Hey! I'm Michael Kovnet, host of The Next Big Idea Daily.
The show is a masterclass in better living from some of the smartest writers around.
Every morning, Monday through Friday, we'll serve up a quick 10 -minute lesson on how to strengthen your relationships, supercharge your creativity, boost your productivity, and more.
Follow The Next Big Idea Daily wherever you get your podcasts!
I'm Tomer Cohen, LinkedIn's Chief Product Officer.
you're just as curious as I am about the way things are built then tune into my podcast Building One.
I speak with some of the best product builders out there.
I've always been inspired by frustration.
It came back to my own personal pin point.
So we had to go out to farmers and convince them.
Following that curiosity is a superpower.
You have to be obsessed with the human condition.
Listen to Building One on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Hey, I'm Kwame Christian, and you are about to step into the world of Negotiate Anything, the number one negotiation podcast in the world, where we teach you how to make difficult conversations easier while getting more of what you want in the process.
Each episode is packed with practical tips and strategies from the experts.
We delve into negotiation, conflict resolution, and leadership skills that are crucial in both business and in life.
Whether you're closing a deal, managing a team, or navigating personal relationships, Negotiate Anything provides you with the tools you need to succeed.
Our conversations are real, relatable and, most importantly, rooted in practicality.
So if you're ready to transform your conversations and elevate your negotiation skills join me on Negotiate Anything.
subscribe and listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you love to listen Let's make every conversation a winning negotiation Richard thanks for joining us today.
Very nice to see you.
Yes, likewise my friend So how would you get us started by telling us a little bit about yourself and what you do?
So my background is in taking findings from behavioral science and what people used to call social psychology So the study of how people actually behave, rather than how they claim to behave, and then applying those findings to marketing and persuasion.
I like this and little Bertie told me that you might have written a book recently.
I have a second book.
So the recent one is called The Illusion of Choice, and the subtitle is 16 and a half principles from behavioral science that influence what people buy.
Love the title, love the subtitle too.
This is great. And I would like to, before we get into the topic, because both of us, we connect and vibe over psychology, so I like this.
I think the semantics that you put out first are very important, talking about the transition from social psychology to behavioral science, I think that's really important.
Can you like, outline that a bit?
I think behavioral science is a broader term, it's a term people might be familiar with because it's come into vogue in the last 10 or 15 years, is behavioral economics.
And the reason I say behavioral science from behavioral economics is, behavioral economics is, I think, a small subfield.
It's very much associated with people like Kahneman and Tversky, where they took findings from psychology and applied them to economics.
And they talk about principles like loss aversion and anchoring.
But, if you just focus on those principles, as a negotiator, as a martyr, as anyone trying to persuade other people, I think you're missing out on a really rich heritage of a lot broader findings from social psychology.
Those findings go all the way back to the 1890s.
I think many of them for practical commercial use.
I agree 100 % and that gives us a great segway into the topic of today's episode.
So I think it would be great if we start off by just talking about the benefit of understanding psychology as a negotiator to really bring life to the negotiation tactics and strategies that we utilize.
But then I want to go into some of your favorite claims to discuss.
First, going to talk about the stolen thunder phenomenon, and then also the precision of claims and making benefits concrete.
So, let's just start off by setting the stage, letting folks know of why it's so important to understand psychology as a negotiator.
There's probably three big reasons.
The first, I think is relevance.
You're trying to influence the behavior of another person, and all behavioral sciences is the study of what effectively changes people's behavior.
So I think that is a very very relevant field for anyone trying to persuade other people.
The second strength is robustness in all fields of business and I think this is true whether it's marketing or negotiation, there's an awful lot of hearsay.
Now people claim there is an effective way to change behavior to others.
What I like about behavioral science is it's never just based on claim or logic or authority.
Now all these ideas are based on peer -reviewed of observed experiments.
So you can give these findings genuine credibility.
So there's this robustness to the field as well as the relevance.
And then the third R is there's a wonderful range.
It's not that there are five or six of these experiments, there are tens of thousands.
So whatever country or category or area you work in there will be an experiment out there that can help you.
I'm not saying it's going to solve the problem, but it will give you a head start to in a problem.
Agreed, and I love that terminology of head start too, because a lot of times when we are in the midst of a difficult conversation, we might not be able to access a precise strategy or tactic for the situation in front of us.
But if we can understand the psychology and come up with workable hypotheses in the moment for what psychological challenges might be in front of us, then it gives us a starting point where we can start to create our own bespoke strategies in the moment and solve for those potential challenges?
Yeah, not a nice way of putting it.
The other strength, talking about head starts rather than complete solutions, is it opens up people to trying small things.
Now, if you just look for a silver bullet to solve all your problems, well, I think you'll still be looking in 10 years time.
But if you accept there are lots of small things you can do that cumulatively add up to a big effect, that's much, much easier to put into practice.
Absolutely. And tell me if this resonates with you, too, because when you start to avail yourself to the knowledge of this literature here, it can initially be overwhelming.
Because, like you said, there are thousands of studies, and it's, like, finding the starting point on a circle.
Where do I start? What do I do?
How do I approach this?
But then when you think about the cumulative effect, then you can start to recognize, oh, we can put these in order and make our eventual point more persuasive.
I... The way that I think about it is in terms of psychological stacking.
So we don't know what that final thing that will push the other person across the edge and lead us to that magical end point of persuasion is.
But if we can get a better understanding of the psychological nuances at play, we can start to stack some of these principles on top of each other in the interaction, in an organic way, that makes it more likely holistically that the person will be persuaded and change their mind.
Yeah, I think that's a good way of looking at it.
And I certainly agree with your point that the topic can sometimes feel confusing, and part of that is the volume of experiments.
The other part is academics don't try and make it easy.
I mean, unfortunately, academics write in an unnecessarily jargon -filled way often.
So the original papers can often be quite dense.
That's a little bit ironic, because there is a brilliant behavioral scientist, maybe define himself as a psychologist, but called Oppenheimer and he has a wonderful paper and it's called Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity.
And then there's a colon.
And then it's the danger of using long words needlessly.
And in his study, he gets a group of participants and half of them are given an abstract of an academic paper.
So this is the précy at the beginning of the paper that tends to be written in an unnecessarily complex way.
That group read the paper, sorry read the abstract, and then they rate the intelligence the author.
Oppenheimer then gets another group of people, gives them the same basic abstract, but this time he's replaced the jargon with simpler alternatives.
Now when that second group rate the intelligence of the author the scores are 13 percent higher.
So Oppenheimer's argument is we often believe the way to impress other people is to speak in an unnecessarily convoluted complex way, but actually it tends to backfire.
You want to speak in the simplest way you can, that still reflects the nature of the subject.
So unfortunately, many psychologists have not learned from that paper.
Most academic papers are unnecessarily dense and turgid.
Jon Sorrentino This is so validating.
And listeners, to make this even simpler, the more you try to sound smart, the dumber you may end up sounding.
That would be off and on just fine.
Absolutely. Absolutely.
Yeah. I think really, it speaks to the tribal nature of communication too.
Because a lot of times you write these papers and they are written in this esoteric language, because you're essentially trying to look cool to your friends.
So I want to show off to the people who are in academia who can understand this.
But then for the people who are in the business world, they're trying to take this knowledge and apply it practically, it makes it inaccessible and that people can't utilize it in a way that it was meant for.
Yeah, absolutely. I think a lot of professions are similar both in using unnecessarily complex terminology, but also often doing things that aren't for the benefit of the end client but signaling their sophistication to their peers.
My field is advertising.
And often, brands don't use very simple techniques, like rhyme, for example.
Rhyme in the 1960s, 1970s, is a very common tactic in advertising.
There's lots of studies that show it's very memorable and it tends to be believable.
But if you look around at the last five or 10 years of advertising, rhyme is used much, much less.
And I think the reason is, if you're a creative director, you feel slightly simplistic to suggest a rhyme.
You want to be admired by all your creative peers, and rhyme certainly won't generate that image of sophistication.
Hello My friends! Before we get back to today's episode, I want to ask you a question.
Have you ever wondered how to elevate your team's negotiation game and how you can help the folks on our team have better, difficult conversations?
At the American Negotiation Institute, we offer transformative keynotes and workshops tailored to empower professionals with top -tier negotiation and conflict resolution skills.
Whether it's a keynote for your next event or hands -on training for your team, we've got you covered.
Don't just negotiate master the art with the American Negotiation Institute.
Click the link in the description to find out more.
Elevate, negotiate and succeed.
Hey you! I'm Andrew Seaman.
Do you want a new job or do you want to move forward in your career?
Well, you should listen to my weekly show called Get Hired With Andrew Sieman.
We talk about it all, and it's waiting for you, yes you, wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Tomer Cohen, LinkedIn's Chief Product Officer.
If you're just as curious as I am about the way things are built, the insight behind what it takes to create a world -renowned product, then tune into my podcast, Building One.
There's so much to learn, like how Patagonia innovates with its supply chain.
We had to go out to farmers and convince them.
It was really damn hard. Although the way Adobe thinks about the first interaction somebody has with Photoshop.
I was always so fascinated by how people navigate and find their way.
Ever wanted to know how Nike builds emotion into the Jordan brand?
You have to be obsessed with the current state of the human condition.
And it doesn't stop there.
What about how Glean reinvented Knowledge Search with AI?
You can learn about how a Michelin star chef is redesigning seeds for flavor and how Pixar is nurturing a creative culture.
Listen to Building One on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.
Agreed, agreed. And it's again, it requires a bit of internal negotiation to figure out what it is that's most important to you and efficacy and persuasive value is what you're going for then sometimes it requires a little bit of humility in order to put that into practice.
Absolutely, absolutely.
Yeah, well let's move on to the stolen thunder phenomenon.
I was really excited to see that.
Can you let the listeners know about it?
It's a less known study.
The original work was done by Kipling William at the University of Toledo.
and he sets up a scene for the participants and they're all imagining they're in a jury and there's three different groups of participants and the first group of participants hear a strong case from the defense and then a case from the prosecution and then they say whether the defendant is guilty or not.
Second group of people get a weak case from the defendant and then the the prosecution tears it apart.
And that's called the thunder version.
So there's a weakness in the defense's case and the prosecution tears it apart.
Final group, and this is called the stolen thunder group, exactly the same as the previous group.
Defense has a weak case.
The only change is at the very end, the defense case admits the flaw in their argument.
And then the prosecution tears it apart.
Now, in that group, there is a significant increase in the proportion of participants who believe the defendant is not guilty.
So between the Thunder case and the stolen Thunder case, you see an increase in the volume of people who are found innocent.
Now it never gets up to the stage of innocence in the strong defence case, so the argument from Kipling -Williams is if you have a problem better to admit it before the other side draws attention to it, because if you admit a flaw in your argument you have proved your honesty and then everything else you say becomes that much more believable.
Remember in the setup of this case the defense never gives reasons about why in the stolen thunder part never gives reasons about why that weakness isn't a problem.
All they do is state its existence.
If the person you're dealing with knows that you have a flaw, far better that you say it.
And then at least you get the benefit of trustworthiness and believability.
That's something I think can be applied far more often in negotiations or persuasion.
Richard, let me summarize this, making sure I get it.
So we have three different scenarios.
In the first one, we have the strong defense.
And then we hear from the prosecution and the second one we have a weak defense and then we hear from the prosecution And in the third one we have a weak defense But at the end you admit the weakness and then you hear from the prosecution and then in terms of persuasive value It is the it's under Strong defense that is it gets the most innocent verdicts The next best is the stolen thunder where the defense admitted the floor the worst one for the defense perspective is when the defense never admitted the floor.
So point being, if you've got an amazing courtroom case, absolutely brilliant but if in like most circumstances there's going to be a problem, there's going to be conflicting evidence, if you admit that problem, then you stand to benefit.
I love this and especially as a lawyer, I love this too, because a lot of times through no fault of your own, your client comes to you with flaws.
Every client is going to have flaws.
And I think a lot of times the ego of the lawyer can lead them to say, well, it almost reflects poorly upon me if there are flaws, but it's not that you as a persuader are flawed necessarily we all are flawed, but you understand the point is that the circumstance is not 100 % perfect.
And for us as negotiators, whatever realm we happen to find ourselves in, we're, we have to recognize that sometimes we find ourselves through no fault of our own in situations that are not very advantageous, and we have to play our position.
And a lot of times we overplay our hands because we think that's the best way to approach it.
But what this study is showing us is that that might undermine our credibility and therefore make us less persuasive.
Yeah, absolutely. In most situations, you're not going to be especially in a commercial situation, there's going to be skepticism from the other side.
Because if you just say your product's amazing, the other party's going to think, well, you would say that, wouldn't you?
But if you admit there's a problem, then you have tangible to prove your honesty, everything else becomes more believable.
So I think it's dealing with the world as it is rather than dealing with the world as you want it to be.
And the problem with most negotiations is that skepticism.
Yes. And we have to recognize too that a good negotiator to a certain extent has to have that level of skepticism or else somebody will take advantage of them.
So we have to assume that they're going to come with that skepticism.
And if they, and if we give them essentially what they're looking for and say, Hey, Hey, here it is.
Yeah. Eases a little bit of that tension and helps them to trust you more.
Now let's say somebody listens to this and they say, okay, I know what I'm going to do.
I'm going to steal their thunder.
I'm going to talk about my weaknesses.
What are some of the mistakes that people can make when doing this?
That's a brilliant question.
So of course, admitting a flaw is a broad recommendation.
There are all sorts of types of flaws.
What's interesting in my field of advertising is the best communicators don't admit a flaw randomly.
So you admit a flaw that has a mirror weakness.
One of the great alcohol campaigns from around the world is Guinness.
And for a long time, they used to say in their strap line, and good things come to those who wait.
The brilliance of that line is you admit that it takes time for a pint of Guinness to be poured.
So you admit the problem of delay and waiting, but most people in their mind have a trade off with slowness.
We believe if things are slow, they're going to be high quality.
Or Listerine, the taste you hate twice a day, you admit that you taste foul, but people assume, well, if you taste foul, you're going to be really potent.
So the best communicator is, I think, find a weakness that has that mirror strength.
Oh, that's brilliant.
So it's one of those situations where you admit, yes, this is a weakness but at the same time, it is a good thing for this reason.
Yeah, yes. Now, you've got to be careful here.
You can't humblebrag.
You can't say their classic interview, responsive, what's your weakness?
Oh, I'm a perfectionist. That will just irritate people.
it's got to be a genuine floor.
Now, in a maybe a one -to -one or a business -to -business commercial setting, your floor might be that you're expensive.
Now, that's quite interesting because although high -priced might put some people off, most people assume if you're high -priced, you're high quality.
So if the case is that you are trading at a premium versus your competitors, there is an advantage, sometimes, to leaning into that.
The other part is gonna find out anyway, and you want to make sure they connect and are reminded of high price equaling high quality.
So yeah, it's really about picking the best flaw to admit.
This is great and what this is telling me too, it shows the power of preparation before these conversations because if you do your research, you understand what your flaws are gonna be, then you can think about how you can strategically introduce that in a way that is non -threatening during the negotiation.
Preparation, I think you're right, is a great, is very important.
Because if you go back to that original Kipling -Williams study, in his argument, he's saying, well admit the flaw if the other party's going to be aware of it eventually.
So trying to work out what they already, the other party already think of you, I think you're right, that's an area that would reward preparation.
Love it, love it. Alright, and now let's move on to that next point too.
The precision of claims and making benefits concrete.
Yes. So two separate points, the first one around precision.
And again this is trying to overcome the challenge of a trust gap.
So the study in question comes from Schindler at Rutgers University and gets a group of people randomizing them into two separate groups.
The first group sees an ad for a deodorant, a picture of the deodorant description, and and within the description, the ad says, reduces perspiration by 50%.
Next group, same picture, same description, but the percentage changes.
Now it either says reduces perspiration by 47 % or 53%.
So essentially some people see a round's claim, 50%, some see a precise claim, 47 or 53%.
Schindler then questions everyone as to one, how accurate do they think that claim about perspiration reduction is.
And two, how believable or credible is it.
Now the group who heard the precise number, rate accuracy 10 % higher, credibility believability, 5 % higher.
Schindler's argument is that over time people have got so used to hearing those who are speculating, using round numbers, and those who know their stuff using precise numbers that the two things become fused together.
We're very attuned to this.
If someone said to you, how old's your brother?
You'd probably say, well he's 37 or 38 depending on his age.
If someone said to you, how old's that old guy who lives six doors down from your road?
You'd say, oh, he's in his sixties, he's in his seventies.
We learn over time if you know what you're talking about, you tend to come up with precise numbers.
If you are guessing, you tend to speak generally.
So if, let's say, your children actually reduces perspiration by 51%, don't make the mistake of most brands and rounding down to a nice clean, round number.
That will reduce its believability.
Use the specific number that's actually the truth.
I love this, and the timing of this, Richard, is perfect.
Because just an hour ago, I was delivering a training for a real estate company.
And we were talking about how to, first of all, how to list your prices.
I said, every price on your website is a round number that makes it more ripe for negotiation.
That's the first thing.
And then when you're conceding, when you're making your concessions, you want to think about it beforehand.
And if you can see it on a round number, then it makes it more likely for the person to invalidate that number and not take it as seriously.
So you want to think about it beforehand and come up with precise numbers.
And so just incorporating this psychology into your negotiations makes the offers and counter offers that you make so much more persuasive.
So interestingly, you mention a development of this idea from Schindler around precise prices.
Now, precise prices are fascinating.
Some work from the mid 90s from the University of Florida where they showed that, if you showed some in a precise price, they were more likely to think it was worth that price than if you gave them a round price.
And this was Januszewski and you, I think.
The experiment was a little bit abstract.
X. It was asking people to speculate on what they do.
I think it was students as an audience.
So it always had a little bit of uncertainty around it from the academic backing.
But recently, Uber have released data.
Now they have a big behavioral science team.
So if you get into an Uber, you've probably been in one of the experiments.
And they've released data saying that they had been testing surge pricing.
So you and me might be on the same road, different ends of the same road.
You look for an Uber.
and you're given a 2x surge price, I'm given an Uber, and I'm given a 2 .1x surge price.
What Uber found was that, on average, I would be more likely to accept the ride.
So even though I'm seeing a higher price, I'm more likely to accept it because being slightly skeptical, if we see round prices, we assume they've been marked up a lot, whereas if we see a really precise price, we probably still think it's been rounded up, but just edged up in small degrees.
so there's this lovely opportunity, as you say, with your real estate client, and if you've ever got round prices, just put them up a little bit, you've got more margin, they'll be perceived to be better value.
Ooh, I love this, and I love the validation, Richard. Thank you very much, and I think this is a good opportunity, listeners, if you plan on using that technique or any of the ones that Richard said, give Richard a five -star review on the podcast, don't give it to me, just give it to Richard. That's what we're doing here.
Okay, this is great, man, I love that.
And I know we're coming up on time too, and then, let's hit that last point, making benefits concrete.
So yeah, lovely study.
The original one was done in 1972 by Ian Begg at the University of Western Ontario.
Simple study, reads out a list of 22 -word phrases.
The phrases that he reads out, they're all jumbled up so the participants can't guess what he's doing.
But they fall into two types.
Half of the phrases are what he calls abstract phrases, so things like better excuse or impossible amount.
These are things that you cannot visualize, they're intangibles.
The other half of the phrases are physical things, so white horse or square door.
He reads out the list, after he's read it out, he asks people to recall as much as they possibly can, and he finds that on average, people remember 9 % of the abstract words, 36 % of the concrete words.
there is a massive four -fold difference in memorability.
Beg's argument is vision is the most powerful of our senses, so if you use language that people can visualize, what you say will be very memorable and sticky, if you use abstract language, very forgettable.
Now that idea can definitely be applied in a business setting, because lots of times, professionals talk about their premiumness, their trustworthiness, their quality.
The problem is they're all abstractions.
What you have to do as a communicator is translate those abstractions into concrete visualizable words.
And if you think about maybe one of the best and most effective brands ever, Apple, that's exactly what they used to do.
With the iPod, all the competitors talked about 126 or 256 megabytes of memory.
They talked about memory in an abstract way.
What Apple did was still talk about the abstract concept of memory, but they turned it into something visualizable.
A thousand songs in your pocket, a picture pocket.
You can imagine a song that's memorable in a way that those abstractions will never be.
And this is not I'm not trying to be hyperbolic here.
But I think for just for me as a business owner here and somebody who negotiates every day, just these little tweaks, I can see immediately how it could lead to better understanding, more collaboration, less distrust, and more persuasive value while still being really honest and transparent with the way that you negotiate.
Yeah, love your point about honesty.
What I'm not suggesting is people make up a flaw or make up precision or make up concrete, but most of the time we have flaws, the data probably was precise until we rounded it and changing a word isn't immoral.
So you're absolutely right.
All of these principles you've got to apply honestly, but if you do, absolutely they'll have a positive effect.
Absolutely. Oh, Richard, this was so good.
I really appreciate this.
And before you go, can you remind the listeners again how they can get in touch with you and the books that you've written to?
So two books on this topic, The Choice Factory and the Illusion of Choice.
And then if they want to get in contact, LinkedIn's great.
So it's Richard Shoten.
I often tweet or just tweet about psychology and marketing, and that's at Rshoten on what I guess I should call X now rather than Twitter, but people know what I mean.
Fantastic. Richard, thank you so much for joining us.
Really appreciate it.
If you've made it to the end of this episode, you're now part of our negotiation community.
Every conversation, every deal, every tough negotiation shapes the world that we live in.
And the more we grow together, the stronger our community becomes.
If this episode gave you something valuable, don't let it stop with you.
Share it with someone who needs it – a friend, a coworker, or anyone looking to take more control of their conversations, their careers, and their lives.
Every time we bring somebody new into this space, we make negotiation a tool for real change.
And if someone shared this with you, take a second to acknowledge that.
They see you as part of this journey, and as someone who belongs in this community.
Let them know you appreciate it.
This is how we build something meaningful.
We do it by looking out for each other.
So if you haven't already, join us, subscribe, stay connected, and help us to grow this movement.
Because, when we become better negotiators, we create better outcomes, for ourselves and for others.
Hit subscribe and share this with someone and let's keep building together.
I'll catch you in the next one.
