Shocking news!

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released a study of vehicle crashes that compared states with laws banning cell phone usage while driving to states without such laws.  Even if you don’t know much about history or time series statistics, if you just look at the figures in the report, you can see the Headline:  the Laws Have NO Effect.

Everyone is baffled.

“Absolutely, we were surprised by these results,” says Adrian Lund, president of IIHS and HLDI.

“The study raises as many questions as it answers,” says GHSA executive director Barbara Harsha.

Before we get into the merits of the case, just think about the science and the persuasion behind all of this.  We cannot randomly assign drivers to different conditions, most importantly here, cell phone usage, then observe what happens.  The absence of control is fatal to the quality of the science and the inferences we can confidently draw.  Yet, smart people persistently believe in the Observational Research Tooth Fairy and so we get Laws and Regulations, Nudges and Nags from well intentioned folks who say more than they really know; the sign of FauxItAll.

Worse still is the unscientific orientation of many researchers in Observational Research.  Most strain to confirm a hypothesis and design data collection and analysis to find anything that supports the hypothesis and almost never actively pursue disconfirming evidence.  There’s nothing wrong with entertaining alternative explanations, unless, of course, you already know the true answer and you’re just trying to convince the yokels.

Now, take uncontrolled Observational Research, a confirmation bias, and then add Small Effects and you’re ready for disappointment.  You don’t need an Excel spreadsheet to tell you that traffic accidents are extremely rare events compared to the amount of total driving and further that people drive and talk A LOT and that accidents while driving and talking are also extremely rare events compared again to the total.  Thus, people drive A LOT, but rarely have accidents; people drive and talk A LOT, but rarely have accidents.  The difference between Driving+Phones versus just Driving is a Small Effect.

Thus, we have the commonplace Perfect Storm for failure.  People using science as persuasion in their use of Observation, avoidance of contrary evidence and explanations, and those small effects.   Now, put that persuasion to work in State legislatures and you’ve got Laws and Regulations that produce no effect.

There is no doubt that conversation produces cognitive load and hence distraction for drivers.  Whether on a cell phone or just yackety-yak with a passenger, mere talk requires mental effort and capacity.  It’s just not that important for vehicle crashes.  There is a clear break in the scientific chain of effect between the obvious distraction and the actual wreck.  People tried to draw a straight line from distraction to crashing when it is clear from these data that there are intervening steps and processes that mitigate the distraction.  Nobody looked for those intervening steps.

It’s rather like the silly FDA and Food Police efforts with various kinds of warning labels – whether portion size, calorie count, any other information.  They expect that Warning Labels like this will cause people to eat less and lose weight as if a Warning Label functions like a double-wrapped strip of duck tape over a hungry mouth.  It doesn’t, it won’t, and it can’t.

But, if you’re doing FauxItAll science, nothing else matters.

Green believers face an uphill struggle in their pursuit of Green environmental change.  The status quo resists the most rational, reasonable, and righteous requests of Greens.  What to do?

Unless you are nothing but a locust eating zealot and assuming that you do want True Green, then if your current plan isn’t working, isn’t wise to change the plan?  Otherwise you are trapped in the Dissonance Jar, redoubling your efforts to break out every time you hit that invisible glass, just like a fly in a Bell Jar.  Green is Rational.  Smart.  Scientific.  You’re Right.  But, no one is listening.

Consider:  Change is a good thing.

Switch out of the Al Gore Science Show and get busy with persuasion, baby.  Do something that actually moves people up the Green Stairway to Heaven.  Like this.

Have people read or think about a story that goes something like . . .

. . . imagine graduating from college, looking for a job, and deciding to go work for a large company because it offers the greatest chance of moving up.  The story describes the person’s first day on the job, focusing on the high-status features of the workplace such as the upscale lobby and nice furniture. Readers eventually learn that they will have an opportunity to receive a desirable promotion. The story ends as the reader ponders moving up in status relative to his or her same-sex peers.

. . . in other words, elicit a status motivation in your target.  In this example, the participants were college students, hence to focus on a good job, but with many higher status attributes.  You could alter this as needed and use Buying Your House instead.  Just consider the life of your targets and have them think about something they desire and make sure you add high status elements to the story.

Now, does this status motivation produce Green choices?  Consider this.  Griskevicius, Tybur, and Van den Bergh gave this story or a control story to undergraduates, then had them make product selections.  Each selection gave two choices of products that provided the same function (car, dishwasher) at the same price (!!!), but were either Green or Not Green.  Participants given the status story chose the Green product more often, at a Moderate Windowpane effect (35/65) size.  For example, 63% of the status story participants chose a Green car while only 37% of the control story participants chose a Green car.

Let’s goose this turkey.  To the status motivation, add another element, public versus private choice.  Have people make their product choices in either a setting where other people can see them make the choice or in private where others cannot see them make the choice.  This manipulation led high status people to want the Green product in the public choice condition, but interestingly, reversed the effect in the private condition.  Thus, Green products become more desirable when people are both status motivated and making public choices.  But, Green products are more desirable when people have no status motivation, but make private choices and at a Moderate Windowpane effect.  Here’s a Figure to visualize the effect.

Finally, what about price?  In the two experiments we’ve looked at, price was always the same, but often with Green products they may be more expensive on up front costs that are recovered over time through Green efficiency.  But, people are very sensitive to price.  Or are they?

Griskevicius, Tybur, and Van den Bergh manipulated only that status motivation and then varied the price of the products to chose.  Sometimes the Green product was more expensive; sometimes it was cheaper than the Not Green product (and again, each product type, Green or Not, had the same functional attributes).  Interestingly enough, they found another one of those crossing interactions producing a Moderate Windowpane effect.  Under high status motivation, the more expensive Green product was more desirable.  But under no status motivation, the expensive Not Green product was more desirable.  Again, here’s a Figure to visualize the outcome.

If you are True Green all this is the classic Good News, Bad News outcome.  You can generate the Green choices you want from others, but not by making rational, scientific appeals (the Al Gore PowerPoint, for example).  Green sells through fairly typical high status, Snob Appeal.  Make people status conscious and they’ll go Green.  Make people status conscious, then make them chose in public, and they’ll go Green.  Make people status conscious, make Green more expensive, and people will prefer it.

This is not what many True Greens would want to hear.  They want others to go Green because it is True, Right, and Just.  Now, this research suggests True Greens can achieve their goals, but through Snob Appeals to human nature.

Remember the Rules.

All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere.

It’s about the Other Guy, Stupid.

But . . . does the end justify the means?

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 392-404.

Get yourself in the mood . . .

Persuasion loves the heat.

Uncertainty?  Fear?  Confusion?  Peithos lights up, “Is someone calling my name?”  The Ancient Attendant prepares for affairs of the heart or affairs of the state.  It’s all the same, you know.

Science loves the light.

Uncertainty?  Fear?  Confusion?  Galileo smiles, returns to the lab and breaks the problem down, step by step until knowledge replaces ignorance.

Except today.  Science has a new companion, Persuasion.  And Science won’t go anywhere without Her, especially in Public.

. . . perhaps Fever at a higher pitch . . .

Need Persuasion for the Science of Health Care Reform?  Let me show you how to spend one trillion dollars to reduce mortality by 1% and make people think we’ve Fixed It.

Need Persuasion for the Science of the FDA?  Let me show you how mandatory menu calories counts will produce a 30 calorie reduction and fool people into thinking it is the End of Obesity as We Know It.

Need Persuasion for the Science of Global Warming?  Here’s how you hide statistically insignificant data in a pretty chart to convince the People.

Need Persuasion for the Science of Selling News?  Here’s how you market Science to people so they get all that great knowledge you’d have to suffer through in lectures, labs, and libraries, but without that annoying peer review.

. . . or Fever with the King . . .

Great times for Peithos, my friends, and it’s only going to get better.  The last time Science came courting like this was during the Clinton Administration.  Democrats are smart people in case you haven’t talked with one lately.  You don’t even have to ask; they’ll tell.  Especially the progressive ones.  You know, the ones that use Science to inform Policy.  Here, it’s good for you.  Trust us.  We’re smart.

Peithos loves them the best.  Progressives don’t mind throwing Science overboard in a storm when you need to lighten the load.  Is the data messy, complicated, and inconsistent?  Pitch it and use this simple chart.  Results disconfirm the original hypothesis?  Let me adjustment myself in private and we’ll call it Post Hoc.  Got folks who disagree?  Frame them as Deniers.

Don’t worry about the Science.  Persuasion will fix that.

. . . that’s all there is . . .

So, you’re walking along your favorite city street today when your cell phone beeps a text notification, so you look at the screen and Wow! there’s a coupon offer for 15% off any purchase in the next hour at North Face and Wow! you realize that North Face has a shop just a block up and a block over from you and Wow! you’ve been thinking about that new sweater and Wow! before you know it you’re already walking that block up and over and Wow! there you are at the checkout with that sweater and Wow! that 15% discount.  Is North Face cool or what?

Maybe.  Just maybe.  Or maybe not.  It’s complicated.  And it starts with location.

See, marketers are creating what they call geo-fences, electronic rings around businesses that sense GPS signals from opt-in cell phones.  When you cross the fence with your opt-in cell phone, the marketers pick up your signal, then match it to opt-in businesses within the fence that have offers.  The marketers then match your cell phone with your businesses and their offers, then shoot you opt-in text messages.  Think of it as a marketing dog collar and shock fence, but not for dogs; it’s for you.  And, at present there are no shocks.

From the Cascade perspective this is a rapid communication play wherein the fence triggers immediate Reception which torrents through prior Processing and Response to elicit almost instant behavior – Go or Not – as you amble along the road.  It’s a whistle and a shout, “Here, boy!  Come ‘ere, girl!” to a happy dog on a summer day lolling on the lawn now joyously interrupted with an exciting offer of a new play.

You’ll experience precious little High WATT Central Route processing of strong Arguments with this persuasion play.  This will be the hot Low WATT Cue on that text message:

Hey, look at all the North Face logos walking around me, everybody’s doing it, let’s join in!

Hey, North Face is the face of cool, what’s not to like with North Face?

Hey, North Face would protect me from the elements on Mount Everest, so they’ll keep me warm on this cold city day!

Hey, North Face is giving me this 15% discount, I need to give them something in return!

Hey, North Face is my brand and here’s my chance to prove my loyalty; onward a block up and over!

Hey, I’m the only guy on this busy street getting this rare offer of a discount from North Face that is only good for the next hour!

At least this is the theory and the dream behind the persuasion play.  Man, to quote the immortal Young Frankenstein, “It . . . Could . . . Work!”

But there are problems, problems, problems.

Initially, realize: It is a dog collar for people.  You don’t see it right now, but you will.  One day you’ll be waiting for an important message through your cell phone and your heart will jump when it buzzes with word of life, death, love, loss, victory, or defeat, except, it’s that damn North Face with a damn coupon dammit, leave me alone.  Then you’ll see the invisible dog fence you just crossed and you’ll realize every time you hit North Michigan and Ontario, your cell phone starts chirping.  And, you’ll go Commando, circling your favorite business areas trying to find the perimeter.

Now, consider:  How will marketers restrain themselves?  Sure, this whole play can be just fun like a dog playing fetch with the kids and sometimes we won’t mind being the dog as long as we’re having fun on a spring day with that blue sky and those puffy Simpson clouds.  But, what happens when greed and competition break all the shackles on business prudence and your cell phone is a constant shock box of offers, discounts, Get It Now! text messages?

Finally, ask:  How you gonna like it when the Queen of Tomorrow finally invents that iEye visor and you get subliminal messages when you cross her lines?  There’s an interesting future ahead of us, ladies and gents.  1984 and Brave New World are so quaint aren’t they?  Those high school chestnuts, remnants of the old modern neuroses clinging like cobwebs to our PostModern snark.  Except maybe Orwell and Huxley weren’t Moderns, but Prophets for All the Ages.

Consider, Mr. Orwell . . .

“It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away.  A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself –anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide.  In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face . . . was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime…”

Now, Brave New World . . .

“I only said it was lovely here because . . . well, because progress is lovely, isn’t it?”

Persuasion, persuasion, persuasion.

Imagine two health care reform plans.

The first one will save 275,000 lives over 10 years.

The second one will lower the annual US death rate from 811 deaths per 100,000 people to 802 deaths per 100,000 ( 0.00811% to 0.00802%).

Which is the better plan?  It’s obvious.  The one that saves 275,000 lives, right?

Consider this:

There will be a cost in lives, too. Mr. Pollack’s organization estimates that as many as 275,000 people will die prematurely over the next 10 years because they do not have insurance.

While 275,000 is a large number of people and you and I would prefer to not make this list over the next 10 years, what does the number mean?  Let’s go High WATT on it.

Turns out that the two options I gave you at the top of the post are equivalent.  Whether you say it is 275,000 over 10 years or a change from 811 to 802 per 100,000, you are describing the same amount.

So, why don’t the researchers in the NY Times story use the rate style (811 versus 802)?  It’s obvious.  The change is ridiculously small.  Gee whiz, let’s spend nearly a trillion dollars and move the death rate from 811 to 802.

Even 27,500 doesn’t sound that big, so pump it up to a ten year total and now we’ve got a Scary Number.  275,000 deaths is a lot of dead people to those of us who count on fingers and toes.

Yet another way of saying “275,000 over 10 years” is to say, “27,500 a year.”  In 2006, the last year that the CDC has final statistics, it claims that 2,426,264 Americans died.   Thus, the annual number of “27,500″ is just a little more than 1% of the annual death total for 2006.

One percent.

Thus, the most favorable estimate of the mortality impact of health care reform is a 1% improvement.  In Windowpane terms this is one tenth of a Small Effect (a 45/55 effect).  Now, we are talking mortality, so it is serious.  But one tenth of a Small Effect?  For a trillion dollar investment over the same time period? And given how very small the Effect Size is and how it was figured, isn’t it possible that it would actually be even smaller?

But, you obscure High WATT thinking and analysis when you persuade with numbers like this.  Combine very small effects over long time periods and make a big deal about the Total, but not the Accumulation.  It is an effective persuasion play because it looks like a serious, High WATT Central Route examination of the Facts, but really it is a Cue, a Peripheral Route shortcut that makes you the reader think you are Serious and Well Informed, when you are just the Target for an Advocate.

Remember:  All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere.

Okay.  The oceanography guys called the Chilean tsunami wrong.  They made dire predictions of killer waves and then the tide actually ran out in some locations.  So, they should have said nothing?

“It’s a key point to remember that we cannot end the warnings. Failure to warn is not an option for us,” said Dai Lin Wang, an oceanographer at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii. “We cannot have a situation that we thought was no problem and then it’s devastating. That just cannot happen.”

And that false choice between either saying nothing or else exaggerating is exactly the wrong belief to hold and yet entirely characteristic of the Expert.  As I’ve recounted numerous times in this blog, Experts in one area tend to think they are Experts in communication, persuasion, or behavior change as if those things are the easy part compared to Molecular Genetics, Advanced Global Concepts, and now, Wave-ology Studies.  Without criticizing the science (and that’s another issue), I can confidently assert that Dai Lin Wang and other oceanography experts I’ve read in the past day or two know next to nothing about the communication problem they face.

You see their ignorance in that false choice they perceive.  Either we don’t say anything (and make no public errors in our science or our communication) or we exaggerate (to save the foolish public from themselves).  Consider other options.

Just say exactly what you know.  If you know something to the decimal, nanosecond, or angstrom, then say it that precisely.  If you know something with a confidence interval a mile wide and a day long, then say it that with that range.  Say what you know and stick to that.  If someone asks for more precision, repeat your original warning and add that is the best science can do right now.  Above all, do not exaggerate the claim in the name of communicating risk to stupid people.

If a scientist cannot do this or something similar, then hire someone to the team who can.  Please consider the limitations to your Expertise.  You do know what you know, but you do not know what you are doing here.

Listen, scientists.  This is exactly how climate change science got into the public mess it now faces.  Scientists did not stick to their science.  They assumed more expertise in areas they clearly lacked.  Just do your science.  That’s the best thing you bring to the world.  Your science.  Just do that.

Remember the Rules.

If You Can’t Succeed, Don’t Try.

You Cannot Persuade a Falling Apple.

USA Today continues its current marketing campaign to increase readership with rancid health stories.  Today it is perils of hot dogs.  But, no!  Not for the usual reasons of sodium, meat, and mystery.

For shape.

Quoting CDC statistics, USA Today notes that 77 children die every year from choking on food with an expert estimate that 17% of those deaths are from hot dogs.  That’s tough math to do with fingers AND toes, so let me get out the calculator, 77, then the multiplication X sign, and then, yeah, .17 and that =’s 13.09 deaths attributable to hot dogs.

All by design.

“If you were to take the best engineers in the world and try to design the perfect plug for a child’s airway, it would be a hot dog,” says statement author Gary Smith, director of the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. “I’m a pediatric emergency doctor, and to try to get them out once they’re wedged in, it’s almost impossible.”

The Consumer Product Safety Commission requires labels on toys with small parts alerting people not to give them to kids under 3. Yet there are no required warnings on food, though more than half of non-fatal choking episodes involve food, Smith says.

“No parents can watch all of their kids 100% of the time,” Smith says. “The best way to protect kids is to design these risks out of existence.”

Though Smith says he doesn’t know exactly how someone would redesign a hot dog, he’s certain that some savvy inventor will find a way.

I appreciate Dr. Smith’s and all pediatricians work with children and I’m glad they do it.   And, my heart goes out to parents and families who experience this tragedy.

But . . .

If we need to redesign hot dogs for 13.09 events, how shall we handle natural foods like bananas and grapes which share a shape similarity to hot dogs?  Or do they get a pass here because they are natural?  Perhaps, they kill fewer children, but isn’t one death one too many?  If design kills, why should natural or artificial matter?

I’m just asking as the persuasion guy, you know, since I’m the one who has to handle the communication side of your idea because I’m sure that Dr. Smith doesn’t believe it goes from his lips to their ears then to their mouths.  And people might wonder, if it is the design, then don’t we design everything?  I mean, following Socrates and the humanists, isn’t Man the Measure of All Things?  Designer Science.  No Limits, except Imagination!

And, again with the Warning Labels.  It’s a feature of a new Policy Statement that pediatricians are proposing.  I didn’t realize that Med Schools taught courses in Warning Labels since you can’t swing the latest issue of a medical journal without hitting a medical expert calling for Yet Another Warning Label.

Hey, if you’re a Smart Consultant with a high tolerance for arrogant stupidity, there’s an exciting new career path for you as a Warning Label Consultant to Meds and Feds!  Man, the charges you could make for all the “creative” work on label design – you’d make a lawyer at Boston Legal look like Mother Teresa.

And, then, at the end, the FDA and that new Policy Statement.

The Food and Drug Administration, which has authority to recall products it considers “unfit for food,” plans to review the new statement, spokeswoman Rita Chappelle says.

Might wanna run that by The Man.

All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere.

If You Can’t Succeed, Don’t Try.

It’s about the Other Guy, Stupid.

Power Corrupts Persuasion . . .

. . . and on and on . . .