Neil Young wrote it and sang it with Buffalo Springfield  (YouTube).  The opening lyric exactly expresses the act of persuasion.

Oh hello, Mr. Soul, I dropped by to pick up a reason.
For the thought that I’d caught in my head is the event of the season.
Why in crowds just a trace of my face should seem so pleasin’.
I’ll cop to the change but a stranger is putting the tease on.

“A stranger is putting the tease on” nicely sings the Rule:

All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere.

P.S.  Hey, kids.  Neil Young, the artist, is a stranger putting the tease on.  Consider that.

P.P.S. Guitar players know why the song riff sounds like a couple of Rolling Stones songs (Satisfaction, Let’s Spend the Night Together), plus other near hits. It’s in E with a movement from B to C# to D, a classic blues boogie line. You can show newbies that trick and within a couple of minutes they sound like a blues man. It’s hard to get good on guitar (just listen to me play!), but it’s easy to get okay which explains why you see so many guitars in people’s houses.

If you’re a Do Gooder a key application of Do Gooding is with  intolerance, discrimination, and prejudice.  You want Other Guys to play nice regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, ice cream preference, and on and on with the litany of ways we differ from one another.  Hmmmm.  How do we get the Other Guys to Do Good?

The Sincere approach is to know that as a Do Gooder you’ve got Right on your side, so go forth boldly, Do Good speaking Truth to Intolerance and away you go, the Good, Done.  Except such Do Gooding rarely Does Good and indeed, as we will see, makes things Worse.  Almost like an ancient Greek tale, er, meme, where Do Good leads to Done Bad.

Consider this extended example from a test brochure given to Canadians to combat prejudice.

Cracking Down on Prejudice in Our Society

In today’s society, you must control prejudice. In other words, being Canadian means having an anti-prejudiced attitude.  For instance, The Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act prohibits discrimination in employment based on the grounds of race, color, ancestry, place of origin, religious beliefs . . .  Employers have an obligation to create a ‘no prejudice’ workplace, and companies face legal liability for workplace prejudice or discrimination.  The same standards are being set in the education domain.  In fact, a recent government policy initiative by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada requires that educators demand anti-prejudice classrooms. Teachers and students caught displaying racist attitudes and behavior can face serious consequences, such as termination or expulsion . . . There are also social perks to controlling racism – for instance, low prejudiced people tend to be better liked than racists.  The better we are at reducing prejudice, the more we are likely to fit in with today’s antiprejudice norms.  Research studies reveal that people with prejudiced attitudes are at risk of being excluded or ostracized.  In one recent study, most people reported that their social groups at work and at school disapproved of prejudice and racism, and people feared being looked down upon if they made prejudiced or racist remarks . . .  In today’s multicultural society, we should all be less prejudiced.  We should all refrain from negative stereotyping.  It is, after all, the politically and socially correct thing to do, and it’s something that society demands of us.

Now, you may chose to rewrite portions of this excerpt that you find heavy handed, charmless, or bleak, but if you don’t change the persuasion force behind the words, you will fail at Do Gooding and make things worse.  The key problem with this brochure is the Attributional impact it has.  The motivation for tolerance comes not from an Internal Attribution to ourselves, but rather from an External Attribution from social norms and potential punishment from other people.

Legault, Gutsell, and Inzlicht (pdf) randomly assigned Canadian students to different brochures in their persuasion experiment that tested Attributional force – Internal versus External – for its effect on attitudes.  Participants either got that External Attribution like the excerpt above or an Internal Attribution brochure like this.

Why it’s Important to Reduce Prejudice in Our Society

As a society, we hold the virtues of tolerance and nonprejudice in a very special place – they are important because they increase open-mindedness and social justice.  Social justice is  the vital ingredient in a free, fair, and peaceful society.  When equality and equity among human beings are achieved, there is less reason for any group or individual to be unhappy . . . It is also important to be nonprejudiced because it is so     interesting to interact with and learn about people from other cultural and social groups.  We live in a wonderful and diverse cultural community.  That diversity makes our society great because it brings a wealth of knowledge and experience together. When we let go of prejudice, the rich diversity of society is ours to enjoy . . . Not to mention, being open-minded is a real advantage to our mood and well-being.  When there is less racial and cultural tension, people are happier and healthier, and better able to do the things they enjoy . . . You are free to choose to value nonprejudice.  Only you can decide to be
an egalitarian person . . . In today’s increasingly diverse and multicultural society, such a personal choice is likely to help you feel connected to yourself and your social world . . .

Again, you may rewrite what you find saccharine, effete, or silly, but as long as you maintain that Internal focus on self motivation for behavior, the manipulation will produce the desired effect.  Consider this bar chart from just one experiment.

Now, more importantly, the statistical outcomes.

As illustrated in Figure 1, participants in the autonomy-brochure condition displayed significantly less prejudice than did those in the no-brochure condition, F(1, 66) = 14.49, p < .001, eta2 = .18. Conversely, those who read the controlling brochure actually demonstrated greater prejudice than those in the no-brochure condition, F(1, 66) = 4.34, p < .04, eta2= .07. As hypothesized, using control to motivate prejudice reduction backfired, and was more detrimental than not motivating participants at all. The support of autonomous motivation to regulate prejudice, however, caused a reduction in prejudice.

Sure, it’s statistically significant – here’s your sign – but note the effect sizes in those eta2 values.  They translate into Medium+ Windowpanes, around 30/70.  And, see the detail.  The Internal Attribution brochure produces an obvious benefit over the No Message Control and the External Attribution brochure produces a less obvious, but still near Medium Windowpane harm compared to the No Message Control.  Thus, attribution moves people in opposite directions compared to Control, one producing greater benefit, the other greater harm.

Legault et al. ran a second experiment to replicate and extend the basic finding and also conducted useful moderator studies with path models to refine the conceptual model, but I want to hit the main point.  Doing Good requires more than a pure heart, social courage, and a brochure.  Sincerity alone can make things worse, casting yourself into the ancient Greek nightmare where you kill what you love.  If you do not understand and apply persuasion principles properly you will kill your father, marry your mother, but live forever in tale, narrative, or meme!

As we’ve noted several times in the Persuasion Blog and the Primer, Attribution Theory is a powerful persuasion play that is almost always available as either an active tool or an important element in understanding the Local.  How do you want the Other Guys to explain their world?  Failure to ask this question or to answer it correctly dooms change whether from Do Gooders or Do Badders.

Realize here that the External force of that first brochure not only activates an external locus of control, but could also easily elicit Reactance, that Like Hell!, knee-jerk response people display when they perceive an unfair restriction on their actions.  Scan over the comments at the Free Republic website, a conservative net community, about this very study and see examples (most ironic – gee, conservatives with a sense of humor?) of that reactant effect.

Now, if you are a zealot, you find satisfaction of some sort when your political adversaries react against you, but, hey, you aimed at changing people, you knucklehead, and all you succeeding in doing was alienating not only adversaries but a bunch of Other Guys as well.  You may sniff about the Evil Opposition, but then, of course, you are running afoul of the Rule:

Great Persuaders Don’t Need Rich Uncles, Kindness from Strangers, or Third Party Vote Splitters.

Here the Rule means only muggles complain about their opponents as if you can win only when you have no competition.  But, then, that’s the basic tension between Sincerity and Persuasion.  When you know you have Truth or Beauty or Justice it is difficult hide it under Peitho’s robe.  You don’t hide your light under a basket!  Yet, as this report demonstrates, along with other examples from literature as described in the Blog and Primer, beacons of light are often unpersuasive and worse still can easily activate more dissent, confusion, and conflict.

You need to understand the difference between what you value and how you persuade on those values.

Legault L, Gutsell JN, Inzlicht M.  Ironic Effects of Antiprejudice Messages: How Motivational Interventions Can Reduce (but Also Increase) Prejudice.  Psychol Sci. 2011 Dec 1;22(12):1472-7. Epub 2011 Nov 28.

doi:  10.1177/0956797611427918

If you are Weatherman 2.0, you know that things aren’t going your way even with a congenial President and Senate and those two golden, but wasted, years of 2009 and 2010.  The Weather is still getting worse, but worser still no on is listening to you.  That email foolishness.  Al Gore’s Green fortune.  All those lamer scientists publicly disagreeing with the Scientific Consensus.  And, now, come to find out that the Weather Channel is killing you, too.

Joslyn, Savelli, & Nadav-Greenberg present an illuminating four  study package that demonstrates how weather forecasts generate mistrust and confusion in consumers through an emphasis upon Worst Case reporting.  The problem stems from well known anchoring effects.  Let’s read their conclusion.

These four studies extend the well-known anchoring effect to worst-case scenario forecasts informing weather-related decisions. It is clear that people’s understanding of future weather conditions is influenced by the kind of uncertainty information provided in the forecast. Participants with the worst-case scenario had a biased understanding despite having the same single-value forecast as those with other formats. Remarkably, the anchoring effect was observed when the low likelihood of the anchor was clearly specified and when a better standard was available . . . Many forecast providers believe that the worst-case scenario is the uncertainty information most understandable and beneficial to general public end users.  Indeed, the worst-case scenario may well reduce the amount of information people must process by focusing on values that are critical to the decision at hand. However, the research reported here suggests that this reduction in uncertainty information can seriously mislead the user. It appears to convince people that wind speeds will be higher and temperatures will be lower than what are indicated in the forecast.  One may be tempted to think that such a bias is advantageous in potentially dangerous situations because it could convince otherwise reluctant people to take precautionary action . . . The research reported here suggests that the worst-case scenario leads to a misunderstanding of the forecast, which could have serious long-range impact.

While Joslyn et al. focus literally upon the daily weather forecast and forecasts for extreme events like hurricanes, the implications for the Global Warming Wars should be apparent, if only to me.  People think about the information they get and how that information is presented can produce unintended consequences.  If you take the time to read and understand this research, you realize the larger implications for the Climate Change Chorus and how their ineffective communication has played a major and perverse role in making things worse for their own case.  The emphasis upon that Worst Case Scenario is the go-to Frame (or Meme or Narrative or Whatever) with a simplistic emphasis upon a single point – average temperature – rather than boundaries or limits or ranges.

Stated another way, the persuasive communication from the Climate Change Chorus and the emphasis upon the Worst Case and the single point estimate, generates biased thinking from people that actually reduces the believability and effectiveness of the communication.  The more the CCC talks, the worse it gets.  Thus, even if science proves that human activity has caused climate change and that climate change will produce negative outcomes for people and (last one!) reducing carbon consumption will make things right, then the CCC communication makes that better world less likely through their pounding and relentless emphasis upon the Worst-Case Scenario.  In so doing, the CCC artlessly creates an anchor, a standard of comparison, a line of judgment, that guarantees less concern, worry, or risk.

Hear a different Chorus?  It’s Greek.  And ancient.  It’s chanting:  Killing what you love.  Killing what you love.  Killing what you love.

Mavens of all Rainbows, learn from failure.  Even if the sky is falling, shouting that The Sky Is Falling may only ensure that everyone goes to the beach.  When its gonna rain anchors, people use a different umbrella.

Joslyn, S., Savelli, S., & Nadav-Greenberg, L. (2011). Reducing probabilistic weather forecasts to the worst-case scenario: Anchoring effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(4), 342-353.

doi:10.1037/a0025901

P.S.  Jeepers.  See any applications with warning labels and their Single Point Estimates for Worst Case Scenarios?  All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere, kids.  Just because it feels so right to you doesn’t mean you can change the Other Guys with it.  No wonder only zealots persuade like this.

P.P.S.  Of course, if the CCC stopped with the Worst Case Scenario and Single Point Estimates and switched to Boundaries and Ranges, it might make their case even worse.  They’ve already admitted that the presumed increase in temperatures isn’t statistically significant which is another way of saying Nature is in her Container.

Consider this.

To pitch a prospective client for her ad agency, Amanda Zolten knew she a had to take a risk.  But the client’s product—kitty litter—posed a unique challenge.  Lucy Belle, Ms. Zolten’s cat, furnished the answer.  Before she and her team met with six of the company’s executives, Ms. Zolten buried Lucy Belle’s mess in a box of the company’s litter and pushed it under the conference-room table.  No one noticed until Ms. Zolten pointed it out — and the fact that no one had smelled it.

All’s well that ends well and this story ends in a reward for Zolten:  The coveted Heroic Failure award from her agency!  Her bosses are worried that the ad agency is getting too conservative and want to encourage risk taking with this award.  And, they gave this to Zolten without knowing whether she got the account!  Everyone’s taking a chance in this transaction.

So, where’s the persuasion, Steve?

In a crowded and excited conference room with agency and clients all buzzed up about potential business the fact that no one noticed a used kitty litter box hidden from view may not mean what everyone thinks it means.  We tend to think that we are aware, thoughtful, and intentional in our lives while much of the time we are running on habit, cues, and expectations.  Thus, normal human nature would take Zolten’s story and see her clever tactic without realizing that since that odor is so far out of habit, cue, and expectation no one noticed it.  If you had instead asked everyone in the room to give the air a good sniff and tell me what you smell, I think Zolten’s story would have ended differently.

Anyone with a good background in marketing knows that people wildly overestimate the power of their senses which is why Coke and Pepsi, for example, can make billions of dollars on their two brands that most consumers most of the time cannot distinguish.  A prior post on my experience with milk demonstrate the effect.  This is not to say that senses like taste or smell or touch have no effect, but rather people’s awareness of taste or smell or touch is incredibly variable and subject to all manner of situational influences that have little to do with the stimulus intensity and more to do with the limitations of human nature and cognition.

Now, if this doesn’t occur to the potential client, then Zolten may have run a subtle persuasion play based on the difference between human conceit (gee, I’m thoughtful!) and human nature (gee, this is a sharp conference room!).  Kudos Zolten.

And, if this doesn’t occur to her bosses, then kudos again, Zolten.

But, if it doesn’t occur to anyone, there’s no persuasion here.  Just confusion.  And the potential for future disaster.

There’s a Difference between Persuasion, and Smoke and Mirrors; With Persuasion the Illusion Lingers.

Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina Republican primary in a walk, beating second place Mitt Romney by 10 points. Social conservative voters picked a man with three marriages and admitted adulteries. The persuasion gravity of a politician’s Woman Problem has no hold today on Mr. Gingrich.

Perhaps, this persuasion gravity does not hold in South Carolina.

Perhaps, Gingrich did Inoculate enough on this issue, at least with South Carolina voters.

Perhaps, three marriages and adulteries are not a Woman Problem. You need to get caught close to the act rather than years later. As the flamboyant Edwin Edwards of Louisiana observed, voters would not turn against him unless he got caught in bed with a dead woman or a live boy.

Perhaps, you can resist persuasion gravity in one primary, but no more.

There Are No Laws of Persuasion.