Technology has made information into a commodity. But how much thought do we put into the validity of information we find online?
When we look something up, we defer to the reporting or opinions of others before we form our own judgments, which give these external groups considerable influence over us – especially if they can manipulate our expectations with the power of cue words. Want to find out how it’s done? Read on…
Psychology and marketing professor Robert Cialdini and co-author of books Yes! and The Small Big Steve Martin discuss the six universal principles of persuasion – covering why we may find ourselves inclined to trust our friends or preferred brands, but doubt the unfamiliar.
The illusions of priming words
Although news sources claim to be objective in their reporting, the way something is presented will inevitably be interpreted by the reader. Consider this headline from a story that appeared on Australia’s ABC news network:
“Bankstown man refused bail after allegedly groping woman he’d stopped to help after car crash”
By referring to the suspect simply as “Bankstown man”, the anonymity makes it easier for us to vilify him and sympathise with the female. Even though the man hasn’t been proven guilty yet, the judge denied bail due to the dubiousness of his claims – reinforcing our mind’s predatory stereotype of the suspect and reaffirming that he’s probably guilty, so siding with the woman seems to be the empathetic and just thing to do.
Well it turns out the man, Kenan Basic, was innocent all along. After the woman confessed to lying about the sexual assault, all charges against him were dropped. Having been wrongly sent to maximum security prison (and with his job, family and reputation in ruins) notice how news networks (eg. news.com.au or Daily Mail) have now begun to refer to him as a “good Samaritan” – a 180 degree turn from the previous article.
It certainly is possible for priming words to sway the emotions and expectations of audiences in reporting, but how useful is it in marketing? Well it turns out attribute priming is a rather effective marketing tactic. In a case study reported by Forbes, consumers who were planning to buy a new laptop were approached by researchers – half being were asked about their memory needs and the other half being asked about their processor-speed needs.
Without the influence of any subjectivity-inducing adjectives, both groups ended up purchasing laptops that corresponded with the question. Simply being asked to think about a product’s attributes can influence a consumer’s purchasing decision, offering insight as to why the bells and whistles of new products are so heavily advertised (and also why it’s so hard to resist when asked, “Do you want to supersize those fries?”).
Psychologist and memory expert Elizabeth Loftus on the fallacies of the human memory and why false memories can occur to anyone.
Memory manipulation
The average person can only retain so many details before they start plugging in the holes with make-believe. But when faced with a traumatic event like a car crash, we feel like the circumstances can be recalled vividly… right? Cognitive psychologist and human memory expert Elizabeth Loftus argues otherwise.
“Many people believe that memory works like a recording device. You just record the information, then you call it up and play it back when you want to answer questions or identify images,” says Loftus at a TED conference, “But decades of work in psychology has shown that just isn’t true.” Comparing the human memory to a Wikipedia page, she points out that our memories are “constructive and reconstructive” – meaning that they are vulnerable to being tampered with by misinformation or malicious intent (explaining why Wikipedia has a bad rap for being an disreputable source of information).
In a 1974 study that Loftus conducted with John Palmer, they hypothesised that cue words used during testimony could alter eyewitnesses’ memory. A series of films involving traffic accidents were shown to the subjects, then they would be asked to restate what had happened. To test the hypothesis, Loftus and Palmer questioned each participant using a priming cue in the form of this question: “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed/collided/bumped/hit/contacted each other?”
The findings were fascinating. Participants’ estimated speed of impact varied accordingly with the strength of the verb used – smash having the highest estimated speed (40.8 mph) versus contacted having the lowest (31.8 mph). Confirming their suspicions, the experiment showed that the priming word could bias a person’s response, thus affecting their overall perception as well.
Consider how this would be used from a marketing perspective. If a consumer had a roach problem and wanted to buy a can of Raid, which tagline would be more effective:
Raid deals with your roach troubles
Raid deals with your roach infestations
Roach troubles imply only a few at most, and even if you were only dealing with one or two roaches, the word infestation would trigger terrifying imagery of a legion of those creepy crawlies around your home. If the product can deal with that many critters, then by logic it can deal with one or two, so the second tagline delivers a more powerful punch in any scenario (include a product attribute that its lemony-fresh and you have a real killer product).
Given our susceptibility to priming words, it’s the onus of copywriters and marketers to ensure that these cues are not intentionally used to deceive readers. On top of any liabilities arising from false advertising, it’s a guaranteed way to burn through consumer trust, so be sure to prime properly!