Loading summary
Transcript41 lines
- [00:00]
A
Cast your mind back to 2013 and the 85th series of the Oscars. Jean Dujardin is about to announce the winner of the best actress award.
- [00:12]
B
Bonsoir. Good evening. If I were an actress, I would be passionate, sensitive, courageous, sexy.
- [00:27]
A
After rambling on like this for a while, he finally announces the winner.
- [00:32]
B
And the Oscar goes to Jennifer Lawrence.
- [00:38]
A
The crowd clap in the background. A few stand, but not many. Most stay seated clapping. But as Jennifer Lawrence walks up to the stage to accept her award, she slips, she falls on her hands and stumbles up the stairs. Suddenly, the atmosphere starts to change. As she rises back to her feet and makes it to the mic, the crowd start cheering and whooping and absolutely all of them are now on their feet clapping.
- [01:05]
C
Thank you.
- [01:08]
A
The crowd went from polite seated applause to whooping and cheering and a full standing ovation. And I should say not everyone gets a standing ovation at the Oscars. Anne Hathaway, who won best supporting Actress right before this, she didn't get a stand standing ovation. Neither did Christopher Waltz for best supporting Actor or Tarantino for Best Original screenplay. So what made this crowd of Hollywood a listers respond in this way? Well, I think it's partly down to a fairly common cognitive bias. A bias that can boost the likability of all of us, from middle managers to Hollywood stars. We'll cover this bias and 6 more in today's episode of Nudge. The world famous blogging site Tumblr had a problem. To succeed in marketing, they needed to move quickly. They needed to create content that was trending. But their marketing team was stuck waiting for engineers to build out every email campaign. That was until they switched to HubSpot's customer platform to send trending content to millions instantly. Rather than waiting for the engineers, they could use HubSpot to send all their email comms as efficiently and as efficiently effectively as possible. And the result? Well, they have tripled their engagement while doubling the output they produce. If you want to move faster like Tumblr, then head to HubSpot.com today. I'm delighted to invite two fantastic guests onto the show.
- [02:40]
B
Hello, I'm Tom Bowden Green. I'm a senior lecturer in marketing here at Bristol Business School. But I guess I'm here also because I'm now an author of a new book called Marketing and Psychology, which I've written with Luann Wise.
- [02:51]
C
I'm Luann Wise, I'm a marketing consultant and trainer and I've co authored the Marketing and Psychology book with Tom Bowdoin Green to bridge that gap between academic theory and marketing practice. So working with Tom, we've explained over 400 different theories and bringing them to life with examples.
- [03:09]
A
On today's show, I've asked Tom and Luanne to focus on seven biases from their book. We'll cover those biases, explain to you how they work, but also attempt to give you some real world examples of these biases in action. Let's start with our first bias. It's a bias which is linked, linked to overconfidence and it's known as the illusion of superiority. Here's Tom explaining the bias.
- [03:34]
B
One aspect of overconfidence is feeling superior to other people, illusory superiority. And Vera Hurens, who's at the University of Groningen, actually published a great review of this in 1993, including reference to some of her own work, which actually involved students in a school. And she asked them to assess themselves for certain traits, things like honesty. She also asked them to assess assess themselves against the average high school student and they felt that they were superior to the average high school student, even though that didn't really make sense. So on aspects like honesty, I think persistence and originality, they felt they scored higher. And on the less pleasant aspects of someone's personality, things like hostility, vanity and unreasonableness, they scored themselves lower. But that doesn't make sense. Everyone can't be above the average. So what she said is this demonstrates that people have an illusion of superiority.
- [04:29]
A
Tom and Luann write that we find it hard to imagine others with better experience and ability. Yet this overconfidence is often an illusion.
- [04:38]
C
And I think the example of that is if we're applying for a job as an individual or maybe as an agency, we're pitching for a client. You know, we always think that we're the perfect fit, we're the perfect candidate, perfect agency. You know, we're the best qualified for the role. There's no one else better out there in the market than us. So we can become overconfident and actually fail to consider that there's other options out there. So that's why it's called illusion.
- [05:03]
A
It's really not hard to find real world examples of this. Almost every politician states how they know more than their opposition. Donald Trump, for example, claims his unparalleled knowledge on dozens of different topics.
- [05:16]
D
Nobody knows more about taxes than I do and income than I do. Nobody knows more about construction than I do. Nobody knows more about campaign finance than I do. I know more about drones than anybody. Nobody knows much more about technology. This type of technology certainly than I do. Nobody knows more about technology than me. Nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump. I know the H1B. I know the H2B. Nobody knows it better than me. I know more about ISIS than the generals do.
- [05:47]
A
Believe me, this type of rhetoric is very common amongst politicians. Most genuinely believe that they are better than the rest. And it's not even just unique to politicians because really all of us fall for biases like this. For example. Let's run a quick test. Now I'm going to ask you a question. I want you to answer it as quickly as you can. Lily pads double in size every day. It takes 48 days to cover the entire lake with lily pads. When was half of the lake covered? Right. Think about it. Got an answer? Well, most people when they hear this say that it is on day 24, that's when half the lake is covered. It takes the remaining 24 days to cover the rest of the lake. That seems like a quite logical answer. It makes sense. But of course when you actually think about it, it is actually 47. It'll double on that final day from half the lake to the whole lake to reach the entire lake. No doubt some maths scholars got that question right almost immediately. But most of us listening overestimate our ability on topics that we don't know much about and probably got the question wrong. And it is a slight example of the Dunning Kruger effect.
- [06:54]
C
For Dunning Kruger, it's about people with limited understanding perhaps feel really confident in their decision while actually genuine exper frequently underestimate their own expertise.
- [07:05]
B
Yeah, I think the important thing about the Dunning Kruger effect is that estimates of competence can be wrong both upwards and downwards. It's interesting actually that we call it the Dunning Kruger effect because I think the original paper that this was based on was actually written by Kruger and Dunning. I don't know why we call it the Dunning Kruger and that way around, but they're both at Cornell University in America and they published in jpsp, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The original research was about asking people to rate sections of humour, but also to take a gramma test and a logic test. And the important thing was that afterwards they then asked about their ability in those tests. And as the effect suggests, those people in the bottom 25%, the bottom quartile as they call it, were particularly bad at estimating their own ability. They were incompetent in terms of their ability, but they were also incompetent in terms of assessing their own ability. But the other thing happened is that the top 25% were also wrong in their assessment of their own ability. So they underestimated their own ability in that case and seems to suggest is there's a kind of false consensus at that level that people who are actually really good at a certain task, they assume that everyone around them will also be really good and therefore they kind of underplay their strength in that case. So this comparison is incorrect both upwards and downwards.
- [08:22]
A
Beginners overestimate their abilities, experts underestimate their abilities. It's quite common to see experts do this. The chess grandmaster Magnus Carlsen regularly talks about how poor he's played in the chess game. Despite winning, experts are often more critical of their performance than a mid ranked performer would be. Now let's cover another bias. This time it's the blind spot bias.
- [08:47]
B
It's a great paper led by Emily Pronin at University of Stanford in 2002. And she gave people descriptions of eight biases and then asked those people to assess their susceptibility to those biases with comparison against the average American. And then she actually repeated it with comparison against classmates too. What she found in a follow up study was that actually even when she told those participants about the biases they were likely to have been susceptible to when they were making those judgments about comparing themselves to others, they still, 76% still felt that their assessment of themselves against others was wrong. So they didn't even spot their own biases even though they'd been told about their own biases. And I think that's really important for people who know about some of the biases that you talk about on your podcast. Phil, even we are susceptible to those biases. We're all human, we're all fallible. And it's actually very difficult to eradicate those from our decisions.
- [09:40]
A
If I asked you listening, do you fall for biases like social proof or the scarcity effect? You'd probably be hesitant to say yes. It's really easy for us to recognize biases in others, but much harder for us to notice them in our own behavior. If you ask customers how they make decisions, few will say they bought products because of social proof. For example, they won't say they bought a Kindle because everybody in their reading group bought one and they were influenced by the group instead. They'll probably create a reason that seems based on rational assessment of actual information. But we know from randomised controlled trials that that is not always true. We are blind to our own biases. Watch any episode of Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares and you'll be very quick to spot this. Almost every chef on that show, at least, is supremely overconfident of their own abilities. Yet it is clear to Gordon Ramsay and to all of us watching that the food they create really isn't that great. And this links to the next bias Tom and Luann covered. It's the false uniqueness bias.
- [10:42]
C
We call this one a false uni. So this is a cognitive bias where as people, we believe that our abilities, traits, behaviors are maybe more unique or rare than they actually are. And there's a great quote, isn't there, in Fight Club. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. People always assume that there's something unique about them, whether they're kind, they're disciplined, creative, healthy, insightful. But in reality, those traits are more common than people think.
- [11:13]
B
There's a good review of this, actually by John Chambers, University of Florida, and he reviewed the literature on this and summarized four potential reasons why we might think that we're unique. And it can again happen upwards and downwards. You can be unrealistically optimistic or unrealistically pessimistic. And he said it's partly due to egocentrism. It's partly due to selective accessibility of the data that we use. It's partly due to what he called focalism, a focus on what's more immediate in front of us in terms of information rather than assessing background information to. But also that it's partly due to generalizing the groups that we're comparing ourselves to, maybe stereotyping who we're comparing ourselves to and then making errors in judgment because of that. So there's lots of papers on this, but also lots of reasons why it might occur.
- [11:57]
A
We believe we're more unique than we really are. We believe our struggles, our successes, our emotions and our thoughts that they aren't shared by others. Instead, we believe that they're special to us. This is a bias. We're not as unique as we think. And many of the attributes that we think make us unique are distinctly common. Some brands will even use this bias to try and sell more. Kolsky and Locanda ran studies in 2023 which found that consumers are willing to pay more for cool brands that make the consumers seem more unique, which maybe explains why some pay obscene amounts of money for first edition prints, limited edition clothes, and one off pieces of art. All right, let's do one more bias before the break. Let's cover the illusion of validity.
- [12:46]
B
Yeah, this is really a principle which emphasizes that people are overconfident in their ability to predict an outcome. And the late great Daniel Kahneman wrote a great paper on this with amos Tversky in 1973, which is called on the Psychology of Prediction, if you want to look it up. One of the tests that he presented in that paper was giving people pairs of scores for ability, student ability in certain subjects. But importantly, they told the participants who were making an assessment of this data that all the scores they were given were equally valid. They had equal predictive ability. So, for example, if we're using a UK example and looking at GCSE scores, it might be that you were given a pair of scores and you might have been given a student who had a nine in English and a seven in science and another student who had two eights, maybe an eight in maths and an eight in art. Unfortunately, all of that data was equally predictive. It wasn't that, you know, one pair was better than another, another one. But actually what he found was that people focused more on the consistent data. When there were two scores which were similar, they focused on that as a better prediction of ability of that student rather than acknowledging what he had already told them, which was that all the data was equally predictive.
- [14:00]
A
So to give a slightly different example, if I said, for example, that there are two stock options that you can pick from, both of the stock options, they start at £100. One rises by 50% and then falls by 33%. The other steadily rises by 10% and both end at £110. You're told, look, the prior performance of these stocks, they will not influence future performance. Just pick the one you prefer. Which do you pick? Well, most people will still pick, like Tom said, the more consistent 10% riser, even though there's no hard evidence as to why they should pick that over the other option.
- [14:36]
C
And I think it's really difficult that once these conversations start, and we see it in online groups, whether it's social media groups or or other forums, where actually it's really difficult for people to suddenly admit that their view had an error. So they don't, they just stick with their original thoughts.
- [14:53]
A
The illusion of validity makes people believe their judgments or predictions are accurate despite evidence to the contrary. Public figures sometimes display this when confidently giving incorrect predictions or advice. A very well known example of this comes from the 2008 financial crash. On Jim Cramer's CNBC show Mad Money In March, 20 viewers asked about the stability of Bear Stearns, an investment bank facing rumors of collapse.
- [15:22]
E
Okay, Peter writes, should I be worried about Bear Stearns in terms of liquidity and get my money out of there? No, no, no. Bear Stearns is fine. Do not take your money. This is really good. If there's one takeaway other than a Plus 400 celebration, Bear Stearns is not in trouble. I mean, if anything, they're more likely to be taken over. Don't move your money from Bear. That's just being silly. Don't be silly.
- [15:44]
A
Days later, Bear Stearns collapsed and was sold in a government brokered rescue. Bear Stearns shares are down 90% this morning. And it's not just Bear. Pretty much every single bank is plunging in early trade this morning. Kramer's unwavering confidence in his recommendation despite limited information and the looming crisis shows the illusion of validity, how people tend to feel extremely confident, perhaps even overconfident, that their judgment is valid. Okay, we've covered the illusion of superiority, the Dunning Kruger effect, the bias blind spot, the false uniqueness bias, and the illusion of validity. But that's not all. After this break, we'll cover two more biases, including why Jennifer Lawrence's stumble led to her standing ovation. Frictionless Growth Marketing, hosted by Sonja Thompson, is brought to you by the HubSpot Podcast Network, the audio destination for business professionals on the show. Each episode reveals how modern brands grow by removing the friction in their marketing and customer experience that pushes customers away every single day, often without leaders even realizing it. Each episode delivers practical insights, real brand examples and conversations with marketing leaders. So after this episode is over, go and listen to Frictionless Growth Marketing wherever you get your podcasts. Every idea starts with a spark, that moment of inspiration that fuels brilliant strategy. But what if you could find it instantly? Meet Agent Spark, your human insights assistant from gwi. It delivers fast data backed audience intel so you can get inspired, sharpen your thinking and build campaigns around real consumer behavior. And you'll receive fresh insights in seconds so you can validate hunches on your target audience and make smarter decisions. Backed by rock solid data, ready to spark your next big idea? See it in action@gwi.com spark hello and welcome back. You're listening to Nudge with me, Phil Agnew. At the start of the episode, we heard Jennifer Lawrence winning the 2013 Best Actress Oscar. She stumbled on the way up the stage and in response to her fall, the crowd started whooping, cheering and giving her a standing ovation. Jennifer Lawrence noticed this shift in the reaction Her. Here's what she said once she reached the mic.
- [18:11]
C
You guys are just standing up because.
- [18:12]
A
You feel bad that I fell.
- [18:13]
C
And that's really embarrassing, but thank you.
- [18:16]
A
So why did the crowd become more supportive only after Lawrence had fallen? Well, it's an example of the pratful effect.
- [18:24]
B
Yeah. I often talk to students, particularly students who are considering using celebrities or influencers in a campaign that. Actually, as much as we tend to choose people to front a campaign who are seen to be absolutely perf in whichever field it is they're representing, actually, the pratfall effect suggests that it's better to have people communicating who actually appear more human. I sometimes say to the students, if I'd walked in this morning and tripped over my laces, you'd actually probably feel more affection for me because you suddenly see that I'm fallible, I'm human. That mistake won't have any ability on my teaching. It's totally unrelated. But, yeah, the pratfall effect does show that we tend to warm to those small mistakes if they're not critical to the competence of that person.
- [19:09]
A
The Prattful effect suggests that people who make small mistakes is perceived as being more human. Small imperfections can make people more likeable. In the classic 1970s study by Aronson on the Prattful effect, 120 students from the University of Texas watched a videotaped interview of a male student applying for student ombudsman. This job was described as the most responsible student job on campus. In each version of the experiment, the participants would watch the same candidate wearing the same clothes being interviewed by the same interviewer in the same setting and with the same interview structure. The only variable was whether or not the candidate clumsily spilled coffee down himself. Well, that slight variable had a big impact. When the candidate spilt coffee, he was seen as 33% more likeable, as in identical versions of the study where the candidate didn't spill the coffee. However, the researchers replicated the whole study, this chime changing one of the controlled elements. Now, in the videotape, the candidate that gave the answers didn't look as competent as they did before. In fact, they looked rather incompetent. They answered the questions badly. Now, when the incompetent candidate spilt coffee, he was seen as 16.9% less likable than a variant where no coffee was spilt. The same is almost certainly true for Jennifer Lawrence. She has just won Best Actress award. She's at the pinnacle of her career. The slip made her even more likable but if a less successful stagehand slipped on stage, you can guarantee that the audience wouldn't act in the same way. Mistakes make those who are competent even more likeable, but they decrease the likeability of those who are incompetent. Now time for the final bias of the day, the misattribution of arousal. Arousal. Here's Luanne to explain misattribution of arousal.
- [21:03]
C
This is where emotion comes in. People are emotional. This theory is about where people are mistaking that source of the arousal, whether it's increased heart rate, sweating the adrenaline rush, and attributing them to the wrong cause.
- [21:17]
B
There's one particular study by Gregory White at University of Maryland in America, where they actually made male subjects physiologically aroused, either by running on the spot, I think, in the first experiment, or by listening to certain recordings in the second experiment. Either recordings of comedy or recordings of something which was a bit scary. Listening to a description of a mob killing, I think it was. And in both cases, they then asked people to assess a female in terms of her attractiveness. What they tended to find was that those participants who had been physiologically aroused before they made the judgment were more likely to judge that female as being attractive. They thought what they were doing was judging the attractiveness of the female. But actually what they didn't realize is their heart rate was already increased because of what they'd been primed with, if you like, what the stimulus materials had provided to them. So it was a misattribution of that arousal to what they were looking at in the video of the female rather than the previous experience.
- [22:12]
A
Luann and Tom write how people make mistakes when interpreting the reason for their feelings. This is known as the misattribution of arousal. They give an example. Consider an online romance. Two people meet one another while discussing an area of common interest. Both assume the positivity they feel while chatting is entirely due to their attraction to one another. Another. But we now know that the topic of conversation could have been playing a part. Was it really love for that other person? Or was it just because they ended up discussing something particularly scary or exciting? Anyway, that was seven cognitive biases that explain why we're overconfident, how we assume we're more unique than we are, why we prefer people who make small mistakes, and how we often misattribute our feelings. Massive. Massive. Thank you to Tom and Luanne for coming on. If you liked today's episode, you will like their book. Here is Tom sharing a little bit more about the book.
- [23:08]
B
The thing that perhaps makes us different to a pure psychology book is that we focused on this from a marketer's perspective. So we've looked at things like a marketing funnel or a customer journey and tried to map out which theories might relate to that. So when people are writing a strategy, they can see which theories to draw on.
- [23:23]
A
I've left a link to the book in the Show Notes, so head there to pick up a coffee. Also in the Show Notes you'll find links to a few other things you'll find my newsletter. I spent 18 hours each week finding the best behavioral science tip that I've come across that week and writing it up in a very easy to read Friday newsletter. Over 10,000 of you already subscribed to that newsletter. If you're interested in getting more from Nudge, go there. Also in the Show Notes you'll find a link to the Nudge Vaults, my collection of 484 different insights that you can apply to your business in order to improve your marketing and your work. Go to the Show Notes to check that out. And if you haven't already, do, please go and check out The Nudge Podcast YouTube channel. I make bespoke YouTube videos on topics like this, which are a little bit more succinct with obviously some fantastic animations and video assets to explain these biases in more detail. So go there if you haven't already. That is all from me this week folks. Thank you so much for listening. Next week we are covering the psychological bias that helped HelloFresh become one of the world's fastest growing companies of the past two decades. Don't miss it. See you next Monday. Cheers.