How to Persuade People Without Being a Scam “Artist” — The Catalyst by Jonah Berger
By: Sarah Cy
Tags: Inspiration, Creativity, Life Lessons, Love, Writing

Introduction

Berger starts with a story about a hostage negotiator who helped a SWAT team get a criminal to come out on his own without incident. (From the perspective of Greg Vecchio, an FBI agent)

Crisis negotiation came after the 1972 Munich Olympics, when 11 Israeli athletes were killed. Before, it was about force. Now, people have learned to get the guy to “come out by himself.”

Everything has something they want to change, but change is hard. Isaac Newton was the one who talked about this concept of inertia. Inertia means that people tend to do what they’ve always done.

Some people think that if you just push people, give more information, more facts, more reasons and arguments, or more force, people will change. But people are not like marbles. They push back.

In chemistry, chemists use catalysts, special substances that speed up chemical reactions. They do this not by increasing heat or pressure, but by providing an alternate route. In other words, faster change with less energy.

Being the catalyst is equally powerful in the social world. It’s not about trying to be a better persuader or be more convincing. It’s about changing minds by removing barriers.

Push people and they will snap. Tell them what to do and they probably won’t listen.

Good hostage negotiator start by listening and building trust. They encourage people to talk to their fears and motivations and who’s waiting for them at home, even pets. Great negotiators don’t push harder or increase the heat. They identify the barrier and remove it like a catalyst.

Most people think changing minds is about presenting evidence and explaining reasons, but we forget about the person who’s mind we’re trying to change.

Catalysts start with this basic question:

“Why hasn’t the person changed already? What’s blocking them?”

Sometimes change doesn’t require more horsepower. Sometimes we just need to unlock the parking brake.

The 5 principles that address roadblocks — REDUCE:

Reactance: People push back when pushed. So catalysts encourage them to persuade themselves. Endowment: People are stuck two what they’re doing and don’t want to switch. Catalysts highlight how inaction isn’t costless. Distance: People have an innate anti-persuasion system. New info must be within zone of acceptance for them to listen. Uncertainty: This makes people pause. Catalysts reduce risk. Corroborating evidence: One person’s evidence is not enough. Catalysts find reinforcement.

In the following chapters there will be illustrations on each principle,

…From changing the boss’s mind and driving Britons to support Brexit to changing consumer behavior and getting a grand Dragon to renounce the Ku Klux Klan.

Chapter 1 Reactance

Berger starts with story of Chuck Wolfe, asked to get teens to stop smoking in Florida.

Difficulty: warnings often become recommendations (think Tide Pods fad)

A nursing home found that residents who had more control (where to put their decorations, etc) were more cheery and active, and long term lived longer.

People need freedom/autonomy. They like feeling they have control over their choices/actions/behavior.

When others threaten or restrict people’s freedom, they get upset.

Threatening to restrict something makes it more desirable. Restriction creates a psychological effect called reactance. And this happens even when you’re asking people to do something rather than telling them not to do something.

In the absence of persuasion, people think they’re doing what THEY want.

Pushing, telling, even encouraging people to do something often backfires.

When you try to convince people, you give them an alternate explanation for their interest which threatens their perceived freedom. And they then react against persuasion and do the opposite.

This happens even when people wanted to take that action in the first place. People need to see their behavior as freely driven or it’ll backfire.

People have an anti persuasion radar, and they’re constantly scanning for influence attempts. If they find one, they set up countermeasures, such as avoidance and ignoring the message.

And when you make a claim, people don’t take it at face value. They scrutinize and argue against those claims. They raise objections until the message falls apart.

Catalyst allow for agency. They don’t try to persuade and get people to persuade themselves instead.

The reason why the anti-smoking campaigns didn’t work before, because they always implied that they knew what’s best for you and you should listen to them.

So Chuck took a different route: He showed teenagers how the tobacco companies were trying to manipulate them in order to sell cigarettes.

He showed how the company’s manipulated politics, sports, TV, Etc, to make smoking seem cool.

“Here is what the industry is doing, you tell us what you want to do about it.”

Leon didn’t demand anything from the teens or tell them what to do. It left it out for them to decide, and it works. The truth campaign was so powerful that in 2002, tobacco companies try to sue them.

4 ways to reduce reactance

Provide menu: Limited set of bounded/guided options. (2–3 not 15–16) Ask, don’t tell: Don’t make statements. Ex: GRE prep course asked students how much time they thought they’d need to master the material. Highlight a gap: The Smoking Kid campaign sent children to ask smokers for a light. When refused, the kids would give them a note saying “you care about my health, why not your own?” (cognitive dissonance) Start with understanding: Starting by trying to influence someone makes it about you. It’s not about other people, their wants and motivations, it’s about you and what you want.

Menu-ing and questioning shifts listener's role. Instead of thinking of counterarguments, they’re trying to think of an answer to the question, and how they feel about it (opinion).

Questions increase buy in/commitment to the conclusion and behaving consistently. They may not follow others’ lead, but their own ideas.

Being too forceful can backfire. You can rephrase as a question.

Before people will change, they have to be willing to listen. They have to trust the person they’re communicating with.

Seasons negotiators don’t start with what they want, they start with whom they want to change.

Listening makes a person feel like they are a stakeholder in the relationship.

Stay in their frame, make it about them, and that lays the groundwork for influence. You become their helper, their Advocate, their means to get what they want.

Use the right language. You, we. Mirror their words back to them. Instead of trying to persuade, start by understanding.

When people feel understood and cared about, trust develops.

To truly get rid of weeds, or change minds, find the root. No one likes feeling someone is trying to influence them. After all, when’s the last time you changed your mind because someone told you to?

Berger ends with a case study about a KKK member who was won over by a kind Jewish rabbi and his wife, Michael and Julie Weisser. They did it by leaving “love notes,” kind phone messages, in response to Weisser’s hateful harassment.

Larry was in the KKK because of his abusive father

In some strange way, emulating the thing that had hurt him the most gave Larry the strength you needed to go on. Until one day someone showed him another option.

But Michael told him:

“Larry, you better think about all this hatred you’re spreading, because one day you ‘re going to have to answer to God for all this hatred, and it’s not going to be easy.”

No one had tried to think why Larry was a problem in the first place. As Michael Weisser said, “love your neighbor” means loving neighbors different from you.

Chapter 2 Endowment

Berger starts with a story about not wanting to change to a new phone. (Loss aversion — people value what they already have)

If potential gains barely outweigh potential losses, people don’t change…advantages have to be at least 2x better (larger)*.

*It’s PERCEIVED gain that matters, what the person cares about. Understand a person’s needs/values to know whether change will be PERCEIVED as gain or loss.

Switching costs: psych/financial/time/effort barriers to switching.

But consider the cost of doing nothing.

Paradox: recovery is faster for severe > mild injuries because people will do their physical therapy for serious injuries.

But leaser injuries tend not to marshal the same resources.

Even if people have a plan, they won’t follow it.

It’s hard to get people to change when things are not-terrible, or just-okay, not-great.

Ex: A financial advisor convinced her client to invest by keeping track of how much potential money he was losing by not investing.

Cost-benefit time gap: You pay up front for the product before you receive the benefit. This is another deterrent to change.

People need to see how much time or money is lost: more motivating than seeing what is gained.

Burn the ships: Cortes and Tariq ibn Ziyad, and ancient Chinese saying.

Burning bridges/ships takes inaction off the table and forces people to get off the old way.

Catalyzing change isn’t just about making people more comfortable with new things, it’s about helping them let go of old ones.

Case study on how Brexit passed: they used Brexit bus ads showing the cost of sending the EU 350 million pounds a week for health. Slogan? “Take BACK control.”

The “back” is important, because “take control” implies taking action/change, triggering thoughts of switching costs, whereas “back” triggers loss aversion.

Same with Trump’s “Make America Great AGAIN.” (Reagan did a similar thing in 1980s.

Chapter 3 Distance

For people with less favorable attitudes toward X [Ex: perceived link between vaccines and autism], learning the truth about X actually backfires and pushes them farther.

Region of rejection vs Zone of acceptance: Won’t consider vs the place where people agree the most and the range of views they could consider.

If info falls in the latter zone, forget it. It will backfire.

That’s why “one person’s truth is another’s fake news.” Whether something seems true depends on where you stand on the “field.” Plus, don’t forget confirmation bias.

Strong feelings reduce the range of ideas you’re willing to consider.

Catalysts use a “more surgical approach” and target people with specific, relevant messages, looking for the moveable middle” and “behavioral residue” that indicates conflicting ideas/willingness to change.

Start by asking for less.

Chunking change: Break big asks into smaller ones.

And if someone’s really stubborn, change the field. Find a dimension where there is already agreement and use it as a pivot. This has a long-lasting effect.

Deep canvassing: Encourage people to find a parallel situation from their own situation, when they felt similarly about something. (Not exactly the same, because people can’t really imagine what it’s like to be others) Look for an unsticking point where they agree.

People appreciate when you help them be their best self.

Highlight ways people already agree or are moving in the direction. Ex: book that says:

Congratulations, whether you realize it or not, simply by picking up this book you have taken the first of what I hope will be many steps… To reclaiming your physical health, well-being, and happiness. (Greene, 2002)

Berger ends with two stories of Repubs and Democrats switching sides.

As with most big changes, things didn’t happen right away. Someone had to shrink the distance. It took a number of small steps rather than one big leap. Multiple interactions over months or even years. A slow, gradual change…

Chapter 4 Uncertainty

Berger starts with the story of Shoesite.org which became zappos, and how it was hard to get started because of the Uncertainty Tax: devaluing things that are uncertain. And this is a BIGger tax than you think.

People hate uncertainty. It’s worse than known negatives.

The more ambiguity there is around a product, service, or idea, the less valuable that thing becomes.

Uncertainty can stop decision-making completely. Uncertainty is good for maintaining the status quo, but terrible for changing minds.

How to combat uncertainty?

Trialability: How easy to experiment with something

Freemium: Dropbox Reduce up-front cost: Zappos free shipping, drowning simulator to show how important life jackets are Drive discovery: Zappos “mental pic of bringing shoe store to your home,” test drive cars (sell apartments by encouraging house parties, birthday party boxes) Make it reversible: Test drive cars, return policies

The real barrier isn’t money, but uncertainty.

Make magazine free, then people pay for the privilege of NOT LOSING it.

We’re all neophobic to some degree.

Risk aversion is relevant to the domain of gains, but risk-seeking int he domain of losses (gambling).

Freemium takes advantage of switching costs.

Dividing big things into smaller bits, like a monthly not yearly contract, helps.

Ends with story about employee who wanted to convince boss to treat customers with more personalization, which he did by enacting the plan on the company employees first:

To write a few words, personally and accurately, was what generated the most emotion.

Chapter 5 Corroborating Evidence

Berger starts with the story of a drug addict who didn't change until his family staged an intervention, and all got together to talk to him at once.

If an opinion is important to you, it takes more evidence to change. we discount info that we disagree with, so more proof is required for more certainty. But hearing the same words over and over is annoying.

You are more likely to accept an opinion from “Another you” someone who is like you, in terms of likes/dislikes, concerns/values.

Addicts need to change their entire ecosystem to change. Dr. Vernon E Johnson, forefather of interventions: “rationalization and projection work together to block [addicts’] awareness of the disease.”

But if many people say the same thing at the same time, there can be a breakthrough.

Who, when, and how are important though.

People are more likely to change if the people who are doing the thing are from separate, independent groups, because that provides additional info.

Also, compressing an intervention into one shorter period of time works better than extended.

It’s the difference between a sprinkler and a hose strategy. The former for a less opiniated person, the latter for a harder-to-change mind.

The more proof needed, the more important multiple sources are.

Case study: How the US got people to be willing to eat organ meat during WWII to save the meat for the soldiers: Kurt Lewin reduced the size of ask (mix some organ meats in meat loaf), reduce uncertainty and obstacles (gave out free recipes), used group discussions to make it feel more voluntary.

Epilogue

Another story: to help with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the US created a Seeds of Peace camp to bring youth together in Maine. This camp helped them improve relations, even after a long time.

Kurt Lewin: “If you want to truly understand something, try to change it.” The opposite is true too.

Eureka moments are great in movies but not realistic. big changes are more like the Grand Canyon.

Appendix: Active Listening

Listening is about asking the right questions and showing people you are listening.

Why questions can put people on the defense. Better open-ended. Also, use effective pauses. As does mirroring.

Use emotional labeling: understand underlying emotions to ID the issues affecting people’s behavior.

Appendix: Applying Freemium

If you give freemiums, you need to give enough time to try so they sense value before paying.

Appendix: Force Field Analysis

Force field analysis: Framework for analyzing factors in a situation to help make change possible. Identify restrainers (forces against change) and drivers( forces for change)

Get your copy of Catalyst here