CHAPTER   2   

Decision Making

The Surprising Reasons People Say Yes and No

Picking his way through the cramped ballroom, with people-filled padded chairs all askew, there was no clear route. Obstacles, however, were not this man’s primary concern. On his face, you could see his mind racing—searching for what he would say once he was in front of the crowd. Few people like public speaking, but this situation seemed even more torturous than usual. He found his standing spot, turned, and faced the crowd.

“I have traveled three hours round-trip every day to attend this session. I’ve driven dangerous roads and in heavy traffic. You are a talented and knowledgeable group. I have learned from you, and you have learned from me. And I sure could use the money to help pay for gas. Please, please. Pick me!”

That scene played out in a Calgary persuasion workshop during which I asked three volunteers to vie for a single, crisp $100 bill by convincing the audience to individually award them the money. The idea: Whoever makes the most compelling case, winning the affections of the crowd, walks away with the cash and the bragging rights.

Participants are allowed to make their case in any way they deem appropriate, with one exception: They can’t share the money or materially benefit the crowd in any way. (I’ll buy you all drinks!) Adding to the pressure, I give them just four minutes to develop their case and only 25 seconds to present it.

What would you say if you were in this situation?

This activity mirrors business life today in many ways. You are often in competition with others for the account, the promotion, the project. You must think on your feet and be able to put together compelling arguments fast, and you might not have much time to state your case. Sometimes you need to do all this—especially in peer-to-peer persuasion situations—without offering your target some sort of material gain. Not an easy assignment, to be sure.

The most interesting aspect of this workshop activity, though, is not the people vying for the money—it’s the people deciding who will earn the money. You may think that people are carefully analyzing participants’ arguments, weighing the pros and the cons to rationally decide who gets their votes. That’s not what’s happening. At all. The surprising truth is that most people have no idea why they say yes.

UNEXPECTED TRUTHS ABOUT YOUR THINKING

Nobel Prize–winning economist and author Daniel Kahneman suggests that human beings possess two “systems” for thinking: one that processes information very quickly, and one that does so more slowly and requires significantly more effort. Here’s the thing: Most of us don’t really like to think all that hard. As humans, we rely on what comes to mind with the least amount of cognitive strain. We also don’t always act rationally—rarely going to the trouble of, say, doing the math or weighing the pros and cons of a particular decision.

But don’t be too hard on yourself. We act that way to survive in a postmodern world where the amount of information we are exposed to has grown exponentially but the basic architecture of our brains hasn’t changed since the likes of Australopithecus africanus roamed the earth. We employ mental shortcuts to survive. Sometimes they help; sometimes they don’t.

BEING SAVVY ABOUT HEURISTICS AND BIASES

Heuristics are supportive cognitive shortcuts that help us make good decisions in times of complexity. Biases, on the other hand, impede decision making. Sometimes, biases also are referred to as cognitive illusions because, much like an optical illusion, they twist our thinking about reality.

So how do we distinguish between the two? It’s often difficult to parse heuristics and biases, because the same factors that impact our thinking also impact our thinking about our thinking. Furthermore, heuristics and biases are built into our psychological makeup and are so pervasive that we rarely even notice them working inside our heads. Plus, they feel natural, so how could they be wrong? If you make what turns out to be a good decision, you’ve just used a heuristic. If the decision results in a negative outcome, you succumbed to mental bias. As one psychology student so aptly put it: “Heuristics are helpful biases. Biases are hurtful heuristics.”

Regardless of how you might categorize these mental patterns, understanding and labeling them will help you consider these cognitive processes more easily and create strategic persuasion campaigns based on them. They also will help your targets make better decisions. What follows are the heuristics and biases most prevalent in persuasion. Don’t worry about getting too hung up on trying to determine whether something is a heuristic or a bias (even though I may use those terms in my descriptions). Simply concentrate on what these mental tendencies mean to you in terms of your persuasion efforts.

CIALDINI’S SIX PRINCIPLES OF PERSUASION

We can’t discuss persuasion and mental patterns without first talking about Robert Cialdini and his six principles of persuasion. His work is so important to the understanding of persuasion that I sometimes call him the “Ben Franklin of the Affirmative.” Cialdini, now regents’ professor emeritus at Arizona State University, wrote Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion in 1984. (It later was published as a textbook under the title Influence: Science and Practice.) The original book stemmed from Cialdini’s literature review of almost 50 years of scientific research regarding persuasion, plus his own ethnographic studies.

Cialdini is so highly respected in the field that he was a part of a “dream team” of behavioral scientists who helped create persuasive approaches for President Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential reelection campaign. Regardless of your political leanings, Cialdini’s additions were subtle and brilliant. “We know you’ve voted in the past . . .” was a subtle prompt known as “consistency” that convinced those who voted in 2008 to vote for Obama again in 2012. Cialdini also helped teach campaign volunteers to address rumors that Obama was a Muslim by reframing them: “Obama is not a Muslim” actually repeated the claim and reinforced it in the electorate’s collective mind. “Obama is a Christian,” on the other hand, reframed and refocused the discussion.

Cialdini created something akin to a “Unified Field Theory of Persuasion” by categorizing almost every persuasion approach into one of six primary principles: reciprocity, scarcity, consistency, liking, authority, and social proof. Cialdini’s principles are great examples of heuristics, meaning that when we humans follow them, we typically have a good result. (There are always exceptions.) The other interesting aspect of Cialdini’s principles is that they are largely social, prompted by or intensified by human interaction. Let’s take a look at each principle in turn.

Reciprocity

As noted in Chapter 1, reciprocity involves the give-and-take of human exchange. People repay others in kind. Every culture in the world teaches this principle in one way or another. When someone does something for you, it’s almost embedded in your DNA to want to return that favor in kind.

Reciprocity can range from the simple and instantaneous to something much more involved and complex. Examples can be found in day-to-day life on an individual level, such as helping a coworker prepare for a presentation after he helped you prepare for yours. On a departmental level, the sales team might assist the marketing staff with some unusual but critical market data, and then marketing reciprocates by providing extraordinary support for sales. Reciprocity can even occur between competing companies: Apple and IBM announced a wideranging partnership in 2014 to develop business software together.

If you stop to think about it, reciprocity helps societies evolve. People inherently realize that when they do something for somebody else, they are not simply giving of their time, energy, and financial resources; they eventually will receive something in return. The best way to leverage reciprocity is to enter every situation by asking yourself, “Who here can I genuinely help?”

Scarcity

Call it the Rule of the Rare, the Fact of the Few, or the Coefficient of the Insufficient. People want more of what they perceive to be a dwindling supply. This, too, may have derived from a survival trait.

Countless examples exist of how individuals have responded to a dwindling supply of something. One of my favorite reactions is the panic caused when Hostess Brands, the 82-year-old maker of Twinkies and other snacks, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2012. Shoppers began stockpiling Twinkies, fearing they’d find no alternative for their sugar fixes. News outlets reported that at least one person tried to capitalize on the scare by offering a single Twinkie on eBay for $8,000!

To truly leverage the principle of scarcity, the scarcity must truly be real. There really needs to be “Only three days left!” or “Limited inventory!” Anything else, and lack of ethics comes into play. And if you think people are worried about what they might be missing, they’re even more concerned about losing what they already have. That’s why “loss language” (forfeit, surrender, forgo) is always preferable to “gain language” (acquire, obtain, secure) when playing the persuasion game.

Consistency

What do you call someone who says one thing, yet does another? Hypocrite. Liar. Flip-flopper. Politician. Teenager. Most of these aren’t exactly glowing terms of endearment.

We like, trust, and want to interact with people who follow through on what they say. When a coworker tells you he’ll hand in a report by the close of business, you think highly of him when he does just that. If he doesn’t, that colleague’s credibility drops a notch. Similarly, when company management promises to make a change to a problematic tuition reimbursement policy that never comes, the culture in that organization shifts to the negative.

The good news is that these occurrences aren’t likely to happen. Why? Once most people make a decision or take a position, especially publicly, they strive to act in accordance with that publicly stated notion. This has been proven time and time again.

Liking

Another key found in Cialdini’s work is the principle of liking. We like those who like us (and state it publicly), as well as those who are like us. Whether they have similar political views or hobbies, hail from the same part of the world, or indulge in the identical, less-than-healthy habit of smoking cigarettes, individuals with commonalities feel an affinity for one another.

I’ve heard the argument that respecting somebody is more important than liking somebody. Fair enough, but if you actually like that person, you’re more willing to consider her arguments more carefully, give her more time to communicate, and be more receptive to her messages. Again, this is human nature; you just can’t help it. So what is the takeaway here? Be approachable, seek similarities, and don’t be afraid to pay someone a compliment every once in a while.

Authority

We defer to experts. Whether you’re a scientist, a medical doctor, a Ph.D., or a professor, if you have a level of expertise—and your target is aware of that expertise—you automatically become more persuasive. It’s that simple.

If you have a title, credential, or significant certification, make it known in subtle, yet powerful, ways. Put that distinguishing credential in your email signature or post your diploma in your office. (I know a professional who once attended a prestigious executive education program, but rather than tell everyone he attended, he simply showed up at meetings with a coffee cup from that university!)

Social Proof

And, finally, we come to Cialdini’s last principle: social proof. People follow the lead of similar others, and people’s tendency in this regard intensifies whenever a situation is uncertain (Sales are down. What should we do?) or comparable (All the other computer companies offer package deals.). The most powerful example of this is peer pressure among teenagers. Studies show that teens with two friends who smoke tobacco products are 1,000 percent more likely to smoke; those with three or more tobacco-toting friends are 2,400 percent more likely to smoke.

Social proof holds sway in the office, too. If you notice coworkers signing up for the United Way HomeWalk, you will be more inclined to do so. If you see that others are working late at the office, you more than likely will start setting aside a few evenings to stick around as well. If everyone appears to be on board with the new marketing direction, you will probably be on board, too—even if you’re not a fan of the new marketing direction. We are social creatures.

The absolute best way to leverage social proof in a business setting is through the use of testimonials and referrals, which demonstrate that others have benefited from knowing and working with you. And now your target will, too. In Chapter 10, “Yes Success,” I’ll show you how to specifically make these requests. For now, just understand the power of social proof.

As they use other heuristics, people often use Cialdini’s six principles, individually or in combinations, to make decisions. Now that you know them, so can you. Next, let’s set our sights on understanding the most prominent biases—and learning how to navigate each of these human tendencies in turn.

AVAILABILITY BIAS

Perhaps the root bias of all is availability. We have a tendency to give the most credence to what we can most easily recall. If we remember an occurrence quickly without much effort, we find it perfectly suited for whatever the question is before us. For examples of this, look no further than your relationship with your spouse or significant other.

People in relationships often share the burden of household responsibilities. One of the main areas of contention between couples is “fair share”—as in, “Is the other person doing his or her fair share of the chores around here?” The conflict occurs when one person believes he is doing more than the other. What might really be happening, though, is that both individuals are falling prey to the bias of availability. What you remember, and therefore exaggerate, is the last time you did the dishes, or you took out the trash, or you made the bed. So in your mind, you think you always do something, and the other person never does it. See any potential problems?

Availability Bias also can cause problems at the office, as your brain actually substitutes one question for another. Let’s say your vice president of engineering asks you to recommend the best-qualified supplier to provide exhaust systems for your company’s new engine. And in the instant of the conversation you say, “We should go with Wilson’s Exhausts.”

What may actually have taken place in your mind is not a careful analysis based on price, reliability, quality, and suitability for this particular engine. Rather, you might just recommend any exhaust system provider you can remember. Your brain may have substituted the question, “Who’s the best?” with “Who can you name?” (And now, thanks to the Principle of Public Commitment, you’ve gone on record, and will now defend that selection!)

The Availability Bias also most impacts us when we are trying to gauge the relative size of a category or the frequency of an occurrence. How large is the market for red laser wall levels? (Huge! I used one this weekend.) How often are Wall Street traders arrested for illegal activity? (All the time. I just read an article about another one yesterday.)

The insufficiency of the reasoning in these examples is obvious, but it is the rare individual who would submit to the more difficult task of finding out the actual statistics that would answer either of the above questions. Many people simply don’t want to work that hard. We take the path of least intellectual effort. We’re human.

Positively Leveraging Availability

How can you leverage this concept of Availability Bias to ethically win the heart and mind of your target? It’s imperative to keep the value of your “ask” in front of your target. Time dims people’s positive memories, so you must find ways to maintain your expertise, your value, and your shared experiences. Sending a reminder email, revisiting a key point casually in conversation, or mailing a communiqué that augments or amplifies your position all work beautifully. Remember, however, there is a distinction between keeping your contributions top of mind and . . . well, stalking. Persuasive professionals know the difference and rarely cross the line.

Frequency certainly impacts one’s ability for recall, but other factors leading to Availability Bias include dramatic events (winning an important award or surviving a tragedy), intense personal experiences (receiving accolades or suffering public embarrassment), vivid descriptions (created by using language or graphics), and a notion related to frequency called the “Recency Effect” (in which people remember the last thing they heard on a topic). When you can summon dramatic public events, do so. If your company is generating positive press regarding a purchase or other strategic move, that is the time to reach out to new prospects. If someone undergoes an intense and negative experience related to your “ask” (“The trade show was terrible! I had to set up the booth until midnight, and then I had to work the show for nine hours the next day. I was exhausted when speaking with prospects.”), that is the time to push for agreement on your objective (“See? This is exactly why I’m recommending we ask the board for budget dollars for either more head count or expanded outsourcing!”).

Other tips include using vivid descriptions instead of just numbers: “The new retail space we’re recommending could house AT&T Stadium,” instead of “The space we’re recommending is one million square feet.” And, of course, before someone makes a key decision, keep the Recency Effect in mind. Literally the last thing you want the decision maker to hear is your input. People remember—and give added weight to—the final comment they’ve heard on the topic. You want to be the last person whispering in their ear.

THE HALO EFFECT

Known scientifically as “Exaggerated Emotional Coherence,” and more commonly as the “Halo Effect,” this concept doesn’t receive the attention it should. The Halo Effect occurs when we judge others positively in one aspect of their lives (appearance, wit, charm, industriousness) and then apply positive feelings to them for other, often unrelated, areas (problem solving, leadership, sales prowess).

Edward Thorndike first observed the Halo Effect and published his findings in 1920 in a paper called “The Constant Error in Psychological Ratings,” which analyzed military officers’ rankings of subordinates. If a soldier boasted a strong physical appearance, he also typically was considered to have impressive leadership abilities. If he was loyal, he also was rated as highly intelligent. The correlations proved way too consistent for Thorndike, who determined that officers’ impressions in one area of a soldier’s experience too often colored their impressions in another.

That practice holds true today. If someone is attractive, he also usually is considered smart. If a person appears enthusiastic, she often also is perceived as hard working. Friendly? Must be a good leader, too.

Priming the Halo Pump

When it comes to evaluating people, first is always foremost. People remember the first piece of data they receive about a person, and their subsequent impressions are shaped by that data. One of the earliest and most enduring studies of first impressions and the Halo Effect was completed by Solomon Asch, who asked people to evaluate the personalities of two individuals named Alan and Ben. Asch presented the two individuals thus:

Alan: intelligent – industrious – impulsive – critical – stubborn – envious

Ben: envious – stubborn – critical – impulsive – industrious – intelligent

Obviously, the series of adjectives used to describe Alan is simply reversed for Ben. Here’s the catch: Although the same words appeared in a different sequence, test subjects always viewed Alan significantly more favorably than Ben. Even Alan’s negative characteristics were seen more positively, because of the positivity applied to the initial descriptors. If someone you view positively possesses a stubborn streak, you consider him a person who takes a principled stand. On the other hand, if you already have a negative impression of that person, the stubbornness can be seen as a sign of inflexibility and unwillingness to consider new ideas.

Creating Your Halo

The clear takeaway here is to do everything you can to create a positive entry point with your target. In the earliest stages of a relationship with a target, you should dress well, be friendly and approachable, and be well read, well traveled, and conversational. You must articulate your value and add important contributions to discussions. Make a favorable impression early, and you’ll dramatically improve the likelihood of hearing yes later.

Meeting an important target with whom you want to cultivate a positive and persuasive relationship? The savvy professional puts thought into not only how to make a positive impression, but also how to shape conversations. Consider the context of the meeting. Will it be a formalized business setting in a boardroom? Or will it be a more casual one-on-one exchange in an office? Conduct some research and explore similarities, interests, and unusual aspects of the target’s background. Be prepared to speak intelligently about the issue at hand, ask incisive questions, and add a thought-provoking perspective. But don’t overdo it and feel the need to become an expert on every potential topic to be discussed.

The Halo Effect invokes the image of concentric circles on a body of water. As long as you can make one favorable impression with someone early on, you’ll build positivity in other areas of your business relationships.

Navigating When There’s No Halo

What if you were Ben, from the Asch example? What if the first impression you leave is far from angelic? If positivity is the Halo Effect, then this opposite impression must be the “Horns Effect.” Something about you is off-putting to someone else. And much like the Halo Effect, the Horns Effect can color your interactions with others.

We’ll talk more about recovering your credibility in Chapter 5. For now, here is a quick way to overcome less-than-saintly impressions that involves a real Ben: Ben Franklin. Known for many things, including astute observations of human behavior and practicing persuasion, Franklin was chosen in 1736 without opposition to be clerk of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. The next year, he again was chosen. But this time, a new assembly member offered a long argument against Franklin and in support of another candidate. Franklin won out, but he found it disconcerting that the assembly member—a person of influence—rallied so publicly against him. Franklin knew he needed to win him over and didn’t want to appear obsequious or servile in his approach.

So what did Benjamin Franklin do? He eventually asked his adversary if he would be so kind as to lend him a rare book from his library. Franklin was renowned for his discerning taste in books, and his target proudly agreed to lend him the requested copy. Franklin showed his gratitude with a nice note later on, and evermore the two men enjoyed a lifelong positive relationship. This episode is said to have inspired Franklin to coin this aphorism: “He that has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another, than he whom you yourself have obliged.”

PRESENT-VALUE BIAS

Despite what some people say, we value our present, the here and now. One way to test for this Present-Value Bias is simply to ask someone, “Which would you rather have: $100 in 365 days, or $102 in 366 days?” When faced with such a choice, most people will think (and often say), “Well, if I can wait a year, I can certainly wait a year and a day, so I’ll take the $102 in a year and a day.”

On the surface, this response seems to prove that when faced with an economic choice, delayed gratification provides a better return and that people operate rationally when faced with this sort of option. What it actually does is set up a beautiful contrast. Try asking the same person this question: “Would you rather have $100 today, or $102 tomorrow?” Typically, before you even get that question out, the other person blurts, “I’ll take the $100 today!” We say we understand the value of putting off immediate gratification, but we rarely act like we do.

Leveraging Present-Value Bias

Sellers on eBay who use the “Buy It Now” feature leverage Present-Value Bias. Sure, there’s a chance a buyer might be able to “win” the item for less if she waits, but she’d potentially be sacrificing (remember Cialdini’s scarcity principle?) the certainty of owning the item. Another example is Amazon.com’s “Buy Now with 1-Click” button. It’s fast, your credit card is on file, there’s no need to enter an address, and if it’s a Kindle book download, you’ll have your purchase in seconds. Both of these methods leverage people’s tendency toward Present-Value Bias. How can you leverage your understanding of Present-Value Bias to become a more effective persuasion practitioner? By making it easy for your target to say yes right now (easy to sign, easy to pay, easy to select) and making sure there is an immediate payoff for your target (a monetary return, a time savings, an information exchange, a reduction in labor intensity). You, too, should have a “1-Click” button.

THE CONCEPT OF ANCHORING

When it comes to numbers, we anchor to whatever number we hear first regarding a specific topic. The new manufacturing plant will cost $35 million. The marketing initiative will take $5 million of our budget. The new training program is going to run us $550,000. Now, whenever we think of these initiatives, we will rightly or wrongly compare any cost figures with those. In fact, not only do we anchor, we compare and contrast, too.

Say, for example, you are quoted a price for a new training program. You then compare all subsequent figures you see and hear, relative to that first figure. And then another fascinating psychological occurrence happens: The principle of contrast kicks in. If the first dollar amount you were quoted was $550,000 for a training program, and the next one is $750,000, that cost seems even higher than it is, because you are comparing it with your anchor of $550,000.

If you’re vying for approval on a budget and you have numbers to share, always share a range of numbers early in your communication, and make sure those numbers are generous. That way, subsequent numbers won’t seem quite as high because you’ve already anchored your targets to a numerical set. Similarly, if you’re trying to dissuade someone from following a particular route, make certain early conversations use lower numbers, which will make subsequent numbers seem even higher by comparison. When anchoring to make subsequent offers seem high (expensive) start low, to make subsequent offers seem low (affordable) start high. Remember, however, that your numbers must always be two things: real and legitimate.

Controlling Unrelated Anchors

Another component of anchoring, one that is much more difficult to control but still worthy of consideration, is that of unrelated anchors. This can occur when numbers with no relevance to your initiative can nevertheless influence your target’s thinking. In one study, participants were shown a bottle of wine and asked to estimate the highest dollar amount they would pay for that particular bottle. Before they were to write down their bid, subjects were asked to jot down the last two digits of their social security number. Those who had the highest social security number digits also bid the highest for the wine. The participants anchored to a totally unrelated number, which influenced their responses.

If you are presenting numbers for the first time in a meeting, take into consideration whether your target is being exposed to other numbers prior to your presentation. If so, those numbers could impact the perceptions of your request. If you can adjust the agenda to give your good idea the best chances of success, do so.

CONFIRMATION BIAS

Because you’re sophisticated enough to be reading this book, you more than likely are familiar with the concept behind Confirmation Bias: We seek facts, stats, and opinions that prove our hypothesis or our preconceptions. The person we hired is doing a fantastic job, the program we launched is performing exactly as intended, and the product our team created is adding what we thought it would to our market share.

Confirmation Bias can lead to poor decision making because it provides people with all the reasons to support their own claims and aims, with nothing to refute. If you’re attempting to ethically win the heart and mind of your target, you must do your due diligence. Look at all relevant data sets to make sure that what you’re proposing is the right thing to do. Once you’re convinced that your proposal is the right thing for your target, for you, and for the surrounding situation, acknowledge the bias.

Leveraging Confirmation Bias

Leveraging Confirmation Bias in persuasion can sound like this: “When we started this project, I wanted things to work out with the proposed new vendor. Much like the researcher who tries to prove his hypothesis, I looked for reasons we should partner with this company. I looked at locale, capacity, and all of the things that company does well. And that’s exactly what I found. Reasons we should partner with it. But we’d be fooling ourselves if we didn’t do our due diligence and ask if we’re not falling prey to Confirmation Bias by seeing only what we want to see. We should spend a little more time considering this carefully and perhaps have a few others who aren’t as close to the project take a look.”

You’ll be seen as intelligent, honest, and a person of integrity. Why? Because you are.

ADDITIONAL COGNITIVE BIASES

As a persuasive professional, you should also be aware of the following additional biases:

Name	Description	Example
Selective Recall	Remembering just those facts that prove your assumptions	“The promotion was a success. We sold 500,000 units!” (But we lost money due to discounts.)
Base Rate Neglect	Ignoring the background statistics for compelling anecdotal information	“Let’s create a first-time buyer’s program. Here are three success stories!” (Never mind that 87 percent of users of these programs default.)
Certainty Illusion	Unrealistically needing to have absolute confidence or certainty in a given action	“I’ll only green-light the project if we are certain of its success.” (Nothing is guaranteed.)
Group Think	Going along with the group because of a powerful culture or perceived peer pressure	“We’ve never made it work before, but we’re all certain we can do it this time. You?” (Well, if you all think so . . .)
Overvalue Sunk Costs	Continuing to invest in lost causes by throwing good money after bad	“We can’t stop funding the initiative now. Look at how much we’ve spent!” (And look at how much more you’re going to spend!)
Gambler’s Fallacy	Thinking you can beat the house; winning isn’t random	“The prospect hasn’t said yes in the past six attempts; let’s pitch again. We’re due!” (No, you’re not.)
Endowment Effect	Valuing something more, because you “own” it	“The catalog project has been ours for years. It’s much too important to leave to an outside agency.” (Perhaps your contribution would be worth even more if we freed your group to do something else?)

EMPLOYING HEURISTICS AND BIASES IN EVERYDAY SITUATIONS

Understanding heuristics and cognitive biases is crucial to maximizing your persuasive potential. As stated earlier, persuasion is ethically winning the heart and mind of your target. You must be convinced your request is good for your company, good for you, good for your target, and good (or, at a minimum, neutral) for your industry. If those conditions are met, then the two primary persuasive purposes provided by both heuristics and cognitive biases are to:

1. Use the momentum of mental patterns to know when to use what information. The two obvious examples are priming and anchoring. If you want a person or a project to be perceived with a positive “halo,” ensure that the first descriptors your target hears are positive, and vice versa. With anchoring you can make any number—be it a potential project cost, or potential business gain—seem either more or less by controlling the number first associated with your topic.
2. Point out the potential harm of mental patterns. For instance, if your target appears swayed by a compelling anecdote that is not yours, inform him of the all-too-common tendency to fall prey to Base Rate Neglect and ask him to help research facts and statistics to prove your point.

* * *

Back to the story that began this chapter: After each of the three contestants made his case for the $100 bill, I lined up the group for judging. Would the winner be the guy who claimed he risked life and limb to arrive at the workshop, but essentially just needed the money for gas? Would it be the generous man who stated he would donate the money to a charity? Or, finally, would it be the person who claimed his peers should pick him because he held his own with the group at happy hour?

To determine the victor, I used a timeless and scientific method: the applause-o-meter. When I asked for applause for the most persuasive presentation, the results were absolutely clear. The winner was our hero who needed gas money. He beamed as he received the crisp $100 bill, and the crowd gave him another thunderous round of applause. During the luncheon that immediately followed the workshop, I did what I always do: I inquired with those at my table about the contest and what they found so compelling about the winner’s argument. The comments were enlightening:

“I voted for him because he’s been so helpful ever since the start of this workshop.”

“He’s always willing to run a sales simulation or brainstorm an idea, so I like him.”

“He’s so funny. He had me cracking up all morning.”

Alas, the Availability Bias and Halo Effect are alive and well and thriving in Calgary.

Chapter 2 Persuasion Points

1. As humans, we use mental shortcuts called heuristics and biases.
2. Reciprocity makes us want to repay others in kind; help others and they’ll help you.
3. Scarcity means we want more of what we only can have less of; when things are genuinely scarce, let people know.
4. Consistency is the fact that most people want to perform up to the level they said they would.
5. We like those who like us and are like us; find similarities with your targets and make them known.
6. The Principle of Public Commitment means if we state a decision publicly and of our own volition, we are more likely to follow through with it.
7. We defer to experts, so develop your expertise.
8. Information that most easily comes to mind is given the most consideration; be the last person whispering in your target’s ear.
9. Understand both the Halo Effect and the Horns Effect; it’s important to make a good impression early.
10. Anyone can leverage Present-Value Bias by making it easy to say yes now. Immediate gratification is the name of the game.
11. We anchor to the first numbers we hear and then compare other subsequent numbers with them.
12. The two fundamental ways to leverage both heuristics and biases are to understand what to say when, and to point out to your target the potential harm of certain mental patterns.