by: amanda cosgriff
Step 1. Be Liked. Connect with the individual you are trying to persuade by finding something in common with them, and give genuine compliments - Kindness can go a long way.
Step 2. Have Authority. People follow and trust credible knowledgeable experts. In order to persuade someone, you need to have pretty good information, such as research and/or data backing you up – Sometimes throwing in numbers can sound more convincing.
Step 3. Be Consistent. People like to be consistent in their actions and beliefs therefore, make sure you KNOW what you’re talking about and do not accidently contradict yourself. Research has
Step 4. Have Reciprocity. You want to make sure the individual you are trying to persuade feels like they ‘owe’ you something – like when you invite someone to YOUR house, that person feels they should invite you over to THEIR house in return. Research has found the number of mints given at the time of the check and HOW the delivery (positive or negative) of the mints affects how much tip customers will leave.
Step 5. Sell the Scarcity. You want to make sure you sell benefits and WHAT benefits they may miss out on if they do not take your offer – people do not like it when accessibility to objects is scarce.
Step 6. Have Consensus. Use this in your favor. People are social beings and look to others to help them make decisions. Imply someone similar to your persuade-e thinks or has done what you are trying to sell. Goldstein, Cialdini, and Griskevicius (2008) found that individuals were more likely to engage in a behavior if specific information was given compared to general information about the individuals.
These are the six universal short cuts that Cialdini (2012) identified as short methods we take to help us make a decision.
“Understanding these short cuts and employing them in an ethical manner, can significantly increase the chances that someone will be persuaded by your request” – Dr. Cialdini (2012)
However, these six short cuts are not all we need in order to persuade someone into believing something, or even changing his or her mind about something that they strongly believe in. In fact, there are many facets that affect whether or not someone can be successful in changing someone’s mind.
One things for certain is that people’s attitudes, play a major factor in whether or not we can affectively persuade someone. An attitude, as defined by Fiske (2014) is a positive or negative judgement about an attitude object. A strong attitude may be harder to change compared to a ‘weaker’ attitude (Fiske, 2014). But, it can be done. The delivery in HOW you go about changing someone’s attitude plays a key role. For one, you need to have some sort of credible knowledge and expertise in the subject matter (Cialdini, 2012; Fiske, 2014). This information that is provided to the individual is very important information because the information is key to whether or not you are successful in changing the individual’s mind. When individuals are uncertain about a specific topic, you need to be consistent and confident because if not, the individual will adapt this information and match it to his or her view (Fiske, 2014). When individuals are not so knowledgeable about a topic, they are vulnerable to forming an attitude that may not be positive. The ‘scare’ tactic is not the best way to convince someone of something. It can either form an incorrect belief or strengthen a belief. Also, scaring individuals into persuasion is not beneficial what-so-ever. In fact, individuals experience a ‘scare’ tactic are more likely to intensify his or her belief.
A scare in 1998 ‘linking’ vaccines to autism is what helped kick-start the great anti-vaccination debate. In 1998, a British doctor known as Andrew Wakefield published a paper, suggesting the MMR vaccine, which helps prevents measles (M), mumps (M), and rubella (R), was linked to the cause of autism. Wakefield’s paper sent the world into a panic and resulted in parents refusing to vaccinate their children. However, in 2010, Dr. Wakefield’s paper was retracted by a credible news source and his practitioner’s license with removed, which should have put an end to the anti-vaccine movement, but it did not.
There is a multitude of research that has been conducted in order to prove that vaccinations are not linked to autism. Many researchers have even disproven the link between the two, however, there are many individuals who believe a link exists, but why? Researchers Clarke, McKeever, Holton, and Dixon (2015) indicate that the balanced coverage from the media may suggest why the opposing claims are equally supported by believable and valid evidence. The art of persuading someone into believing that vaccines do not cause autism is difficult to maneuver since this has been strongly debated and has been in existence for quite some time.
Conclusion
Although the theory behind the link between autism and vaccines has been debunked a multitude of times, there are still individuals who believe in this connection. When looking at the six short cuts needed for decision making (Cialdini, 2016), this movement had all the right parts for a successful persuasion. However, the current and remaining question is, why people still believe in this movement. In order to persuade someone, we need to have a credible source that has been proven to have the credentials and expertise. However, the issue is that the media and authority figures were not consistent in the information that was shared. Therefore, this lack of consistency is the root behind the continual belief behind the movement. There has been multiple sources who have been deemed credible to support both arguments and we have been unsuccessful in persuading everyone into believing the link does not exist.
- Cialdini, R. B. (2012, November 26). Science of Persuasion. (Animated Video). Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdCzN7RYbw.
- Clarke, C., McKeever, B. W., Holton, A., & Dixon, G. N. (2015). The influence of weight-of evidence messages on (vaccine) attitudes: A sequential model. Journal of Health Communication, 1-8.
- Fiske, S. (2014). Attitudes and persuasion: Changing hearts and minds.. In Social Beings, Core Motives in Social Psychology, 223-271.
- Freedman, J. L. & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 195-202.
- Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472-482. DOI: 10.1086/586910
- Strohmetz, D. B., Rind, B., Fisher, R., & Lynn, M. (2002). Sweetening the till: The use of candy to increase restaurant tipping. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(2), 300-309.