-
Tweet
-
Post
-
Share
-
Save
-
Get PDF
-
Buy Copies
-
Print
The recent measles outbreak starting in Disneyland, California, provides a sobering reminder to doctors that even when the message they’re delivering is a compelling one — backed by strong evidence — attempts to influence and persuade others can sometimes still come up short.
Over the past few years I’ve worked with Britain’s NHS on numerous programs designed to change people’s perceptions and behaviors in relation to health protection. Our work has uncovered some fundamental insights about persuasive messaging.
There are lots of reasons why well-crafted messages fail to persuade, but one of the most common is because the communicator focuses too much on constructing the content of the message rather than choosing the right messenger. The distinction between the messenger and the message is an important one. In today’s information-overloaded world, in which we’re exposed to lots of conflicting messages, people will often act more on the basis of who is communicating the message rather than the actual message itself.
So if the deliverer can be as important as the message itself, what are the characteristics of persuasive messengers? And what steps can doctors and other would-be persuaders take to increase the chances that their important messages land successfully?
Persuasion researchers have long known that the most effective messengers have three key attributes: expertise, trustworthiness, and similarity. Let’s take a closer look at each.
Expertise. When people feel uncertain, they typically look to experts to guide their decisions. In one study, when subjects were asked to make a series of unfamiliar financial decisions they were much more likely to choose options that were accompanied by advice from a prominent economist. Brain scans showed that in the presence of expert advice, the areas of the participants’ brains linked to critical thinking and counter-arguing flat-lined. This runs counter to the traditional assumptions about expert advice: that people listen to advice, integrate it with their own information, and then come to a decision. If that were true, the researchers would have seen activity in brain regions that guide decisions. Instead they found that when people receive expert advice, that processing activity goes away.
A clear lesson emerges when structuring a persuasive message: Because people frequently disengage their critical thinking and counter-arguing powers in the presence of expert advice, communicators who can legitimately lay claim to relevant expertise should always make that expertise clear early on. This doesn’t require making boastful claims [factors that will likely disengage rather than engage one’s audience] but instead using “authority cues” that convey your expertise. For example, studies have shown patients were more receptive to messages from medical professionals who prominently displayed their medical diplomas in their offices or who wore a stethoscope when delivering a recommendation.
Messengers who see that their messages are falling on deaf ears should ask themselves whether they’re taking steps to credentialize themselves before delivering their message. For those who already do a good job of telegraphing their expertise, the following two points will also be important.
Trustworthiness. In ambiguous, uncertain, or controversial situations where multiple answers vie for believability, it can be tempting for a messenger to conceal any small doubts or uncertainties about their message by sweeping them under the carpet, believing they could be detrimental to success. However, evidence suggests that signaling small uncertainties or doubts immediately before the delivery of the strongest argument actually has valuable trust-raising qualities. Sequencing is the key lesson here. Start your message with a small weakness or drawback, then use the word “but” before delivering your strongest message. A doctor who says, “No vaccine in the world is without the occasional adverse event, but this vaccine is extremely safe and has been used to protect millions of children,” strengthens her trustworthiness and credibility. But notice how reaction to the message feels different if the weakness follows, rather than precedes, the strength.
Similarity. We’re more likely to believe people who are like us. So another way that a messenger can increase the persuasiveness of their message is to show how they share similarities with their audience. For example, a doctor who wishes to advocate vaccinating children with the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine might find it useful to point out that not only are they a medical professional, but they are also a parent. Sometimes, of course, it can be challenging to signal both expertise and similarity. In these instances, entirely different messengers may be required. African healthcare professionals leading a public health program designed to increase condom use to reduce the transmission of STDs and HIV quickly realized that while they possessed expertise, they had little in common with the audiences they were targeting. However, by recruiting local hairdressers to deliver their message through the “Get Braids Not AIDS” campaign, the impact of their message rose significantly.
There is a clear lesson here. Even though you may be the best qualified person to deliver your message, you may not be the most effective messenger.