[MUSIC] We're talking about getting people to have positive attitudes about the view you're advocating by using if-then arguments that invoke the consequences involved. If you do this, this outcome will happen. And, in the previous segment the point was made that it doesn't much matter to how persuasive these arguments are. Whether you talk about the good consequences of doing the action or about the parallel bad consequences of not doing the action, pretty much equally persuasive either way. What does matter, is the consequences you talk about, the outcomes you mention. And specifically what matters, is the desirability of those consequences. The more desirable the consequences of the advocated action, the more persuasive the argument is. Messages that point to highly desirable consequences are more persuasive than those that point to only slightly desirable consequences. Now, this probably strikes you as too obvious to even mention. No big news there, right? The thing is, the relative desirability of different consequences can vary from person to person, from audience to audience. Different people value different things. And that's the key to maximizing the persuasiveness of these consequence-based arguments. Is tailoring the consequences you mention to what the message recipient values, adapting your message to that particular audience. There are a lot of studies that illustrate these sorts of differences. I want to mention a couple of examples to underscore the point. The first example involves broad cultural differences. One way in which cultures differ, is in what's called individual collectivism. Which refers to the degree to which individualist values, like independence, are prioritized, as opposed to communitarian collectivist values like interdependence. Correspondingly, persons from cultures that differ in this way, respond differently to persuasive messages, depending on whether the message's arguments emphasize one kind of outcome or the other. Here's a classic example, it's a study of Chinese and American consumers, in which participants saw one of two versions of an ad for a watch. Either they saw an ad with the theme, this watch will help you stand out. Or, an ad with the theme, this watch will help you fit in. You can probably predict the results. Americans were more persuaded by the individualistic stand out ad than by the collectivist fit in ad, with the reverse pattern for Chinese consumers. So notice, the relative desirability of consequences can vary. Different people value different things. Second example, this one involving not cultural differences, but individual differences, person-to-person differences. People vary in the degree to which they consider longer term, as opposed to shorter term consequences of behavior. That is, some people are naturally more focused on immediate, short term consequences, others are naturally focused more on longer term consequences. And so, people who differ in this way, respond differently to persuasive arguments, depending on the kinds of consequences that the arguments mention. For example, for encouraging sunscreen use, for people who tend to emphasize short-term consequences, you might talk about sunburns. But for people who focus on long-term consequences, you might talk about skin cancer. So, there's variation in what people value, variation in what they find desirable. And you have probably already seen this in your workplace. This employee here, really motivated by money, that one really motivated by public recognition. This other one wants nothing so much as to feel that they are an important part of a larger successful team of people. This other one wants something else again. People vary in what they value. They vary in what consequences they find most desirable, and correspondingly, there's variation in which consequences you should emphasize if you want to maximize the persuasiveness of your arguments. And the caution I want to give you here is, don't too easily assume you know which consequences to emphasize, which arguments will be most persuasive. The arguments that you think will be most persuasive, they might not be for your audience. And as an example, imagine you're a doctor trying to discourage smoking by young people. What kinds of arguments naturally come to mind? Arguments about negative health consequences such as lung cancer and heart disease. It turns out that at least some adolescents are more persuaded by appeals concerning the negative social consequences of smoking. Being shunned by others, being thought unattractive. Now, especially if it's been some time since you were in high school, you might be thinking, wow. Heart disease, lung cancer. Those are way more important than who your friends happen to be in high school. Those are the arguments that ought to win. And maybe so, but for lots of adolescents, the arguments that do win, the arguments that in fact are more persuasive, are the arguments about social consequences. So the big takeaway here is, don't think narrowly about what consequences to discuss. Don't assume you know what consequences will be most persuasive to your audience. And in particular, get out of your own head. The argument that seems best to you, the argument that seems most persuasive to you. That argument won't necessarily be the best one for convincing your audience. [MUSIC]
