In his book The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, national bestselling author Malcom Gladwell shares research-based stories of when small changes in communication made big differences in success and persuasion. As a staff writer for The New Yorker, Gladwell recounts stories like how Blues Clues became more successful than the child education giant Sesame Street (I’ll share that story with you on Wednesday).
But for today, I want to share with you, by way of Gladwell, a story of some research from the 1960s that illuminates how we can easily boost our persuasion with just one small change.
The Research
The story begins like this. In the 1960s social psychologist Howard Levanthal studied whether high fear or low fear based information would be more effective. His goal was to persuade Yale University students to get a tetanus shot. He was operating under the belief that we are more likely to be persuaded if we are at least a little bit afraid.
In order to test this relationship between fear and persuasion, Levanthal distributed two versions of educational booklets to the students. One booklet (the high fear version) contained dramatic language and several disturbing images, such as a child in the throes of a tetanus seizure. The other booklet (the low fear version) contained less dramatic language and no images. The students who had received the two different booklets were then given a questionnaire.
The Results
You can probably guess what happened. While both groups were well educated on the importance of getting a tetanus shot, more students who had viewed the high fear booklet said they intended to get inoculated. Which seemed to prove the hypothesis, right? But wait.
After one month, Levanthal followed up with the students to see how many had gotten a tetanus shot. Surprisingly the numbers were the same in both groups. Only 3% had actually gotten the shot. Not only had the persuasive booklet failed to prove a relationship between fear-based appeals and persuasion, it had largely failed to persuade. So Levanthal decided to try something else. He remade the booklet and made one small change.
The Small Change
This time, Levanthal stopped worrying so much about high fear or low fear persuasion. Instead, he got specific with the information he presented. Like the first two versions, his third booklet covered basic medical information like “the dangers of tetanus, the importance of inoculation, and the fact that the university was offering free tetanus shots at the campus health center to all interested students.”
But this time, he included a small graphic. It was a map of the campus with the health center circled. And beside that, he listed the times that shots were available. When he tested this third group of students, 28% of them had gone to get vaccinated. He increased his persuasion rate by a full 25% just by including a graphic which showed the location and times shots were available.
What Can We Learn?
But why did this huge jump happen? As Gladwell puts it, “what the tetanus intervention needed in order to tip was not an avalanche of new or additional information. What it needed was a subtle but significant change in presentation. The students needed to know how to fit the tetanus stuff into their lives; the addition of the map and the times when the shots were available shifted the booklet from an abstract lesson in medial risk . . . to a practical and personal piece of medical advice. And once the advice became practical and personal, it became memorable.”
This proves that we need to give our audience specific details if we want them to act. It also proves that trying to motivate our audience through fear-based appeals might not work. If we want to create truly persuasive presentations, we need to get practical and personal. We need to get specific.
Check out our blog for more research-based tips for developing and delivering more effective presentations. Or contact us now to find out how we can help with your next presentation.
