July 5,2011
Older? Yes! But Wiser? Maybe Not!
By Steve Martin, CMCT
Influencing and persuading others can be a tricky business; whether it’s influencing family members to say ‘Yes’ to our requests, persuading business associates to partner with us, or attempting to get an organization to do business with us. A true Detective of Influence will plan their approach carefully and make sure that the person or the organization they are targeting actually needs or will benefit from what they have to propose or offer.
Understanding what our influence targets want and prefer can be challenging at the best of times. And surely no time is more challenging than during the early stages of relationships when we are likely to know relatively little about a prospect’s likes, dislikes and preferences.
Fortunately, most of us will also have longer term relationships with people with whom we interact and do business with. And surely, one of the major benefits of having regular contact with people over an extended period of time is that it is generally easier for us to predict their needs and preferences. As a result, we can construct more effective and tailored influence and persuasion strategies.
Well, according to newly published research, it turns out that this may not necessarily always be the case.
Benjamin Scheibehenne from the University of Basel and his colleagues, Jutta Mata from Stanford University & Peter Todd from Indiana University, suggest that even though people will claim to be pretty good at predicting the likes and dislikes of others we are often anything but good. Surprisingly, they present evidence showing that the longer we know someone, far from our predictions getting better, they may actually get worse. While these studies were conducted with groups of people who were involved in personal relationships with one another, one has to ask whether the same effects hold true for business relationships too.
In one set of studies, people were asked to rate on a scale of 1 (don’t like it at all) to 4 (like it very much) 118 different items. In addition these same people were also asked to predict how a person with whom they shared a relationship would rate those same 118 items. Some people in the study were asked to make preference predictions for people they had known for a relatively short time (the average relationship length in this group was 2 years), others were asked to make predictions for those that they had known for much longer (the average length of relationships in this group was over 10 years).
In one set of studies, people were asked to rate on a scale of 1 (don’t like it at all) to 4 (like it very much) 118 different items. In addition these same people were also asked to predict how a person with whom they shared a relationship would rate those same 118 items. Some people in the study were asked to make preference predictions for people they had known for a relatively short time (the average relationship length in this group was 2 years), others were asked to make predictions for those that they had known for much longer (the average length of relationships in this group was over 10 years).
The 4 point scale was an important part of the study because it meant that a complete stranger could, on average, be expected to get 25% of their predictions correct just by chance.
Fortunately, and one suspects to the study participants relief, both groups were able to predict the likes and dislikes of someone they knew better than a complete stranger could - but not that much better.
Those subjects who were asked to predict the preferences of people they had known for a relatively short time were accurate 42% of the time. Surprisingly those who predicted the preferences of someone that they had known for a much longer time were accurate just 36% of the time.
Perhaps the most telling result of all was how little awareness people had over how well they actually knew people. In pre-study tests, both groups estimated that their prediction accuracy would be at least 60%.
The study authors suggest that there are several potential reasons why having a longer standing relationship with others could lead to reduced levels of understanding of those other’s likes, dislikes and preferences.
One reason is the simple fact that a significant proportion of our understanding and learning of another occurs in the early stages of relationships, when motivation levels to get to know each other are arguably higher. As time goes by, that motivation can decline and as a result important information or changes that occur could go unnoticed or not be attended to as much.
Another potential reason is the idea that people in long standing relationships will typically consider themselves to be more committed to each other by virtue of the extended time they have invested in each other. As a result, they may think that they know each other better than is actually the case. Consequently, they become less likely to notice changes in attitudes and preferences especially if they occur subtly.
There is also evidence to suggest that, in some instances, people in long term partnerships may be tempted to tell ‘white lies’ or avoid ‘frank and candid’ conversations. While understandable from a relationship protective perspective, such an approach could also lead to a decline in understanding and a reduction in knowledge about others over time.
So given that older doesn’t necessarily mean wiser, having processes in place to ensure a continuous and honest exchange of likes, dislikes and preferences seems sensible. An immediate example of that comes to mind is in the area of sales and business development. Sales executives and account managers might typically prefer to be seen as the single point of contact for their customers. This makes sense given the likely amount of time and effort they have invested in establishing a productive and profitable partnership.
This new research suggests that it would make sense to occasionally invite a colleague who knows the client less well to meetings. That colleague, given their reduced knowledge levels, could end up asking questions that the more experienced sales executive might be expected to already know but may have missed or considered less important.
This new research suggests that it would make sense to occasionally invite a colleague who knows the client less well to meetings. That colleague, given their reduced knowledge levels, could end up asking questions that the more experienced sales executive might be expected to already know but may have missed or considered less important.
There are doubtless many other applications. The overarching message seems to be that regardless of whether your influence target is a long standing friend, business partner or customer, arranging for either regular formal reviews or more informal catch-ups will be an important part of any good Detective of Influence’s persuasion activities.
Discussion Questions:
- The study referred to in this month’s Inside Influence Report was conducted with people who were in short and longer-term personal relationships. Do you believe the results and lessons have less, equal or potentially greater utility in other types of relationships, for example in business settings?
- What other examples exist where the existence of a longer term relationship has actually led to a reduced understanding between two parties?
Source:
Scheibehenne, B., Mata, J., & Todd, P. M. (2011). Older but not wiser—Predicting a partnerʼs preferences gets worse with age. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(2), 184-191
Scheibehenne, B., Mata, J., & Todd, P. M. (2011). Older but not wiser—Predicting a partnerʼs preferences gets worse with age. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(2), 184-191
Steve Martin is the Director of Influence At Work (UK). Along with Dr. Noah Goldstein & Dr. Robert Cialdini he is co-author of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Business Week International bestseller Yes! 50 secrets from the science of persuasion which to date has sold over ¼ million copies and has been translated into 26 languages. In 2008 the book was long-listed for the Royal Society’s annual prize for science writing and in 2009 the Harvard Business Review listed the book on their prestigious ‘Breakthrough Ideas for Business’ list.
Steve regularly features in business and the national press including his monthly ‘Persuasion’ column for the British Airways in flight magazine Business Life and he is a columnist for the Harvard Business Review online and the UK’s Institute for Leadership & Management. His columns are read by over 1 million people each month.
Steve speaks and runs workshops about the science of influence and persuasion and its application to a wide variety of business, government and non-profit organisations around the world. At the time of writing he is working closely with the Behavioural Insight Team within the UK Government’s Cabinet Office and he is a member of the Secretary of State’s Behaviour Change Network Team within the UK Dept. of Health.
Access Content Source And Other Great Stuff: http://www.insideinfluence.com/
Steve regularly features in business and the national press including his monthly ‘Persuasion’ column for the British Airways in flight magazine Business Life and he is a columnist for the Harvard Business Review online and the UK’s Institute for Leadership & Management. His columns are read by over 1 million people each month.
Steve speaks and runs workshops about the science of influence and persuasion and its application to a wide variety of business, government and non-profit organisations around the world. At the time of writing he is working closely with the Behavioural Insight Team within the UK Government’s Cabinet Office and he is a member of the Secretary of State’s Behaviour Change Network Team within the UK Dept. of Health.
