CLOSINGS

Persuasion

Introduction

From start to finish, persuasion is at the heart of negotiation. Even before the process begins, parties may have to be convinced to come to the table. Then when negotiation is underway, persuading counterparts of your trustworthiness is essential. And to close a deal at the end, other parties must be convinced that your proposal is better than what they can get elsewhere.

This module briefly summarizes important psychological research about persuasion. We’ll consider decision making—saying yes or no to a specific proposal—and how people regard one another more generally. A vast amount of work has been done in this realm. We can only sample a small portion of it. (The resources listed at the end of the module will give you a much deeper understanding of persuasion.)

 Right now, as you go through the material in this module, consider it from two complementary points of view:

• One is outward facing: What can you do and say to increase the probability that your counterpart will respond to you the way you would like?
• The second looks inward: What influences your own choices in negotiation—and do they sometimes subvert your own interests?

We’ll start with a short activity. If your birth year is an odd number (such as 1981), take Version A. If you were born in an even-numbered year, please take Version B. Click below to make your selection.

The next section of this module explains what the quiz reveals about persuasion. We’ll start with the first questions you answered the one about the Center for Disease Control scenario, and the other about finding or losing money). A bit later we’ll get to the sentence construction quiz.

Persuasion Science (in a nutshell)

Negotiation is a matter of give and take. To get what you want from another party, you typically must grant something of value to them. With any proposal you make, the benefits must outweigh the costs. Likewise, it will be acceptable to the other side only if it is also net positive for them, as well. It turns out, however, that many people aren’t very good at making those calculations. At the very least, they aren’t consistent.

In the quiz you just took, you had to make a hard choice about which plan the Centers for Disease Control should implement in response to the outbreak of a deadly disease. The great majority of people who took Version A of the quiz picked the first plan, but almost 90 percent of people who took Version B chose the second, even though the two options were exactly the same for everyone!

How could that be? You were asked to take Version A or B, according to your birth year. But it’s not that people born in even years think very differently than those born in odd ones. It’s only because the wording of the questions everyone saw varied somewhat. Here are both versions:

VERSION A

Plan A will result in 200 people being saved.
Plan B offers a one-third chance that 600 people will be saved and a two-thirds chance that noone will be saved.

VERSION B

Plan A will result in 400 people dying.
Plan B offers a one-third chance that no one will die and a two-thirds chance that 600 people will die.

Notice that the consequences are the same for the 600 afflicted people. Only the emphasis changes. In Version A, Plan A speaks of 200 people being saved, while Version B describes 400 people dying. When saving lives is cued, people gravitate towards that option. When death is featured, people avoid it. But the basic equation (200 survivors and 400 fatalities among the 600 patients) is the same either way.

It’s sobering to realize that life-and-death decisions can be swayed by the wording of the choice. It’s due to a common trait called “loss aversion,” first identified years ago by the late Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (author of the much more recent Thinking Fast and Slow). They developed the Disease Control scenario (and many others) for their research on decision biases that can tilt our thinking in lots of contexts. (Incidentally, from a purely “rational” point of view, all four options—A and B for both versions—have the same expected value: 200 people will live; 400 will die)

But how do these findings relate to negotiation? If you want to encourage someone to say yes to an offer, emphasize how doing so will help will help them avoid a loss. For example, let’s say a power company does energy audits for homeowners. When the survey is done, which statement is more likely to persuade people to purchase more insulation, number 1 or number 2?

1. If you re-insulate your home, you will save $100 a month.
2. If you fail to re-insulate your home, you will lose $100 a month.

Remember, losses count more psychologically than do equivalent gains, so the second formulation will garner more sales. But there is a way to increase the heft of potential gains.

Once again, the second question in the quiz was different in Versions A and B. Those who were born in even-numbered years were asked, which of these would make you somewhat happier?

Scenario X:  You are walking down the street and find a $20 bill.

Scenario Y: You are walking down the street and find a $10 bill.  The next day, as you are walking down a different street, you find another $10 bill.

A large majority of respondents say that the second option—finding $10 bills on successive days—would make them somewhat happier than simply finding a $20 bill once. That may not seem to make sense in economic terms—you get twenty dollars either way—but Scenario Y enables you to have two bursts of unexpected happiness.

By contrast, those born in odd-numbered years were asked about two options, both with a downside: Which of these would make you somewhat unhappier?

Scenario X:  You open your wallet and discover you have lost a $20 bill.

Scenario Y: You open your wallet and discover you have lost a $10 bill.  The following day, you lose another $10 bill.

Once again, the economic consequences are the same, but respondents to Version B strongly prefer being done with the loss of twenty dollars all at once.

On the basis of such studies, Harvard Business School Professor (and decision-making authority) Max Bazerman advises that, in crafting proposals, negotiators should “aggregate the other party’s losses and disaggregate their losses.” Bundling the losses into one item—big as it may be—is better than itemizing particular costs so that the other party doesn't feel that they are dying the death of a thousand cuts. By contrast, disaggregating the benefits—enumerating each and every one—generates a series of pleasant expectations.

Psychologist Robert Cialdini’s Yes: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive catalogs techniques for swaying people’s choices. He would build on Bazerman’s advice by adding the importance of explicitly stating the value of each thing that you offer. Let’s say a software company is willing to give away a computer security program in hopes of attracting new business. That might be smart advertising, he says, but don’t describe the product as free.

“If you fail to point out what it would cost customers if they had to pay for it themselves, you’re losing out on an effective way of positing your offer as value and significant. After all, if you write down ‘free,’ numerically the number is $0.00—not the message you would want . . . Much better if the offer reads: ‘Receive a $250 security program at no cost to you.’”

Cialdini also notes research that demonstrates how powerfully a modest request can lay the foundation for succeeding with a much bigger ask. He describes a study by Johnathan Freedman and Scott Fraser who wanted to see what it would take to persuade homeowners in a fancy neighborhood to allow the placement of a six-by-three-foot sign stating DRIVE CAREFULLY on their front lawns. And the sign was unsightly. Yet they ultimately were able to get 76 percent of the owners to agree.

What was the secret of their success? Two weeks earlier, they had gone to the same households and asked residents if they would place a small, inconspicuous sign in their windows that said BE A SAFE DRIVER. Almost everyone agreed. According to Cialdini, once they had committed themselves to a worthy cause, it was much harder for them to refuse the more onerous request.

It’s fair to ask whether these techniques are manipulative. In a literal sense, undoubtedly yes, as they are aimed at influencing another person’s decision. But whether doing so is unethical isn’t as clear-cut. There is unresolved controversy over the growing use of cognitive bias findings in formulating public policy, notably the so-called “status quo” bias.

For example, some European countries give citizens the option to donate their organs when they die. Where that’s the policy (in Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom), on average 15% of the population opt into the program. By contrast seven other countries (among them, Austria, France, and Sweden), presume that their citizens will donate, but give people an option to opt out. On average more than 95% stay in. Either way, the status quo carries great weight (as does social proof, the follow-the-crowd tendency).

The point is that whether in negotiation or in any other setting where decisions must be made, the way in which the choice is posed may well affect how people will respond. It does not seem inherently wrong to frame a proposal in a way that is beneficial to oneself, provided—and this is a big caveat—that information about the consequences has not been distorted or withheld. If that is valid, however, we must anticipate that others may permissibly frame their proposals so that we view the choice in a light that most favors them. It is our responsibility to consider whether choosing another perspective would lead us to a different conclusion.

Bear in mind, as well, that people’s impressions of favors depends on whether you are the giver or the receiver. Moreover, those impressions evolve over time. Cialdini cites researcher Francis Flynn who has found that “immediately after one person performs a favor for another, the recipient of the favor places more value on the favor than does the favor-doer. However, as time passes, the value of the favor decreases in the recipient’s eyes whereas for the favor-doer, it actually increases.”

As offers and counter-offers go back and forth, be prepared to resist your counterpart’s frame. I once witnessed a negotiation between a car salesman and a potential customer. They seemingly had agreed on a price, but at the last moment the salesman tried to add another item to the cost. It was the so-called “doc fee,” an extra charge of $300 for the paperwork that the dealership has to do to complete the transaction. The customer refused to pay, so the salesman brought him to the manager to work things out.

The conversation went something like this.

Customer: We agreed on the price. I’m not paying a dollar more.
Manager:  It’s a standard charge. Every dealer does it.
Customer: I don’t care. We shook hands. A deal is a deal.
Manager: If you don’t pay the $300, it will come out of the salesman’s pocket.

The manager and the customer were standing toe-to-toe, at that point. The salesman likely hoped that the customer, already committed to paying five figures for the vehicle, wouldn’t let $300 get in the way of sealing the deal. He was playing the loss aversion card, two of them in fact: the customer’s loss of the time already spent negotiating and the anticipated pleasure of having a new car. On top of that the manager was asking the customer to be fair to the lowly salesman.

Take a few seconds to think about what you would say under those circumstances, then click here to see how this customer responded.

Manager: If you don’t pay the $300, it will come out of the salesman’s pocket.
Customer: Yeah, but if I do pay, the $300 will come out of my pocket.

Perhaps you came up with an even better retort, but this one worked. The manager waived the doc fee. But note what the manager was trying to do (and which may have worked with other customers). He was trying to persuade the customer to pay the extra amount—not to him or to the dealership—but to the salesman. If you stop to think about it, the manager was asking the customer to be more generous towards the salesman than he himself was willing to be!

We have looked at loss aversion and, in passing, the status quo bias. Others cognitive biases come into negotiation, as well. For example, most of us are overconfident about the accuracy our judgments. If we’re asked where Coca-Cola ranks on the Fortune 500 list or the number of grandparents in the United States, we know our guesses could be wrong, but we wildly underestimate how wrong we often are.

Likewise, in negotiation you need to make judgments about other party’s perceptions and values. Your reading of the other party will establish the baseline for formulating your strategy to reach agreement. Beware of being overly confident that you’re addressing their true interests. Constantly test your own assumptions about other parties and imagine other possibilities.

When issues of principle are involved, a big mistake that you can make is framing your argument in terms of your own values, rather than those of your counterpart is a big mistake. Sociologists Robb Willer and Matthew Feinberg presented liberals and conservatives with one or two messages supporting same-sex marriage. One version emphasized equal rights, a principle of fairness prized by liberals. The other described same-sex couples as “proud and patriotic Americans” who “contribute to the American economy and society.” As you might expect, liberals supported both messages equally. With conservatives, however, including the patriotic phrases made a positive difference.

In hindsight, that effect may not seem surprising, but in a parallel experiment Willer and Feinberg created a contest in which liberals could win a cash prize for writing the best argument for persuading a conservative to support same-sex marriage. Only nine percent of liberals made statements that appealed to conservative values, while 69 percent made arguments that were confined to their own values. (Lest you think that the researchers were partisan themselves, other studies they did on increasing military spending—a priority of many conservatives—showed exactly the same kind of myopia.)

Here’s the punchline: a persuasive argument must appeal to your counterpart’s interests and values, not your own. Reasons that you find compelling may be irrelevant—even repugnant—to them, as research by Matthew Feinberg and Robb Willer have described in their article “From Gulf to Bridge.”

Shaping the Relationship

Here’s a challenge. You are a skillful negotiator. It’s a hot summer afternoon and you’re on a crowded city busy inching its way along in rush hour. Every seat is taken and you’re standing, as are lots of other people. How do you get to sit?

Let’s make it harder. You’re carrying nothing of value. No money. No candy. No magazine. You have nothing to trade. So, what do you say to the person right in front of you? You might ask, “Could I have your seat?” but what’s the chance the answer will be yes? Ten percent? A little better than that? Or even worse?

Whatever the odds are, adding seven words—one in particular—that will significantly increase your chances. Click here to see the full sentence.

Being Persuaded Yourself (Without Knowing It)

At the beginning of this module, you took a short quiz. Some of Version A’s questions were different from those in Version B, but everyone saw the same question three (the one that asked you to make a four-word sentence out of random sets of five words each). It was not a test of your creativity or your fluency. Instead, the question was there to introduce you to psychological primes, words that can affect your mood and behavior. The question is from an experiment by John Bargh of New York University and his colleagues.

Here’s the list again, with particular words highlighted. Do you see the pattern?

For many people, the words subtly suggest old age and weariness. They had a powerful, unconscious effect: subjects in Bargh’s experiment walked out of the lab more slowly than they had walked in! A parallel experiment demonstrated how subliminal cues not only affect us physically, but socially as well. Here the researchers primed two groups with different sets of words. One group saw these: aggressively, bold, rude, bother, disturb, and infringe. The second group read these terms: respect, considerate, appreciate, patiently, yield, polite, courteous.

Subjects were then instructed to go to another office to pick up the next assignment. (A stooge was in the way, casually chatting with the administrator.) People in the first group—who had seen words like aggressively—interrupted the conversation in five minutes, on average. But 82 percent of people in the second group never interrupted in 10 minutes. And all these subjects were from New York!

When you go to a meeting or a negotiation, you will hear snatches of conversation or bits of a story on the radio along the way. No single word is likely to change your mood, but the general tone of what you hear potentially tilts your outlook and behavior. So do the random thoughts that pass through your mind. Most certainly, so does what we hear during a negotiation session. There is no way to backtrack and find the source of all your feelings and responses, but it pays to be mindful of your disposition and whether it serves your interests. Moreover, according to Robert Cialdini’s book Pre-suasion, there are things that you can do or say before you make a request or float a proposal that can increase the likelihood you’ll get the answer you want.

Question four in the quiz illustrates ways in in which you can persuade yourself to be a more effective negotiator. It’s based on an experiment by Adam Galinsky and his colleagues. They told subjects to write quick notes to themselves before doing a negotiation simulation. One group got the instruction that you saw if you took Version A of the quiz. The second group received the instruction that you read if you took Version B.

Version A encourages positive behavior. It focuses on aspirations, hopes, and accomplishment. It reads:

Imagine that you have an important negotiation coming up. Take a moment to think about the kinds of negotiation behaviors and outcomes you hope to achieve. Now, jot down a few reminders so that you can make them happen.

Version B is more defensive. It focuses on safety, risks, and responsibilities. It reads:

Imagine that you have an important negotiation coming up. Take a moment to think about the kinds of negotiation behaviors and outcomes you hope to avoid. Now, jot down a few reminders so you can prevent them from happening.

As you’d expect, the positive “promoters” made bolder demands than did the more cautious “preventers,” as Galinsky’s team labelled the two groups. While the former concentrated on what they could accomplish, the latter thought about how they could fail. But there was a bonus: when promotion-primed negotiators were primed up against one another, they created far more value than did pairs of prevention-primed people. Those in the latter group tended to accept anything that met their minimum needs, while the promoters pushed harder for their real priorities instead of just compromising. As a result, they were more likely to spot mutually beneficial trades.