Skip to main content

Psychology for Communication Strategy (4/4): Making sound conclusions

In previous articles we applied some notions of cognitive psychology to tasks such as gathering information, analyzing scenarios and verifying correlations and predictions.

In this last article we focus on critically examining our beliefs, reviewing some factors that can influence or mislead them.

Belief perseverance

The belief perseverance causes us to preserve our beliefs even when they are disproved by evidence and facts.

It doesn't matter if these denials come from ourselves or from others.

The belief perseverance is linked to the backfire effect (which occurs when someone presents facts that undermine our beliefs, but we prefer to deny and refuse them rather than revise our viewpoint) and to the belief bias (which occurs when we approve an argument not because it is logically valid, but because it confirms and corroborates our values and opinions).

These trends are fueled by our natural need for continuity, stability and predictability.

An effective remedy is the counterexplanation: that is, to strive to see things from another perspective and to try to explain why divergent opinions may also be true.

Source: Anderson, CA, Lepper, MR, & Ross, L. (1980). "The perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1037-1049

Hindsight bias

The hindsight bias leads us to retrospectively evaluate past events, which seem more expected and predictable than they were.

Knowing the end result makes it easier to satisfy our need to bring order to the world and make sense of it, by the means of consistent and rational explanations.

When planning a communication strategy, it can cause us to overestimate our ability to make predictions or to excessively and unfairly blame previous choices - forgetting that in the past we didn't have the same knowledge (and the same viewpoint) as today.

Every situation must be contextualized, without altering its perception based on what we know and who we are right now.

We can avoid the hindsight bias by keeping a journal or another such objective report.

Telling our journey day after day will help us to stabilize our memories and evaluate past events with more balance and detachment, without using the lens of our present awareness.

Source: Fischhoff, Baruch; Beyth, Ruth (1975). "I knew it would happen: Remembered probabilities of once — future things". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 13: 1–16

Authority bias

The authority bias is the tendency to value (and be influenced by) an opinion not because it is valid, but because it is expressed by an authoritative person.

It is reinforced by the system justification theory: for the sake of security, stability and continuity, we tend to accept and defend the status quo (namely the current social system), recognizing it as fair even if we belong to a disadvantaged group.

The authority bias mainly affects women and helps explain mass acquiescence towards dictators.

It’s also spurred by clothing: the authoritative person is more influential when wearing the appropriate dress (for example a white lab coat or a uniform).

Even in businesses, ideas and proposals from the highest or best-paid positions are more likely to be accepted tamely and acritically, even if those ideas and proposals turn out to be weak or wrong.

Source: Milgram, Stanley (1963). "Behavioral Study of obedience". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67 (4): 371–378

Halo effect

The halo effect occurs when the positive idea we have of things and people affects how we perceive their other characteristics, even without a necessary link between that idea and those characteristics.

For example, a polite and nice-looking person is likely to also seem honest and trustworthy; an elegant and bright shop makes the products on display more alluring and appealing.

There is also the reverse: the horn effect (example: a person seems unreliable and untalented due to a sloppy and unkempt appearance).

In general, our mind feeds on correlations and associations: that's why marketing has always employed testimonials, sponsorships and line extensions.

Reputation is contagious - for good or for bad.

Communication campaigns work similarly: successes or failures on an activity, product or message affect the overall perception of the company.

One of the reasons why strategies demand a strictly integrated approach.

Source: Nisbett, Richard E .; Wilson, Timothy D. (1977). "The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 35 (4): 250-256

Framing effect

The framing effect causes our interpretations and decisions to be affected by the way information is presented.

Our representation of people, events and ideas is never neutral and often we don’t focus on the situation itself, but on how it is described.

To give an example: better to say that we completed 70% of projects on time or that we missed 30% of deadlines?

The situation is the same, but in the first case we highlight the positive fact; in the second case we highlight the negative one.

Our mind tends to prefer positive interpretations.

However, the possible frames are countless: we can decide which aspects of a situation to spotlight.

From time to time, we could emphasize the emotional or rational side or the short- or long-term consequences of a given situation.

The frame we choose can deeply influence perspectives and decisions - for us and for our audience.

Source: Tversky, Amos; Kahneman, Daniel (1981). "The Framing of decisions and the psychology of choice". Science. 211 (4481): 453–58

Final takeaways

Belief perseverance Examine your beliefs by adopting alternative viewpoints
Hindsight bias Contextualize any situation without thinking about it in retrospect
Authority bias Evaluate an idea based on its content, not based on its author
Halo effect Consider how your message relates to its context
Framing effect Choose a frame that evokes positive interpretations
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Brands need a strong identity, not to cling to someone else's. The Balocco and Ferragni affair

The fact : the Italian Competition Authority fined the companies of the famous influencer Chiara Ferragni , along with the confectionery company Balocco , with a total penalty of €1,075,000 for unfair commercial practices related to the Pink Christmas pandoro. The fine for Balocco is €420,000. The Antitrust claims that the companies led consumers to believe that by purchasing the pandoro, they were contributing to a donation to the Regina Margherita Hospital in Turin , when in reality, the €50,000 donation had already been made by Balocco months earlier. Companies associated with Chiara Ferragni collected over one million euros from the initiative. How did they get to this point? First mistake: confusion  What was the goal of the marketing campaign ?  To improve the company's ethical reputation or to reach the audience that adores Chiara Ferragni?  They are two different levels: the first is moral, the second is hedonistic.  Why muddy the waters? If the goal was to improve the co
Post a Comment
Read more

The Kit Kat & Twix case. Does kindness really pay off for brands?

  Sometimes, when we think about marketing, an aggressive and unforgiving environment comes to our mind. After all, market is competition , right? However, many people value integrity and fair play . And they wish to reward brands that embrace these values. Is flattery more beneficial to the giver or the recipient? In 2021, in a series of 12 experiments led by Duke University, two groups of consumers were shown two fake tweets (when we could still call them tweets...) by Kit Kat (snacks that I suppose needs no introduction): First tweet - Kit Kat praises Twix : @twix, Competitor or not, congrats on your 54 years in business! Even we can admit - Twix are delicious Second tweet - Kit Kat praises itself :  Start your day off with a tasty treat! 11 days later, the percentage of those who bought a Kit Kat : was 31.95% among those who had seen the first tweet - the competitor's praise was 23.77% among those who had seen the second tweet - the trivial self-praise And the delicious Twix
Post a Comment
Read more

Too much jam can be confusing: the Paradox of Choice

December : a time of carefree afternoons spent shopping with your loved ones.  As you stroll through the crowded, festive streets illuminated with a thousand colors, your attention as food enthusiasts is caught by two stands on either side of the street.  Both sell artisanal jams: on one counter there are 24 variants; on the other counter there are only 6 variants.  Which of the two stands is more likely to pique your interest?  Which of the two stands is more likely to turn you into their customers?  The answers to these two questions may not coincide .  Too much choice leads to no choice  In 2000, psychologists Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper conducted an experiment to check the correlation between the number of alternatives available and the customer conversion rate .  The experiment didn't take place in Christmas markets but in Menlo Park, California, in an upscale supermarket, where potential customers were lured with a $1 discount voucher.  The results seem counterintuitive:
Post a Comment
Read more