
Hidden tricks of persuasion: study shows how easily we are manipulated - d_a_robson
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150324-the-hidden-tricks-of-persuasion
======
bartkappenburg
We're actively using 3 principles of influence from Cialdini in our SaaS-
product[1] (we also refer to it as 'CaaS', Conversion as a Service).

Basically we make persuasion available for the small- to mid-size online shops
by providing a tool that integrates tightly with your (shop)backend. Based on
data-analysis from your visitors (we ask for a small JS-snippet on each of
your pages) we try to predict, by using machine learning, which visitor is
sensitive to what kind of messaging at what particular time.

Examples:

Scarcity: " _3 products left in stock_ ", " _order within 2 hours and 13
minutes and we 'll ship your order today_"

Social proof: " _23 people bought this product today_ ", " _the last order of
this product was 3 minutes ago_ "

Authority: " _Recommended by institute x_ "

We're seeing uplifts in conversions rates from 5% to sometimes 200% (on
average 10-15%). Key is timing and finding out what works best for a certain
type of visitor. So, for example, shopping at your lunch break often results
in a certain behaviour on a shop (ie. going directly or through the shortest
route to your desired product) which implicates a sensitivity for a scarcity
message. On the other hand, shopping in the evening (more time on your hands)
tells us (but not always) that you're maybe more inclined to make a good
comparison between products. A social proof message helps the most in that
case. It's a simplified version of the reality but you get the idea :-)

The tool is easily integrated in shop software (Magento et al) and usable for
the less tech savvy users. The messaging is delivered through non-intrusive
pop-ups (maybe you've seen them) and are fully configurable on for example:
referer, time of day, position, layout, animation, type of visitor, country,
etc etc. We also have an integration with Google Analytics to track
performance.

You can try us for 30 days free, shoot me an email at bart[at]conversify.com,
mention HN, and I'll give you 15 extra days for free.

[1] [https://www.conversify.com](https://www.conversify.com)

~~~
afandian
(EDIT: I understood the messages to be misleading, reply says they are true)

This walks a line between helping the customer to make decisions manipulation
(I'm being generous here). If I saw an online store doing this I would think
less of them (again, being generous in my language) and go somewhere else.
Also I can tell the difference between real scarcity (like an eBay auction
timer out) and simulated scarcity...

... is what I like to think happens. Obviously it works and the chances of me,
or anyone else who thinks the same way, being exceptional is probably slim.

~~~
bartkappenburg
We are not simulating scarcity, we are integrated with the shop's backend and
show real stock. If a shop owner wants to lie about his stock that's his
responsibility, but hey, he also can do that without our tool.

The tool only enforces certain usps or charateristics of the shop at the right
time.

~~~
afandian
Good to know. I assumed they were lies: there's a lot of scumbaggery in sales,
so it's perhaps a natural assumption.

~~~
bartkappenburg
No problem. Also, the shop wouldn't gain anything in the long run if they were
telling lies. We measure conversion over multiple sales and that shop would
see poorer performance for that message compared to our control group.

------
moyix
This sort of thing is really fascinating. I've been reading Daniel Kahneman's
_Thinking, Fast and Slow_ recently, and at the same I've been trying to make a
difficult decision between two job offers.

I have been _astounded_ to discover how irrational my thought processes are,
even though this is an important choice and I'm consciously trying to avoid
instinctive and emotional decisions: I see evidence of halo effects, risk
aversion, substituting difficult comparisons for easier ones ("what's the
better work environment?" is hard, but "where did I have conversations I liked
better?" is easy), and more.

Overall I wouldn't actually recommend trying to learn about cognitive biases
in the midst of making an important decision – it's really, really easy to tie
yourself up in knots! E.g. "Do I like them better because I interviewed with
them more recently (availability heuristic)? Am I making the mistake of
preferring the easy certainty of having made up my mind over the discomfort of
making a complex choice?"

It's a really cool field of research, though.

Edit: One interesting "hack" the book mentions is how to game feedback.
Essentially, we decide how frequent something is by how easily we can call to
mind examples of it. However, past about six items, most people will have
trouble coming up with examples of _anything_ ; however, unless they're aware
of this fact, the difficulty of coming up with the later examples can cause
them to erroneously think it's not very frequent after all.

So, for example, if a professor in a course evaluation requires students to
list 12 ways to improve the course, students will actually rate the course
more highly than if they are only asked for three! Evil uses for this are left
to the reader's imagination.

~~~
mtrimpe
There's a Dutch conversion specialist who actually gave a pretty cool talk
about the System 1 vs 2 distinction in relation to persuasion.

Definitely worth a watch:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mOgWH5JZkg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mOgWH5JZkg)

------
aotw
It's kinda silly how these these vices are portrayed as "tricks" or "hacks" It
gives the negative connotation that they're used mainly by psychopaths or
narcissistic people to get their way.

Yes, they can be used to manipulate people, but they're really just used in
everyday encounters to make things positive for everyone - simply touching
people on the shoulder when you talk to them and giving eye contact is a great
way to connect with other people, and get them to become more comfortable with
you. It's a known fact that people who like each other have much more physical
contact between them. Observing this, and portraying it as something new and
abusable is just silly.

Maybe we're all losing the ability to connect with one another authentically.

~~~
amirmc
What you've stated is exactly _why_ they can can be subverted. Pretty much
every influence, sales, negotiation book will cover these mechanisms. None of
this is new.

If you want the short version, read the 6 principles that Cialdini reduced
them to.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cialdini#6_key_principle...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cialdini#6_key_principles_of_influence_by_Robert_Cialdini)

> _" Observing this, and portraying it as something new and abusable is just
> silly."_

Err... no, it is not silly. Techniques like these are _routinely_ used to
separate people from their money -- and in the digital age to get people to
share ever more information about themselves. Being aware that this is a
'thing' means you can come up with counter-techniques to cope with it. Or just
let yourself be manipulated (I guess that should be counted as an option).

Also worth looking at the list of cognitive biases as they're commonly
exploited too.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases)

~~~
aotw
i understand what you're saying, but my gripe is how cynically natural
behavior is being portrayed in the article.

I won't argue with you because my point we're not of differing views.

------
Menge
The reference to the warm/cold beverage study reminded me that in the last few
years there have been experiments demonstrating that many of these priming
studies got their desired results by failing to double blind.

I don't see an article on the flaws in that study in a quick search, but here
is a similar one:
[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/01/1...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/01/18/primed-
by-expectations-why-a-classic-psychology-experiment-isnt-what-it-seemed/)

------
relet
Pages with more pictures than text subtly urge me to close the browser window,
when I was opening them with the expectation to read an article.

~~~
balabaster
As do those that play things automatically when you opened the tab in the
background... only, the urge isn't so subtle... and usually involves one or
more curse words.

------
jonathansizz
You can see Derren Brown using several of these techniques here, for real-
world gain:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdYgEDSm7E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdYgEDSm7E)

~~~
detrino
This is obviously staged.

~~~
DanBC
This is British tv. They'd have to include a disclaimer if it was staged.

~~~
detrino
How do you explain this then?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPhVqA2KAbM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPhVqA2KAbM)

~~~
CamperBob2
Total bullshit (and I guess that's your point, because it wasn't labeled as
such). The first thing the guy's companions would have done would be to grab
him and shake him awake. Instead they just stand around while Brown emerges
from the back room, exactly as though they'd been asked to. And then Brown
starts issuing orders for what amounts to a kidnapping? Maybe it gets more
believable after the four-minute mark, but that's where I tuned out.

The wallet-steal trick I believe, because it only involved one mark. All Brown
had to do was film dozens of attempts until it worked. Nothing new there --
Zimbardo and Milgram showed that if somebody refuses an order to do something
silly, dangerous, or immoral, all you have to do is ask somebody else. It
won't be long before you find a willing stooge. On the other hand, it might
take months before you find an entire group of still-sober people (who just
walked _into_ a pub) who will play along perfectly with a complicated trick.

~~~
detrino
I actually agree with you that Zimbardo and Milgram are relevant to the
wallet-steal trick. Keep in mind that the studies you are referencing didn't
involve random strangers being told what to do, they were people who had
applied to take part in a study, were pre-screened and were being paid for
their time. This is also how I suspect Brown's scenario played out, this man
almost certainly went through a similar process and knew he was being filmed
but was not acting according to a script.

------
adventured
"Consider when you go to a restaurant for a meal. Olson says you are twice as
likely to choose from the very top or very bottom of the menu – because those
areas first attract your eye. “But if someone asks you why did you choose the
salmon, you’ll say you were hungry for salmon,” says Olson.

Those things are not mutually exclusive - they can see the salmon near the
top, and decide they are in fact hungry for salmon (as opposed to picking the
burger right below or above it instead). It's rapid decision capitulation.
People often are open to multiple choices, and get exhausted or annoyed the
longer the process of choosing goes on.

~~~
Raphmedia
I've got a bit of a lifehack about that.

The average use will look at a menu in a "F" pattern[1]. Try to imagine a big
"F" over the menu, then pick something outside of it.

Try to stay clear of images too. If they require an image to sell you the
product, there's a reason.

Avoid fancy descriptions and titles. Something called "Fried rice with
chicken" will often be just as good and often in bigger quantity than "Le Coq
au Vin du Chef". Foreign words and country of origin are a big red flag you
are buying dreams and not quality + quantity food.

[1] [http://www.vanseodesign.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2011/02/...](http://www.vanseodesign.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2011/02/writf-pattern.png)

TL;DR: Pick the thing that looks good but "meh". Fancy restaurants have chefs
that will make everything flavourful. The only reason it has a "meh"
description is because the profit margin is lower.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Ok, that works for you. I do the opposite - I look at the pictures and point.
Not because I'm ignorant; because the pictures tempt me and that is a better
indication of what I'm 'hungry for' than words.

And why on earth would you want to screw with the restaurant profit margin?
What possible gain is there in that for you?

~~~
Raphmedia
Sure, if all the product have a picture, go for it. Most menu however will
only have pictures for "featured items". Featured items are not items that
have the greatest value for you. They are the items that has the greatest
value for the restaurant.

As for profit margins, what I meant is that a recipe with a fancy name is
often sold at double the price of everything else while being dead simple to
make and uses simple inexpensive products.

Thai food is a great example. I used to pay, let's say, $20 for something that
seemed exotic and complex to me. I went with an asian friend at the very same
restaurant and he laughed at me for taking this meal at this price.

To him, it was the equivalent of "meat and potatoes". Cheap, inexpensive, fast
to make.

He recommended I try the "chicken rice" (no fancy description). Well, turn out
the chicken rice uses the same spices as the meal I was paying premium for,
had a bigger quantity and even had some other ingredient that to me, were just
as fancy and exotic. The "chicken rice" is about $8 cheaper than what I used
to take AND I now have enough to bring some home to eat at launch the next day
if I want.

(Don't pay attention to the exact prices, I can't remember what it was.)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
SO if I read that right, you were happy and getting a good meal and it tasted
great - exotic and complex were the words you used.

Then, apply that cynical value-proposition argument and suddenly, unhappiness.
Why? Because a friend was critical? Because it no longer tastes good? I'm not
convinced of the efficacy of that mental model.

~~~
Raphmedia
You are missing the point.

I was paying $20 for a product that in reality is worth $8 to produce.

Now, I am paying $12 for a product that is equal in quality and has an
increased quantity.

The only difference is that with the first product, I was tricked into
thinking I was getting a better value. The description was fancier, the name
of the recipe was exotic, there was an image on the menu, it was at the top of
the page.

The other one was simply "chicken rice", on the back of the menu, squeezed
between meals that had names that sounded better. Don't judge a recipe by its
name.

In fact, I was paying more for less.

Edit: Yes, I was happy with the first recipe before knowing that I was paying
premium for a meal that was in fact, very simple.

The issue isn't my overall happiness. It's the fact that I was tricked into
buying a product only by its description and position on the menu. Since it
had a picture and I am always in a hurry, I picked it over the more simple
"chicken rice" that was in fact just as good (same ingredients, same spices,
same chef) while being cheaper.

Was I happy with the original recipe? Yes. Was I wasting money on it? Yes.

Am I as much happy with the new cheaper meal as I was before? Yes. Am I saving
money? Yes.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
There's that utilitarian viewpoint again. No, I didn't miss the point. I'm
taking a chiding tone, suggesting that by counting the cost, you miss the
value. If you enjoy the meal, and its in your budget, then all is well.

~~~
6d0debc071
You could be enjoying _more_ meals by counting the cost - or working less and
enjoying more free time. I feel like that's more along the lines of the point.

~~~
fl0wenol
If you're spending that much time analyzing what food to get when you're out
to avoid getting "ripped off", I think maybe you should just learn to cook for
yourself because it's a lot cheaper and rewarding in the long run.

Someone who thinks that way probably isn't a good tipper either, so enjoy the
free ride on the restaurants' pathetic cashflow.

There's a reason why margins are high on certain menu items in restaurants;
running restaurants are a rough business, labor-heavy, and the day-to-day take
is volatile and meager, often to do factors entirely out of your control.

~~~
Raphmedia
Calm down, no need to be throwing plates at each other.

Nobody is stealing anything. We are talking about picking the most cost
effective option on the menu while intelligently avoiding traps made by the
menu's designers. Picking the item that is "under the fold" instead of the one
that has been carefully crafted by the designer for you to pick.

Personally, I use the money I save by taking those items over the featured
items by ordering more wine! Everyone is winning here.

------
6d0debc071
These sorts of tricks aren't anything new. If you're interested in them I
highly recommend:

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, Robert B. Cialdini

~~~
CSMastermind
I'll second that recommendation though honestly all of that book just seemed
like common sense to me. He was covering things that I learned as a child.

~~~
agumonkey
I had the same feeling, but I thought I was missing his points because
everybody praised it so much.

------
lamacase
I'd be interested to see if any of these techniques have a measurable impact
on decisions with any consequence.

It seems like all these decisions are completely arbitrary, and I know that
I'm always looking for any dumb excuse to pick one arbitrary option over
another.

~~~
cheatsheet
> I'm always looking for any dumb excuse to pick one arbitrary option over
> another

Flip a coin.

I sometimes get paranoid that cultural belief systems, cultural environments
and all the knowledge of humanity has indoctrinated me into a specific
modality of thinking that is so well formed and 'correct' that I don't even
think to question it's influence on me, because that would be ridiculous,
right? It's just so hard to argue against, because it's like a wall of reason,
logic, observation, and rationality. That, or pretending I have magic powers -
which I do.

~~~
lamacase
I often do flip a coin for binary decisions. Not everything is so simple
though.

For more open ended decisions I use deliberately and obviously irrelevant
metrics like wordplay or ad-hoc numerology.

It's useful for getting people to stop asking you where you want to go for
lunch for example.

~~~
cheatsheet
I do that too, but I still notice patterns. Then the mechanic for constructing
of 'anti-patterns' for a choice mechanic is patterned itself.

I just do my stuff for thinking new thoughts. I did a zen thing where I
deconstructed every concept and word, and essentially "broke" it in my mind -
gave it no power in it's meaning, and thus could not use it in reasoning. I
did this over and over and over.

The important part is that I didn't need a reason to destroy the meaning -
because I've always lived maintaining my theories until they are proven
incorrect, while accumulating information to build on them. But some stuff
doesn't prove itself incorrect, because it's a self perpetuating pattern.

That's where I became paranoid about viral ideas, things that are true simply
by the virtue of their construction. The construction is considered correct,
therefore application of the construction can never be questioned. And I don't
know if that really means anything about human existence, but I know it pisses
me off when I feel like I've been spoon-fed a way to think.

Mine is useful for sitting alone in my room, staring at a wall of books. I
don't really have a lunch problem. I eat lunch at my desk.

------
Kiro
> The secret, apparently, is to linger on your chosen card as you riffle
> through the deck. (In our conversation, Olson wouldn’t divulge how he
> engineers that to happen

I've done this trick plenty of times and it never fails to blow peoples'
minds. I do it by taking the card I want them to see and slightly push down
the card in front of it. This will cause a small break when flickering
through.

~~~
dools
When I first learned a real card trick back in 2002, the video had a "force"
in it. There are quite a few different forces, I only learned one (involving
fanning out the cards in such a way that the participant selects it).

Regardless of how you achieve the force, once you've got someone to select a
card which you knew of ahead of time, shit just gets crazy. This is basically
all of David Blane's up close street magic he does on video.

Like when he goes and asks someone to pick a card then throws the deck at the
window and the card they chose is stuck on the outside of the window. No-one
would notice the card stuck on the outside of the window before he threw the
deck at it.

Another one was where he went to some NBA team's training and had them pick a
card, then he got a basketball from a pile of basketballs and cut it open, and
the card the guy picked was inside.

If you don't know that you were forced to choose the given card, it's the
closest you can get to feeling as though magic genuinely happened.

------
strickjb9
I go along with magic tricks because I want to fulfill the illusion, not break
it. It's the polite thing to do.

~~~
balabaster
Going along with it is fine, but doing so blindly is as banal as attempting to
throw the trick. Understanding why you picked what you did for the illusion to
be fulfilled is quite fascinating.

------
pombrand
I wrote a summary of Cialdini's legendary book "Influence" if any of you are
interested in reading more about this topic:
[https://medium.com/@johanaardal/a-summary-of-
influence-d443a...](https://medium.com/@johanaardal/a-summary-of-
influence-d443a5200e01)

I feel that a lot of these effects are more effects of nudging a customer to
take action rather than making a customer buy something they normally
wouldn't. Increasing conversion rates from a typical 2% to 2.2% isn't that
huge.

I'm more interested in the outliers, in what cases do you get a 200% effect?
And in what cases can these tricks influence important decisions? What house
you buy? What medical insurance to get? Thoughts?

------
userium
These are interesting. Some related things that came into mind are e.g. prices
that end in 9 might increase sales
([http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1023581927405](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1023581927405)).
Or a waiter bringing mints when they give diners their checks increases tips
significantly ([http://www.helpscout.net/blog/the-psychology-of-
personalizat...](http://www.helpscout.net/blog/the-psychology-of-
personalization-how-waiters-increased-tips-by-23-percent-without-changing-
service/)).

------
mkagenius
>> “But if someone asks you why did you choose the salmon, you’ll say you were
hungry for salmon,” says Olson. “You won’t say it was one of the first things
I looked at on the menu.”

Or she might actually be hungry for salmon. And as we know, our mind sees what
it wants to see[1].

I agree with the essence of the article, though.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotoma](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotoma)

------
skizm
I guess the question is, given perfect information, can we get the probability
of a decision given a brain state? What does it mean for "free will" (whatever
that means) if the answer to that is YES? What about NO?

~~~
dragonwriter
If the answer is YES and the probabilities are not all either 100% or 0%, or
if the answer is NO in any case, then it means that "free will", in a sense
that is precisely equivalent to _randomness_ , is either true, or, if it is
false, the determining factors are outside of the brain state.

If the answer is YES and the probabilities are all either 100% or 0%, that
means nothing for free will, though it is _consistent_ with a completely
determined will. It's also consistent, however, with a free will (by pretty
much any of the definitions) that determines brain state before any other
empirical evidence of the decision of the will is available.

------
JoeAltmaier
I'm not sure there was a control in these experiment.

------
grandalf
This is a good tutorial:
[http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/4451](http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/4451)

------
chernevik
"He who does not understand the workings of his own mind is doomed, of
necessity, to be unhappy." Aurelius

------
ljk
did he always use 10 of hearts? shouldn't he have used random numbers and
suits? maybe someone really was thinking about 10 of hearts already

------
known
Machiavelli is best;

[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15772/15772-h/15772-h.htm](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15772/15772-h/15772-h.htm)

------
fsk
See also: Asch Conformity Test

