persuasion

Why rewards fail, how to give the flawless interview, improve your social life by making mistakes,
never lose your wallet again, and convince anyone of anything by using your pet frog
HOW DO YOU PERSUADE a child to complete a homework assignment, an employee toperform
better in the workplace, or people to care more about the environment? Manybelieve that the most
e..ective way is to dangle the biggest possible carrot in front oftheir noses. But does research
suggest this is really an incentive, or is it just a myth?
In one famous study, Stanford psychologist Mark Lepper and colleagues asked twogroups of
schoolchildren to have fun creating some drawings. Before being allowed to
play with the crayons and paper, one group was told that they would receive anelaborate good
player medal for drawing, while the other group was not promised anyreward. A few weeks later
the researchers returned, handed out drawing paper andcrayons, and measured how much the
children played with them. Surprisingly, thechildren who had received the medals on the ..rst
occasion spent signi..cantly less timedrawing than their classmates did.
Why did this happen? According to Lepper, the children who were o..ered the medalsthought
something along these lines: Well, let me see here, adults usually o..er merewards when they want
me to do something that I dont like doing. An adult is o..eringme a gold medal for drawing,
therefore I must not like drawing. The e..ect has beenreplicated many times, and the conclusion is
clear: if you set children to an activity thatthey enjoy and reward them for doing it, the reward
reduces the enjoyment and
demotivates them. Within a few seconds you transform play into work.
It could be argued that this outcome applies only to activities that people enjoy andthat rewards
actually encourage people with respect to tasks that they dislike. To testthis theory, a few years ago
I ran a study in which two groups of people were asked totake part in an experiment spending an
afternoon picking up litter in a park.
Participants were told that they were taking part in an experiment examining how bestto persuade
people to look after their local parks. One group was paid handsomely fortheir time, while the other
was given only a small amount of cash. After an hour or so ofbackbreaking and tedious work,
everyone rated the degree to which they had enjoyedthe afternoon. You might think that those
clutching a large amount of well-earned cashwould be more positive than those who had given their
time for very little money.
In fact, exactly the opposite happened. The average enjoyment rating of the
handsomely paid group was a measly 2 out of 10, while the modestly paid groupsaverage rating
proved to be a whopping 8.5. It seemed that those who had been paidwell had thought, Well, let
me see, people usually pay me to do things that I dontenjoy. I was paid a large amount, so I must
dislike cleaning the park. In contrast, thosewho received less money thought, I dont need to be
paid much to do something Ienjoy. I did the cleaning for very little, so therefore I must have enjoyed
cleaning thepark. According to the results of this study, it seems that excessive rewards can
evenhave a detrimental effect on tasks that people dont enjoy.
These ..ndings have been replicated time and again. Almost regardless of the natureof the rewards
or tasks, those who are o..ered a carrot tend not to perform as well as

those who dont expect to receive anything. Some of the studies have shown short-term
boosts in performance, but over the long haul rewards tend to destroy the very behaviorthey are
designed to encourage.
As weve seen, what does not
work is to motivate people with the promise of a
reward. So what form of incentive does work? To encourage people to do more ofsomething they
enjoy, try presenting them with the occasional small surprise rewardafter they have completed the
activity or praising the fruits of their labor. When it issomething that they dont enjoy, a realistic, but
not excessive, reward is e..ective at thestart, followed by feel-good comments that encourage them
to pursue the activity (Ifonly everyone was a good park-cleaning citizen like you).
However, there are methods of persuasion other than praise, modest rewards, andcheesy
comments. For quick and e..ective techniques, whether in negotiations or help inan emergency or
getting the odd favor or two, think about putting your foot in the door,
understanding groupthink, and realizing why it really is better to give than to receive.
GIVING THE PERFECT INTERVIEW
Just how do you go about trying to persuade someone to o..er you a job? There is an oldjoke about a
man being interviewed for a new job and being told, You know, in thisjob we really need someone
who is responsible. The man thinks for a moment, thenreplies, I am perfect for you. In my last job
lots of things went badly wrong, and theyalways said that I was responsible.
Unfortunately, disastrous replies are common in actual interviewsbut help is athand. Over the
past thirty years, psychologists have investigated the key factors thatimpress interviewers, and the
work has resulted in several quick and effective techniquesthat can significantly increase your
chances of being offered your dream job.
Ask any employer to explain why they choose one applicant in preference to another,
and they will tell you that it is a matter of which candidate has the best quali..cationsand personal
skills for the job. To make the process as rational and fair as possible,
many draw up a list of key skills that the successful candidate must possess, study eachapplicants
rsum for evidence of those skills, and then use a face-to-face interview todiscover a little more
information. But research conducted by Chad Higgins from theUniversity of Washington and
Timothy Judge from the University of Florida suggeststhat interviewers are often deluding
themselves about how they make up their minds. Inreality they are unconsciously swayed by a
mysterious and powerful force.
Higgins and Judge followed the fortunes of more than a hundred former students asthey tried to
obtain their ..rst job after college. At the start of the study, the researchersexamined the rsum of
each student, measuring the two factors that interviewersconsistently claim play a key role in
separating successful and unsuccessful candidates
quali..cations and work experience. After each job interview, students completed astandard
questionnaire about how they had behaved, including whether, for example,

they made the most of their positive points, took an interest in the company, or askedthe
interviewers about the type of person they were looking for. The research team alsocontacted the
interviewers and asked them to provide feedback on several factors,including the candidates
performance, how well they would ..t in with the organization,whether they possessed the
necessary skills for the job, and, perhaps most important ofall, whether they would be offered the
job. After analyzing the mass of data, the research team exploded some of the myths aboutwhy
interviewers choose candidates for a job, discovering a surprising reality. Did thelikelihood depend
on quali..cations? Or was it work experience? In fact, it was neither.
It was just one important factordid the candidate appear to be a pleasant person?
Those who had managed to ingratiate themselves were very likely to be o..ered aposition, and they
charmed their way to success in several different ways.
A few had spent time chatting about topics that were not related to the job but thatinterested the
candidate and the interviewer. Some had made a special e..ort to smileand maintain eye contact.
Others had praised the organization. This barrage of
positivity had paid dividends, convincing the interviewers that such pleasant and
socially skilled applicants would fit well in the workplace and so should be offered a job.
Higgins and Judges study clearly demonstrates that in order to get your dream job,going out of
your way to be pleasant is more important than quali..cations and pastwork experience. However,
try explaining away twelve counts of murder and two convictions for major corporate fraud, and you
will quickly discover that such ingratiation has its limitations. With respect to your weaknesses,
then, what is the best way of dealing with the less-impressive side of your rsum? Should you
mentionweaknesses toward the start of the interview, or hope to make a good ..rst impressionand
introduce possible problems only at the end?
This issue was investigated in an important study conducted in the early 1970s bypsychologists
Edward Jones and Eric Gordon from Duke University. Participants werepresented with a tape
recording of a man (actually an accomplice of the experimenters)
talking about his life. They were then asked to rate the degree to which he soundedlikeable. During
the interview the man told how he had not completed a school semesterbecause he had been
caught cheating and had been expelled. The researchers edited thetape so that half of the
participants heard this bombshell toward the beginning, whilethe others heard it toward the end.
This manipulation had a large impact on how muchthe participants liked the man. When the
cheating was mentioned toward the start ofthe tape, the man appeared far more likeable than when
it was mentioned toward theend. Additional work has con..rmed exactly the same e..ect in other
contexts, with, forexample, lawyers being judged to have a stronger case when presenting a
weakness intheir argument at the beginning of a trial.
It seems that presenting weaknesses early is seen as a sign of openness. This is alesson that many
politicians, such as Bill Clinton, have yet to learn. Interviewers believethat they are dealing with
someone who has the strength of character and integrity to bring up potential di..culties at the
outset, and they therefore conclude that the
applicant is not attempting to mislead them.
Can the same be said of the more positive aspects of your rsum? Actually, no. Inanother part of
the same study, participants heard a positive reason for the skippedsemester (I was awarded a

prestigious scholarship to travel around Europe), with theinformation presented either early or late
on the tape. Now the effect was reversed, withthe man appearing far more likeable when he
mentioned the award later. It seems thatmodesty, rather than honesty, is critical for positive
aspects of your past. By delayingmention of such details, you appear to prefer letting your
strengths emerge naturally,while playing your cards early is seen as boastful.
So, you have polished up your ingratiating skills, are willing to declare yourweaknesses early, and
intend to leave the best till last. Does that mean that you areguaranteed to be a success?
Unfortunately, no. Despite the best of intentions and themost extensive preparations, we all make
mistakes. Perhaps you will knock a glass ofwater into your lap, inadvertently insult your interviewer,
or give an answer that is asbumbling as it is unconvincing. The fact is, you need to be able to cope
with the oddunexpected disaster or two. To help, Thomas Gilovich of Cornell University and
hiscolleagues undertook a series of studies in which they forced people to wear BarryManilow Tshirts.
In a typical study, Gilovich arranged for ..ve participants to arrive at the same time athis laboratory.
Everyone was led into a room, asked to sit along one side of a table, andto complete a
questionnaire. The group began to check o.. various boxes, unaware thatthe researchers had
arranged for another participant to arrive ..ve minutes late. Thislatecomer was met before entering
the room and told to wear a T-shirt bearing a largepicture of Barry Manilow. Why Manilow? Well, the
study was about the psychology ofembarrassment, and carefully controlled pretesting had revealed
that the majority ofCornell students wouldnt be caught dead in a Barry Manilow T-shirt. Moments
afterputting on the T-shirt, the latecomer was bundled into the room, only to be confrontedby a row
of staring fellow students. After a few moments, the experimenter explainedthat it might be better
to wait outside for a while, and promptly escorted the latecomerout of the room.
Two things happened next. Everyone in the room was asked if they had noticed theimage on the
latecomers T-shirt, while the latecomer was asked to estimate the
percentage of students who would have noticed the embarrassing image. The results
from a series of experiments revealed that on average about 20 percent of the people inthe room
noticed Barry. However, the latecomers were convinced that the image hadbeen far more eyecatching, and they estimated that on average about 50 percent of the group would have noticed
the T-shirt. In short, the latecomers signi..cantly
overestimated the impact of their embarrassing encounter.
This bias, known as the spotlight e..ect, has been found in many di..erent settings.
From assessing the e..ects of a bad-hair day to performing poorly in a group discussion,
those who feel embarrassed are convinced that their mistakes are far more noticeable
than they actually are. Why? It seems that we focus on our own looks and behaviormore than on
those of others, and so we are likely to overestimate the impact of oursituation. So, if you make a
mortifying mistake in an interview, think about the man inthe Barry Manilow T-shirt and remember
that it probably feels far worse than it is.
IN 59 SECONDS
Increase your chances of giving a great interview in three easy steps.
First

Remember that likeability is more important than academic achievements and workexperience, so

..nd something that you truly like about the organization, and let your opinion beknown
feel free to give a genuine compliment to the interviewer
chat about a non-job-related topic that you and the interviewer find interesting
show interest in the interviewer. Ask what type of person is being sought and howthe position fits
into the overall organization
be enthusiastic about the position and the organization
smile and maintain eye contact with the interviewer
Second
When you do have weaknesses, dont wait until late in the interview to reveal them.
Instead, give your credibility a boost by getting them into the conversation toward thestart of the
interview. And remember, for positive aspects, modesty is vital, so retainsomething strong until the
very last minute.
Third
If you make what seems like a major mistake, dont overreact. The chances are that it isfar more
noticeable to you than to others, and your excessive response or apologizingcould just draw more
attention to it. Instead, acknowledge the mistake, if appropriate,
and then continue as if nothing has happened.
THREE QUICK TIPS FOR PERSUASION
Choose the Middle Way. If you want to increase your chances of making a good impression in a
meeting, sit toward the middle of the table. Psychologists Priya Raghubir and Ana Valenzuela
analyzed episodes of the television game show The Weakest Link.8 In the show, contestants stand
in a semicircle, and during each round one contestant is voted o.. by the other players. Contestants
standing atthe central positions in the semicircle reached the ..nal round, onaverage, 42 percent of
the time and won the game 45 percent of thetime. Those standing at the more extreme positions
reached the ..nalround just 17 percent of the time and won just 10 percent of the time.
In another experiment, participants were shown a group photographof ..ve candidates for a
business internship and asked to choose whichcandidate should be awarded the position.
Candidates in the center ofthe group were chosen more frequently than those at the edges.
Theresearchers, labeling the phenomenon the center stage e..ect,
concluded that when looking at a group, people use a basic rule ofthumbImportant people sit in
the middle.
K.I.S.S. When thinking about the name of a new project, campaign, orproduct, keep it simple. Adam
Alter and Daniel Oppenheimer, of

Princeton University, tracked the fortunes of companies on the stockmarket and found that those
with simple and memorable names, suchas Flinks, Inc., tended to outperform companies with
awkward namessuch as Sagxter, Inc.9 Further research showed that the e..ect resulted
not from larger companies tending to have simpler names but from anatural tendency of people to
be drawn to words that are easy toremember and straightforward to pronounce.
Mind Your Language. Who hasnt been tempted to slip the odd overcomplicated word into a report
or letter to make themselves sound especially intelligent and erudite? According to other
researchconducted by Daniel Oppenheimer, an unnecessary love of the
thesaurus may have exactly the opposite e..ect.10 In a series of ..ve
studies, Oppenheimer systematically examined the complexity of thevocabulary used in passages
from various kinds of texts (including jobapplications, academic essays, and translations of
Descartes). He thenasked people to read the samples and rate the intelligence of theperson who
allegedly wrote them. The simpler language resulted insigni..cantly higher ratings of intelligence,
showing that the
unnecessary use of complex language sent out a bad impression.
Oppenheimer described the results of the research in a paper titledConsequences of Erudite
Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity:
Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly. Among his ..ndings wasthat passages presented in a
font that was di..cult to read loweredpeoples evaluations of the authors intelligence. These results
suggestthat you can increase how bright people think you are by merelywriting legibly and
simplifying your language.
FAVORS, PRATFALLS, AND GOSSIP
Likeability matters. The Gallup organization has examined the public perception ofAmerican
presidential candidates since 1960, focusing on the impact of issues, partya..liation, and
likeability.11 From these factors, only likeability has consistentlypredicted the winning candidate.
Similarly, research on relationships, by Phillip Noll atthe University of Toronto, shows that likeable
people are about 50 percent less likely toget divorced. Indeed, likeability might even save your life,
as other studies indicate thatdoctors urge likeable patients to stay in touch and to return for more
frequent checkups.
But what is the best way to ensure that you top the like-ability league? Self-help guruDale Carnegie
has rightly pointed out that one way of increasing your popularity is toexpress a genuine interest in
others. In fact, Carnegie argues, people will win morefriends in two months by developing a genuine
interest in those around them than intwo years of trying to make others interested in them. Other
writers have suggestedalternative quick and easy routes, which include giving sincere compliments,
matchingpeoples body language and style of speech, appearing to be modest, and beinggenerous
with your time, resources, and skills. No doubt these kinds of commonsensetechniques work.
According to research, however, there are other, more subtle ideas thatcan also help you win
friends and in..uence people. All it takes is a little advice fromBenjamin Franklin, the ability to trip
up once in a while, and an understanding of thepower of gossip.
Eighteenth-century American polymath and politician Benjamin Franklin was onceeager to gain the
cooperation of a di..cult and apathetic member of the Pennsylvaniastate legislature. Rather than
spend his time bowing and scraping to the man, Franklindecided on a completely di..erent course of

action. He knew that the man had a copy ofa rare book in his private library, and so Franklin asked
whether he might be able toborrow it for a couple of days. The man agreed and, according to
Franklin, when wenext met in the House, he spoke to me (which he had never done before), and
with greatcivility; and he ever after manifested a readiness to serve me on all occasions.
Franklinattributed the success of his book-borrowing technique to a simple principle: He that
has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another than he whom youyourself have
obliged. In other words, to increase the likelihood that someone will likeyou, get that person to do
you a favor. A century later, Russian novelist Leo Tolstoyappeared to agree, writing, We do not love
people so much for the good they havedone us, as for the good we do them.
In the 1960s psychologists Jon Jecker and David Landy set out to discover if this twohundredyear-old technique still worked in the twentieth century.12 They arranged forparticipants in an
experiment to win some money. Then, soon after the participants hadleft the laboratory, a
researcher caught up with some of them and asked a favor. Heexplained that he had used his own
funds for the study, was running short of cash, andwondered if the participants would mind
returning the money. A second researcher, thedepartmental secretary, accosted another group of
participants and made the samerequest, but this time explained that it was the psychology
department that had ..nancedthe experiment, not personal money, and that the department was
now a bit low oncash. Afterward, all of the participants were asked to rate how much they liked
eachresearcher. Just as predicted by Franklin and Tolstoy all those years before, theparticipants
liked the researcher who asked for help on a personal basis far more thanthey liked the researcher
who made the request on behalf of the department.
Although it may sound strange, this curious phenomenon, referred to as the Franklin
e..ect, is theoretically sound (at least when it comes to small favorslarge requests canhave the
opposite e..ect, making people either respond begrudgingly or simply refuse).
Most of the time peoples behavior follows from their thoughts and feelings. They feelhappy and so
they smile, or they ..nd someone attractive and so look longingly into thepersons eyes. However,
the reverse can also be true. Get people to smile and they feelhappier, or ask them to look into
someones eyes and they ..nd that person moreattractive. Exactly the same principle applies for
favors. To encourage others to likeyou, ask for their help.
The Franklin e..ect is not the only counterintuitive route to likeability. There is also thetechnique that
helped John F. Kennedy become one of the most popular presidents inAmerican history.
In 1961 Kennedy ordered troops to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. The operation wasa ..asco, and
historians still view the decision as a huge military blunder. However, anational survey taken after
the failed invasion showed that the public actually likedKennedy more than earlier despite his
disastrous decision. Two factors could account forthis seemingly strange ..nding. Kennedy didnt try
to make excuses or pass the buck forthe botched operation; instead he immediately took full
responsibility. Also, until thatpoint in time, Kennedy had been seen as a superheroa charming,
handsome, powerfulman who could do no wrong. The Bay of Pigs disaster made him appear far
more humanand likeable.
Elliot Aronson and his colleagues at the University of California decided to take anexperimental
approach to the issue in an e..ort to discover whether making a mistake ortwo is actually good for
your popularity.13 In one part of their study, participants listened to one of two audiotapes. Both
tapes detailed a students participation in ageneral-knowledge quiz, followed by him talking about
his background. The student performed very well on the quiz, correctly answering more than 90

percent of the questions, and then he modestly admitted to a lifetime of success. However, in one
ofthe two editions, toward the end of the recording, the participants heard the studentknock over a
cup of co..ee and thereby ruin a new suit. All of the participants wereasked to rate how likeable they
found the student. Despite the only di..erence betweenthe tapes being the ..ctitious knocking over
of co..ee, the student who had committedthe blunder was considered far more likeable, just like
Kennedy after the Bay of Pigsinvasion. Interestingly, the e..ect emerges only when someone runs
the risk of beingseen as too perfect. In another part of the Aronson experiment, the researchers
madetwo audiotapes of a more normal-sounding student who averaged just 30 percent
correctanswers on the quiz, and then outlined a series of more mediocre achievements. Underthese
conditions, spilling the co..ee in his lap sent him plummeting to the bottom of thelikeability scale,
because he was perceived as a total loser.
This strange phenomenon, often referred to as the pratfall e..ect, may work well forpresidents,
and when heard on audiotapes, but does it also operate in other situations?
To ..nd out, I recently helped restage a version of Aronsons experiment, but this timethe setting
was a shopping center.14
We gathered a crowd and explained that they were going to see two trainees
demonstrating how to make a fruit drink using a new type of blender. First was Sara,
who played the role of our perfect person. Sara had spent the night before coming togrips with
the device and learning a convincing script. In went the fruit, on went the lid,
zoom went the liquidizer, and out came a perfect drink. The crowd rewarded Sara with awelldeserved round of applause and then eagerly awaited our second demonstrator,
Emma, who was playing the part of our less than perfect person. This time, in wentthe fruit, on
went the lid, zoom went the blender, o.. came the lid, and Emma ended upcovered in fruit drink.
Shaking the remains of the drink from the bottom of the blenderinto a glass, she received a
sympathetic round of applause from the crowd.
After the ..rst part of the experiment, it was time to explore the issue of likeability.
We interviewed audience members about the two demonstrations. Which impressedthem more?
Were they more likely to buy a blender after seeing the ..rst or the seconddemonstration? Most
important of all, did they most like Sara or Emma? Although thepublic tended to ..nd Saras
demonstration more professional and convincing, it wasEmma who topped the likeability scale.
When asked to explain their decision, peoplesaid that they found it di..cult to identify with Saras
..awless performance but warmedto Emmas more human display. Although not the perfect
experiment (for example,
Emma and Sara were not identical twins, so maybe their looks in..uenced the crowdsjudgment), it
provides further support that the occasional trip-up can be good for yoursocial life.
The third, and ..nal, route to likeability involves a very human traitthe desire togossip. Most
people like to pass on a juicy bit of information about friends and
colleagues, but is such behavior good for them? John Skowronski, from Ohio StateUniversity at
Newark, and his colleagues investigated the downside of spreading
malicious gossip.15 Participants watched videotapes of actors talking about a third party

(a friend or acquaintance of the actor). Some of the actors comments about his friendwere very
negative, such as He hates animals. Today he was walking to the store andhe saw this puppy. So
he kicked it out of his way. Afterward, the participants wereasked to rate the personality of the
speaker. Remarkably, even though it was obviousthat the person on the videotape was criticizing
someone else, the participants
consistently attributed the negative traits to the speaker. This e..ect, known as
spontaneous trait transference, reveals the pluses and minuses of gossiping. When yougossip
about another person, listeners unconsciously associate you with the
characteristics you are describing, ultimately leading to those characteristics beingtransferred to
you. So, say positive and pleasant things about friends and colleagues,
and you are seen as a nice person. In contrast, constantly complain about their failings,
and people will unconsciously apply the negative traits and incompetence to you.
IN 59 SECONDS
Self-help gurus have argued that it is possible to increase your likeability by becomingmore
empathetic, modest, and generous. They are probably right. But there are alsothree other surprising
factors that can promote popularity.
The Franklin Effect
People like you more when they do a favor for you. The e..ect has its limits, however,
and is more likely to work with small favors rather than more signi..cant requests thatmake people
either respond begrudgingly or, even worse, refuse.
The Pratfall Effect
The occasional slipup can enhance your likeability. However, remember that the e..ectreally works
only when you are in danger of being seen as too perfect.
Gossip
Know that whatever traits you assign to others are likely to come home to roost, beingviewed as
part of your own personality.
QUICK PERSUASION TIPS
Make It Personal. In 1987 the public contributed $700,000 to assist ababy who had fallen into a well
in Texas, and in 2002 they gave$48,000 to help a dog stranded on a ship in the Paci..c Ocean. In
contrast, organizations constantly struggle to raise funds to helpprevent the 15 million or so deaths
from starvation that occur eachyear, or the ten thousand annual child deaths in America resulting
from car accidents. Why? In a recent study, researchers paid peoplefor their involvement in an
experiment and then presented them with
an opportunity to contribute some of the money to the Save the
Children charity. Before making any contribution, half of the

participants were shown statistics about the millions facing starvationin Zambia, while the other
half saw a story about the plight of just one7-year-old African girl.16 Those who saw the story of the
girlcontributed more than twice the amount given by those who saw onlystatistics. Irrational as it is,
people are swayed far more by the
individual than by the masses.
Yes, yes, yes. Research conducted in the 1980s, by psychologistDaniel Howard from Southern
Methodist University, supported thepersuasive impact of positive utterances. Howard arranged for
researchers to telephone randomly selected people and ask whether arepresentative of the
Hunger Relief Committee could visit their homeand try to sell them some cookies for charity.17
Half of the researchers
started their conversations with a simple question designed to get apositive answer, asking How
are you feeling this evening? As
expected, the vast majority of people responded favorably (Great,
Fine, thanks). More important, this act had a dramatic in..uence onwhether they would allow a
salesperson into their house. Of those whowere in the How are you feeling? group, 32 percent
accepted theo..er, compared to just 18 percent in the control no question group.
The message is that people are more likely to agree with you whenthey have already said
something positive.
Let me get this. In a series of studies during the 1930s, psychologistGregory Razran discovered
that people developed a special fondnessfor other people, objects, and statements if they were
introduced tothem while eating a meal.18 The e..ect may be attributable to the factthat good food
puts people in a happy mood and can cause them tomake faster, and more impulsive, decisions.19
More recently,
researchers discovered that people who have just consumed
ca..einated drinks were more likely to be swayed by arguments aboutvarious controversial topics.20
In short, its good evidence that therereally is no such thing as a free lunch, or an innocent cup of
coffee.
Save Your Time, Persuade by Rhyme. In his in..uential book The
Gay Science, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche argued that
rhyming poetry originally appealed to the primitive mind because itappeared to have magical
connotations and represented a way ofspeaking directly with the gods. Although this view has not
been
universally accepted, recent research does suggest that rhymes can besurprisingly e..ective.
Psychologists Matthew McGlone and Jessica To..ghbakhsh (try ..nding a rhyme for that) showed
people wellknown rhyming sayings (Caution and measure will win you treasureand Life is mostly
strife) and some non-rhyming counterparts (Caution and measure will win you riches and Life is
mostly a struggle) and instructed the readers to rate how accurately they described human
behavior.21 The rhymes were viewed as signi..cantly more accurate than the non-rhyming
statements. The authors suggested that this was the outcome because they were more

memorable, likeable, and repeatable. The e..ect is frequently used inadvertising (The best part of
waking up is Folgers in your cup) andhas even made its way into the courtroom, as when attorney
JohnnieCochran defended O. J. Simpson by using the phrase If the gloves
dont fit, you must acquit.
Peas in a Pod. For persuasion, the research points to a simple fact:
similarity works. For example, Randy Garner, of Sam Houston StateUniversity, mailed surveys,
varying the information on the cover sheetto ensure that the ..rst name of the addressee either
matched or didnt match the experimenters ..rst name.22 So in the matching name
group, a participant named Fred Smith might receive a survey fromresearcher Fred Jones, while in
the non-matching name group,participant Julie Green might get a survey from Amanda White.
Thisremarkably simple manipulation a..ected the response rate, with 30percent in the non-matching
name condition returning the survey,
compared to 56 percent returned from those who saw their own ..rstname on the cover. Other work
suggests that people are far morelikely to support, and agree with, those who appear to be like
them. Inone study, more than six thousand American voters rated their ownpersonalities and how
they perceived the personalities of John Kerryand George W. Bush.23 Both sets of voters agreed
that Kerry was farmore open to new ideas and concepts than Bush, but they thought thatBush was
more loyal and sincere than Kerry. However, exactly the
same pattern of traits emerged in the voters assessments of
themselves, with those who voted for Kerry rating themselves as moreopen-minded than the Bush
voters and Bush supporters seeing themselves as more trustworthy than those who voted for Kerry.
Regardless of whether the similarity is in dress, speech, background,age, religion, politics, drinking
and smoking habits, food preferences,opinions, personality, or body language, we like people who
are likeus, and we find them far more persuasive than others.
Remember to Mention Your Pet Frog. When it comes to persuadingothers, try lightening up. In a
study conducted by Karen OQuinn andJoel Arono.., participants were asked to negotiate with a
seller overthe purchase price of a piece of art.24 Toward the end of the
negotiation, the seller made a ..nal o..er in one of two ways. Half ofthe time they said that they
would accept $6,000, while the other halfof the time they gave the same ..nal price but also added
a littlehumor (Well, my ..nal o..er is $6,000, and Ill throw in my pet frog).
Those few moments of attempted humor had a large e..ect, as
participants made a much greater compromise in their purchase pricewhen they heard about the
frog. The e..ect worked just as well withmen and women, regardless of the degree to which the
sellers ..nalprice was above the amount originally o..ered by the participant. Itseemed that the
brief humorous aside momentarily put the participantin a good mood and encouraged them to be
more giving. So, next timeyoure trying to get what you want, remember to mention your petfrog.
WHY TOO MANY COOKS LEADS TO NO COOKING AT ALL, AND WHAT CAN BE
DONE ABOUT IT

On March 13, 1964, a young woman named Kitty Genovese was returning to herapartment in New
York Citys borough of Queens when she was the victim of a randomand vicious attack. Although
she parked her car less than a hundred feet from her door,
she was overpowered by a total stranger during the short walk to her apartment andrepeatedly
stabbed. Despite the ordeal, Genovese managed to scream for help and
stagger toward her apartment. Unfortunately, her attacker caught up with her andinflicted a second
set of injuries that proved fatal.
On March 27, the New York Times ran a front-page article about the attack, describinghow a large
number of respectable, law-abiding citizens had either witnessed or heardthe attack but had not
telephoned the police during the assault. The detective in chargeof the case reportedly could not
understand why so many witnesses did so little. Thestory was quickly picked up by other media,
and most journalists concluded that Genoveses neighbors simply didnt care enough to get
involved and characterized the incident as damning evidence of how modern-day American society
had lost its way. Thetragic story caught the public imagination, and it has since inspired several
books, ..lms,
and songs, and even a sensitively titled musical drama The Screams of Kitty Genovese.25
The witnesses lack of involvement also puzzled two social psychologists working inNew York at the
time. Bibb Latan and John Darley were unconvinced that the apparentwidespread apathy reflected
a lack of empathy, and they set about investigating some ofthe other factors that could have
caused the witnesses to turn their backs rather than
pick up the telephone. The two researchers reasoned that the large number of witnessesmay have
played a pivotal role, and they carried out a series of ingenious experimentsthat have since been
described in almost every social psychology textbook published inthe last thirty years.26
In their ..rst study, Latan and Darley had a student fake an epileptic seizure on thestreets of New
York and observed whether passersby took the time to help. As they wereinterested in the e..ect
that the number of witnesses might have on the likelihood of anyone of them helping, the
researchers staged the fake seizure again and again in front ofdi..erent numbers of people. The
results were as clear as they were counterintuitive. Asthe number of witnesses increased, the
chances that any one of them would helpdecreased. The e..ect was far from trivial: the student
received assistance 85 percent ofthe time when there was one other person present but only about
30 percent of the timewhen five others were present.
In another study, the researchers moved o.. the streets and turned their attention togroups of
people sitting in a waiting room.27 Rather than faking an epileptic seizure,
they created another apparent emergency: smoke seeping under the waiting room door,
suggesting that a ..re had broken out in the building. Once again, the larger the group,
the smaller the chance of anyone raising the alarm. Of people sitting on their own, 75percent
reported the smoke, versus just 38 percent when there were three people in theroom. Other work
revealed exactly the same e..ect, regardless of whether the need forassistance was large or small.
For example, the team arranged for 145 stooges to take1,497 elevator rides, in each of which they
dropped some coins or pencils. A total of4,813 people shared the elevators with them.28 When
accompanied by just one other person, the researchers coins and pencils were picked up 40
percent of the time,

whereas when they were sharing the elevator with six others, the rate of assistance wentdown to
just 20 percent.
From helping a stranded motorist to donating blood to reporting a shoplifter ormaking an
emergency telephone call, exactly the same pattern has emerged time andagain. It seems that the
witnesses to the Kitty Genovese attack were not especiallyuncaring or selfishthere were just too
many of them.
Why should the urge to help others decrease as the number of people in the roomincreases? When
faced with a relatively uncommon event, such as a man falling downin the street, we have to decide
whats going on. Often there are several options. Maybeit really is a genuine emergency and the
man is having a real epileptic ..t, or maybe he has just tripped, or perhaps he is faking it as part of a
social psychology experiment, ormaybe he is part of a hidden-camera stunt show, or perhaps he is
a mime just about tostart his street show. Despite the various possibilities, we have to make a quick
decision.
But how do we do that? One way is to look at the behavior of those around us. Are theyrushing to
help, or are they continuing to go about their daily business? Are theytelephoning for an ambulance
or still chatting with their friends? Unfortunately,
because most people are reluctant to stand out from the crowd, everyone looks toeveryone else for
pointers, and the group can end up deciding to do nothing. Even if aclear and present need for help
exists, there is still the issue of responsibility. In mosteveryday situations, there is no clear chain of
command. Is it your job to help, or shouldyou leave it to the guy over there (not him, the guy
behind him)? Everyone in the groupthinks in the same way, which can result in no one helping at
all.
The situation is very di..erent when you are on your own. Suddenly you are carryingall the weight
on your shoulders. What if the guy who has just fallen over really is inneed of help? What if the
building really is on ..re? What if that woman in the elevatorreally does need that pencil to put
between her teeth before a particularly gloomymeeting? Are you prepared to be the person who
turned their back and walked away?
Under these circumstances, most people are far more likely to ..nd out if there is aproblem and, if
necessary, provide a helping hand.
Latan and Darleys groundbreaking studies of what has become known as the
bystander e..ect were initiated by the behavior of thirty-eight witnesses who saw orheard the
tragic murder of Kitty Genovese but didnt lend a helping hand. Interestingly,
recent work suggests that the original media reports of the murder may have
exaggerated the alleged apathy, with one of the attorneys involved saying that theycould ..nd only
about half a dozen good witnesses, that none of them actually reportedseeing Genovese being
stabbed and at least one claimed that the incident was
reported
to the police while it was happening.29 Regardless of the reactions that took place onthat particular
night, however, the experiments that followed from the media reports ofthe murder provide
compelling insight into why being surrounded by strangers in amoment of need provides no
guarantee of receiving help.

IN 59 SECONDS
The message from the bystander e..ect is clearthe more people who are around whena person is
apparently in need of assistance, the lower the likelihood that any oneperson will actually help.
So, if you are unfortunate enough to require assistance in the street, what can you doto increase
your chances of obtaining help? According to persuasion expert RobertCialdini, the answer is to pick
out a friendly face in the crowd and clearly tell themwhat is happening and what they need to do. It
might be a question of saying that youthink you are having a heart attack and that they need to call
an ambulance, or that you are diabetic and need sugar as soon as possible. Do anything that shortcircuits thedi..usion of responsibility underlying the problem and helps transform a bystander froma
faceless member of the crowd into a fully functioning human being.
An understanding of the di..usion of responsibility may also help you to persuadepeople in other
situations. For example, when trying to get people to help you via email, do not send your message
to an entire group. When people see that an e-mail hasbeen sent to lots of others, the same
di..usion e..ect can arise, with everyone thinkingthat it is everyone elses responsibility to
respond.30 To increase the chances of gettingpeople to help, send the message to each person
individually.