In my last two blogs, I noted that I had just finished reading a book for our book club- The Catalyst: How to Change Anyone’s Mind by Jonah Berger (Simon & Shuster Paperbacks, New York (2020)) (“Catalyst”). The book’s thesis is how to get people to change their minds through self-persuasion. To do this, one must “remove[] roadblocks and lower[] the barriers that keep people from taking action” (Id. at 7.) or act as a catalyst.
The author identifies five principles: Reaction, Endowment, Distance, Uncertainty, and Corroborating Evidence (Id. at 11-14). I discussed Endowment in last week’s blog. This week, I will discuss distance and devote subsequent blogs to the remaining principles.
The notion of “distance” involves getting people to move a certain distance to change their minds. We often try to get people to change their minds by providing information, evidence, facts, figures, etc., to get them to move in our direction. (Id. at 92-93.). More times than not, this causes reactance or push back. They dig in their heels. (Id.)
One reason for this is confirmation bias: “People search for, interpret, and favor information in a way that confirms or supports their existing beliefs.” (Id. at 100.) If the new information is close enough to what they already believe, it will be in their “zone of acceptance” (Id. at 97), and they may be willing to consider it. (Id. at 99.). If it is too “far out there,” then it is in their “region of rejection” (Id.), and they will not buy into it. (Id. at 98.) Your efforts to change their minds will backfire, thanks to their confirmation bias. (Id. at 100-103.)
How do you close the distance between what they believe and what you want them to believe? The author suggests three ways:” (1) find the moveable middle; (2) ask for less; and (3) switch the field to find an unsticking point.” (Id. at 103.)
The first point may not always be possible in a negotiation. The author suggests that if dealing with issues that people feel strongly about, look for the moveable middle by looking for those individuals who are more likely to shift their position because they are not so dug in or their position is not so far away from the one you are advocating. (Id. at 107-108). Perhaps, in dealing with a one-on-one negotiation, the tactic would be to start with a topic or viewpoint that is not so far away from the one you share so that you can build some momentum by getting the other party to agree with you on a non-controversial issue.
The second tactic is to ask for less. This entails making your first request a tiny one that keeps them in their zone of acceptance but closer to its edges. Then, when you make your more significant request or final request, it will not be too far away from what they already agreed to and will be in their zone of acceptance (because the first small request has now moved its boundaries.). (Id. at 110-111.) This also implicates the notions of consistency and commitment- people want to stay consistent with their prior decisions and will also want to honor their previous commitments. If they say “yes” to the first small request, they will feel committed to it and agree to a subsequent request that honors their first agreement. In other words, you can “chunk” your requests- ask for several more minor things rather than one large request. (Id. 112-113.)
A related technique takes the opposite approach: initially ask for more than you want, inviting rejection, and then ask for what you want. This “door in the face” approach is based on the notion of reciprocity. In response to the person’s “no,” you changed your request and thus made a concession, so the other person will feel obliged to reciprocate by saying “yes.” Since you made the concession, they feel they must “reciprocate” by saying “yes” (“Door in the face”)
Finally, the author notes that you can switch the playing field by focusing on what the parties have in common or what they have already agreed to. Then, use those areas of agreement as a pivot point to build on further areas of agreement and get the other party to view the topic differently. (Id. at 114, 122-124.)
So, closing the “distance” is about overcoming a party’s confirmation bias and getting them to see things differently than they are predisposed to do.
…. Just something to think about.
-------------------------------------
Do you like what you read?
If you would like to receive this blog automatically by e mail each week, please click on one of the following plugins/services:
and for the URL, type in my blog post address: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ and then type in your e mail address and click "submit".
Copyright 2021 Phyllis G. Pollack and www.pgpmediation.com, 2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Phyllis G. Pollack and www.pgpmediation.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
