Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta anchoring. Mostrar todas as mensagens
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta anchoring. Mostrar todas as mensagens

segunda-feira, janeiro 02, 2017

Isto está tudo ligado (parte II)

Parte I.

Impressionante o potencial de manipulação em que caímos facilmente:
"Consider the results of an experiment performed by communication scientists San Bolkan and Peter Andersen, who approached people and made a request for assistance with a survey. We have all experienced something similar when a clipboard-carrying researcher stops us in a shopping mall or supermarket and asks for a few minutes of our time. As is the case for the typical shopping mall requester, these scientists’ success was dismal: only 29 percent of those asked to participate consented. But Bolkan and Andersen thought they could boost compliance without resorting to any of the costly payments that marketers often feel forced to employ. They stopped a second sample of individuals and began the interaction with a pre-suasive opener: “Do you consider yourself a helpful person?” Following brief reflection, nearly everyone answered yes. In that privileged moment—after subjects had confirmed privately and affirmed publicly their helpful natures—the researchers pounced, requesting help with their survey. Now 77.3 percent volunteered.
...
frequently the factor most likely to determine a person’s choice in a situation is not the one that counsels most wisely there; it is one that has been elevated in attention (and, thereby, in privilege) at the time of the decision.
...
In a companion study, the two scientists found that it was similarly possible to increase willingness to try an unfamiliar consumer product by beginning with a comparable but differently customized pre-suasive opener—this time asking people if they considered themselves adventurous. The consumer product was a new soft drink, and individuals had to agree to supply an email address so they could be sent instructions on how to get a free sample. Half were stopped and asked if they wanted to provide their addresses for this purpose. Most were reluctant—only 33 percent volunteered their contact information. The other subjects were asked initially, “Do you consider yourself to be somebody who is adventurous and likes to try new things?” Almost all said yes—following which, 75.7 percent gave their email addresses.
.
Two features of these findings strike me as remarkable. First, of the subjects who were asked if they counted themselves adventurous, 97 percent (seventy out of seventy-two) responded affirmatively. The idea that nearly everybody qualifies as an adventurous type is ludicrous. Yet when asked the single-chute question of whether they fit this category, people nominate themselves almost invariably. Such is the power of positive test strategy and the blinkered perspective it creates. The evidence shows that this process can significantly increase the percentage of individuals who brand themselves as adventurous or helpful or even unhappy. Moreover, the narrowed perspective, though temporary, is anything but inconsequential. For a persuasively privileged moment, it renders these individuals highly vulnerable to aligned requests—as the data of research scientists and the practices of cult recruiters attest.
.
The other noteworthy feature of the soft-drink experiment is not that a simple question could shunt so many people into a particular choice but that it could shunt so many of them into a potentially dangerous choice."
Dou por mim a recordar os discursos de Brutus primeiro e Marco António depois e a volubilidade da multidão, na peça de Shakespeare sobre Júlio César.

Trecho retirado de "Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade"

sábado, dezembro 31, 2016

Isto está tudo ligado

"If I inquired whether you were unhappy in, let’s say, the social arena, your natural tendency to hunt for confirmations rather than for disconfirmations of the possibility would lead you to find more proof of discontent than if I asked whether you were happy there. This was the outcome when members of a sample of Canadians were asked either if they were unhappy or happy with their social lives. Those asked if they were unhappy were far more likely to encounter dissatisfactions as they thought about it and, consequently, were 375 percent more likely to declare themselves unhappy.
.
There are multiple lessons to draw from this finding. First, if a pollster wants to know only whether you are dissatisfied with something—it could be a consumer product or an elected representative or a government policy—watch out. Be suspicious as well of the one who asks only if you are satisfied. Single-chute  questions of this sort can get you both to mistake and misstate your position. I’d recommend declining to participate in surveys that employ this biased form of questioning."
Isto está tudo ligado.

Por que será que António José Teixeira e Ana Lourenço e um rol de comentadores transitaram para a RTP?

Trecho retirado de "Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade"


quinta-feira, junho 04, 2015

Acerca das escolhas que fazemos

Um excelente resumo dos vários mecanismos que afectam as escolhas que os humanos fazem em "The Psychology Behind How We Make Choices":
  • Bias;
  • Priming and Behavior;
  • Priming and Choice;
  • Bias and Choice;
  • 1) Anchoring bias
  • 2) Framing effect bias
  • 3) Ingroup bias
  • 4) Loss aversion bias
  • Choice Overload;
  • Choice and Willpower;
  • How to Make Choosing Easier
  • 1) Cut
  • 2) Make things concrete
  • 3) Categorize
  • 4) Condition for complexity
"The reasons we make decisions are not always rational and can’t be isolated from who we are, where we are, or maybe even how long it took us to decide what outfit to wear that morning. But by being aware of the psychological factors that affect our choices -- and recognizing how a decision we make at 8 a.m. affects one at 3 p.m. -- we’ll be able to not only make better decisions for ourselves, but help others do the same."