Persuasion is the process of changing minds. Persuasion is an everyday part of human discourse. It is used by salesmen, parents, teachers, and many others – basically all of us. Persuasion in mediation is a two-way street. Long before you try to influence another to moderate their demands or consider the other side’s point of view, chances are good that they will have tried to convince you to their position.
It’s my experience in order to be an effective mediator, I must engage in various forms of persuasion. I do not engage in coercive or manipulative persuasion practices by which pressure brought to bear on reluctant participants to get a settlement. I do use a range of potential mediator interventions to help the parties resolve deeply held or competitively bargained differences .
How do you change someone’s mind if you think you are right and they are wrong?
We normally resort to the following: “You are, I’m afraid to say, mistaken. The position you are taking makes no logical sense. Just listen up and I’ll be more than happy to elaborate on the many, many reasons why I’m right and you are wrong. Are you feeling ready to be convinced?”
No matter the subject, this is the approach many of us adopt when we try to convince others to change their minds. It’s also an approach that often leads to the person you are trying to persuade to harden their existing position. Research suggests there is a better way. It is a way that involves more listening, and less trying to beat your opponent into submission.
Yale researchers, Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil suggested that in many instances people believe they understand how something works when in fact their understanding is superficial at best. They called this phenomenon “the illusion of explanatory depth”. They began by asking their study participants to rate how well they understood how things like flushing toilets, car speedometers and sewing machines worked, before asking them to explain what they understood and then answer questions on it. The effect they revealed was that, on average, people in the experiment rated their understanding as much worse after it had been put to the test.
What happens, argued Rozenblit and Keil, is that we mistake our familiarity with these things for the belief that we have a detailed understanding of how they work. Usually, nobody tests us and if we have any questions about them we can just take a look. Psychologists call this idea that humans have a tendency to take mental short cuts when making decisions or assessments the “cognitive miser” theory.
Why would we bother expending the effort to really understand things when we can get by without doing so? The interesting thing is that we manage to hide from ourselves exactly how shallow our understanding is.
This is a phenomenon that will be familiar to anyone who has ever had to teach something. Usually, it only takes the first moments when you start to rehearse what you’ll say to explain a topic, or worse, the first student question, for you to realize that you don’t truly understand it. Teachers often say to each other “I didn’t really understand this until I had to teach it”. Inventor Mark Changizi quipped: “I find that no matter how badly I teach I still learn something”.
How “Explain yourself” can be used to persuade others.
A research team, led by Philip Fernbach, of the University of Colorado, reasoned that the phenomenon might hold as much for political understanding as for things like how toilets work. They hypothesized that people who have strong political opinions would be more open to other viewpoints, if asked to explain exactly how they thought the policy they were advocating would bring about the effects they claimed it would.
Recruiting a sample of Americans via the internet, they polled participants on a set of contentious US policy issues, such as imposing sanctions on Iran, healthcare and approaches to carbon emissions. One group was asked to give their opinion and then provide reasons for why they held that view. They got the opportunity to put their side of the issue, in the same way anyone in an argument or debate has a chance to argue their case.
Those in the second group did something different. They were asked to explain how the policy they were advocating would work. They were asked to trace, step by step, from start to finish, the causal path from the policy to the effects it was supposed to have.
The results were clear. People who provided reasons remained as convinced of their positions as they had been before the experiment. Those who were asked to provide explanations softened their views, and reported a correspondingly larger drop in how they rated their understanding of the issues.
Therefore listening to detailed explanations regarding how their idea will work will soften their position at the very least.
For an experienced Mediator to help negotiate a resolution to your dispute contact Ken Strongman. Here.
About the Author: Ken Strongman, is a private commercial mediator/arbitrator of complex, high risk litigated cases since 2004. Disputes addressed include business, securities, construction defects, real estate, intellectual property, employment, environment, energy, and trusts & estates. He is also a Mediator and Arbitrator for FINRA.
© 2022 Ken Strongman. All Rights Reserved. Please do not copy or re-post without permission.