0:00

Back in 2003, a London-based

0:03

advertising agency had a

0:05

problem. They were tasked with

0:07

creating a brand for a new dessert

0:09

company launching imminently in the UK. But

0:11

the team at the ad agency were

0:14

petrified. The last few pitches they

0:16

had presented failed dramatically. They couldn't

0:19

persuade their clients, they couldn't sell

0:21

their ideas, and in a

0:23

last-ditch attempt to save the company,

0:25

they tried something totally radical. A

0:27

completely new type of pitch, a

0:30

pitch they hoped would persuade. Today,

0:33

world-leading neuroscientist Tally Sherritt tells

0:35

me why their radical approach

0:37

made sense. All of

0:40

that coming up after this quick break. Now,

0:45

before I share, if the ad agency won

0:48

the pitch, I first need

0:50

to explain the psychology behind persuasion. See,

0:52

effective persuasion isn't something that comes naturally

0:54

to us. Today, Tally Sherritt,

0:56

bestselling author and neuroscientist at

0:58

the University College London, explains

1:00

how most of our attempts

1:02

at persuasion backfire. There's

1:05

a lot of things that we

1:07

do automatically, which actually are really

1:09

bad for us if we want to persuade someone.

1:11

Like, one thing that we tend to do in

1:14

a disagreement, and I mean, you see this all

1:16

the time on social

1:18

media especially, is to

1:20

come to someone and say, look, you're wrong and

1:22

I'm right. Here, I'm going to now explain to

1:24

you why I'm right and you're wrong, and here's

1:27

the data, here's the figures, and here's the science.

1:29

Okay, so we see this is really a terrible

1:32

approach because what we

1:34

have shown in our studies, looking

1:36

as well at doing brain imaging

1:38

scans, is that when

1:41

people are interacting

1:43

with others who disagree with them, they

1:46

tend to shut down. They stop

1:48

encoding the information coming from the

1:50

disagreeing partner, and so it has

1:52

little impact on them. However,

1:55

if someone is agreeing

1:57

with you, then you're much more open

1:59

to... taking the information, right, that other

2:01

kind of little bits of information that

2:03

you're sending them, we look at the

2:05

brand and we see really good encoding

2:07

of information coming from agreeing partners. And

2:10

so I think the suggestion here is that

2:13

always start from common ground. What

2:15

is it you always have something in common with someone

2:17

always, you know, it could be a motivation that you

2:19

have in common and goal, you know, maybe it's at

2:22

work, so you both have the same goal,

2:24

the project to be successful. You

2:26

might just both be, you know, parents or

2:28

some other thing that's common. And if you

2:30

start with that, the other person will see

2:33

you as an agreeing partner and more likely

2:35

to take in the information that

2:37

you give them. Imagine you're

2:39

in an argument about how to vote at the

2:41

next election. Something most of

2:43

us do is we highlight our differences.

2:46

We say, how could you believe that?

2:48

Or you'd be stupid to vote for

2:51

them. But Talley's research

2:53

shows that showcasing our differences

2:56

only backfires. Instead, we

2:58

should highlight our similarities. We

3:00

should say, look, we grew

3:02

up in the same town. We know what it's

3:04

like to live without much. Voting

3:07

for them, it could really help people like us.

3:10

Of course, this is all a bit hypothetical. So

3:12

I asked Talley to share some hard evidence

3:14

on persuasion. There's another

3:16

great study actually that was

3:19

conducted where specifically they tried

3:21

to change parents' intentions of

3:23

vaccinating their kids. These

3:25

were for childhood vaccines. So some

3:28

parents don't want to vaccinate their kids because

3:30

of the alleged link to autism. And

3:33

they go to the physician office. The

3:36

doctor says, look, you're wrong. There's no

3:38

connection between the two. Here's the studies. Let me

3:41

show you the papers. And it turns out that

3:43

this has a very small effect on parents' intentions

3:45

of vaccinating their kids because they already have a

3:47

strong opinion. And so they're not really listening. But

3:50

then a group of scientists at

3:53

UCLA said, well, can we change

3:55

parents' intentions of vaccinating their kids

3:57

not by focusing on what we disagree

3:59

on? which is a relationship to autism,

4:01

but focus on what we agree on. And

4:04

so what they did is they highlighted that these

4:06

vaccines are protective. They're

4:09

protective from the measles, from rubella,

4:11

right? And that approach was

4:13

much more successful and the parents agreed with

4:15

it but they seem to have been forgotten,

4:18

right? They forgot this in the heat of

4:20

the debate and by focusing on that, they

4:22

were three times more likely to change parents'

4:24

intentions vaccinate their kids, right? So you want

4:27

to focus on common ground. Parents were

4:29

three times more likely to vaccinate their

4:31

kids if the doctors focused the conversation

4:33

on topics that both parents

4:36

and doctors agreed with. Honing

4:38

in on points of agreement appears

4:40

to boost persuasion even for those

4:42

of differing political beliefs. Nina

4:44

Mazar and Dalip Somman in their book, Behavior

4:47

Science in the Wild, share studies that highlight

4:49

this very point. Notoriously in

4:51

the US, Republican voters are less

4:53

likely to support climate change policies.

4:56

However, one study showed a surprisingly

4:58

simple way to convince a Republican

5:00

to change their views. The

5:03

solution is to match the

5:05

environmental plea with the Republicans'

5:08

identity. For instance, Republicans

5:10

donated more to the Environmental

5:12

Defense Fund, which is a

5:14

pro-environment climate change initiative, when

5:17

they saw messages reflecting patriotism

5:19

and love for their country.

5:22

They donated far, far less when they

5:24

saw messages emphasizing harm, fairness

5:26

and justice. This all

5:28

goes back to Talley's points, which is

5:31

always start with common ground. Republicans are

5:33

patriotic, they have a love for their

5:35

country, so messages that reflect that perform

5:38

better. Talley's adamant that

5:40

focusing on similarities is the key

5:42

to persuasion. Instead of

5:44

telling people what to do to say, this

5:46

is what you need to choose, right? Give

5:49

them a choice. Give them a sense

5:51

that they are making the choice themselves. People

5:53

like to have agency, they like to have

5:55

a choice. And

5:58

it's a better approach to kind of... slightly

6:01

nudge people in the right direction rather than

6:04

telling them what they need to do. And

6:07

of course you don't want to give them

6:09

too many options. We all know about the

6:11

famous jam experiment where people given, you know,

6:13

60 different jams to choose from, people were

6:15

overwhelmed, they left the supermarket empty-handed by two

6:17

or three options is a good amount. And

6:19

what we and many many of those people

6:21

have shown is that once you make a

6:23

choice yourself you rationalize why

6:25

it's a good one and then you're

6:28

more motivated, right, to go along

6:30

with that option. But you have to do it

6:32

yourself, you can't have someone else choose

6:34

for you. Tally's fairly confident on

6:37

this point. To win an argument, to

6:39

convince someone, do not tell

6:41

them what to do. Instead, you

6:43

must ensure they feel in control.

6:45

To prove this, researchers

6:47

from Carnegie Mellon University recruited

6:49

hundreds of people to discuss

6:51

controversial topics like abortion, religion

6:53

and immigration. The researchers paired

6:55

participants with partners who held

6:57

opposing views. Then one

6:59

participant was asked to convince the other

7:02

of their point of view. However, there

7:04

was a twist, half of the persuaders were told

7:06

to convince the partner as they normally would. The

7:09

other half were told to include a

7:11

short note at the end of their

7:13

pitch. They were to say, while

7:15

I believe that I have thought carefully about

7:18

this issue, I'm not completely convinced I'm right.

7:20

So feel free to make up your own

7:22

mind. You might think that adding this short

7:24

note at the end of an argument would

7:26

be less convincing, but it's not.

7:29

The partners who added this short

7:31

note were far more effective at

7:33

persuading those with opposing views. Why?

7:36

Because they are following Tally's advice. They're

7:39

not telling their partner what they must

7:41

do. Instead, they're giving their partner agency

7:43

to make their own choice. Look,

7:46

psychological studies can uncover better ways

7:48

to persuade, but sharing similarities and

7:50

offering agency, that is just the

7:52

start. Here's Tally with another

7:55

tip. the

8:00

majority is doing, right? We kind

8:02

of are social creatures. We wanna know what the majority

8:04

is doing. That has an impact

8:06

on what we think is valuable, what

8:09

we think is true. Depending

8:11

on who, what the situation is,

8:14

using data is not necessarily a bad

8:17

approach, but you want to

8:19

pair it with a narrative, right? So data

8:21

on its own is really good for us

8:23

to figure out what the truth is, but

8:25

it's not necessarily the best approach if

8:27

someone has a different opinion than

8:30

what the data is showing, as we just mentioned.

8:32

But if you share a narrative

8:35

that illustrates the data, right, the

8:37

story, especially if that story

8:39

has an emotional component to it, people are

8:41

more likely to attend. They're more likely to

8:43

encode what you're saying, and therefore also more

8:45

likely to be influenced. So

8:47

use data, but only if you accompany

8:49

that data with a narrative, and also

8:52

mention what the majority are doing. Like

8:54

Tali says, we're social creatures. When we

8:56

form an opinion, more often than not,

8:58

we form that opinion because we are

9:01

following the crowd. Sean Taylor, a PhD

9:03

graduate from NYU, has studied this in

9:05

the world of product reviews. He's

9:07

measured how the first review that

9:09

appears for an Amazon product dramatically

9:11

influences all of the following reviews.

9:13

In his study, he manipulated the

9:15

ratings so that the first review

9:17

of a product was glowing, and

9:19

he found that the likelihood of other positive

9:22

reviews increased by 32% and

9:24

boosted the final rating of the product by 25% just

9:28

because they saw a glowing positive review

9:30

first. Tali in her book

9:32

writes how this is a difference between

9:34

a restaurant with an average rating and

9:36

one with a phenomenal rating. It's

9:38

not down to the food, the service, or

9:41

the ambiance. It's down to

9:43

the positivity or negativity of that

9:45

first review. It's clear that

9:47

our opinions are swayed by others. Okay,

9:50

time for a quick break, but keep

9:53

listening, because after I'll cover more tips

9:55

to sway opinion and share that radical

9:57

advertising agency pitch. Okay,

10:02

welcome back to the show. You're listening to

10:05

Nudge with me Phil Agnew. So far, Tally

10:07

shared how to alter someone's opinion. But

10:09

I wondered how people form opinions

10:11

to begin with. So I asked

10:13

Tally, how do people form opinions?

10:16

First of all, we just kind of observe

10:18

what's around us, right? And so if we

10:21

happen to be in a certain environment where

10:23

people hold certain beliefs or engage in certain

10:25

behaviors, we're unlikely to believe the

10:27

same thing. So people who grow up in

10:29

religious environments are more likely to believe in

10:31

God. People who grow up in liberal environments

10:33

are more likely to have

10:35

liberal points of view. So that's

10:38

just the influence of our environment.

10:40

But once those influences kick in, and

10:42

they kick in very, very early on, right, that

10:45

then changes our filter. That

10:48

kind of creates this prior, right? And

10:50

now we're going to look at the

10:52

world from those lenses, from

10:55

these priors. And that does

10:57

two things. One thing it does, it causes

11:00

a confirmation bias, which is we

11:02

are then more likely to take

11:04

in information that confirms those views,

11:07

and we'll be more skeptical of information

11:09

that disconfirms it. It

11:11

doesn't mean that we can't change our minds. It's

11:13

not that common, I have to say. But

11:16

you can change your mind that the evidence

11:18

is overwhelming, right? But it just takes more.

11:20

It takes more evidence to move you, shove

11:22

you in the opposite direction than just to

11:24

make you more confident of your own direction.

11:26

So that's one thing. And the other kind

11:28

of filter that we have is, is this

11:31

evidence isn't good for me? Do I want

11:33

to believe that? Does it create a positive

11:35

belief for me? So for example, like, evidence

11:38

that is consistent with your ego, evidence that

11:40

suggests, you know, you're great,

11:42

you're attractive, you're smart, you're going

11:44

to succeed, you know, is

11:46

much easier for us to take in. And not only

11:48

about ourselves, about our group. And

11:51

then evidence that is goes against what we

11:53

want to be true, what we want to

11:55

be true about our future and about the

11:57

future of, you know, our family and our

11:59

group. if it goes against

12:01

that, we are more likely to dismiss it.

12:03

And again, it's something that we dismiss everything.

12:06

It's just kind of, it's a ratio, right?

12:09

And that because if this ratio exists

12:11

by which we take in the positive

12:13

unexpected news relative to the

12:15

negative unexpected news, that creates these

12:18

biases in our beliefs, these kind

12:20

of slightly unrealistic beliefs about our

12:22

own abilities and what we

12:24

should expect from the world. I'm

12:26

just gonna reiterate Tally's point here. We

12:29

are more likely to take in information

12:31

that confirms our existing views, and we

12:33

are more skeptical of information that disconfirms

12:35

existing views. This is

12:38

confirmation bias. We seek views that confirm

12:40

our own. Tally's book, Influential

12:42

Mind, makes this point eloquently by

12:44

citing a Lord, Rod and Leper

12:47

study. In this study, the three

12:49

researchers found 48 Americans who

12:51

either strongly agreed or opposed the

12:54

death penalty. These 48 Americans

12:56

were presented with two scientific

12:58

studies. One offered evidence

13:01

proving the effectiveness of capital punishment.

13:04

The other showed evidence proving its

13:06

ineffectiveness. Now, in reality, both studies

13:08

were fabricated, but the 48 Americans

13:11

didn't know that. What

13:13

the researchers wanted to find was whether

13:15

or not they believed the studies. And

13:17

it turns out these 48 Americans did,

13:21

but only when the studies

13:23

reinforced their original views. Those

13:26

who strongly supported capital punishment believed the

13:28

studies that were in favor of it,

13:31

and those who opposed capital punishment

13:33

believed the opposing studies. The

13:36

takeaway here is that using data and

13:38

studies to persuade, it will only make

13:40

people believe their current point of view

13:42

more. Just like Tally says,

13:44

we all experience confirmation bias, and

13:46

we seek information that matches our

13:48

beliefs. But Tally shared

13:50

at the start of the show three

13:53

ways to beat confirmation bias. You need

13:55

to highlight common ground, show

13:57

what the majority do, don't tell

13:59

someone what... to believe and importantly

14:01

make your partner feel in control.

14:04

Here's why. I mean, this is really

14:06

the number one thing that your brain is trying to do.

14:09

It's trying to control its environment to gain

14:11

reward and avoid harm. Because

14:14

on average, when you're in control, you're going

14:16

to gain the rewards and you're going to

14:18

avoid the harm. And so anytime that we

14:20

feel we're in control and we feel we

14:22

have agency, that enhances our well-being. We feel

14:24

good. When we feel our agency

14:26

has been restricted, that causes anxiety. And

14:29

that's one reason why people are quite anxious on

14:31

planes. Not only because they

14:33

feel the worst, but because they feel

14:35

they don't have control. Where's, when is a

14:38

light going to get there? What am I

14:40

going to eat? Right. And in

14:42

fact, if you look at our fears, we

14:45

fear a lot of things that are unlikely

14:47

to harm us, but are

14:49

not under our control. So

14:51

some of the greatest fears that people

14:53

have are spiders. The likelihood of dying

14:55

from a spider is very, very low.

14:58

More lightning, very low likelihood of

15:00

someone dying from lightning. That's

15:03

another fear. Plane crashes, not

15:05

under control, but very, very rare as

15:07

well. So if you look at those things that people

15:09

fear the most, they always like, they seem

15:11

a little bit ridiculous. And then if you look at

15:13

the things that actually kill us, people

15:15

are not afraid of them. Right? Because

15:18

like the things that kill you is car accidents, really

15:20

up there. But when we get in the car, we

15:22

feel we're in control. Where in fact, we are not

15:24

in control. There's so many cars around us. We have

15:26

really little control of what's going to happen. But we

15:29

feel we're in control. So we're not afraid of

15:31

driving ourselves on average. Eating

15:33

red meat, you don't like eat a steak

15:35

and go into like anxiety attacks. Right? Despite

15:38

the fact that this kind of food is a

15:40

huge thing that enhances

15:43

the likelihood of having heart problems,

15:45

which is one of the number one

15:47

reasons for people dying as

15:49

well as smoking. People who

15:51

smoke are not fearful every time they put a

15:53

cigarette. It's their choice. They're in control. One

15:56

of the reasons, one of the factors up

15:58

there that is like. to decrease

16:01

your lifespan. So

16:03

anytime when people feel in control,

16:05

their well-being is enhanced,

16:07

they're happier, they're more into whatever

16:11

it is, the negotiation, the project.

16:14

And so we always want to think

16:16

about how can we enhance the other

16:18

people's sense of control and

16:20

not restricted. And it's true in your

16:22

team when you're working, but it's also

16:24

true at home with children, really

16:27

helpful to give them a sense of

16:29

control. Instead of telling them, eat the salad, tell them,

16:31

do you want to make the salad? Instead of saying,

16:34

eat the carrot, say, do you want to eat the

16:36

carrot or the cucumber? You choose. We

16:38

like that feeling of control. This

16:40

is well-documented and visible in all sorts

16:43

of behavior. One study

16:45

from Taliesburg found that 84%

16:47

of investors said they favored

16:49

investing domestically, even though

16:51

the survey was conducted in a part of

16:53

the world where investing domestically was not the

16:56

optimal decision. Why is this? Well, the researchers

16:58

concluded that it's down to control. The

17:00

closer the money, the safer people feel. And

17:03

when it comes to persuasion, the same is

17:05

true. In one of my favorite studies, which

17:07

some of you who have listened for a

17:09

while will have heard before, the researchers tried

17:11

to persuade fellow bus passengers to pay for

17:13

a stranger's fare. Nicholas Gagan and

17:15

Alexandra Pascal ran studies at 40

17:17

different bus stops across France. The

17:19

researchers asked fellow commuters for some

17:21

money to pay for the fare.

17:24

Half were asked normally. They said, sorry,

17:26

madame, or sorry, sir, would you have some

17:28

coins to take the bus, please? The

17:32

other half were asked in the exact

17:34

same way, but with one extra point.

17:36

Sorry, madame, sorry, sir, would you have some coins

17:38

to take the bus, please? And then

17:41

added, but you are free

17:43

to accept or refuse. This one

17:45

extra line helped shift the control.

17:47

It gave the fellow commuter all

17:49

the autonomy. By shifting the control,

17:52

it increased donations by four

17:54

times. Just that one

17:56

extra line was incredibly persuasive, which

17:58

brings us to the next question. back to the

18:00

ad agency and their radical attempt to

18:03

win that dessert client. Dave

18:05

Trott shares precisely what they did in

18:07

his book, Predatory Thinking. As

18:09

a reminder, the client wanted a new brand

18:11

for his startup dessert company. A

18:13

few weeks had passed since the request and the

18:16

client had heard nothing. Eventually

18:18

the dessert CEO called the ad agency

18:20

asking them what was taking them so

18:22

long. The ad agency said,

18:24

we've got bad news. They said,

18:26

we're sorry, but someone else has already done it.

18:29

They've got virtually the same product, virtually

18:31

the same positioning, everything. Look,

18:34

we can show you their designs now. After

18:36

inviting the client in, the account manager said,

18:39

you wanted a stylish, classy

18:41

chocolate pudding, deliciously gooey at

18:43

premium, right? Well, they've already gone

18:45

and done it. It's called Goo.

18:47

It's perfect. It's Scandinavian, a bit

18:50

like Hargandash. The client's face fell.

18:53

He was shell shocked. He said, I can't

18:55

believe it. That's exactly what I wanted. And

18:58

just as the client's head fell into his

19:00

hands, the account manager said, well,

19:03

it's not all bad news. You see,

19:06

we made the story up. There's not

19:08

another company out there competing with you.

19:10

There's no other pudding company with this

19:12

brand. In fact, this is the

19:14

brand we want to offer you. The

19:17

name, the packaging, the positioning, it's all

19:19

yours if you want it. The

19:21

client, he couldn't have been more relieved.

19:23

He instantly agreed to go forward with

19:25

the brand and the ad agency reversed

19:27

months of failed pitches, simply

19:29

by applying some of Talley's tactics. They

19:31

highlighted how they shed common ground, an

19:33

annoyance at another company beating them to

19:36

it. They didn't tell the client what

19:38

to do. And in the

19:40

end, they gave him all the control. Fortunately,

19:43

these persuasion tactics worked because Goo grew

19:45

to be one of the best selling

19:47

premium pudding brands in Europe, with the

19:49

CEO selling the company eventually for £35

19:51

million. And

19:53

that's all because one account manager didn't

19:56

try to persuade by telling someone what

19:58

to think, But instead... By

20:00

giving the clients control. Now.

20:03

That is all for today. The site

20:05

of Notch but if you want more,

20:07

I have made one more bonus episode

20:10

with talent and that bonus episode tally

20:12

gives me career advice, sharing evidence backed

20:14

studies on whether or not I should

20:16

take a certain major decision in my

20:18

life. For anyone who is about to

20:21

make a major life decision, maybe a

20:23

career change or affirmation, this episode is

20:25

well worth a listen. It is clear

20:27

scientifically backed advice on whether these major

20:29

life decisions actually make people happy. To.

20:32

Get Access! It's pretty simple. Just click the

20:34

link in the show notes of today's episode.

20:36

Drop in your email address and you'll be

20:38

sent directly to that. Bonus Upside: So to

20:41

the show nights, click the link and access

20:43

at bonus episode tallied genuinely says research on

20:45

what makes a good nice not even join

20:47

Today's upset with Tally. You will love her!

20:49

New book that again is co offered by

20:51

Cass Sunstein anti Sarah and A is one

20:53

of the best books on Psychology I have

20:56

read. If you want to pick up a

20:58

copy to search for, look again wherever you

21:00

get your books or click the link. In

21:02

the senate that is over this week. Fact I have

21:04

you enjoyed this have sites and I hope you will

21:06

do.