13 ms·

Hidden tricks of persuasion: study shows how easily we are manipulated

267 points by d_a_robson 12y ago

adventured 12y ago
"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.
- raverbashing 12y ago
  Exactly this Restaurants probably put the most popular dishes in the top and/or bottom as well. (Not to mention when the page is divided by sections, so you would have the main dished in the middle, so the point is moot) Also how you define top/bottom? Divide the page into 2 parts? 3 parts?
- Raphmedia 12y ago
  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/writf-pattern.png http://www.vanseodesign.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/... 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 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      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.)
      - spuz 12y ago
        I think Joe's point is that a person who is manipulated into making a certain choice, is not necessarily worse off for making it. In this case, the photo of the high-margin dish not only increases your likelihood of choosing it from the menu, but also increases your desire and satisfaction for having made that choice. I have some ridiculously expensive designer furniture at home that rationally makes no sense to choose over something from IKEA. Despite that, they give me a lot of satisfaction and I can feel justified in my decision because of that. That's not to say that everybody makes decisions that they are happy with, there are lots of ways people are manipulated into decisions that they later regret. However, you really should take into account how people feel about a decision before judging whether or not they have been cheated.
- vidarh 12y ago
  They're not mutually exclusive, but it's easy to test how switching things around on the menu will alter the order ratios. Overall we are exceedingly good at rationalising choices, even when we provably had no influence on them (look up experiments done on patients with severed brain stems). You are certainly right that people get annoyed with multiple choices, though. I don't remember if it's Cialdini ("Influence") or Jonathan Haidt ("The Happiness Hypothesis") that cites experiments that shows that people are happiest with their choices when they have a small-ish number of alternatives. Above a relatively small number of alternatives, peoples satisfaction with the choice they end up making drops rapidly. Not only is the process of choosing tiresome, but we get far more room for doubt about whether or not we made the right choice.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Right! There was no control in that experiment, nor can I imagine what one would look like since they don't change any variable.
- dingaling 12y ago
  > 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. Unless you're a vegetarian and there's one option tucked away on page 2. Which illustrates one way of countering these sorts of manipulation tricks: a very slight offset from the mainstream. If you find that when you're looking for a product you only end-up with one option that meets your requirements, or perhaps even only one that only partially meets them, then you're pretty much unsusceptible to 'buy this now' pressure.
  - gohrt 12y ago
    Yeah but then you're paying $15 for a salad because the restaurantier knows you are stuck with it when your friends dragged you to that restuarant :(
- balabaster 12y ago
  I've usually decided what I want before I get to the restaurant and then get annoyed when I get there and find it's not on the "lunch" menu or they're out of that. Usually, my choice of restaurant to eat at was made because I was in the mood for something specific, which was influenced by the advertising on the train on the way to work... either way, it had very little to do with the ordering of the menu. Some days, it has nothing to do with the menu at all. If I'm feeling particularly brave, I'll just ask the server to bring me their favourite dish. So I think it's a bit of a reach to say "twice as likely." I'd say it's at best as likely... it totally depends on the chef and their ability to make whatever they've placed on the menu.
- pjbrunet 12y ago
  The way I see it, the top item on the menu is probably fresh and people like it. Or they wouldn't be in business very long.
relet 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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.
6d0debc071 12y ago
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
- rglover 12y ago
  Lots of people abusing this one as of late. Shocking to see how much of what he covers works (repeatedly, even).
- CSMastermind 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    I had the same feeling, but I thought I was missing his points because everybody praised it so much.
lamacase 12y ago
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 12y ago
  > 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 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      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.
grandalf 12y ago
This is a good tutorial: http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/4451 http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/4451
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
I'm not sure there was a control in these experiment.
jonathansizz 12y ago
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 12y ago
  This is obviously staged.
  - amirmc 12y ago
    Why? Because you find it unfathomable that people would do this? Do you also believe that people never fall for 419 scams? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/419_scams http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/419_scams
    - balabaster 12y ago
      With the amount these come up, it becomes increasingly difficult not to f* with them. You know they're a scam, but when they come up, it's impossible not to fantasize about your ability to scam the scammer. Who is better? Could you do it?
    - detrino 12y ago
      Yes, it is unfathomable that people act like this. This stunt presents itself as an easy to understand trick that works like magic in making people do things like give you their wallet. This is appealing to viewers who can follow what's going on and can feel a sense of accomplishment in learning a new trick. I'm not saying this man was given a script or told exactly what to do. But I would say he was certainly part of a casting call and was "on the job" when this was filmed. The cameras were probably not even hidden. 419 scams are entirely different. They are typically sent out en-masse precisely because most people are not vulnerable to the scam. Also, they appeal to people's greed, the victims believe they will be getting a large sum of money for very little effort. On top of that, the victims are usually worked over for a period of time by seasoned con-artists before sending any money. There is no simple trick like here like handing someone a water bottle or saying a magic phrase.
aotw 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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_principles_of_influence_by_Robert_Cialdini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cialdini#6_key_principle... > "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 12y ago
    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.
- kordless 12y ago
  > Maybe we're all losing the ability to connect with one another authentically. I think it's cultural. Different cultures, different ways of establishing trust. I had an interesting conversation with a coworker (I work for a German company) about the need to calibrate monitors for proper color rendering for different tasks. His desire to understand the 'truth' about how monitors deliver light to our eyes was quite strong while at the same time being very direct about rejecting casual references such as it's just what you have to do with a monitor when you do print jobs. Germans. Engineering focus and zero bullshit is part of the culture. I also 'hung out' with a bunch of Romanians in Amsterdam one night over the weekend. They were very direct with mis-trust. One of them put his coat next to me on the couch I was sitting on and he looked right at me and said "you don't steal my coat, OK?". I assured him I was not going to steal his coat and then he smiled and said "great!". :) In the U.S. it seems we use a lot of shortcuts to establish trust quickly. The problem with this approach is that because the cost of trust is so low (say an ad hominem argument or bandwagon bias) it's easy to abuse the trust system for personal gain. Given we're all about living the "American Dream" of becoming insanely successful ($1B exit anyone?), this frequently puts us in a situation of duality, where we want what we want, but aren't willing to put the time and effort into establishing the trust we need to get us there. These are generalizations, of course.
aotw 12y ago
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.
strickjb9 12y ago
I go along with magic tricks because I want to fulfill the illusion, not break it. It's the polite thing to do.
- balabaster 12y ago
  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.
- chippy 12y ago
  but what if you don't know it is a magic trick?
bartkappenburg 12y ago
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 12y ago
  (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.
skizm 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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.
- rasz_pl 12y ago
  There were already studies (with people in fmri) that showed computer model can predict decision from brain scan few seconds BEFORE test subjects make it consciously :) one of the links http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13658-brain-scanner-predicts-your-future-moves.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13658-brain-scanner-pr...
known 12y ago
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
userium 12y ago
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-personalization-how-waiters-increased-tips-by-23-percent-without-changing-service/ http://www.helpscout.net/blog/the-psychology-of-personalizat...).
moyix 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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
- Dewie 12y ago
  On the other hand - I'm impressed or even astounded by how people are able to fumble through life and still end up in good situations and circumstances.
Menge 12y ago
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/2012/01/18/primed-by-expectations-why-a-classic-psychology-experiment-isnt-what-it-seemed/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/01/1...
Kiro 12y ago
> 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 12y ago
  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.
mkagenius 12y ago
>> “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
ljk 12y ago
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
chernevik 12y ago
"He who does not understand the workings of his own mind is doomed, of necessity, to be unhappy." Aurelius
pombrand 12y ago
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-d443a5200e01 https://medium.com/@johanaardal/a-summary-of-influence-d443a... 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?
fsk 12y ago
See also: Asch Conformity Test

267 points by d_a_robson 12y ago

"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.

raverbashing 12y ago
Exactly this Restaurants probably put the most popular dishes in the top and/or bottom as well. (Not to mention when the page is divided by sections, so you would have the main dished in the middle, so the point is moot) Also how you define top/bottom? Divide the page into 2 parts? 3 parts?
Raphmedia 12y ago
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/writf-pattern.png http://www.vanseodesign.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/... 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 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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.)
    - spuz 12y ago
      I think Joe's point is that a person who is manipulated into making a certain choice, is not necessarily worse off for making it. In this case, the photo of the high-margin dish not only increases your likelihood of choosing it from the menu, but also increases your desire and satisfaction for having made that choice. I have some ridiculously expensive designer furniture at home that rationally makes no sense to choose over something from IKEA. Despite that, they give me a lot of satisfaction and I can feel justified in my decision because of that. That's not to say that everybody makes decisions that they are happy with, there are lots of ways people are manipulated into decisions that they later regret. However, you really should take into account how people feel about a decision before judging whether or not they have been cheated.
vidarh 12y ago
They're not mutually exclusive, but it's easy to test how switching things around on the menu will alter the order ratios. Overall we are exceedingly good at rationalising choices, even when we provably had no influence on them (look up experiments done on patients with severed brain stems). You are certainly right that people get annoyed with multiple choices, though. I don't remember if it's Cialdini ("Influence") or Jonathan Haidt ("The Happiness Hypothesis") that cites experiments that shows that people are happiest with their choices when they have a small-ish number of alternatives. Above a relatively small number of alternatives, peoples satisfaction with the choice they end up making drops rapidly. Not only is the process of choosing tiresome, but we get far more room for doubt about whether or not we made the right choice.
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Right! There was no control in that experiment, nor can I imagine what one would look like since they don't change any variable.
dingaling 12y ago
> 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. Unless you're a vegetarian and there's one option tucked away on page 2. Which illustrates one way of countering these sorts of manipulation tricks: a very slight offset from the mainstream. If you find that when you're looking for a product you only end-up with one option that meets your requirements, or perhaps even only one that only partially meets them, then you're pretty much unsusceptible to 'buy this now' pressure.
- gohrt 12y ago
  Yeah but then you're paying $15 for a salad because the restaurantier knows you are stuck with it when your friends dragged you to that restuarant :(
balabaster 12y ago
I've usually decided what I want before I get to the restaurant and then get annoyed when I get there and find it's not on the "lunch" menu or they're out of that. Usually, my choice of restaurant to eat at was made because I was in the mood for something specific, which was influenced by the advertising on the train on the way to work... either way, it had very little to do with the ordering of the menu. Some days, it has nothing to do with the menu at all. If I'm feeling particularly brave, I'll just ask the server to bring me their favourite dish. So I think it's a bit of a reach to say "twice as likely." I'd say it's at best as likely... it totally depends on the chef and their ability to make whatever they've placed on the menu.
pjbrunet 12y ago
The way I see it, the top item on the menu is probably fresh and people like it. Or they wouldn't be in business very long.

relet 12y ago

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 12y ago
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.

6d0debc071 12y ago

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

rglover 12y ago
Lots of people abusing this one as of late. Shocking to see how much of what he covers works (repeatedly, even).
CSMastermind 12y ago
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 12y ago
  I had the same feeling, but I thought I was missing his points because everybody praised it so much.

lamacase 12y ago

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 12y ago
> 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 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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.

grandalf 12y ago

This is a good tutorial: http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/4451 http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/4451

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

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

jonathansizz 12y ago

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 12y ago
This is obviously staged.
- amirmc 12y ago
  Why? Because you find it unfathomable that people would do this? Do you also believe that people never fall for 419 scams? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/419_scams http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/419_scams
  - balabaster 12y ago
    With the amount these come up, it becomes increasingly difficult not to f* with them. You know they're a scam, but when they come up, it's impossible not to fantasize about your ability to scam the scammer. Who is better? Could you do it?
  - detrino 12y ago
    Yes, it is unfathomable that people act like this. This stunt presents itself as an easy to understand trick that works like magic in making people do things like give you their wallet. This is appealing to viewers who can follow what's going on and can feel a sense of accomplishment in learning a new trick. I'm not saying this man was given a script or told exactly what to do. But I would say he was certainly part of a casting call and was "on the job" when this was filmed. The cameras were probably not even hidden. 419 scams are entirely different. They are typically sent out en-masse precisely because most people are not vulnerable to the scam. Also, they appeal to people's greed, the victims believe they will be getting a large sum of money for very little effort. On top of that, the victims are usually worked over for a period of time by seasoned con-artists before sending any money. There is no simple trick like here like handing someone a water bottle or saying a magic phrase.

aotw 12y ago

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 12y ago
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_principles_of_influence_by_Robert_Cialdini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cialdini#6_key_principle... > "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 12y ago
  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.
kordless 12y ago
> Maybe we're all losing the ability to connect with one another authentically. I think it's cultural. Different cultures, different ways of establishing trust. I had an interesting conversation with a coworker (I work for a German company) about the need to calibrate monitors for proper color rendering for different tasks. His desire to understand the 'truth' about how monitors deliver light to our eyes was quite strong while at the same time being very direct about rejecting casual references such as it's just what you have to do with a monitor when you do print jobs. Germans. Engineering focus and zero bullshit is part of the culture. I also 'hung out' with a bunch of Romanians in Amsterdam one night over the weekend. They were very direct with mis-trust. One of them put his coat next to me on the couch I was sitting on and he looked right at me and said "you don't steal my coat, OK?". I assured him I was not going to steal his coat and then he smiled and said "great!". :) In the U.S. it seems we use a lot of shortcuts to establish trust quickly. The problem with this approach is that because the cost of trust is so low (say an ad hominem argument or bandwagon bias) it's easy to abuse the trust system for personal gain. Given we're all about living the "American Dream" of becoming insanely successful ($1B exit anyone?), this frequently puts us in a situation of duality, where we want what we want, but aren't willing to put the time and effort into establishing the trust we need to get us there. These are generalizations, of course.

aotw 12y ago

strickjb9 12y ago

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

balabaster 12y ago
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.
chippy 12y ago
but what if you don't know it is a magic trick?

bartkappenburg 12y ago

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 12y ago
(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.

skizm 12y ago

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 12y ago
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.
rasz_pl 12y ago
There were already studies (with people in fmri) that showed computer model can predict decision from brain scan few seconds BEFORE test subjects make it consciously :) one of the links http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13658-brain-scanner-predicts-your-future-moves.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13658-brain-scanner-pr...

known 12y ago

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

userium 12y ago

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-personalization-how-waiters-increased-tips-by-23-percent-without-changing-service/ http://www.helpscout.net/blog/the-psychology-of-personalizat...).

moyix 12y ago

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 12y ago
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
Dewie 12y ago
On the other hand - I'm impressed or even astounded by how people are able to fumble through life and still end up in good situations and circumstances.

Menge 12y ago

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/2012/01/18/primed-by-expectations-why-a-classic-psychology-experiment-isnt-what-it-seemed/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/01/1...

Kiro 12y ago

> 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 12y ago
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.

mkagenius 12y ago

>> “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

ljk 12y ago

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

chernevik 12y ago

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

pombrand 12y ago

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-d443a5200e01 https://medium.com/@johanaardal/a-summary-of-influence-d443a... 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?

fsk 12y ago