If you want to ask someone for something just don’t ask for it.
Add a reason why you should get it.
Now, this might not be big news to you.
When you where a kid, you probably used this technique to convince your parents that you should get that new, cool toy with arguments like: “but this videogame will teach me English and it improves my reflexes”. Compared to another other popular argument from the past - “But everyone at school already have this new robot” (or nowadays I suppose it’s a Pokemon-variation) - this one still works well.
In 1978 social psychologist Ellen Langer took this little hack down to the libraries to try it out. She asked the people in the line to the copymachine if she could go ahead of them. She said: “Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?”
The results were pretty good. 60% of the people said ok.
Then she tried the same line again, but added a not-really-that-great reason. She asked: “Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies?“
The results were much better. Nearly all (93%), of the people in the lines said yes. Langer later discovered that this finding did not apply to all situations, but wrote that in most cases it actually did.
Now, why did almost all people say yes? That reason wasn’t that good, Langer didn´t really add any new information to the request.
In his awesome book Influence
, Dr. Robert Cialdini mentions this little experiment and explores how human behaviour is far from always based on some kind of logical thought.
Instead Cialdini suggests that we - like a lot of animals - have many pre-programmed responses. For instance, if someone gives us something, we are for instance pre-programmed to react by wanting to give something back to them. This is called The Law of Reciprocity.
Why do we have these responses? One big reason is because our minds almost automatically want to find the path of least resistance. A short-cut. Automatically reacting by wanting to give something back is in most cases a simple way to build and maintain good relationships without much thought. Something companies have used most likely for centuries by giving out small, free gifts to get you to respond by being more willing to sign up for their service or buy their product.
Giving a reason when you ask for something is another of those pre-programmed responses. As soon as you have a reason, people are compelled almost automatically to respond more favourably.
Of course, now that you know and are conscious of these facts it will be harder for tele-marketers and salesmen to use this tip or The Law of Reciprocity to their advantage.
You can naturally use this little tip as you wish. But instead of using it just to get what you want it is often more useful in the long run to mix it up a bit. When possible try giving a reason and creating solution that is win-win for both you and the person you are asking.
译文:
让你不易被拒绝的小伎俩
如果你想从别人那里得到你想要的东西，不要开口就直接索取。
给他一个你非要不可的理由。
这个伎俩对你来说也许并不新鲜。
当你还是个孩子的时候，你很可能用这种方法来说服你的父母，你应该得到那个又新又酷的玩具。这时，你就会这样对他们说：“这个电子游戏会教我英语，还可以提高我的反应能力。”过去还有另一种比较流行的理由－－“学校里每个人都有那个新机器人”（这在现在大概交替使用）。两者相比较而言，前者依然很奏效。
1978年，社会心理学家艾伦兰格还用这种方法在图书馆小试了一下牛刀。一群人正排队等着复印，她就问他们是否可以插一下队。她说：“不好意思，我有五页纸，我可以用一下施乐复印机吗？”
反应不错。60％的人同意了。
然后她又向同一群人征询意见。但是这一次加了一个不算是理由的理由。她这样问道：“不好意思，我有五页纸。因为我要复印点东西，我可以用一下施乐复印机吗？”
这一次，结果就更好了。几乎所有人（93％）都同意了。兰格后来发现这一结论并不适用于所有情况。但她也指出，在大多数情况下，这种方法还是很有效果的。
那么，为什么几乎所有的人都会说好呢？那个并非什么好理由，事实上，在第二次的询问中，兰格并没有提供任何新的信息。罗伯特西奥迪尼博士在他的著作《影响力：你为什么会说“是”？》一书中提到了这个小试验，并探讨了人类的行为是怎样与某种根深蒂固的逻辑思维相背离的。
西奥迪尼博士指出就象许多动物一样，我们人类有许多预编程序的反应。举例来说，如果有人给予我们某些东西，我们一般就会根据预编程序作出反应，愿意礼尚往来。这就是所谓的互惠原则。
为什么我们会有这样的反应呢？一大原因是因为我们的头脑几乎自动地寻找阻力最小的方向。一条捷径。在大多数情况下，要不费思考就能同对方建立并保持良好的关系，一种很简单的方法就是自动地反应出要礼尚往来。一些公司沿用了好几个世纪的小伎俩－－通过分发一些免费的小礼物，让你更自然地想要为他们的服务签名或者买下他们的产品。
当你想要求某样东西的时候，加上一个理由，这样的话，人们也会根据那些预编程序作出反应。一旦你有理由，人们就象被迫使一样，会自动地作出比较友善的回应。
当然，现在你已经知道并且意识到这些事实，这对那些电话推销员以及上门推销员来说就不是什么好消息。因为他们要利用这个伎俩或者互惠原则来达到他们的目的就困难得多了。
你当然也可以运用这个小伎俩。但是与其用它来得到你想要的东西，还不如从长远出发，将两者混合起来用，这样往往会更有效果。如果可能的话，试着在给予理由的同时，再创造一个解决的方案，这对你和对方而言就是双赢的策略了。