You might recall the famous, long-running, and successful ad campaign with the tag line, Does She or Doesn’t She?  Refresh your memory.

The image combines two Rules:  All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere and Persuasion Is Strategic Or It Is Not.  We have the maternal combination of mother and child, but mom is smoking hot.  Does she or doesn’t she . . . do what exactly?  Pick whatever TACT you prefer and the Blonde can deny it, confirm it, or ask you to move closer.

Now consider this word picture.

During the Bush Administration many former generals appeared on TV to provide expert comment on actions in the War On Terror.  Some observers cried foul, perceiving the dark hand of SecDef Donald Rumsfeld as the man behind the curtain, manipulating public opinion.  Sure, they are retired and independent.  Sure, they are unbiased and objective purveyors of fact.  Well, according to the story, a two year investigation conducted by the Obama Administration (!!! aka, not the Bush Administration !!!) has found no such conspiracy.

I have always admired the persuasion and power skill of the Bush Administration.  They used words to accomplish change in freely choosing Other Guys and no one was sure whether the Administration was run by Idiots or Propagandists.

There’s a Difference between Persuasion, and Smoke and Mirrors; With Persuasion the Illusion Lingers.

Don’t do it.

Don’t even think about it.

Why make promises you know you won’t keep? It’s bad for your self esteem, your reputation, and your character. Just keep doing those bad things you do, I mean, gee whiz, you survived another year doing It, so how bad can It be?

On the other hand, New Year’s Resolutions are smart, hip, and trendy. All the Very Cool People do it. They read books and blogs and interview experts, compare and contrast with respected peers, especially peers from different cultures and backgrounds. How do you Buddist-Wiccan-Baptist-Metrosexual-Vegan-NRA Acolyte-Progressive-Survivalist-Muslim’s do It? (As if bad habits reveal culture more than universal human nature.)

Okay. Maybe you want It. Start This or Stop That or Just A Little.

Here’s how you persuade yourself.

It’s called Implementation Intentions which, unusually for most persuasion theories, means pretty much what it says. Do your plans or Implement your Intentions.

When people create rich, dense, elaborated, detailed, fine-grained . . . you get it . . . plans for their Resolutions they are more likely to Just Do It.

For example, imagine that you wanted to take a cross-country driving trip across America. What would you need to actually do the trip? A vehicle, a map, money and a credit card for expenses (and maybe savings to create them), clothes, food and drink, and on and on. You pack the car, plan the route, check the weather, your work schedule, and on and on, just the normal details of Road Trip!

This is the process of Implementation Intentions. It works with any volitional, controlled, planned, Intended action. The more you plan on how to Implement, the more likely you will hit your Intention.

So, you want to lose 15 pounds . . . well, that means two things: access to food and amount of exercise. Plan to reduce your access to food and plan to increase your exercise. Buy less food. Remove extra food lying around in your house. Don’t walk or drive by fast food joints or vending machines. Get good exercise clothes and leave them lying around in view for easy access. Make an exercise schedule and cross off each workout you plan on the schedule. And on and on. Make detailed plans.

Implementation Intention works because you think about process instead of the goal. Just having the goal of losing 15 pounds won’t make it happen. You also need the process that reaches the goal, all the stuff, the schedule, the details of action. And the process is the hard part and is the reason we fail at our New Year’s Resolutions. Process is why LeBron James is LeBron James and not riding the pine in a YMCA youth league. Process is the grind, the action, the steps you take to make a goal pop out at the end.

But, never forget the Rule: If You Can’t Succeed, Don’t Try.

So, just take out a piece of paper and a pencil. At the top write your Goal. Then on each following line write a detailed action step that is part of the Process for popping the Goal.

Or you could just get a good friend, share vodka Martinis, and revel in your human nature.

P.S. Sure, you read this on December 30, 2009. Just refreshing your memory!

Here.  Stand on this platform.

Yes, it’s one of those Wii game stands. It is pressure sensitive. Look up at the screen on the wall. You see that circle and that moving crosshair?

You need to keep a steady, even posture for this task, so keep the crosshair in the circle on the screen. That means you are standing even on the board. Okay?

Now. Keep looking at the screen and you’ll see a box open just above the circle and the crosshairs and that box will contain a question. The question will ask you to say aloud what you think is the correct quantitative estimate. Let’s work some examples.

What’s the height of the Eiffel Tower?
How many cups of coffee does the average person drink a day?
What’s the average weight of an adult female koala bear?

Just give your answer aloud and again make sure you keep you posture stable and even by keeping the crosshair in the circle. Let’s begin, How many World Series titles . . .

Can you picture the scene? Research participants are standing on this platform, answering questions about everyday items while maintaining a stable, balanced posture. Each person answers 30 or 40 questions like the examples that all require a quantitative estimate of size, weight, cost, and on and on.

Now. Here’s the trick or the independent variable for this experiment. They put that Wii balance board into one of three positions: Neutral, Left, or Right. In the Neutral position, the board was tried and true, exactly level while in the biased positions, Left or Right, the board was leaning 2% off center. Such a small shift in level is undetectable for most people, especially given all the noise in the situation. None of the participants in any experiments reported any awareness of this imbalance. The circle and crosshairs ensured that everyone stayed in their assigned position, Neutral, Left, or Right throughout the question and answer period.

Obviously since we’re even considering this experiment in the first place, Something Happened and people reported different quantitative estimates of the same items. But in what way? Take a moment and mull over this Embodiment Effect and hypothesize about how body orientation might affect quantitative perception.

Here’s what the researchers found and replicated. People on the Left leaning Wii board underestimated the items while Neutral and Right leaning participants overestimated the items. Consider the key analysis paragraph and a figure to illustrate.

We found a significant main effect of posture, F(2, 64) = 3.38, p < .05, η2 = .10. As predicted, within-subjects contrast analyses showed that participants gave smaller estimates while leaning to the left than they did while leaning to the right, F(1, 32) = 4.42, p < .05, η2 = .12. They also gave smaller estimates while leaning to the left than they did while standing upright, F(1, 32) = 6.45, p < .05, η2 = .17. However, the magnitudes of estimates made while participants were standing upright and while participants were leaning to the right did not differ (F < 1; see Fig. 1).

Those eta2 (η2) effect sizes translate into Medium plus Windowpanes, about 30/70. Left leaners were obviously and practically different from both Neutral or Right leaners who, in turn, were not different from each other. And, again note this effect was replicated in a second experiment.

Lean to the Left see Less. Lean to the Right see More.

The researchers assert this effect occurs because of how humans learned the Number Line. See it.

We associate smaller quantity to the left and larger to the right. We therefore Embody cognition in the form of math and estimation. When we lean Left, we lean to the smaller side of the Number line and when stand Neutral or lean Right, we feel the larger side of the number line.

Of course, the researchers did not offer alternative explanations nor did they test any, so we can consider this some evidence in favor of the Number Line hypothesis, but I’d feel better with testing rival concepts. Maybe there’s something more physiological about balance and visual perception. Maybe there’s a learned political association. Maybe it’s tied into handedness and a biological effect. At the very least we do have replicated experimental evidence of this Embodied Lean effect. Exactly why it occurs is still debatable.

Let’s assume that it is exactly true and natural. This is how all people have always operated, it is just our human nature. Persuasion mavens, let’s make this a Play!

First, how do you produce the Lean Left? Realize this effect occurs without the Other Guys’ awareness so you need a situation that is busy or novel or both. The Other Guys are in the mess of life and thus unaware of their posture. Next, realize the effect occurs at extremely minor amounts of imbalance or leaning. You could rig a chair or stool with the slightest left lean to create the effect. It might also occur when people slouch or rest slightly off center. It might also occur when the Other Guys’ visual field is left leaning slightly. Mavens have many possibilities for producing the Lean Left, some with evidence, others as plausible inferences.

Second, in what situations do you run this? When you want the Other Guys to discount flaws, harms, limitations, in other words, Weak Arguments or Negative Cues, make sure the Other Guys are leaning Left. They will tend to then see the Weaker as the Stronger, thus minimizing the persuasion damage that Weak Args and Negative Cues can produce. Now, of course, shift this when you’ve got Strong Args and Positive Cues. Make sure the Other Guys Lean Right. The evidence in this report suggests the Leaning Effect works best when the Args or Cues revolve around quantitative estimates (less or more) rather than evaluative estimates (worse or better). Thus if the Args or Cues involve numbers, manipulate the Lean. And, I’d argue that you could still probably address evaluative estimates, that worse or better. In this instance the quantitative estimates are better understood as evaluative, attitudinal judgments rather than simple perceptions of reality.

I’m attacking the Embodied Leaning Effect as an Elaboration Moderator or WATTage switch that affects how people think, most particularly the direction of that thinking. Embodied Leaning is a Biasing treatment that shifts the direction rather than the amount of that Long Conversation in the Head.

Furthermore, the Windowpane here is large enough, that this Play could work in a wide variety of practical situations on a regular basis. It’s not one of those 10% differences that requires you to apply the Play with the ardor and commitment of a religious zealot just to get a Small Effect that still demands careful counting to realize the effect. The Leaning Effect is almost Large at 30/70.

Consider limitations. I don’t think this effect would work in High WATT Objective or high value situations. Guessing how many Oscars the movie Slumdog Millionaire received is simply a silly task in everyday life. Sure, you can win a bar bet with it and if that’s your Local as a persuasion maven, go for it. If you are seeking hard behavior change under conflicted circumstances, you might get a brief burst of immediate, favorable change with this effect, but not the enduring change you want. This Leaning Effect is probably best aimed at quick hitters, where you can run the Play on Other Guys, then get an immediate behavior response from Them, a purchase, a name on a petition, grabbing this package rather than that package.

Quickly back to Future Research. I’ve got two thoughts. I’d really like to know if you can produce this with just the participants unaware body orientation OR with manipulating the visual field. First, I could use nonverbal matching where I mirror the nonverbals of the Other Guy. When we sync up, I then make a nonverbal move that Other Guy unconsciously mirrors and put them in the Left Lean or Right Lean as I desire, then make the offer. Second, the Leaning Effect was manipulated with the Other Guys actual posture. Could you instead manipulate the visual field and make things Lean Left or Right and obtain the same outcomes? These would provide useful extensions to both the theory and practice of the Embodied Leaning effect.

The researchers argue that the Embodied Leaning effect flows out of the Kahneman and Tversky cognitive heuristic framework. While the outcomes are consistent with this, a full Monte ELM design that manipulates WATTage across High WATT Objective and Biased, and Low WATT Cue conditions along with manipulations of Argument Quality would be helpful. The Kahneman and Tversky framework confounds WATTage with the operation of System 1 and 2 (roughly corresponding to Routes) which I find a theoretic and practical weakness, an attribute the Nobel committee ignored, dismissed, or overlooked. Maybe I’m not as smart as I think. You are warned!

But, since I rigged your posture while reading this post to Lean Left, you don’t find my stupidity that troubling. Heh-heh-heh.

Sometimes persuasion is that easy.

Eerland A, Guadalupe TM, Zwaan RA. Leaning to the left makes the eiffel tower seem smaller: posture-modulated estimation. Psychol Sci. 2011 Dec 1;22(12):1511-4. Epub 2011 Nov 28.

doi: 10.1177/0956797611420731

From the Booth Christmas, 2011.

Phil the Knifemaker (back row third from right with the over-under shotgun and baby Vivian) bought Nerf guns for the family. We opened them as the last gift, then the fight broke out.

Appearances are deceiving. School Marm Emily (back row second from left aiming her gun at my head) is a sweet killer who favors ambushes. She trapped Melanie under the table with her dog Levi, the pure bred boxer (not pictured here) – Melanie was out of Nerf bullets, but threatened to shoot the dog if they came after her. I stood in the middle of the living room to have a clear line of fire at everyone. Sure, this gave a clear line of fire at me by everyone else. However, I could always find a lot of Nerf shells lying on the floor around me. Gangster Clif (the chef in the middle of the back row) hid up on the staircase, shooting down on everyone like Tony Montana, then ducked behind the banister as he reloaded. Saxophonist Patrick (back row, extreme left) liked to hide in hallways and bedrooms, then shoot around the corner when I blundered into range. Clair, Cheri, and Vivian played in the kitchen staying out of the fray, but I think Vivian wanted a Baby Nerf Gun.

We then posed for the family picture. Open flame. Baby bottle. Cookie tray. Empty wine bottle, but filled wine glasses. Shotguns ‘n Baby. That’s how the Booths roll. You are warned.

P.S. It appears that only myself and Nephew Patrick remembered our gun training. Note the trigger fingers! Okay, I get serious point deductions for aiming it at Melanie, but she kept tricking me during the gunfight, smiling that beguiling smile of hers as she walked up to me to either beg ammo or shoot me in the face. Kind of a metaphor for a good marriage, huh?

The big fat news!

A drug that kills a type of fat cell by choking off its blood supply caused significant weight loss in obese monkeys, potentially setting the stage for a new pharmaceutical approach to attacking obesity, according to a study released Wednesday.

Here’s what the monkey’s look like. You’ll have to imagine a different primate to see the implication.

Reading only that lede and scanning that MRI pretty picture you see a familiar sight. Got a problem? Take a pill. This one’s about obesity, but this story is so common is could be about any physical or psychological ailment. If it’s a problem, we’ve got a pill. The pill is the 19th century meme that survived and flourishes in 2.0.

Much later in this tale you read the expected.

The monkeys experienced modest kidney side effects from the four weeks of treatment, but researchers said they resolved quickly when the therapy was stopped. Side effects could undermine long-term use of the drug, which would likely be necessary for treating obesity.

Just modest kidney side effects! Whew! No erections lasting longer then four hours, dry mouth, or DNA damage. And, they resolved quickly when you quit the pill. Double Whew!

And, near the close . . .

The new study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and various philanthropic foundations. The findings, Dr. Pasqualini said, indicate adipotide “looks like a promising lead in a situation where there is very little out there that’s in the pipeline” for obesity. Dr. Pasqualini and Dr. Arap are entitled to royalties resulting from successful commercialization of the drug. Both researchers and M.D. Anderson are investors in Ablaris.

Only in a health or safety story can you get such public adoration from journalists. No skepticism. No doubt. No questions. Just cheerleading. How many times have you read or seen a rah-rah story chanting Take That Pill! Take That Pill! only to realize much later the Pill never made it to market, but here’s the new rah-rah story chanting Take This Pill! Take This Pill!  Or worse still the Pill does come to market and it is Persuasive in its benefits, but deadly Scientific in its harms.

No one is in favor of death, right? So, we get these crazy one sided presentations that are all and only ProLife varying only in degree (Less Pill or More Pill) without any argument from the ProDeath perspective. And, of course, the ProDeath perspective here is not a Soylent Green solution but rather a metaphor for thinking like an adult instead of a public fanny-patter.

As always, Hurrah for Basic Science! But, when the team has a press kit, you’ve got to wonder. Even when they’re getting 20% of the GDP. And producing no benefit.

The Bubble expands.

 
P.S. This sounds like a riff on Judah Folkman‘s failed cancer killing idea, doesn’t it?