How we change what others think, feel, believe and do
The ChangingMinds Blog!
Contributions -- one person at a time
There's a notion that 'more is more persuasive', and that if you make a grand appeal about millions dying in Africa then it is more persuasive than talking about thousands and certainly about one. There is also a reverse view, that millions becomes impersonal and that focusing on the individual is more effective.
In 2004 researchers at Carnegie Mellon University did an interesting experiment to explore this. They did a survey (which was irrelevant to the experiment) and gave the respondents five dollars (in dollar notes). They also gave them a 'Save the Children' charity envelope which invited them to give some of their earnings to the charity. The only difference was in the text they presented.
Version one (the 'millions' version) text went like this:
Version two (the 'individual' version went like this:
What would you have done, had you been faced with either of these two versions? On average, version one elicited $1.14 contribution, whilst people who read version two gave an average of $2.38. So what happened here?
There are problems with the first version. First of all, we don't deal well with big numbers. Can you imagine a million people all standing together? Difficult, huh? How about 100? Much easier. One is of course a doddle. So when someone talks about millions of people, we are impressed, but it doesn't mean that much to us. More is less. When you snow people with statistics, after a while they switch off. Secondly, you can't relate to a number, though you can relate to a person. Numbers, even about people, just aren't as human as an individual. Another problem is that if you were to contribute a few dollars towards millions of people, you'd probably feel that it was a drop in an ocean and would make no real difference. In the same way, people do not vote because they don't think it will make a difference.
An interesting extension of this was in a second study, where the researchers primed their subject, getting some into an analytical frame of mind by asking them logical and mathematical questions, whilst others were primed into an emotional frame of mind by asking them to describe how they felt when hearing the word 'baby'. Both groups were then given the 'Rokia' script. Interestingly, those who had been thinking logically now gave an average of $1.26, whilst those whose emotions had been invoked gave $2.34.
This shows the criticality of emotion (vs. logic) in decisions. Literally, when we are emotionally aroused, our analytic brain functions are chemically suppressed. Just as in the fight-or-flight reaction or in stress, in the battle between feelings and rationality, our emotional triggers almost always win.
The implications ripple into such areas as advertising and business storytelling. Use stories about individuals, not just products or strategies. Show how one person can make a difference for another one person. Give people names. Make it human. And start by prodding people into an emotional state.
Smalla, D.A., Loewenstein, G. and Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 2, 143-153
As Stalin said... "When you kill one, it is a tragedy. When you kill ten million. It is a statistic".
-- Edward N
I hope you have read Daniel Pink's book A Whole New Mind.
Your comment on this blog:
And the big