The Small BIG: Small Changes That Spark Big Influence (21 page)

T
he online wine store yesmywine.com has a rather interesting rewards program. When customers purchase wine from a specific country they are given a “Country Medal.” Customers who collect 12 different medals over the course of a year are rewarded with a large bonus. However there is a catch. In order to claim their reward, customers must collect the medals in a specific sequence that is mandated by the wine store. For example, customers might be required to purchase, say, a bottle of French wine in January, an Australian wine in February, an Italian wine in March, and so on over the course of a year, rather than simply being told to purchase 12 bottles from the 12 different countries in an order of their choosing.

Considering that the actual number of purchases required never changes (it is always 12 bottles) this rewards program seems overly rigid. One would think that compared to standard loyalty programs, an oddly restrictive program such as this one would be less likely to attract customers to enroll. After all, when it comes to persuading people to complete tasks, especially those that require multiple steps and actions (or purchases in the case of a loyalty program), most people report preferring flexibility and the removal of unnecessary barriers.

So why would a company, which we assume wants to attract more customers and promote long-term loyalty, design a program that seemingly goes against the grain of what most people would sign up for? It turns out that yesmywine.com has recognized something counter-intuitive. Although people report a preference for flexibility when achieving goals and objectives,
rigidity can have a surprisingly positive influence on whether those goals are completed.

When deciding whether to pursue a particular goal or objective, people will typically consider two things—its value and how realistically attainable it is. For example, a business development team tasked with winning a significant and strategically important new client needs to assess not only the value of that new client but also their realistic chances of securing them. Similarly it’s not enough for an individual who wishes to learn a new skill or retrain for a new job to simply imagine how different her life will be if she does. She will also need to consider the actual steps and actions she will need to take in order to achieve her goals.

Given that achievement of a goal requires not only its adoption but also its pursuit, are there any situations when something that persuades us to pursue a goal then gets in our way when it comes to achieving that same goal? For example, in the case of the online wine store, the flexibility to make wine purchases in any order could be seen as more attractive than requiring customers to purchase wines in a specific sequence. As a result, more customers could be persuaded to enroll in the rewards program. But once they have enrolled, does the flexibility that attracted them to the program actually
reduce
their motivation to complete the purchases required to achieve the reward they signed up for in the first place?

Behavioral scientists Liyan Jin, Szu-chi Huang, and Ying Zhang thought that more people would sign up for a goal requiring them to complete multiple actions if they were able to choose the order in which they completed those actions as compared to people who had the order prescribed to them, but that once the process of achieving the goal began, those given the flexibility would be less likely to complete the goal than those who were not.

To test their idea, 800 customers at a busy city center yogurt store were offered a reward card entitling them to a free yogurt after six standard purchases. Half the cards required the purchase of six different flavors of yogurt in any order. The other half required customers to purchase six different flavors in the prescribed order of banana–apple–strawberry–orange–mango–grape. Additionally, half the cards required a customer to return the next day to activate the card with the other half being told that the card had already been activated. These last two conditions were important because they enabled the researchers to measure a customer’s motivation to start the task by requiring them to make a separate return trip.

Consistent with their initial hypothesis, those customers given a reward card that allowed them to purchase the six flavors of yogurt in a flexible order were significantly more likely to activate their card than those told they had to purchase in a fixed sequence (30 percent vs. 12 percent). Interestingly, though, when it came to completion rates, the opposite was true. Customers given reward cards that required a fixed sequence of purchases were significantly more likely to make all the required purchases.

But why?

One likely reason is that a predetermined sequence eliminates, or at least reduces, the number of unnecessary “decision points” that can arise when people pursue a plan. And one thing that today’s information-overloaded citizens appreciate is the need to make fewer, not more, decisions. In additional studies, Jin and colleagues found evidence to support this idea: People who followed a fixed sequence typically reported that limiting the choices made during the pursuit of a goal actually made the goal (a) more likely to be achieved and (b) feel easier in the process.

So far, so good, but hold on a minute. Although those customers given a rigid purchase sequence were more likely to make the purchases required to get their free yogurt, fewer of them signed up for the rewards program in the first place. So if a rigid structure increases people’s likelihood to complete a goal but reduces uptake rates in the first place, what’s the overall net effect? The researchers looked at this, too. The answer, as often happens in persuasion science, is that it depends on the context.

In situations where the choice being made is relatively simple and the motivation to achieve the task is quite strong, a flexible rather than fixed sequence typically leads to better goal achievement. But where the change that is required is harder or where motivation levels might be lower, creating a rigid sequence and structure should be more effective at increasing completion levels.

This research has obvious implications for how companies should design their customer loyalty and rewards programs. But there are a number of other applications as well. Imagine a manager who wants colleagues to adopt a new initiative. Before structuring the required actions in a flexible or lock-step sequence, the manager needs to ask herself a
small
question with big potential consequences: “Is my major problem here likely to be getting buy-in or follow-through?” If the answer is that the main difficulty will be getting colleagues on board in the first place, the implication is clear—make the sequence of required steps as flexible as is practicable and emphasize that flexibility when announcing the initiative.

But if the bigger problem will arise at the execution phase, the implication is equally clear though entirely different—give the roll-out sequence a very structured order and emphasize how, once in place, the program will proceed in a straightforward, uncomplicated fashion.

The idea that a structured order can help people to complete certain goals and programs might prove to be a useful insight to healthcare companies who face the challenge of persuading people to complete courses of medicines they have been prescribed. The findings from this study suggest that changing the pills in blister packs from a single color to multiple colors and setting out clear instructions to users about which pill to take at a specific time could be beneficial to both patients and healthcare professionals. For example, patients could be instructed to take white tablets for the first three days of treatment, blue tablets for the next three days, and then complete the course by taking red tablets. Although nothing would change about the active ingredients of the pharmaceutical itself, the structure set out for taking the medicine could be a small change that potentially leads to an increase in patient compliance.

In a similar vein, retailers and manufacturers of self-assembly products, such as furniture, might find some customers more likely to follow recommended assembly instructions if they color-code each stage of the construction process, explicitly pointing out the order in which tasks should be carried out. Not only could this small change potentially make assembly easier, in some cases it might save a few relationships as well.

And when it comes to motivating yourself to learn a new skill—especially if it is a difficult one or you’re in a situation where there are lots of other distractions in your life—this rigid approach, while much less attractive at the outset, might make the difference when it comes to achieving the ukulele skills that will ensure your inclusion in that folk band you’ve always dreamed of joining.

A
s any good economist will tell you, people respond to incentives. But as a behavioral psychologist will also point out, an individual’s response to incentives may be influenced as much by the context in which the incentive is presented as by what’s actually being offered. For example, people are generally more persuaded by the thought of losing something than the thought of gaining that exact same thing. In the arena of loss versus gain, what is the same economically becomes very different psychologically.

Timing can provide an important context, too. Studies have shown our tendency to live for today at the expense of tomorrow. Offered a choice between $20 today and $21 tomorrow, most people will take the money now. Change the context, though—$20 seven days from now or $21 in eight days—and more people will wait the extra day for the bigger reward and, in doing so, demonstrate how fascinatingly inconsistent human decisions and behavior can sometimes be.

So when it comes to using incentives to influence behaviors, the contextual framing can matter an awful lot. According to one study it appears that a seemingly small and inconsequential change, such as separating rewards into different categories, can increase people’s motivation to acquire them—even if the categories are meaningless.

Behavioral scientists Scott Wiltermuth and Francesca Gino believed that people’s motivation to achieve a reward could be affected by the category in which the reward was placed. In one of their studies, participants were asked to complete a simple ten-minute writing task in exchange for a reward. The possible rewards consisted of a mix of inexpensive items displayed in two large plastic containers from which participants could choose one reward. But all participants were told that if they (voluntarily) chose to complete a second 10-minute task—therefore working a total of 20 minutes—they could choose a second item from the available rewards.

Unbeknownst to the participants, they had been randomly assigned to one of two groups, and there was one important difference in the information given to the two groups. The first group was told that if they completed the additional writing task, they could take their second reward from any of the containers. In contrast, the second group was told that if they completed the additional task, the two rewards they selected would have to come from different containers, because the containers held “two categories of rewards.”

Remarkably, despite the fact that all the participants clearly saw that the two containers contained the same mix of items, those in the second group were
three times more
motivated to complete the additional task than were those in the first group. Perhaps even more surprising was the fact that the enjoyment of the writing tasks was significantly higher among the participants who were told they would be choosing from two categories rather than one.

So why did the prospect of receiving rewards from two categories energize people to a greater extent than did the prospect of receiving the same number and value of rewards from only one category? And why were they happier too?

According to Wiltermuth and Gino, dividing the rewards into categories (even meaningless ones) made people feel that they would be “losing out” on something if they didn’t complete the additional task. Thus, when seeking to influence people to complete tasks by offering incentives or rewards, separating those incentives or rewards into different categories can, without increasing their economic value, increase their
psychological
value because of people’s aversion to missing out on something.

These findings could provide useful insights to anyone who has an interest in, or a responsibility for, motivating others through the use of incentives. For example, a sales manager tasked with motivating employees through a new sales incentive or bonus program could optimize the program by offering rewards that fall into two distinct categories and then allowing his team access to the second category of rewards only after they have earned one from the first. Not only would such an arrangement encourage employees to expend the effort to attain both types of rewards, it might even lead them to enjoy those efforts more in the bargain.

This recategorization effect could even help those in financial difficulties. People with multiple debts typically have a tendency to pay off their smaller debts first because it understandably provides a sense of progress toward financial freedom. Of course doing so often makes matters worse because the larger debts are simply accumulating more interest, deepening the pool of debt. Banks and financial houses could help by offering to split larger debts into two smaller ones, say Debt A and Debt B, which may not financially reduce the debtor’s burden, but would at least psychologically reduce it. This small change, which would focus people’s attention on a larger, more costly debt, could make for a big difference in reducing interest paid.

T
he complexity of modern-day life can serve up some pretty challenging situations that even the most seasoned and experienced of people can find difficult to navigate. Fortunately—or unfortunately, depending on your point of view—answers to how to deal with that difficult customer or suggestions for tackling a knotty issue in the office are never that far away. They come in the form of a helpful colleague or coworker who appears only too pleased to pass on the benefit of their wisdom and experience to you.

But sometimes advice such as “You should sleep on it” and “Why not take a step back and view the issue from a distance?” while not lacking good intentions, may reflect the lack of a deeper understanding of your situation. This is primarily because your challenge tends to look very different to them because of their detached point of view. But before you completely dismiss their counsel as unhelpful or as largely generic, it might be worth considering the following: When it comes to thinking about solutions to problems, there is scientific evidence that points toward the benefits of consciously creating some physical distance from the problem at hand.

Perhaps of even greater interest is the finding that creating physical distance is not only instructive when it comes to solving problems and making decisions, it can also give us a distinct persuasive advantage. For example, especially in the early stages of proposals and presentations, asking potential customers to take a step back before they consider your products and services could actually make it easier for them to subsequently do business with you.

Researchers Manoj Thomas and Claire Tsai thought that the
physical distance
between a person and the challenge or problem that they faced could influence their perception of how easy or difficult overcoming that challenge or problem would be. In one set of experiments participants were asked to read out loud a series of words that appeared on a computer screen in front of them. On certain occasions some of the words that appeared on the screen were what the researchers described as “orthographically irregular non-words,” which is scientific talk for a faux word that is made up and difficult to pronounce (e.g., “meunstah”). At other times participants were asked to read aloud non-words that were simple and easy to pronounce (e.g., “hension”).

In an interesting twist, immediately before one of the difficult-to-pronounce non-words appeared on the screen, half the participants were instructed to lean toward the screen in order to reduce the physical distance between themselves and the non-word. The other half of the participants, however, were asked to lean back so that the distance between themselves and the non-word was actually increased.

Finally, after reading out each non-word, the study’s participants were then asked to rate how difficult they found it to pronounce.

The results showed that when it came to reading out the difficult-to-pronounce non-words, those who were asked to lean back in their chairs reported finding the task
easier
than those who were asked to move toward the screen. In short the experiment neatly demonstrated that when facing a tricky task, simply taking a physical step back and viewing that task from a greater distance can prove to be useful in reducing your perception of how difficult that task actually is. So next time you’re stuck on that Sudoku puzzle or you’re struggling to make something meaningful from the wretched set of Scrabble tiles you’ve picked, taking a step back and looking at the challenge from a greater distance might be the small change that makes a big difference.

But what about situations when these challenges concern something other than word pronunciation tasks or games of Scrabble? For example, imagine for a few moments that you are viewing a product that you are potentially interested in purchasing. Does the distance between you and that product have any influence over how easy the buying decision becomes?

To answer this question the researchers went on to conduct another series of experiments, this time asking participants to evaluate and choose from a range of electronic products that included items such as cameras and computers. Participants were shown a number of choices in a particular product range and given information that compared the features of each option reviewed. In order to closely reflect what often happens in real life, the comparisons between the different products were quite difficult to evaluate.

Additionally it was made clear to the participants that there were no obvious cost benefits that marked one particular product as a better purchase than another. Finally the researchers varied the distance from which the products were reviewed, with some participants reviewing them close up and others from a greater distance.

Immediately after reviewing the products, the participants were given a choice to either consider which product they liked best and purchase it there and then, or to defer their decision for another time.

Consistent with the word pronunciation tests, the results clearly showed that those who were told to take a step back and create some distance between themselves and the products found the evaluation task easier and, as a result, were significantly less likely to delay their purchasing decision. In contrast, those asked to compare their options from a closer distance were much more likely to delay their purchase decision.

In summary, here’s the
SMALL
BIG: A small change, brought about by increasing the physical distance from which a choice is viewed, makes a big difference in how quickly people make their purchase decisions. Put another way, complex product choices do appear to get a little easier when viewed from a greater distance.

The findings give us certain small, but potentially important, staging changes to consider when attempting to influence the decisions of others. Imagine for a few moments that you are pitching for a piece of business with a new client and that the solution your organization is offering is relatively complex but objectively the best of the available options. These studies suggest that the distance from which your proposal will be viewed could turn out to be quite important. Accordingly it will be important not only to carefully consider the content of your presentation, but also to pay close attention to the distance from which your content will be viewed. This might mean that instead of presenting directly from your laptop where the viewer may have to get much closer to the screen in order to see what you are proposing, it might be wiser to (a) arrange for your presentation to be projected against a bigger screen, even if you are presenting to a small audience of one or two people, or (b) invest in a big-screen laptop that will allow more distance between the screen and your audience.

Similarly, a teacher leading a lesson that contains relatively difficult subject matter such as math might find that her pupils’ perceptions of the lesson’s difficulty can be reduced if she arranges for a greater physical distance between the students and the material. One way this could be done would be to ask her students to work standing at a whiteboard or flipchart rather than sitting down with a writing pad or exercise book. Doing so would provide an environment where it is easier for her pupils to physically step back from the taxing problem she has set in front of them (rather than leaning back in their chairs or even getting up out of them and creating a disturbance).

Retail sales staffs who demonstrate products as part of a sales process might benefit from carefully considering the physical distance between themselves and their customers. For example, a salesperson in an electronics store who is demonstrating a range of cell phones might choose to retreat slightly to create a greater distance between themselves and the customer—especially at points when they are introducing relatively complex or technical product features to nonexpert customers.

All in all, these studies go some way to explaining how small changes to the physical distance from which information is viewed can make a big difference when it comes to influencing perceptions and easing decision making.

They might also go some way to explaining why, when agonizing over that knotty problem in the office, it’s the smug colleague looking over your shoulder at your screen from a distance who always believes they can get to the answer quicker than you.