O BEHAVE!Issue 23 • February 2016

Happy Birthday Ogilvy Change! 3

How to Change Minds and Influence People 4

Bias of the Month 5

The Option to Do Nothing 6

For Richer, for Poorer – Seriously! 7

Life on Repeat 8

Real Life Nudge of the Month 9

Upcoming Events 9

CONTENTS

Today, Ogilvy Change are celebrating our fourth birthday. Technically it will only be our first birthday, as we launched on February 29th in 2012. This was probably the first behaviour changing idea we had: hosting our launch on a day that isn’t ordinarily in people’s calendars so nobody could say they didn’t have the time to attend.

At first, having a behaviour change department may have been confusing to some. David Ogilvy’s mantra wasn't, “We improve brand engagement, or else”. From the very start, Ogilvy has always been focused on selling and changing behaviour. Fast forward thirty years and our Vice Chairman Rory Sutherland is flying the behaviour change flag after discovering the huge leaps currently being made in the social sciences. Rory was ill for a few days and began reading even more widely than normal and stumbled across marketing’s long-lost cousin behavioural economics. Ogilvy Change opened for business, combining the foundation of science with the power of creativity.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY OGILVY CHANGE!

In the beginning, we experimented on our colleagues at Ogilvy and carried out a string of experiments under the radar, which you may have unknowingly participated in. One of the most successful was our breakfast experiment. In the reception of our old Canary Wharf office, we set up a table filled with bananas, apples and oranges, as well as some delicious chocolate muffins. What our unwitting participants didn’t expect was one of the Ogilvy Change team covertly counting their choices. Over a series of trials, we tested out a range of psychological techniques to get people to choose the healthy option. Our most successful nudge was putting a giant mirror behind the table to cause a moment’s self-reflection, which inevitably led to people taking the waistline-friendly approach.

Read more about our first four years and our birthday here.

HOW TO CHANGE MINDS AND INFLUENCE PEOPLEWhy is it that people can cling on to certain beliefs even when they are presented with facts that lead to the opposite conclusion? The prevailing theory has been that, when confronted with information contrary to our beliefs, we experience negative emotions like anger. When our mental state is negative in this way, it becomes harder to process the information we’re given, and therefore we fail to take it into account and adjust our beliefs accordingly.

However, new evidence suggests that this may not be the whole story. Instead, a study by Trevors et al (2016) points to the conclusion that being faced with disruptive facts can lead us to question our identity, so as a defensive mechanism against this we have to reject the new facts – which means that objectively correct arguments are disregarded, and can even backfire. Participants were asked a series of questions to ascertain their knowledge of and attitudes towards genetically modified organisms (GMOs); a very emotive topic, yet one that is rife with misconceptions. One question of particular interest was, “I often think about the lasting effects of the foods I eat”, as an indication of the importance placed on dietary purity. After reading some information to challenge anti-GMO beliefs, participants to whom dietary purity was a key part of their identity reported higher negative emotional responses, and were even more likely to be anti-GMO than before. In other words, the factual argument backfired.

Trevors, G., Muis, K., Pekrun, R., Sinatra, G., & Winne, P. (2016). Identity and Epistemic Emotions during Knowledge Revision: A Potential Account for the Backfire Effect Discourse Processes. In press.

This is consistent with a study published last year by Nyhan and Reifler (2015), who explored people’s attitudes to being vaccinated against the flu. A worryingly high proportion of the US population believes that flu vaccines can cause flu, which naturally has consequences for public health. In their study, they found that people who indicated they were unduly concerned about the side effects of the vaccine were even less likely to consider getting vaccinated after receiving accurate information about the incredibly low risks. Despite a fall in their false beliefs, intentions to get vaccinated dropped from 46% to 28%. The authors suggested that this paradoxical effect may be due to people trying even harder to maintain their original attitude in the presence of contradictory information.

Trying to change people’s minds, particularly when they could really benefit from an updated viewpoint, is a challenge we all face in our personal and professional lives. This evidence on the backfire effect suggests that it may be unproductive to challenge people’s views directly. One thing that can be effective is giving them an excuse to change their minds, so they can be reassured that they weren’t wrong to believe what they believed before. Changing our minds because the situation has changed, or new evidence has come to light, is much less embarrassing and allows us to preserve our identity more than having to admit we were just wrong.

BIAS OF THE MONTH

Door in the Face Technique

Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B. L. (1975). Reciprocal Concessions Procedure for Inducing Compliance: The Door-in-the-Face Technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 (2), 206-215.

The foot in the door effect is a well-studied persuasion technique based on the principle of reciprocity: people feel a sense of obligation to give back to someone, after they’ve received something from that person. The foot in the door technique is the finding that refusing a large request increases the likelihood that a person will agree to a second smaller request. Saying “no” to a large request makes the refuser feel they owe the person who asked a favour.

To see this technique in action, Cialdini et al (1975) asked some unwitting participants if they would escort a group of young offenders to the zoo, most of whom refused (control group 1). The authors also asked another group if they would spend three hours a week as a peer councillor to young offenders for two years; again, most said no (control group 2).

For the third group (experimental group), he asked the participants first if they would be peer councillors. When they said no, he downgraded the request and asked them if they would escort the young offenders to the zoo; 50% now agreed. Further research on this technique found that it produces high levels of compliance only when the same person makes the request, and the request is similar in nature.

THE OPTION TO DO NOTHING

Schrift, R. Y., & Parker, J. R. (2014). Staying the Course: The Option of Doing Nothing and Its Impact on Postchoice Persistence. Psychological Science, 25 (3) 772–780.

As humans we like having choice and the feeling of control over our choices. We also don’t make choices in isolation; context and other options within the choice set has a significant impact over what we choose. For example, research has shown that we tend to choose the middle option, and this bias can be manipulated to make us choose a more expensive item. When choosing a new television and the available options are priced at £50, £100 or £150, we tend to choose the TV that is £100. When the choice set changes to £100, £150 or £200, we then tend to choose the £150 TV.

A piece of research within this field investigated what happened when the option of “doing nothing” was added to the choice set. In one study, participants were asked to identify as many words as possible from one to two word search puzzles. One puzzle contained the names of famous actors, and the other capital cities. All the participants were told they would be paid for every correct answer and could quit at anytime. They were then randomly allocated to one of three conditions:

1) Forced choice - participants were asked to choose either the capital cities or famous people puzzle to work on.2) Rejectable choice - participants were asked to choose one of the puzzles to work on but were also given a third option: do neither of the quizzes and leave the study, i.e. do nothing.3) Forced choice with 3 options - participants were asked to choose to do the puzzles containing famous people, capital cities or famous ballet dancers

Results found no difference between group 1 and 3 in the amount of time that participants spent on the task, but those in group 2 who could have chosen to leave the task but actively choose to proceed spent 40% more time on the task. The researchers noted that by giving these participants the option of doing nothing, which meant they had to actively choose to continue, it was reinforced in their minds that their chosen path was a good one: if it wasn’t, surely they would have opted out. This tactic can be risky as you do risk people choosing to do nothing, but with such a significant increase in engagement of those who choose to continue doing the task. Having fewer but more engaged participants could be more beneficial that having more but less engaged participants.

FOR RICHER, FOR POORER – SERIOUSLY! Couples stand up in front of their loved ones on their wedding day and promise to stand by each other “for better, for worse…for richer, for poorer” – but your choice of partner does in fact determine your financial future. A new piece of research based on an Australian population found that a spouse’s personality traits have a significant impact on their partner’s work outcomes, incomes and promotions.

The researchers looked at the “big five” personality traits of married couples and found that the trait of conscientiousness was the greatest predictor of their spouse’s income, number of promotions and job satisfaction, regardless of gender. Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being thorough and careful, and implies a desire to do a task well. People who score highly on this trait are efficient and organised, rather than easy-going and disorderly.

Solomon, B. C., & Jackson, J. J. (2014). The Long Reach of One’s Spouse: Spouses’ Personality Influences Occupational Success. Psychological Science, 25 (12), 2189-2198.

To put the finding into dollar terms, the researchers found that with every one standard deviation increase in a spouse’s conscientiousness, an individual is likely to earn approximately $4000 more per year, averaging across all ages and occupations. The researchers then delved even deeper into the data, which allowed them to also understand why spousal conscientiousness matters. First, conscientious spouses handled a lot of household chores, allowing the employee to concentrate on work. Secondly, these spouses make the employee feel secure and satisfied in their marriages, enabling them to place all their focus on work rather than dealing with drama at home. Finally, employees tend to emulate their conscientious spouse’s diligent habits at work, making them a better employee overall.

If maximising your finances through your work is a core goal of yours, maybe get your significant other to do a personality test before you walk down the aisle – or even on a first date if you don’t want to waste your time.

LIFE ON REPEAT

Russell, C.A., & Levy, S.J. (2012). The Temporal and Focal Dynamics of Volitional Reconsumption: A Phenomenological Investigation of Repeated Hedonic Experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (2), 341-359.

New technology like Netflix and Kindle has made it easier than ever for us to watch as many shows and read as many books as we like. However, even with all of this content available at our fingertips, we still find ourselves revisiting our favourites, and watching or reading them over and over again. It’s been calculated that, for every hour of music we listen to, 54 minutes of that is music we’ve heard before. What is it that drives us to relive these experiences?

Russell and Levy (2012) interviewed 23 individuals about their “hedonic volitional reconsumption”; in other words, the enjoyment they received from rewatching films, rereading books and revisiting geographic locations. It turns out there are four main reasons why people re-indulge in an activity. The first is, quite simply, that they like it, and want to experience it again. This may not be as straightforward as it seems, though: the “mere exposure” effect ensures we like something more when we are already familiar with it. This suggests that the more we watch something, the more we’ll like it – not the other way round. The second reason is nostalgia. There are two types of nostalgia: historical, for the past generally, and autobiographical, for the past events of our own lives. Films and books from our past are particularly good at activating the former, while listening to well-worn songs from years gone by can take us straight back to a more personal moment of history. The third reason is for the therapeutic effects that nostalgia can provide. We know exactly what kind of emotional journey that an old book or film will take us on, unlike something new which could be even better – or a big disappointment.

The fourth and final reason is more existential. When we revisit something that was an important part of our past, for example music that we listened to during the first year of university, we’re immediately transported back there – but we’re also soothed by the benefit of hindsight, knowing how problems were resolved and relationships panned out. This dynamic link between our past, present and future selves allows us to re-examine our experiences and make sense of our lives through this lens. It’s not about the object we’re reconsuming at all; it’s about ourselves in relation to it.

Spotted: Scarcity on Booking.com

Travel websites are the best at activating loss aversion, convincing us we have to book a flight or a room right away to avoid missing out. Booking.com have got this down to a fine art, with no fewer than three pieces of scare-mongering information greeting you as you try to book a hotel room. In this example, you are told that the Hotel Savoy has already been booked four times today, with another four people looking at it – but there are only two rooms left, so you’d better book before someone else does! While these tactics may lose their effectiveness as they become more and more widespread, for the time being they are still certainly very motivating.

REAL LIFE NUDGE OF THE MONTH

UPCOMING EVENTSBehavioural Boozeonomics with the London Behavioural Economics NetworkMonday 14th March, 7.00-10.30pmThe Comedy Pub, Piccadilly

NIBS Conference 2016Monday 4th – Wednesday 6th AprilUniversity of East Anglia

Cíosa Garrahan@CiosaGarrahan

ciosa.garrahan@ogilvy.com

BROUGHT TO YOU BY

Juliet Hodges@hulietjodges

juliet.hodges@ogilvy.com