It’s good to see persuasion in the news, if only for all the wrong reasons.
There is nothing like a nasty little pandemic to bring the age-old question of persuasion versus coercion back to the forum.
The announcement at the beginning of the week by the prime minister that social isolation will be enforced by punishment if persuasion fails provides a useful opportunity to consider whether physical coercion is ever the most effective way of controlling the behaviour of people and what are the other options, if any, in times of crisis.
Persuasion and punishment are not two mutually exclusive options to manipulate the masses, and it can be argued that punishment is a form of persuasion, much in the manner of Carl von Clausewitz who famously described war as diplomacy by other means. There is an irony here, at least for those who dabble in philosophy, because there is a hint of the closet libertarian about Clausewitz, but I digress, that is another blog.
Punishment can initially appear to be a very efficient method of changing behaviours but when you examine it closely its effectiveness, like any form of coercion, has considerable weaknesses and limitations.
Punishment works on the basis that we all have an instinct to avoid loss or pain, or loss aversion as it is often known. The more we sense pain or loss the greater our desire and efforts to avoid them and when threatened with punishment our natural tendency is to comply. However, this effect only exists if we are constantly aware of the punishment and, more to the point, believe that if we transgress we will actually be caught and punished.
Once we no longer perceive the harsh hand of retribution looming over us our sense of obligation to comply starts to diminish. The less likely we are to feel the pain, the less likely will we feel the need to obey.
This makes punishment a high maintenance form of persuasion. You need surveillance and boots on the ground to sustain any compliance over even small periods of time, and that runs the risk of alienating the very people any law or rule was designed to benefit or protect, once this happens the threat of punishment is frequently counter-productive.
The best forms of persuasion, measured in effectiveness and durability, do not depend on fear or coercion but instead rely on the willing agreement and commitment of people to behave in a manner that achieves mutual benefit for all. The goal of seeking mutual benefit has the advantage of becoming increasingly attractive the closer the goal comes to being realized, allowing the persuasive effect to be effortlessly self-sustaining. This is one of the effects of a positive bias, when the nearer we get to reaching our goals the more we are motivated to increase our efforts to achieve them.
Unfortunately we can’t just make a wish for persuasion to happen, or just expect unknown powers of the universe to intervene. It requires a conscious effort and a little bit of thought; for the best results we need the application of a few well-tried techniques from the Influence and persuasion cookbook.
Persuasion is very difficult without some of the attributes of influence. At the very least you need to be trusted, in so far people need to believe you are not dishonest, and you need to be trusted, in so far people believe you are capable of maintaining your side of the bargain or agreement. Without these two core attributes you might just as well try to scale an iceberg without crampons and an ice axe. However smooth your tongue, however slick your choice of words, without these basic facets of influence, your message will fall on disinterested ears.
But even with influence it matters how you construct your message if you want it to be compelling and persuasive.
There are many ways of making a message compelling such as highlighting positive outcomes, known as positive framing, or talking about what a peer group does, often referred to as positive framing. And there are a few techniques that verge on the dark arts, those that subtly elicit compliance and activate the imagination that give a message a hidden appeal. They can all be combined to reach agreement and obtain compliance that is durable and sustainable without coercion.
Social proof is highly effective, it is the herd effect of wanting to conform, of wanting to do what all the other people are doing, or better still what other people like us are doing. Care must always be used in social proof to avoid highlighting what you don’t want people to do, it can backfire spectacularly.
Positive framing is all about describing something in terms of its positive aspects, it’s as simple as that. It is highly effective. In an experiment concerning the outcome of a treatment for a disease with a high mortality rate stating the positive outcome had a startling outcome on how people perceived it. When the treatment was described as saving 200 out of 600 lives, 72% of people thought the treatment was good. When the treatment was described as one where 400 out of 600 people would die, then only 22% of treatment was good. This illustrates how the choice between two correct descriptions can significantly impact the attractiveness of whatever is being proposed.
There are many other techniques available for making messages and arguments compelling without using threat or fear. They have the advantage of working well together to exponentially enhance their appeal and can be extremely powerful. So next time you need others to agree and comply remember the pen really is more powerful than the sword, literally.