« Markets in everything, Japan edition (again) | Main | My favorite song »
The power of "because"
Behavioral scientist Ellen Langer and her colleagues decided to put the persuasive power of this word to the test. In one study, Langer arranged for a stranger to approach someone waiting in line to use a photocopier and simply ask, "Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?" Faced with the direct request to cut ahead in this line, 60 percent of the people were willing to agree to allow the stranger to go ahead of them. However, when the stranger made the request with a reason ("May I use the Xerox machine, because I'm in a rush?"), almost everyone (94 percent) complied...
Here's where the study gets really interesting...This time, the stranger also used the word because but followed it with a completely meaningless reason. Specifically, the stranger said "May I use the Xerox machine, because I have to make copies?"
The rate of compliance was 93 percent.
That is from Bob Cialdini's Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive; here is my previous post on the book. And here is why motivational posters don't work.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 25, 2008 at 07:48 AM in Education | Permalink
Comments
Cialdini already had a passage about the "power of because" in his much earlier book, Influence.
Perhaps his new book is just a rehash? You should still buy it though, because you should buy it.
Posted by: at Jun 25, 2008 8:38:59 AM
I too seem to remember this precise example from Influence. Maybe this is the applied version of the prior book.
Posted by: bobvis at Jun 25, 2008 9:02:29 AM
At the same time, the prior post had an interesting point I don't remember from the prior book. It may be hard to fault the re-use of a single experiment--especially one as good as this one.
Posted by: bobvis at Jun 25, 2008 9:04:56 AM
The "power of because" may be related to the concept of "hanging a lantern" (or "hanging a lampshade"), familiar to screenwriters.
If something is unaccounted for, unexplained, or unusual, then your audience might wonder about it. But if you draw attention to it and then rapidly move right along, this will sometimes cause the audience to feel that the issue has now been accounted for... even if you merely mention the thing rather than actually explain or defend it.
For instance, an implausible coincidence in a movie script can be dealt with simply by having one of the characters comment out loud about how unusual it is. Or perhaps, Ronald Reagan dealing head on with the issue of his age in the 1984 campaign by cracking a joke about Walter Mondale's "youth and inexperience" during a televised debate.
It works best in verbal contexts that don't allow a lot of time for reflection or response (a movie with rapidfire dialog, a political debate, an animated business meeting or discussion), or where a decision needs to be made instantaneously (complying with a request).
Posted by: at Jun 25, 2008 9:10:39 AM
I strongly recommend this technique. It works because it's very effective. Try it and see!
Posted by: at Jun 25, 2008 9:14:29 AM
The next time someone asks me for something "just because," I'm going to kick them in the shin and beat them about the head and shoulders with Influence, the hard cover.
Posted by: Andrew at Jun 25, 2008 9:41:06 AM
I wonder how the 'because' scenarios would work on individuals trained in rhetoric, argumentation, and informal/formal logic? I'm not highly trained in those areas, but I know that when I see, or hear, a 'because' I automatically think 'ah ha, following the because is a reason, and prior to that is a conclusion.'
Posted by: Troy at Jun 25, 2008 9:59:43 AM
It could be that when someone cuts in front of you and says "because I have to make copies" you just figure you shouldn't engage such a nut job, or it's just not worth figuring out how to respond to nonsense.
So it could be nonsense induces acquiescence, not the "because."
Posted by: Daniel Klein at Jun 25, 2008 10:11:24 AM
Isn't saying "because" a way of signalling that something is more important than normal? If doing a minor favor is somehow a big help to someone else, do I really care that they haven't fully articulated why it's so important?
Posted by: Zach at Jun 25, 2008 10:13:33 AM
May I sleep with your wife, because she's really hot? Works ever time.
Posted by: Dylan at Jun 25, 2008 11:47:59 AM
"do I really care that they haven't fully articulated why it's so important?"
You do if they've read the book.
If you strolled up and said, "hey, can I break in line because my stuff is more important than yours" I'd guess you get a <60% success rate, say 30%.
So, somewhere on the bell curve between 30%-60% and 94%, you can break the rules. All people are pretty much the same but for compounding small advantages over time as they achieve step changes up the success ladder. How does this relate to public choice domains and left hander success in the contest for President? Still working on a unified theory here.
Posted by: Andrew at Jun 25, 2008 11:59:39 AM
Andrew,
I am not sure your example isn't what Zach was talking about. You example shows forethought that negates the perceived "out of mind" effect. Simply because it makes no sense, you can easily imagine it is because the other person has something much more important on their minds.
Btw, I was expecting more nonsensical "becauses", such as "Can I go first because the sky is blue" or "Can I go first because my dog is so cute". The response may be different in those cases.
Posted by: anomdebus at Jun 25, 2008 12:31:15 PM
Aye, there has to be SOMEWHAT of a logical connection between the statements divided by the "because."
If only because people, when faced by any sort of quasi-logical argument, tend to enter a defensive "flight or fight" response...and most people choose the flight response if there is an even inkling that they are in the moral wrong...
No? Yes? Am I totally off-base?
Posted by: Robert Olson at Jun 25, 2008 1:04:21 PM
Having taught logic, I'm curious whether the words 'since' and 'because' could be interchangeable using Cialdini's methodology. As Troy points out, the former words are generally premise indicators for arguments.
Posted by: Jeff at Jun 25, 2008 1:08:15 PM
I will cockpunch the next person who uses a because joke.
Posted by: Bob at Jun 25, 2008 2:17:14 PM
Why?
Posted by: Matthew at Jun 25, 2008 2:48:54 PM
IIRC, this study was also cited in Stumbling on Happiness
Posted by: Kevin Postlewaite at Jun 25, 2008 3:26:32 PM
Daniel Klein nails it. The fact that compliance was even higher with a nonsense reason than with a legitimate reason is a pretty clear indication that this is just about people saying "the downside of having to engage with a narcisistic nutcase is worse than the downside of waiting an extra 30 seconds for my copies".
Posted by: David Wright at Jun 26, 2008 4:51:56 AM
Two shameless plugs re motivational posts: I always check in to see Demotivator's latest work--paridoxically more effective than the real thing! But seriously... Alongside Klein's book and Cialdini's works on my shelf is Edward L. Deci's underrated Why we do what we do: Understanding Self-Motivation. Of no surprise (but still a point that cannot be reapeated enough) is the vital part free choice plays.
Posted by: TD at Jun 26, 2008 7:09:11 AM
And to follow on from Daniel Klein's point, which I also agree with, the "because" + nonsensical reason is likely to influence one to give the queue-jumper a wide berth in future, because dealing with them involves choosing between two evils, viz, engaging with an idiot or waiting longer for copies.
This avoidance tactic will work well for the queue-jumper if the scenario at hand is actually about photocopying - they'll have less competition at the copier because people will wait until they've finished - but will work less well if they're trying to persuade people of something, i.e. in the political sphere.
Posted by: Alix at Jun 27, 2008 9:13:34 AM
"Influence" was a real eye-opener to many economists (certainly including this one); I recommend it highly. I'm sure the new book has plenty of new gems, too. The "click, whirr" principle (that some of our decisions are automatic and biologically based) explains a lot of behavioral economic anomalies. Perhaps the highest praise came from one of my colleagues (a sociologist): "If you economists understood the principles behind Influence, you'd be REALLY dangerous."
Now, if we could only make a model of it...
Posted by: AGMycroft at Jun 27, 2008 10:49:04 AM
Interesting point from Alix: rather like Rackhamn's distinction between major sales that are made after the salesperson's interaction, perhaps by someone they never met, and minor sales that are closed there an then.
Pushy "Close" lines can work in minor sales but can be counter-productive in major sales.
The "because" can bounce people because we generally expect a valid reason, it is low cost to comply, we are generally cooperative, and may choose not to expend the effort think about the details. It probably has to be phrased so as not to trigger too much attention.
If the amount of "becausing" rises, the investment in evaluating may have to rise too, and it could become less effective. At some point it could turn into a "lemons market" and the bad "becauses" drive out the good.
Posted by: David at Jun 27, 2008 11:32:49 AM
