When many people think of persuading someone that their view is wrong, they will very often think about gathering the evidence and the facts, from Google or elsewhere, that prove their argument, forcefully putting them to the other side and letting the sheer weight of opinion do the work. How could someone continue to disagree in the face of such overwhelming evidence? But there are far better ways, as shown in an interesting study involving MMR ‘anti-vaxxers’ (parents who refuse to allow their children to be vaccinated with the MMR vaccine due to worries over alleged side effects). The study shows how people maintain their strongly held beliefs, and what is in fact the best way to try to persuade them to change their mind. After all, with anti-vaxxers it’s all or nothing; they either let their kids have the vaccine or they don’t. Not much room for middle ground!
There are some reason why people with such beliefs will be more strongly against doing something - through psychological inertia, by what is called the omission bias - this is where the human brain favours inaction (omission) over action, so there is a tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions, even where suffering or even death from a disease might be prevented. When it comes to vaccines in general though, some people can be far more easily persuaded. There has been news about a good uptake in COVID vaccinations after bars in Erie, Buffalo started their “Shot and a Chaser” program, serving a free beer to those getting vaccinated. Other states have introduced free lotteries for those who get vaccinated. But aside from offering free alcohol and the chance of winning a large wad of cash, how do we go about persuading a slightly more committed group of anti-vaxxers to have their children vaccinated? The study in question split a group of anti-vaxxers into two. One was shown the scientific proof that demonstrated their views were false; that the overwhelming body of scientific evidence proved that vaccines were safe, and thus they should have no issue with allowing them to be given to their children. That approach had very little effect on the views of the parents. However the second group were instead shown the consequences of not taking up a vaccine, and in particular the effects on the health of the children. Researchers found that the second group showed a far greater willingness to change their views and ultimately to drop their opposition to vaccines, however strongly held they had been at the start of the study. Essentially what the researchers were doing with the second group was concentrating on the parents’ real interest, the health of their children, rather than persuading them they were wrong, and that approach was far more successful. Also for the first group (shown the scientific evidence), part of their inability to believe and act on what they were being told is due to what is called confirmation bias: if we have formed a view then we will tend to rate more highly information that confirms our belief and certainly consider it as being more persuasive than evidence that goes against it. In terms of negotiation, several things comes out of it. One is that you are unlikely to persuade anyone by dismissing their beliefs as irrational. It won’t work on a toddler who says they’re afraid of the dark, it won’t work on anti-vaxxers who consider their belief is based on sound research, even if it is not mainstream or ultimately plausible. The second thing that came out of this research for me is (to put it into a negotiation situation) the difference between positions and interests, a key to helping bring parties together. The anti-vaxxer is not going to give up their position, that vaccines are harmful, but if you speak to their interests (their children’s health) then you may be able to establish a dialogue that leads somewhere - provide information and evidence that helps to favourably affect their interests as a way to changing their minds, rather than showing them evidence that proves their position is wrong. How can we do this? 1. Enter into a conversation and listen. We have more chance of finding out what the other party’s interests are if we listen to them, ask questions, be genuinely interested in what they have to say. 2. Change our language so that we’re not attacking their position, as that is likely to lead to greater entrenchment. 3. In most cases we don’t have to ‘win’ the argument, we merely have to persuade them to be open to take a different course of action which can then lead to a dialogue. 4. Don’t appear too set in our own views, be open to discuss them. After all, why should they be open to change their views if we’re making it clear that we’re never changing ours? 5. We can think about how we might reframe the conversation into a problem solving discussion, which might then lead to discussing their real worries, and what options there are to meet those worries. Suffice to say, the exact same points are true in mediation. As a mediator, I ask questions, I listen and I try to understand what is behind the position, to find out the information that is not readily given, but plays a crucial role in working out how to settle a dispute. Then I can use that to help each party to find a way of satisfying their actual interests, rather than continuing to argue over their positions. And it works. Research shows that the success rate in mediations is well over 90%. Comments are closed.
|
Subscribe (below) to our free Newsletter for Negotiation Tips, Tricks and Training
AuthorRichard Marshall is an Accredited Civil and Commercial Mediator with over 25 years experience as a Litigation Solicitor, as well as being a qualified Solicitor-Advocate. He is the founder of Striving to Settle, through which he works as a mediator and provides negotiation training. www.strivingtosettle.co.uk Archives
August 2022
|
Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.