Inside Influence Report
April 06, 2011
Body Language and Persuasion: A Scientific Approach
Everywhere you look—cable news shows, men’s and women’s magazines, bookstores, and even bestseller lists—there are people from all walks of life, claiming to be experts in body language. Many of these individuals insist that they are one of the enlightened few to have a deep understanding of the secrets of how to influence others with nonverbal communication.
Although there are numerous exceptions, the truth is that much of the analysis and advice of many of these people is not based on rigorous scientific evidence, but rather on hunches, intuition, or the all-too-common “my personal experience.” Fortunately, researchers are now beginning to unearth some very interesting—and most importantly, scientifically valid—findings regarding how our nonverbal behavior can make our persuasion attempts maximally influential.
Social psychologists Bob Fennis and Marielle Stel (in press) recently conducted several experiments to test their hypothesis that certain nonverbal styles are better at facilitating certain types of influence strategies than others. The two types of nonverbal styles they examined were known as “eager” and “vigilant”. (Cesario & Higgins, 2008).
Cesario & Higgins characterize an eager nonverbal style as “approach-oriented”:
In contrast, they characterize a vigilant nonverbal style as “avoidance-oriented”:
Fennis and Stel argued that eager nonverbal styles should work better for “approach-oriented” influence strategies. Approach-oriented influence strategies are those that make a request more attractive in some way (e.g. by reducing the cost of one’s product or increasing its benefits). In contrast, vigilant nonverbal styles should work better for “avoidance-oriented” influence strategies. Avoidance-oriented influences strategies work by reducing people’s resistance to the request (e.g. by reducing resistance to the request). (For more on this distinction, see Knowles & Lynn, 2004.)
In one experiment researchers tested the hypothesis that an eager nonverbal style would be more effective than a vigilant nonverbal style for an approach-oriented strategy, the door-in-the-face technique (Cialdini and colleagues, 1975). This technique involves increasing people’s motivation to say yes to a request by preceding it with a larger request that most individuals first reject.
In the experiment, Fennis and Stel had researchers pose as salespeople who approached shoppers at a local supermarket in Europe.
In the control condition, the salesperson said, “Good afternoon sir/madam, Christmas is rapidly approaching, and so these boxes of Christmas candy are on special offer today! I may offer you one box for the price of 99 Eurocents!” (This was the true target request.)
In the door-in-the-face condition the salesperson said, “Good afternoon sir/madam, Christmas is rapidly approaching, and so these boxes of Christmas candy are on special offer today! I may offer you six boxes of candy for six Euros.” In almost all cases the target individual turned down the offer, prompting the salesperson to then try to make the request a lot more attractive in comparison by turning to the true target request: “You feel that six boxes is a bit too much? Ok, I understand. In that case I may also offer you one box for the price of 99 Eurocents.” Importantly, for half of the shoppers in the experiment, the salesperson made the request in an eager nonverbal style, using “active, open gesticulation with hands projecting outward. In addition he/she actively leaned forward to the participant, and displayed fast body movement and fast speech rate;” For the other half, the salesperson made the request in a more vigilant style, using “more passive gesticulation, keeping his/her hands close to the body. In addition, he/she leaned slightly backward and displayed slower body movement and speech rate” (Fennis & Stel, in press).
The results of the experiment revealed that when the salesperson used a vigilant nonverbal style, employing the door-in-the-face technique provided very little advantage over the control condition. However, when the salesperson used an eager nonverbal style, the door-in-the-face technique proved much more powerful (92% compliance) than the control condition (50% compliance). We can explain this result by recognizing that, when the salesperson made the initial concession from asking for six boxes instead of one box, it increased the motivation to buy because the single box had now become a more attractive option compared to the 6 box option.
Looking at the data from this experiment alone, it could appear that it might always be more effective to use an eager nonverbal style when attempting to influence others. However, additional research showed that an upbeat, eager nonverbal style is not more effective when using a tactic designed to reduce a buyer’s resistance to buying. Thus, any sales approach designed to relieve a buyer’s worry or caution about buying would be best accompanied by a more restrained, low-key nonverbal style. Although the researchers didn’t use it, one example might be a sales approach that employes the Authority principle by informing prospects that one’s product or service is recommended by experts. Here, where the goal is to reduce prospects’ uncertainties (with authority-based evidence) about whether to buy, it would be best to relate expert testimonials in a measured, unhurried style.
In summary, the results of this research show how important it can be to match your nonverbal behaviors with the type of influence strategy that you are employing.
The body language experts may still have more to say than the scientists right now about nonverbal persuasion, but at least you can have confidence that scientists are starting to investigate this developing area.
Sources:
Cesario, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Making message recipients “feel right”: How nonverbal cues can increase persuasion. Psychological Science, 19, 415-420.
Davis, B. P., & Knowles, E. S. (1999). A Disrupt-Then-Reframe Technique of social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 192−199.
Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. (2004). Approach-avoidance model of persuasion: Alpha and omega strategies for change. In E. Knowles, & J. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 259−282). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
------------- Dr. Noah J. Goldstein is a faculty member at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management. Dr. Goldstein's academic research and writing have been published in many of the premier scholarly outlets in psychology and business, including Harvard Business Review, MIT Sloan Management Review, and the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. His research has been featured in numerous media outlets, including New York Times, NPR’s Marketplace and the Harvard Business Review 2009 List of Breakthrough Ideas. Dr. Goldstein is co-author with Robert Cialdini of the New York Times best-seller Yes!: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive. The book is devoted to the psychology of persuasion and to prescribing persuasion strategies that are both ethical and scientifically proven to be effective. The strategies discussed in this book can easily be applied by almost anyone in almost any field, including sales, marketing, negotiation, management, patient care, policy, and parenting. Additionally, Dr. Goldstein has worked with a number of private and public institutions, including Accenture, the United States Forest Service, United States Census Bureau, and Google. --------------
Cesario & Higgins characterize an eager nonverbal style as “approach-oriented”:
- very animated, broad opening movements
- hand movements openly projected outward
- forward-leaning body positions
- fast body movements
- a fast speech rate
In contrast, they characterize a vigilant nonverbal style as “avoidance-oriented”:
- more precise gestures
- backward-leaning positions
- slower body movements
- slower speech
Fennis and Stel argued that eager nonverbal styles should work better for “approach-oriented” influence strategies. Approach-oriented influence strategies are those that make a request more attractive in some way (e.g. by reducing the cost of one’s product or increasing its benefits). In contrast, vigilant nonverbal styles should work better for “avoidance-oriented” influence strategies. Avoidance-oriented influences strategies work by reducing people’s resistance to the request (e.g. by reducing resistance to the request). (For more on this distinction, see Knowles & Lynn, 2004.)
In one experiment researchers tested the hypothesis that an eager nonverbal style would be more effective than a vigilant nonverbal style for an approach-oriented strategy, the door-in-the-face technique (Cialdini and colleagues, 1975). This technique involves increasing people’s motivation to say yes to a request by preceding it with a larger request that most individuals first reject.
In the experiment, Fennis and Stel had researchers pose as salespeople who approached shoppers at a local supermarket in Europe.
In the control condition, the salesperson said, “Good afternoon sir/madam, Christmas is rapidly approaching, and so these boxes of Christmas candy are on special offer today! I may offer you one box for the price of 99 Eurocents!” (This was the true target request.)
In the door-in-the-face condition the salesperson said, “Good afternoon sir/madam, Christmas is rapidly approaching, and so these boxes of Christmas candy are on special offer today! I may offer you six boxes of candy for six Euros.” In almost all cases the target individual turned down the offer, prompting the salesperson to then try to make the request a lot more attractive in comparison by turning to the true target request: “You feel that six boxes is a bit too much? Ok, I understand. In that case I may also offer you one box for the price of 99 Eurocents.” Importantly, for half of the shoppers in the experiment, the salesperson made the request in an eager nonverbal style, using “active, open gesticulation with hands projecting outward. In addition he/she actively leaned forward to the participant, and displayed fast body movement and fast speech rate;” For the other half, the salesperson made the request in a more vigilant style, using “more passive gesticulation, keeping his/her hands close to the body. In addition, he/she leaned slightly backward and displayed slower body movement and speech rate” (Fennis & Stel, in press).
The results of the experiment revealed that when the salesperson used a vigilant nonverbal style, employing the door-in-the-face technique provided very little advantage over the control condition. However, when the salesperson used an eager nonverbal style, the door-in-the-face technique proved much more powerful (92% compliance) than the control condition (50% compliance). We can explain this result by recognizing that, when the salesperson made the initial concession from asking for six boxes instead of one box, it increased the motivation to buy because the single box had now become a more attractive option compared to the 6 box option.
Looking at the data from this experiment alone, it could appear that it might always be more effective to use an eager nonverbal style when attempting to influence others. However, additional research showed that an upbeat, eager nonverbal style is not more effective when using a tactic designed to reduce a buyer’s resistance to buying. Thus, any sales approach designed to relieve a buyer’s worry or caution about buying would be best accompanied by a more restrained, low-key nonverbal style. Although the researchers didn’t use it, one example might be a sales approach that employes the Authority principle by informing prospects that one’s product or service is recommended by experts. Here, where the goal is to reduce prospects’ uncertainties (with authority-based evidence) about whether to buy, it would be best to relate expert testimonials in a measured, unhurried style.
In summary, the results of this research show how important it can be to match your nonverbal behaviors with the type of influence strategy that you are employing.
- If your strategy is aimed primarily at increasing the perceived attractiveness of your request or offer, an eager nonverbal style is more likely to be effective.
- if your strategy is focused specifically on reducing the other person’s resistance to your proposal, a vigilant nonverbal style is more likely to be effective.
The body language experts may still have more to say than the scientists right now about nonverbal persuasion, but at least you can have confidence that scientists are starting to investigate this developing area.
Sources:
Cesario, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Making message recipients “feel right”: How nonverbal cues can increase persuasion. Psychological Science, 19, 415-420.
Davis, B. P., & Knowles, E. S. (1999). A Disrupt-Then-Reframe Technique of social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 192−199.
Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. (2004). Approach-avoidance model of persuasion: Alpha and omega strategies for change. In E. Knowles, & J. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 259−282). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fennis, B. M., Stel, M. (in press). The pantomime of persuasion: Fit between nonverbal communication and influence strategies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
------------- Dr. Noah J. Goldstein is a faculty member at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management. Dr. Goldstein's academic research and writing have been published in many of the premier scholarly outlets in psychology and business, including Harvard Business Review, MIT Sloan Management Review, and the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. His research has been featured in numerous media outlets, including New York Times, NPR’s Marketplace and the Harvard Business Review 2009 List of Breakthrough Ideas. Dr. Goldstein is co-author with Robert Cialdini of the New York Times best-seller Yes!: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive. The book is devoted to the psychology of persuasion and to prescribing persuasion strategies that are both ethical and scientifically proven to be effective. The strategies discussed in this book can easily be applied by almost anyone in almost any field, including sales, marketing, negotiation, management, patient care, policy, and parenting. Additionally, Dr. Goldstein has worked with a number of private and public institutions, including Accenture, the United States Forest Service, United States Census Bureau, and Google. --------------
Access Content Source And Other Great Stuff: http://www.insideinfluence.com/inside-influence-report/2011/04/body-language-and-persuasion-a-scientific-approach.html#more
******************************************************** http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment