This and other similar findings on the topic point to a small but important task that a communicator needs to undertake before deciding how to frame a persuasive message: Consider the audience’s perceptions of social norms before characterizing the behaviors that deviate from that norm.

Accordingly, when seeking to improve timekeeping and efficiencies in her office, an executive would be advised to consider her workers’ perceptions of how much of a problem it is when meetings start late. If the perception is that it’s a problem that occurs too often, then her message should focus on depicting the positive traits of those employees who do arrive in a timely fashion. However, if the common belief is that lateness isn’t too much of an issue, then her message should instead focus on the negative traits of latecomers.

More generally we hope that through the proper implementation of small and scientifically informed persuasion attempts, we can have a world in which people are healthier, coworkers are more compliant with your requests, and salad bar sneeze guards become totally unnecessary.