Language Camouflage

Let’s take a look at the rest of that Bill Bernbach quote. "At the heart of an effective creative philosophy is the belief that nothing is so powerful as an insight into human nature, what compulsions drive a man, what instincts dominate his action even though his language so often camouflages what really motivates him."

A person’s language hides his motivation. The camouflage isn’t meant to be deceptive. It’s not even voluntary. People just don’t know what motivates them.

To persuade, we need to know why people do what they do and what might cause them to change.

To find out, never ask.

Motivations don’t reveal themselves to frontal assault. People couldn’t tell us their motivations even if they wanted to.

Asking people why they do what they do, or how they choose, or what’s most important in their decision is a lousy way to find out. If we ask, we will get an answer, but we will likely get the wrong answer. People don’t lie. They just don’t know “Why?” But they think they do.

Amazingly, even though we don’t know “Why?” we are sure we do know. If asked “Why?” we instantly answer. We are extremely good at making up answers to why we behave the way we do. We come up with the answers quickly and effortlessly and we believe them to be true.

According to David Eagleman, “We have ways of retrospectively telling stories about our actions as though the actions were always our idea.” And, “We are constantly fabricating and telling stories about the alien processes running under the hood.”4

Richard Nisbett is professor of social psychology and co-director of the Culture and Cognition program at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. Nisbett and Timothy Wilson conducted a simple experiment in which normal people described why they made an everyday choice.5 The two scientists set up a table in the front of a Meijer’s Thrifty Acres just outside Ann Arbor, Michigan. A sign was on the table saying “Consumer Evaluation Survey—Which Is the Best Quality?” On the same table were four pairs of nylon panty hose arranged from left to right and labeled A, B, C, and D. Once people chose the one pair they felt was the best quality, researchers asked them why they had chosen that pair. In response, “People typically pointed to an attribute of their preferred pair, such as its superior knit, sheerness, or elasticity. No one spontaneously mentioned that the position of the panty hose had anything to do with their preference.” When asked, all respondents but one denied that position had anything to do with their choice.

Asking people “Why?” will send us in the wrong direction because bad information is worse than no information, a lot worse. We can’t seem to resist believing bad information even though we know it’s worthless. Kahneman’s research tells us that our automatic, non-conscious mental system will treat even bad information as if it were true. That is the way the system works and it works that way even among people who should know better. Even doctors, reporters, and scientists find it hard to resist information they know is worthless.

The “halo” effect would suggest that if we like something, we believe a wide range of positive things about it even if we don’t have evidence for those positive things. We interviewed a lot of women who serve cheese to their families. We asked them how often they served cheese and a number of questions about their related perceptions and knowledge.We found that women who occasionally served cheese and women who frequently served it had the same perception of its nutritional benefits and its nutritional drawbacks. Both types of women were enthusiastic about the benefits of cheese and not too concerned with the possible drawbacks.We found that women who occasionally served cheese and women who frequently served it had the same perception of the cost and the taste of cheese. Both types of women felt that cheese was worth the price and both liked the taste.What distinguished occasional cheese servers from frequent ones was awareness of easy to prepare recipes that use cheese. The less-frequent cheese servers couldn’t think of many simple ways to serve it. This fit with another fact we had gathered: women who only occasionally served cheese were less confident and less experienced cooks than women who often served it. The real reason some women were serving cheese less often than others was not nutrition, taste, or cost, but the availability in their mind of simple serving suggestions. If we had directly asked occasional and frequent cheese servers why they served it as often as they did, we would have gotten answers that made complete sense to the respondents and to us. But the answers may have had little to do with the real basis of behavior and we likely would have set off to solve the wrong problem.

The cheese experience also highlights the importance of aiming at the act rather than the attitude. Attitude wasn’t holding people back. The target had a positive attitude toward cheese—its nutrition, price, and taste. What was holding people back was the availability of easy serving suggestions. When we made those easy serving suggestions available, the lizard’s behavior changed.

Don’t ask people why they do what they do, or how they choose, or what’s most important in their decision. People don’t know the answer, but they think they do. Bad information is worse than no information. 7 Secrets of Persuasion - James C. Crimmins