The Catalyst by Jonah Berger

Introduction

The Power of Inertia

Everyone has something they want to change. Salespeople want to change their customers’ minds and marketers want to change purchase decisions. Employees want to change their bosses’ perspective and leaders want to change organizations. Parents want to change their children’s behavior. Start-ups want to change industries. Nonprofits want to change the world

But change is hard

We persuade and cajole and pressure and push, but even after all that work, often nothing moves. Things change at a glacial pace if they change at all. In the tale of the tortoise and the hare, change is a three-toed sloth on his lunch break

Isaac Newton famously noted that an object in motion tends to stay in motion, while an object at rest tends to stay at rest. Sir Isaac focused on physical objects—planets, pendulums, and the like—but the same concepts can be applied to the social world. Just like moons and comets, people and organizations are guided by conservation of momentum. Inertia. They tend to do what they’ve always done

Rather than thinking about which candidate represents their values, voters tend to pick whoever represents the party they voted for in the past. Rather than starting fresh and thinking about which projects deserve attention, companies take last year’s budget and use that as a starting point. Rather than rebalancing financial portfolios, investors tend to look at how they’ve been investing and stay the course

Inertia explains why families go back to the same vacation spot every year and why organizations are wary of starting new initiatives but loath to kill off old ones.

When trying to change minds and overcome such inertia, the tendency is to push. Client not buying the pitch? Send them a deck of facts and reasons. Boss not listening to the idea? Give them more examples or a deeper explanation

Implicitly, this approach assumes that people are like marbles. Push them in one direction and they will go that way

So if pushing people doesn’t work, what does?

A Better Way to Change Minds

To answer this question, it helps to look to a completely different domain: chemistry

Left to itself, chemical change can take eons. Algae and plankton turning into oil, or carbon being gradually squeezed into diamonds. For reactions to occur, molecules must break the bonds between their atoms and form new ones. It’s a slow and painstaking process that happens over thousands if not millions of years

To facilitate change, chemists often use a special set of substances These unsung heroes clean the exhaust in your car and the grime on your contact lenses. They turn air into fertilizer and petroleum into bike helmets. They speed change, enabling molecules that might take years to interact to do so in seconds

Most intriguing, though, is the way these substances generate change

Chemical reactions usually require a certain amount of energy Turning nitrogen gas into fertilizer, for example, usually requires heating things up to over 1000°C. Adding enough energy, through temperature and pressure, to force a reaction.

Special substances speed up the process. But rather than upping the heat or adding more pressure, they provide an alternate route, reducing the amount of energy required for reactions to occur

At first glance, this seems impossible. Like magic. How can faster change happen with less energy? It seems to violate the very laws of thermodynamics

But special substances take a different approach. Rather than pushing, they lower the barriers to change

And these substances are called catalysts

Catalysts have revolutionized chemistry. Their discovery generated multiple Nobel Prizes, kept billions of people from starving, and spawned some of the greatest inventions of the last few centuries

But their underlying approach is equally powerful in the social world. Because there is a better way to generate change. It’s not about pushing harder. And it’s not about being more convincing or a better persuader. These tactics might work once in a while, but more often than not they just lead people to up their defenses

Instead, it’s about being a catalyst—changing minds by removing roadblocks and lowering the barriers that keep people from taking action.

Catalyzing Change

A different method emerged. An alternate approach to changing minds.

We tried a rough version with the client and it got a little traction. We revised it and were even more successful. Emboldened by these early wins, we tried extending the approach to a different company. They found it useful, and soon I was trying this technique on all my consulting projects. Driving product adoption, changing behavior, and shifting organizational culture

One day a potential client asked if I had something written up that I could share. Something that documented our strategy and approach

I culled slides from different PowerPoint decks but realized that wasn’t enough. There needed to be one place where all the information was pulled together in an easy-to-read package

This is that place

Find the Parking Brakes

This book takes a different approach to change

Unfortunately, when it comes to trying to create change, people rarely think about removing roadblocks. When asked how to change someone’s mind, 99 percent of the answers focus on some version of pushing. Present facts and evidence, Explain my reasons, and Convince them are common refrains

We are so focused on our desired outcome that we’re consumed with how we can push people in that direction. But along the way, we tend to forget about the person whose mind we’re trying to change. And what’s stopping them

Because rather than asking what might convince someone to change, catalysts start with a more basic question: Why hasn’t that person changed already? What is blocking them?

That’s what this book is all about: how to overcome inertia, incite action, and change minds—not by being more persuasive, or pushing harder, but by being a catalyst. By removing the barriers to change

Every time you start driving, you buckle your seat belt, stick your key in the ignition, and slowly press the gas pedal. Sometimes, if you’re on an incline, the car needs a little more gas, but in general the more you push on the gas, the more movement you get

But what if you push and push and the car doesn’t budge? Then what?

Whenever change fails to happen, we think we need more horsepower. Employees not adopting that new strategy? Send out another email reminding them why they should. Customers not buying the product? Spend more money on advertising or give them yet another sales call.

But with all that focus on pushing on the gas, we often overlook an easier and more effective way: identifying what is blocking or preventing change. And eliminating these obstacles to action

Sometimes change doesn’t require more horsepower. Sometimes we just need to unlock the parking brake

This book is about finding the parking brakes. Discovering the hidden barriers preventing change. Identifying the root or core issues that are thwarting action and learning how to mitigate them.

Each chapter lays out a key roadblock and how to address it.

Principle 1: Reactance

When pushed, people push back. Just like a missile defense system protects against incoming projectiles, people have an innate anti-persuasion system. Radar that kicks in when they sense someone is trying to convince them. To lower this barrier, catalysts encourage people to persuade themselves. You’ll learn about the science of reactance, how warnings become recommendations, and the power of tactical empathy

Principle 2: Endowment

As the old saying goes, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. People are wedded to what they’re already doing. And unless what they’re doing is terrible, they don’t want to switch. To ease endowment, or people’s attachment to the status quo, catalysts highlight how inaction isn’t as costless as it seems Than breaking one. How financial advisors get clients to invest more sensibly and how IT professionals get employees to adopt new technologies

Principle 3: Distance

People have an innate anti-persuasion system, but even when we just provide information, sometimes it backfires. Why? Another barrier is distance. If new information is within people’s zone of acceptance, they’re willing to listen. But if it is too far away, in the region of rejection, everything flips. Communication is ignored or, even worse, increases opposition

Principle 4: Uncertainty

Change often involves uncertainty. Will a new product, service, or idea be as good as the old one? It’s hard to know for sure, and this uncertainty makes people hit the pause button, halting action. To overcome this barrier, catalysts make things easier to try

Principle 5: Corroborating Evidence

Sometimes one person, no matter how knowledgeable or assured, is not enough. Some things just need more proof. More evidence to overcome the translation problem and drive change. Sure, one person endorsed something, but what does their endorsement say about whether I’ll like it? To overcome this barrier, catalysts find reinforcement. Corroborating evidence

Reactance, Endowment, Distance, Uncertainty, and Corroborating Evidence can be called the five horsemen of inertia. Five key roadblocks that hinder or inhibit change

These five ways to be a catalyst can be organized into an acronym. Catalysts reduce Reactance, ease Endowment, shrink Distance, alleviate Uncertainty, and find Corroborating Evidence. Taken together, that forms an acronym, REDUCE. Which is exactly what great catalysts do. They REDUCE roadblocks. They change minds and incite action by reducing barriers to change

Reactance

Reactance and the Anti-Persuation Radar

Restriction generates a psychological phenomenon called reactance. An unpleasant state that occurs when people feel their freedom is lost or threatened

And reactance happens even when asking people to do something rather than telling them not to. Whether made to encourage people to buy a hybrid car or save money for retirement, any effort is often unintentionally seen as impinging on people’s freedom. It interferes with their ability to see their behavior as driven by themselves

In the absence of persuasion, people think they are doing what they want. They see their actions as driven by their own thoughts and preferences. The only reason they’re interested in buying a hybrid car is because of these. They like helping the environment. They like the way the car looks

Try to convince people, though, and things get more complex. Because now if they find themselves thinking of buying a hybrid, there is another explanation. In addition to their own inherent interest, now there is also a second possibility: maybe they’re thinking about buying a hybrid because someone told them they should. And that alternate explanation for their interest threatens their perceived freedom. If they’re considering buying a hybrid because someone told them they should, their behavior is not really being driven by themselves. They’re not really in the driver’s seat. Someone else is To reestablish a sense of autonomy, people often react against persuasion. They do the opposite of whatever is being requested

Reactance even happens when people had wanted to do what was suggested in the first place. Take a new workplace initiative to get people to speak up in meetings. Some people may want to speak up already, so the initiative should be an easy sell. People want to speak up; the company wants people to speak up; everybody wins

But if the initiative crowds out people’s ability to see their behavior as internally or freely driven, it can backfire. Someone who is thinking of speaking up now has an alternate explanation for that thought: that they’re doing so not because they want to but because the initiative told them to. It interferes with their ability to see their decisions as their own. And if they don’t want to feel like they’re just going along with a directive, they might end up staying silent.

Just as a missile defense system protects a country against incoming projectiles, people have anti-persuasion radar. An innate anti-influence system that shields them from being swayed. They’re constantly scanning the environment for influence attempts, and when they detect one, they deploy a set of countermeasures.10 Responses that help them avoid being persuaded.

The simplest countermeasure is avoidance, or just ignoring the message. Leaving the room during a commercial, hanging up on a sales call, or shutting a pop-up window. Shoppers avoid salespeople and online shoppers avoid looking at banner ads. The more a commercial seems like it’s trying to persuade people, the more likely they are to change the channel. By reducing exposure to incoming communication, its potential impact is weakened

The more complex (and effortful) response is counterarguing. Rather than just ignoring the message, people actively contest it or work to combat it

Like an overzealous high school debate team, people refute each claim and undermine the source. They poke and prod and raise objections until the message comes crumbling down

Allow for Agency

To avoid reactance and the persuasion radar, then, catalysts allow for agency. They stop trying to persuade and instead get people to persuade themselves

To reduce reactance, catalysts allow for agency—not by telling people what to do or by being completely hands-off, but by finding the middle ground. By guiding their path

Four key ways to do that are: (1) Provide a menu, (2) ask, don’t tell, (3) highlight a gap, and (4) start with understanding

Provide a Menu

One way to allow for agency is to let people pick the path. Let them choose how they get where you are hoping they’ll go

Parents use this idea all the time. Telling toddlers they have to eat a certain food usually fails. If they aren’t interested in broccoli or chicken to begin with, pushing it on them is only going to build their resistance

So, instead of pushing, savvy parents give their toddlers a choice: Which do you want to eat first, broccoli or chicken?

By giving kids options, the kids get to feel like they are in control: Mom and Dad aren’t telling me what to do; I’m picking what I want to eat.

But by selecting the options Mom and Dad shape the decision. Little Liza is still eating the food she needs to be eating, just in the order she chooses.

It’s providing a menu: a limited set of options from which people can choose.

Advertising agencies do something similar when presenting work to clients. If the agency shares only one idea, the client spends the entire meeting poking holes in the presentation, looking for flaws or listing reasons why it won’t work

So smart agencies share multiple directions—not ten or fifteen but two or three—and let the client pick which one they like the best. Increasing buy-in for whichever route is selected

Try to convince people to do something, and they spend a lot of time counterarguing. Thinking about all the various reasons why it’s a bad idea or why something else would be better. Why they don’t want to do what was suggested.

But give people multiple options, and suddenly things shift

Rather than thinking about what is wrong with whatever was suggested, they think about which one is better. Rather than poking holes in whatever was raised, they think about which of the options is best for them. And because they’ve been participating, they’re much more likely to go along with one of them in the end

Ask, Don’t Tell

Another way to allow for agency is to ask questions rather than make statements

Using questions boosted outcomes

Questions do a couple things. First, like providing a menu, questions shift the listener’s role. Rather than counterarguing or thinking about all the reasons they disagree with a statement, listeners are occupied with a different task: figuring out an answer to the question. How they feel about it or their opinion. Something most people are more than happy to do.

Second, and more importantly, questions increase buy-in. Because while people may not want to follow someone else’s lead, they’re much more likely to follow their own. The answer to the question isn’t just any answer; it’s their answer. And because it’s their own personal answer, reflecting their own personal thoughts, beliefs, and preferences, that answer is much more likely to drive them to action

Warning labels and public health campaigns often provide information, but they do so in the form of declarations: Junk food makes you fat or Drunk driving is murder.

The same content, though, can be phrased in terms of a question: Do you think junk food is good for you?

Questions encourage listeners to commit to the conclusion. To behave consistently with whatever answer they gave.

Trying to change company culture or to get a team to go along with a tough reorganization? Rather than taking a predetermined plan and pushing it on people, catalysts do the opposite. They start by asking questions. Visiting with stakeholders, getting their perspectives, and engaging them in the planning process

This approach has two benefits. First, it gathers information about the problem—not just from survey data or abstract anecdotes but from the real people who are dealing with it every day. Which will make the solution more effective.

Second, and more importantly, when it comes time to roll things out, everyone is more likely to be on board. Because rather than feeling like a declaration that’s imposed on them, it’ll be a shift they feel they participated in. They’ve already committed to the conclusion, which will make them more willing to go along with the work to get there—which will speed the change

Ask, don’t tell

Highlight a Gap

Giving people a menu, or asking rather than telling, avoids usurping their sense of control. But another route to self-persuasion is to highlight a gap—a disconnect between someone’s thoughts and actions or a disparity between what they might recommend for others versus do themselves

This approach works even when the dissonance isn’t as obvious.

People who deny climate change exists are unlikely to want polluted air for their kids. Employees who are wedded to old, inefficient processes are unlikely to recommend the same approach to new hires There’s a disconnect between what people are saying or doing and what they would want or recommend for others

Take a project that’s not working out, or a division that is consistently losing money. It really should be killed off, but some people are wedded to it. Give it a chance, they say. Give it more time. Inertia kicks in and they can’t seem to let go, even though they should

Rather than trying to convince them to kill it, take a different tack. Shift the reference point

If they were starting from scratch today, given what they know now, would they suggest starting the project? If a new CEO were hired, would they suggest keeping the division? If not, why should we?

Highlighting such dissonance, and bringing it to the fore, encourages people not only to see the discord but also to work to resolve it

Start with Understanding

The final way catalysts allow for autonomy goes back, as surprising as it may seem, to the approach used by hostage negotiators like Greg Vecchi.

Over the last few decades, negotiators have relied on a simple stairway model. Whether trying to convince an international terrorist to let hostages go or to change someone’s mind about committing suicide, a basic set of steps consistently works

The first step isn’t influence or persuasion. Like most people trying to change minds, novice negotiators want to be direct, saying, Let the hostages go now or we’ll shoot! Immediately jumping to the outcome they want to achieve

Not surprisingly, tactics like this don’t work. They come across as blunt and overly aggressive, and often lead conflicts to escalate. Because starting by trying to influence someone makes it all about you. It’s not about other people, and their wants and motivations; it’s about you and what you want

Before people will change, they have to be willing to listen. They have to trust the person they’re communicating with. And until that happens, no amount of persuasion is going to work

Think about why word of mouth is more persuasive than advertising. If an advertisement says a new restaurant is good, people don’t usually believe it. Because they don’t think they can trust what the ad is saying

But if their friend says they’ll love the homemade tagliatelle, they’re much more likely to give it a shot. Why? Because that friend has earned permission. They’ve known the friend long enough to assume she has their best interests at heart.

Consequently, seasoned negotiators don’t start with what they want; they start with whom they want to change. Working to gain insight into where that person is coming from. Comprehending and appreciating that person’s situation, feelings, and motives, and showing them that someone else understands

People in a crisis can feel like they have no support. They’re angry and upset and want to be heard. But it’s gotten to this crisis point because they don’t feel like anyone is listening

Only then, after he’s built understanding and established trust, does Greg try to create change

Repurposing Reactance

When people feel like someone is pushing or trying to convince them, they often push back, digging in their heels and resisting

To change minds, then, we need to stop trying to persuade, and encourage people to persuade themselves. Like savvy parents, we need to provide a menu or guided choices that allow people to pick their path to the desired outcome. Like Nafeez Amin, we need to ask, don’t tell; using questions to encourage people to commit to the conclusion and see how what we want is actually the best way for them to reach an outcome they care about. Like the Thai Health Promotion Foundation, we need to highlight a gap or a disconnect between what people might recommend for others versus do themselves. And, like Greg Vecchi, we need to start with understanding, building trust by finding the root

No one likes feeling someone is trying to influence them. After all, when’s the last time you changed your mind because someone told you to?

Endowment

Of Mugs and Men

Think about the last time your power went out

The status quo bias is everywhere. People tend to eat the same foods they’ve always eaten, buy the same brands they’ve always bought, and donate to the same causes they’ve always supported

Change is hard, because people tend to overvalue what they have: what they already own or are already doing

This so-called endowment effect happens all the time

Loss Aversion

Every change has upsides and downsides

Whenever people think about changing, they compare things to their current state. The status quo. And if the potential gains barely outweigh the potential losses, they don’t budge

To get people to change, the advantages have to be at least twice as good as the disadvantages. New software can’t be just a little better; it has to be a lot better. A new approach can’t just be slightly more effective; it has to be significantly more effective. If people have to give up something they like or lose things they value, the benefit (e.g., boosted efficiency, decreased cost, or some other positive change) has to be at least twice as big to make up for it

And while the advantages of new things are often salient, potential change agents often ignore the disadvantages or costs

Surface the Cost of Inaction

Because while doing the same thing the company has done for eighty years feels safer than doing something new, that’s not necessarily the case. Sales are declining. So doing nothing doesn’t mean nothing bad happens; it means the company slowly but surely disappears into oblivion

Which do you think causes more pain? A severe injury, like breaking a finger or shattering a kneecap, or a milder one, like spraining a finger or a trick knee?

When the status quo is terrible, it’s easy to get people to switch. They’re willing to change because inertia isn’t a viable option. If your place is infested with roaches, you have to call an exterminator; the only question is which one to call

But when things aren’t terrible, or are just okay but not great, it’s harder to get people to budge. If the old thing wasn’t that bad to begin with, why go to the trouble and incur the costs of doing something new? If it’s just a couple of flies in the house, is it really worth the effort to call an exterminator? Maybe the flies will just go away by themselves

Terrible things get replaced, but mediocre things stick around. Horrible performance generates action, but average performance generates complacency

To overcome endowment, then, we need to help people realize the cost of doing nothing—that, rather than being safe or costless, sticking with the status quo actually has a downside

Change is costly. New products cost money and new services take time to learn how to use. New initiatives take effort to develop and new ideas take time to get accustomed to.

And these costs are mostly up-front. You have to pay for a new book before you get to read it, and you have to invest time to learn a new program or platform before you can use it.

The benefits of change, however, tend to take longer to happen. You don’t get the enjoyment from the book until it arrives and you start reading, and you often don’t see the benefits of a new program until weeks or months after it finally gets up and running

Not surprisingly, this cost-benefit timing gap stymies action. People are impatient. They want the good stuff faster and the bad stuff later. So if changing means costs now and benefits later, they do nothing

It’s like trying to give up sweets. Sure, there’s a long-term benefit of losing weight and living healthier, but there’s a short-term cost of having to pass up that delicious chocolate cake. And we all know how well that goes.

Consequently, people stick with the status quo. Why incur costs now if you don’t have to? Particularly when the status quo doesn’t seem that bad.

So, to change minds and ease endowment, catalysts surface the cost of inaction. They make it easier for people to see the difference between what they are doing now and what they could be doing

And rather than focusing on how much better the new thing is than the old, or the potential gain of action, catalysts do the opposite. They highlight how much people are losing by doing nothing

Because, as loss aversion shows, losses loom larger than gains. Losing $10 feels worse than gaining $10, and becoming less efficient feels worse than becoming more efficient. Seeing how much time or money is being lost is more motivating than seeing how much could have been gained. Making it less likely that people will stick with the status quo.

Framed the right way, even a headache is worth fixing

Burn the Ships

Surfacing the costs of inaction encourages the realization that doing nothing isn’t costless. But when endowment is really strong, sometimes change requires going one step further. And those situations may warrant burning the ships

As a child, no one would have guessed that Hernán Cortés would grow up to become a famous explorer. Born in Medellín, Spain, to a relatively poor family, he was a small, colicky infant who was often sick. When he was fourteen, his parents encouraged him to study law, but news of Christopher Columbus and his New World discoveries were streaming back to Spain. Cortés couldn’t be satisfied living in his small, provincial town and made plans to sail for the Americas.

In 1504, Cortés landed in Hispaniola (what is Haiti and the Dominican Republic today) and spent the next few years establishing himself. He registered as a citizen, became a notary, and participated in expeditions to conquer parts of neighboring Cuba. Cortés’s efforts won favor with Hispaniola’s governor, and he was appointed to a high political position in the colony

Eventually, the governor asked Cortés to help him invade Mexico. The mainland was believed to hold a bonanza of silver and gold, and the governor put Cortés in command of an expedition to explore and secure the interior of the country for colonization.

Accompanied by around six hundred men, thirteen horses, and a small number of cannons, Cortés and his eleven ships landed on the Yucatán Peninsula. He claimed the land for the Spanish crown, won a few battles against the natives, and took over what is now Veracruz, a coastal region opposite the Gulf of Mexico from Cuba

After he established a town, Cortés wanted to explore further. Tenochtitlán, two hundred miles inland, was supposed to be a magical city, full of infinite riches

But at this point, Cortés and the governor were at odds. The governor feared losing control over the expedition and sent orders to relieve Cortés of his command. But Cortés went ahead anyway. Now he faced imprisonment or death if he returned to Cuba. His only option was to conquer and settle part of the land.

Not all Cortés’s men were keen on pushing inland. Some were still loyal to the governor, and when they learned of their leader’s plans, they conspired to seize a ship and sail back to Cuba

Cortés moved quickly to quash their rebellion, but he faced a dilemma. For the mission to capture Tenochtitlán to succeed, he needed the men’s allegiance. But with the ships readily available, it would be difficult to prevent another mutiny. If enough men snuck onto one of the boats, they could sail away and bring further repercussions from the governor.

Faced with this situation, Cortés made an unusual decision: to burn the ships. After removing the provisions and artillery from his ships, he ordered them put afire. All eleven of them

To prevent another mutiny, he had his own ships demolished

Going back was no longer an option. Now everyone had to forge ahead.

What Cortés did might seem crazy. He didn’t just make a statement; he destroyed his only option of getting home. But it turns out he wasn’t the only person to adopt this strategy

Compared to the situations most people face on a daily basis, this tactic is clearly extreme. And selfish

But similar, less drastic versions can be applied to a broad set of situations in which people are stuck on the status quo. Not completely taking the old option off the table, but making people realize and bear more of its true costs

Switching costs ruled the day

Inaction is easy. It requires little effort to stick with the same beliefs, little time to stick with the same policies and approaches, and little money to stick with products and services that are already being used

Not surprisingly, then, when the choice is action or inaction, inaction often wins. Inertia prevails. A body at rest tends to stay at rest

So sometimes inaction needs to be taken off the table. Or at least no longer subsidized. Because while inaction might beat newcomers in a royal rumble, once inaction becomes more costly, suddenly the contest is a lot more even. Now everyone is on equal footing

Rather than thinking about whether a given new thing is better than the old one, by helping to take inaction off the table, burning the ships encourages people to set aside the old and instead think about which new thing is worth pursuing

Easing Endowment

Catalyzing change isn’t just about making people more comfortable with new things; it’s about helping them let go of old ones. Easing endowment

Distance

Reaching Across the Aisle

Exposure to the other side didn’t make people more moderate.

In fact, just the opposite. Exposure to opposing views did change minds, but in the opposite direction. Rather than becoming more liberal, Republicans exposed to liberal information became more conservative

developing more extreme attitudes toward social policies. Liberals showed similar effects. Democrats who followed a conservative account became more liberal, not less

It would be one thing if the tweets had tried to persuade. As discussed in the first chapter, persuasive attempts often induce reactance

But in this instance, rather than telling people to do something, most posts just contained information.

So why didn’t information help?

Correcting False Beliefs

When trying to change minds, we hope that evidence will work. That giving people facts, figures, and other information will encourage them to move in our direction

The intuition is simple. Data should lead people to update their thinking. They should consider the evidence provided and shift their opinions accordingly.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t always happen

Numerous studies have found similar effects

Rather than changing false beliefs, exposure to the truth often increased misperceptions. Giving people correct information made them more likely to believe the exact opposite

So when does information work and when does it backfire?

A Football Field of Beliefs

One might imagine that taking a more extreme stance would generate more change. After all, in everything from salary negotiations to buying a home, people usually start by asking for more rather than less

Applied to changing minds, staking out a farther position takes advantage of this tendency to split the difference. Even if people don’t move all the way, meeting in the middle means ending up closer to the desired endpoint. Meeting the strongly worded anti-prohibition appeal halfway would mean a greater change than meeting the moderately worded appeal halfway

But that’s not what happened. When researchers analyzed the results of the prohibition study, they found that the strong appeal wasn’t more effective in changing minds

And the reason why is something called the region of rejection

Some statements strongly supported prohibition, some strongly opposed it, and others fell somewhere in between.

Imagine a football field divided by hash marks, with different marks indicating different prohibition views. One side supports prohibition the other side opposes it, and the two end zones are the people who feel most strongly.

The supporters’ end zone is filled with people who strongly support prohibition. They most agree with statements

The opposition end zone wants to completely repeal prohibition. They agree most with statements like It has become evident that man cannot get along without alcohol; therefore, there should be no restriction whatsoever on its sale and use.

Move toward midfield, however, and the extremism tempers. Around the 25-yard lines are people who are mildly for or against prohibition. They are fine keeping some restrictions on alcohol but feel like it should be available in small quantities for reasonable occasions. And on the 50-yard line are people on the fence. They feel that the arguments in favor and against are nearly equal

In addition to picking the statement that best represented their opinion, respondents also noted which views they didn’t find objectionable and which ones they disagreed with or couldn’t see supporting

These choices created two zones. One was the zone of acceptance. The perspective that people agreed with the most, along with the range of viewpoints they could see potentially supporting

Beyond this safe area was the region of rejection. The range of perspectives people strongly disagreed with or actively rejected as wrong

Take someone whose views put them at midfield. That’s their current opinion, but their zone of acceptance would be any positions in either direction that they might support. Beyond that is the region of rejection, or anything they would not consider.

Different people not only have different positions on the field, their zones of acceptance and regions of rejection vary as well. One person might be in one end zone with a zone of acceptance up to the 20-yard line and a region of rejection for anything beyond that

Another might be on the 25-yard line, accepting anything on that half while rejecting everything on the other side

These different zones, in turn, determined whether the anti-prohibition messages succeeded or failed. Incoming information was compared with people’s existing views. If the content was close enough (i.e., within their zone of acceptance), the information worked as intended. People changed their mind in the desired direction

But if the information fell in the region of rejection, it failed. Not only did the content not persuade, it often backfired. People changed their minds in the opposite direction. They became even more certain their initial views were right

Overall, the moderate appeal led almost three times as many prohibition supporters to move toward legalizing alcohol

Sometimes less is better than more

The Confirmation Bias

When trying to change minds, we often want big change right away. We want a big raise now. We want detractors to immediately become supporters.

We think that if we just give people enough information, they’ll come around. If we just share more evidence, list more reasons, or put together the right deck, people will switch.

But just as often this blows up in our faces. Rather than shifting perspectives, people dig in their heels. Rather than changing, they become even more convinced they’re right

As we discussed, reactance is one reason. When people feel like someone is trying to convince them, their guard goes up. They counterargue against the persuasion

But even when there is no attempt to persuade, sometimes even just providing information backfires

And the region of rejection explains why. People have a range, or zone around their beliefs that they are willing to consider. Staunch conservatives oppose government spending and regulation. Tell them about a bill to eliminate deficit spending or protect free markets, and they’ll probably support it.

But go beyond that zone, to things like raising the debt ceiling or providing universal health care, and it backfires. The further afield the message, the less likely they’ll listen. And the more likely it will push them in the opposite direction

Because the region of rejection not only impacts change, it shapes how people perceive and react to information. People search for, interpret, and favor information in a way that confirms or supports their existing beliefs

This tendency to look for and process information in a way that confirms one’s existing viewpoint has been called the confirmation bias.10 And no one is immune. Confirmation bias shapes the treatments doctors prescribe, decisions jurors make, and strategies investors follow. It drives what actions leaders take, research scientists pursue, and feedback employees internalize

As psychologist Thomas Gilovich noted, When examining evidence relevant to a given belief, people are inclined to see what they expect to see, and conclude what they expect to conclude… For desired conclusions… we ask ourselves, ‘Can I believe this?,’ but for unpalatable conclusions we ask, ‘Must I believe this?

These biases make changing minds all the more difficult. Not only do people have to be willing to change, they have to be willing to listen to information that might open them up to that possibility

When ideas or information comes in, people compare it to their existing view. They consider and weigh it to understand how it fits with existing beliefs

If it falls within the zone of acceptance, it gets the seal of approval. It’s marked as trustworthy, safe, and dependable. And it shifts people in that direction

But if the ideas or information falls in the region of rejection, it faces deeper scrutiny. It’s seen as unreliable, anecdotal, and erroneous, or, even worse, ignored completely.11 And shifts attitudes in the opposite direction.

So how can we combat these biases? How do catalysts avoid the region of rejection and encourage people to actually consider what they have to say?

Three ways to mitigate distance are to (1) find the movable middle, (2) ask for less, and (3) switch the field to find an unsticking point

Find the Movable Middle

And rather than using the same arguments on everyone, catalysts use a more surgical approach. They target people with specific messages that are most relevant to them

When dealing with issues that people feel strongly about, start by finding the movable middle. Individuals who, by virtue of their existing positions, are more likely to shift because they’re not so far away to begin with.

Rather than going after anyone, catalysts start by finding the people who see their offering as a painkiller. Locating potential users who need the offering and can’t wait to sign up.

Trying to change minds in a meeting? Start with the people whose position is closest to begin with. Not only are they more likely to come around, but by changing their minds, they’ll hopefully become advocates and bring others along with them.

Ask for Less

The movable middle is a great place to start, but sometimes we want to change minds of people who are further away. So how do we do that?

Agreeing to a small, related ask moved people in the right direction. Which meant that the final ask, which once would have been too far away, was now within the zone of acceptance

Because when people move their position on the field, their zones and regions move with them. Consequently, rather than being squarely in the region of rejection, the final ask is now in more people’s zone of acceptance. Which makes them more likely to help

Having a tough time changing someone’s mind? Try asking for less rather than pushing for more. Dial down the size of the initial request so that it falls within the zone of acceptance. Not only will that make that initial request more successful, it also makes big change more likely overall.

When trying to change minds, the tendency is to go big. We want to shift people’s perspective right away. We’re looking for that silver bullet pitch that will immediately get someone to quit drinking soda or switch political parties overnight

But look closer at big changes, and they’re rarely that abrupt. Instead, they’re often more of a process. A slow and steady shift with many stages along the way

Asking for less is about committing to that process. Dr. Priest started by asking the truck driver to drink one fewer bottle of Mountain Dew, but she didn’t stop there. She asked for less initially and then asked for a little more.

Rather than just asking for less, then, it’s really about chunking the change. Breaking big asks into smaller, more manageable chunks. Starting with one and building from there. Moving 10 or 15 yards at a time, rather than tossing a Hail Mary and hoping for the best

Switch the Field; Find an Unsticking Point

Asking for less shrinks the distance. It provides a stepping-stone. And in so doing, it makes that final ask ever closer and ever more reachable

But when someone is really dug in, there is one more technique that is often useful. And that is to switch the field. Find a dimension where there’s already agreement and use that as a pivot point

Few things are more resistant to change than prejudice

Part of the challenge is how deeply ingrained prejudice often is. Kids acquire beliefs from their parents, religion, or other social ties, and these perspectives become part of their worldview, almost second nature.

The notion that one conversation can durably change minds about a controversial issue is heartening—amazing, even. But it brings up an even more important question: Why were these conversations so effective?

Traditionally, when people think about taking another’s perspective, it usually involves putting themselves in someone else’s shoes. Getting out of their own heads to see something from someone else’s eyes

This works well when people can easily imagine what that other perspective is like

But what if you’re a straight-A student? Well, then it’s a much harder perspective to take. If you’ve always done well, it’s hard to imagine what it’s like to struggle academically. Which means trying to take another person’s perspective won’t really help you understand their emotional state

To avoid this issue, rather than inhabiting someone else’s shoes, deep canvassing encourages voters to find a parallel situation from their own experience. Not imagining what it’s like to be someone else, but a time the voter felt similarly

A straight-A student may have a tough time understanding what it’s like to struggle academically, but they’ve probably struggled at some point in their life

Deep canvassing uses this to reduce prejudice. It’s hard to imagine what life is like for someone else. Particularly if that person is a different race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Deep canvassing works because it switches the field. Rather than starting with the contentious issue, or the field on which people are far apart, it finds a dimension where people are closer together. Where they agree rather than disagree. An unsticking point

But deep canvassing changes the conversation. It’s no longer an abstract debate about how someone thinks they should feel. It’s not even about transgender rights. At least, not directly.

Instead, it’s about love and adversity. About caring. Or about how it feels to be ostracized. To be judged negatively or discriminated against for being different. Something anyone can relate to, regardless of how they feel about this particular issue

Rather than starting with a tough issue that seems divisive (a sticking point), deep canvassing starts with common ground. Something everyone can rally around.

Then, only after building that connection, do canvassers ultimately bend around and pivot to transgender rights.V Switching the playing field from one where two teams are dug in on different ends to one where everyone is on the same team

Rather than pushing harder down the same blocked path, explore related directions where people aren’t so dug in. Even though someone might seem like an adversary on one dimension, there’s probably more to them than just that. Points of agreement like making sure the company continues to grow or employee retention stays high. Start with that. Start with the areas of agreement and build from there

Distance is the third main roadblock to change. Reactance highlights that people push back when they feel someone is trying to persuade them. But even when just providing information or evidence, distance matters. If things are too far from where people are currently, they fall in the region of rejection and get discounted or ignored

To catalyze change, then, we need to start by finding the movable middle. People for whom the change is not as large, and who can be used to help convince others. When trying to change those who are further away, we need to start by asking for less Take big change and break it down into smaller, more manageable chunks or stepping-stones. Ask for less before asking for more. Start with a place of agreement and pivot from there to switch the field. Connecting to these parallel directions should move them enough to see the initial topic differently

And maybe even change a little

Uncertainty

The Uncertainty Tax

People are risk averse. They like knowing what they are getting, and as long as what they are getting is positive, they prefer sure things to risky ones.I Even if the risky choice is better, on average

This devaluing of things uncertain is called the uncertainty tax. When choosing between a sure thing and a risky one, the risky option has to be that much better to get chosen. The remodeled room has to be that much nicer. The gamble has to be that much higher in expected value.

And the uncertainty tax is a lot larger than you might think.

Change almost always involves some degree of uncertainty. Is buying shoes online a good idea? Will it save me time and effort or be a bigger hassle? Will the shoes fit? Will I like how they look? It’s hard to know for sure.

And people dislike uncertainty. Not just a little, like bad weather or spoiled milk or a host of other things they find mildly annoying. No, people really dislike uncertainty. So much so that it has a real, tangible cost.

Uncertainty is even worse than certain negative outcomes. Knowing you’ll be late to a meeting certainly feels bad, but wondering whether you’ll make it on time usually feels worse. Getting fired isn’t fun, but wondering if you’re about to be fired is worse still

Consequently, the more change involves uncertainty, the less interested people are in changing. The more ambiguity there is around a product, service, or idea, the less valuable that thing becomes. Less like a gift card and more like a lottery ticket

Uncertainty undermines the value of doing things differently, making it less likely people will change

And if decreasing the value of new things weren’t enough, uncertainty creates yet another roadblock. It often halts decision-making entirely.

Hitting the Pause Button

So, while uncertainty is great for the status quo, or whatever people were doing before, it’s terrible for changing minds. Because rather than moving ahead and doing something new, uncertainty makes people wait and stick with whatever they have always been doing. At least until that uncertainty resolves. If it ever does.

Uncertain about whether online shopping will be better? Might as well just drive to the store like you’ve done in the past. Not sure if a new project is really worth staffing? Might as well defer making a choice until things become more certain

New things almost always involve uncertainty, so if it’s not clear how much better something new will be, might as well play it safe and stick with the status quo

Like a caution flag at the speedway or a construction sign on the highway, uncertainty slows forward progress.6 It makes people pause and take their foot off the gas

So how can we get people to un-pause?

Trialability

Simply put, trialability is how easy it is to try something. The ease with which something can be tested or experimented with on a limited basis.

Some products, services, or ideas are easy to try

The easier it is to try something, the more people will use it, and the faster it catches on

Trialability works because making things easier to try lowers uncertainty. It makes it easier for people to experience and evaluate new things.

But trialability doesn’t have to be fixed. Yes, certain products, services, initiatives, and ideas tend to be easier to try than others, but even within the same thing there are ways to increase trialability. Ways to change people’s minds, to get them to un-pause. To support, do, buy, or try something new

The question, then, is how to reduce uncertainty by lowering the barrier to trial. Four key ways to do that are to (1) harness freemium, (2) reduce up-front costs, (3) drive discovery, and (4) make it reversible

Harness Freemium

Freemium can be just as valuable for the company itself. Because making the service free encouraged more people to try it

Freemium is a portmanteau, a linguistic blend of two words: free and premium. The initial or basic version is free of charge, but the experience is designed so that satisfied users will eventually pay to upgrade to an enhanced or premium version

Freemium gives users the time and space to explore what the service has to offer. Sure, some people might upload one file and that’s the end of it, but if the service is useful, people will come back a second time and a third. And in so doing, they’ll realize the value the service provides.

When freemium works, it encourages upgrading without requiring it. Similar to the idea of allowing for autonomy

Trying before buying makes people more likely to buy.

Reducing Up-front Costs

Freemium is particularly useful for digital goods and services. Situations where an offering can easily be changed, seamlessly upgrading users from a basic version to a paid one

By allowing consumers to experience things like they would in a physical store, without having to pay for the opportunity, free shipping overcame the uncertainty tax and changed how people shop forever

When considering examples like freemium and Zappos, it’s easy to think the common denominator is one word: free. It might seem like lowering the barrier to trial is all about money. About making things cheaper or, better yet, free.

Because the real barrier isn’t money; it’s uncertainty: Will I like the shoes? Will they even fit?

Imagine you couldn’t test drive a car before you bought it. Having to pay tens of thousands of dollars before knowing whether you liked the handling or were comfortable in the front seat would make you much less likely to switch from your existing car and buy anything new

Pilots give television executives a lower-cost way to see how a show performs

These and similar examples work by reducing the up-front cost.13 They shrink the amount of time, money, or effort required at the outset to experience something. Free shipping avoids charging customers for the privilege of trying shoes on. Test drives and renting give people a chance to experience something before having to commit. A drowning simulator helps people experience how difficult it is to survive without a life jacket. Reducing uncertainty and making people more likely to take action

Be a catalyst and lower the barrier to trial. Be an ice cream parlor, not a supermarket

Drive Discovery

Freemium and reducing up-front costs both work if someone is interested in trying something out. But what if people don’t even know you exist? Or they know you exist but don’t think they’d like what you have to offer?

Supermarkets hand out free samples of smoked sausage on toothpicks. That not only lowers the barrier to trial for sausage lovers, it also grows the set of people who think about buying sausage in the first place.

Existing customers can also be a valuable opportunity for social trials.

Make It Reversible

The last way to reduce uncertainty is to make things reversible

Returns are a big issue for retailers. Consumers return more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in merchandise annually, and less than half of those goods can be resold at full price. In addition to creating problems for inventory management, retailers have to figure out how to restock the sellable goods and triage damaged ones to a string of liquidators and wholesalers

Intuitively, this makes sense. The longer it’s been, the harder products become to sell. Clothes go out of fashion and technology gets outdated. So shorter return periods should lead to fewer returns, and the goods that do come back should be in better condition and easier to resell.

Contrary to intuition, the less restrictive policy actually increased profits. Not by just a little, but by 20 percent. Because the lenient policy didn’t just increase returns, it also increased sales, and word of mouth. And these increases were more than enough to offset the cost of the extra returned merchandise. Applied to the company’s full base of customers

Just like reducing up-front costs, shrinking back-end friction encourages action. Like free shipping and free trials, lenient return policies help change minds because they reduce people’s hesitation about trying something new. Knowing you can return something anytime helps de-risk the process and makes people more comfortable taking action

Zappos didn’t just offer free shipping; they paired it with free returns. If people didn’t like what they ordered, they ended up no worse than when they started.

Money-back guarantees or pay-for-performance contracts work similarly. Don’t like it? We’ll fix it. Some lawyers advertise that they don’t get paid if the client doesn’t win. Even airline tickets are covered by a twenty-four-hour return policy. All of which lower uncertainty and reduce inertia, encouraging customers to change their minds from no to yes

Taking Advantage of Inertia

For all the ways in which lowering the barrier to trial allows catalysts to overcome uncertainty, one more aspect is worth mentioning

The mug study we talked about in the Endowment chapter showed that sellers value things more than buyers. That once people have something, they become attached to it and are loath to give it up.

Along these lines, trial takes advantage of the endowment effect by shifting peoples’ mind-set from acquisition to retention. Before someone has tried a product, the decision they’re considering is acquisition. Whether it’s worth the cost or effort to acquire something

In that way, trial shifts people from potential mug buyers to potential mug sellers. It endows them with the item. Encouraging them to shift from how much they would pay to acquire something to how much they would need to be compensated to give it up. And given that the latter is higher, most people will pay to stay

Indeed, giving people more time to return things can actually make returns less likely.19 That is, giving people ninety days to return an item rather than thirty days can decrease their likelihood of returning it. People grow attached to the item, they feel greater ownership of it, and it becomes harder to give up

Actions that encourage trial also cleverly leverage the tendency for inertia. Before a customer orders a pair of shoes, inertia means sticking with the shoes they already have. And given the number of options out there, it’s easy to feel choice overload and just do nothing

But if something like free shipping or returns helps overcome that inertia and leads someone to order a particular pair, the impact of inertia shifts. Now the question isn’t whether it is worth the effort to get new shoes but whether it is worth the effort to get rid of the pair that was just ordered

Easier to Try, More Likely to Buy

Neophobia is the fear or a dislike of anything new. In animals, the term is used to describe the tendency to avoid unfamiliar objects or situations, and in children it is often used as part of food neophobia, or an avoidance of new foods

While most people don’t have the clinical version of neophobia, we’re all neophobic to some degree. Compared to old things we’re already doing, we tend to dislike or undervalue new ones. And part of the reason is uncertainty

Consequently, encouraging trial is a powerful way to catalyze change. And which strategy to use to do so depends on whose mind needs to be changed and where in their journey or decision-making process they’re getting stuck

If people are interested but not sure, focusing on the front end is often useful. Rather than charging, starting with a free version and, like Dropbox, encouraging people to upgrade to a premium, paid offering. Like Zappos and car dealers, lowering the up-front costs through free shipping, test drives, or similar approaches

Trying to get a potential customer or client to buy a new product or service? How can you make it easier for them to try? To get an initial sense of what it would be like without having to invest all the money, time, and energy up-front? To get a taste of what the outcomes or benefits might be like?

Let people experience something in small doses, and if they like it, they’ll come back for more

Corroborating Evidence

Pebbles and Boulders

To understand how substance abuse counselors get addicts to change, we need to start outside the realm of drugs and alcohol. To learn about the distinction behavioral scientists make between weak and strong attitudes

Contrast that with how you feel about different political parties or your favorite sports team. How you feel about your favorite brand of beer. Or abortion.

These are examples of strong attitudes. High-involvement issues, topics, or preferences that you’ve thought a lot about or hold with great moral conviction. Things you feel aren’t just a matter of opinion but have a right or wrong answer.

Not surprisingly, strong attitudes are much more resistant to change

Imagine that an article suggests your favorite celebrity said something racist. What’s your first reaction? It’s probably one of disbelief or denial. There’s no way that person could be racist

For strong attitudes, there is a higher threshold for changing minds. More is needed. More information, more texture, or more certainty. More proof before people will switch

Changing minds, then, is a bit like trying to lift something on the other end of a seesaw.

How much weight, or proof, you need depends on how heavy the thing is that you’re trying to move. If you’re trying to lift a pebble, you don’t need much. Add a little evidence and it moves right away. Change happens.

But if you’re trying to move a boulder, much more effort is needed. More proof is required before people will change

The Translation Problem

When faced with a boulder, the most common response is to turn up the juice. To try harder to convince people that a certain course of action is the right way to go. As the proverb says: If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.

Advertising research finds that multiple exposures can encourage action.1 Consumers may not pay attention the first time, so seeing an ad a second, third, or even fourth time gives them more opportunities to gather information and consider different aspects of an issue or proposal.

Would-be persuaders often try to solve this problem through variation. One commercial presents one feature and a different commercial presents another. Salespeople focus on one benefit the first time they call and mention another the second time around

Unfortunately, this usually fails. Salespeople think they’re providing more context or sweetening the deal, but to listeners it’s just another flavor of the same pitch. Another persuasion attempt to react against. If they weren’t convinced the first time, now they’re even less likely to listen.

But there’s another reason trying again doesn’t work. A far subtler one. And that is the translation problem

Because when someone endorses or recommends something, there’s always a translation problem. A puzzle

When someone hears a recommendation, they try to make sense of it. To sort out what that recommendation means. Does it say something about the thing being recommended, or does it just say something about the recommender themselves?

But even if the recommender doesn’t recommend many shows, another question arises: Sure, they liked the show, but does that mean I’ll like it?

Because impact depends on more than just credibility. There’s also an issue of fit. Yes, someone may have lots of expertise in a certain domain, but preferences are heterogeneous. Some people like sitcoms and other people hate them. Some people love romantic comedies and others can’t stand them.

So whenever people get a recommendation or see someone else doing or liking something, they try to figure out—to translate—what it means for them. How informative is that person’s opinion? What does it say about their own likely reaction?

If the coworker who recommended the show was another you, there would be less of an issue. Not just an identical twin but literally Another You. Someone who has the same preferences, likes, and dislikes. Someone who has the same needs, concerns, and values

Another You liked the show? You’ll probably like it as well. Another You installed solar panels on their house and is happy with the choice? You’ll probably be happy with it as well. Because if Another You liked the show or found solar panels worth installing, it’s pretty certain you’ll feel the same

But in the absence of this perfect doppelg?nger, people have to make inferences. How much does the fact that someone else likes something indicate about how much I’ll like it? How predictive is the fact something worked for their organization about whether it will work for me and mine?

This translation problem doesn’t happen for everything. Someone tells you the final score of the game or who won the election? There’s no need for translating. If someone shares that information, who they are or what they like is irrelevant. The final score is the final score is the final score. The election winner is the election winner. It’s factual. It’s objective

But when it comes to changing minds, translation comes into play. Not everyone likes or believes the same thing. And what works for one person or organization doesn’t necessarily work for another. Things are subjective rather than objective

So how do we solve the translation problem?

Fighting Substance Abuse

Interventionists are often the last line of defense. They get only the toughest cases. By the time an addict gets to them, all other options have usually been exhausted. Because if it was easy to change that person’s mind, he or she wouldn’t be there. Someone else would have gotten them to quit already. The fact that a person is speaking with an interventionist indicates that others have tried and failed. That people have asked, begged, yelled, screamed, and threatened. All to no avail

Interventions are no cure-all. To get addicts to change, their entire ecosystem has to be altered. Without realizing it, friends and family members may be unintentionally enabling the problem. So for change to stick, the whole system has to change as well

But in the right circumstances, as part of a broader solution, interventions can be a helpful first step on the journey to wellness. Because interventions solve the translation problem. They help address a particular sticking point: people don’t believe they have a problem

Most addicts don’t think they have an issue, otherwise they would have done something about it already. And if an addict doesn’t believe they have a problem, is one person really going to change their mind?

Strength in Numbers

From drug abuse and eating disorders to addictive gambling and alcoholism, interventions help people face the fact that they have a problem. They help break the web of denial and get addicts to consider that their behavior might be having negative consequences

Multiple sources saying or doing the same thing solves the translation problem. If just one source suggests or does something, it’s hard to translate. Hard to know if their opinion is diagnostic. Hard to know what their reaction means for your own

But if multiple sources say or do something, it’s harder not to listen. Because now there’s corroborating evidence. Reinforcement. Multiple sources concur. They have the same view, response, or preference. And this consistency means it’s much more likely that you’ll feel the same way.

If multiple people are doing the same thing, it’s harder to argue that they’re wrong. Harder to argue that the thing they’re suggesting or recommending isn’t any good

Multiple sources also add credibility and legitimacy. Increasing the expectation that others will approve and lowering the risk of embarrassment or sanction

More sources doing or saying the same thing can provide more proof. But who those sources are and when they share their perspectives plays an important role

In particular, when finding corroborating evidence, it’s important to consider who, when, and how: (1) who else to involve (or which sources are most impactful), (2) when to space corroborating evidence over time, and (3) how to best deploy scarce resources when trying to change minds on a larger scale

Which Sources Are Most Impactful?

Corroborating evidence helps change minds by providing social reinforcement. But who is most useful in that process? Are all sources weighted equally, or do certain ones provide more proof?

In other words, the translation problem is less of a problem when there’s less need for translation. In the absence of Another You, similar sources are the next closest thing. Sources that are dealing with the same issues or challenges. Other people with the same needs. Other companies in the same vertical. The more similar they are, the more proof or corroborating evidence they provide, and the greater their impact.

Beyond similarity, however, another factor is at play

Further, consistent with the value of corroborating evidence, the number of those connections also mattered

But beyond just the number of donors, the type of connection between those donors also played a role

The more independent the sources are, the more corroborating evidence they provide.

On the surface, similarity and diversity may seem contradictory. After all, in some ways, the two aspects seem like opposites. If multiple sources are all similar to a target individual or organization, it seems like they would be less diverse

But that’s not necessarily the case

Take your friends. Each is probably similar to you on some dimensions, but those dimensions are not necessarily the same. One friend may share the same taste in music, while another leans the same way politically. Both are similar to you but in different ways

The same goes for organizations. Some peers may be the same size, while others are in the same industry. Both are similar but for different reasons.

Consequently, similarity and diversity can work in concert

Sources that are similar enough to the target but different enough from one another offer the perfect combination. Similarity makes the feedback seem diagnostic and relevant. Independence increases the chance that each adds additional value rather than being seen as redundant

The Science of When

The right mix of sources can provide more proof, but it’s also important to understand when exposure to these sources will have the most impact.

When trying to change minds, then, not all proof is equal. Concentrating proof boosts its effectiveness

Trying to increase attention for a new service or important social cause? Make sure that different media hits happen soon after one another so potential supporters hear about it multiple times in a short period.

Trying to change the boss’s mind? After stopping by her office, catalysts encourage colleagues to make a similar suggestion right away. Concentration increases impact

When to Concentrate or Spread Out Scarce Resources

Concentration is helpful when trying to change one person’s mind, but it also has implications for larger-scale change. When trying to transform an organization, spark a social movement, or get a product, service, or idea to catch on

Take a new home goods start-up that’s trying to gain traction. Resources, whether time, money, or personnel, are often limited, so there’s a tradeoff between breadth and depth. There are only enough marketing dollars to spend, so choices have to be made

Spread resources out and run ads in ten different markets, going after a small number of potential customers in each? Or concentrate resources and go after a larger number of potential customers in one market, using that beachhead to grow to nearby markets?

These two approaches can be described as sprinkler and fire hose strategies

Sprinklers spread water out. They sprinkle a little here and a little there, providing broad coverage relatively quickly. That coverage isn’t deep in any one place, but many places get attention. All the grass within range gets a little wet.

Fire hoses are more concentrated. Rather than spreading water out, they saturate one area. Consequently, hitting multiple areas happens sequentially rather than simultaneously. Drenching one area first and only then moving on to another.

Conventional wisdom says that the sprinkler strategy is better. It raises broader awareness, diversifies risk, and increases the chance of a first-mover advantage

But is conventional wisdom right? Is a sprinkler strategy always more effective?

It depends. And what it depends on is whether the thing you’re trying to change is a weak attitude or a strong one. A pebble or a boulder

And if just a little proof is enough to change minds, hearing from just person A will be enough to get each of them to change. It makes sense to spread things out and target one person in each market.

In fact, concentration would waste resources. People would hear about something more times than they would need to for change to occur, and the resources could have been better spent elsewhere

Eventually the fire hose soaks things so completely that there’s no need for more, and the water just runs off

But what if people need corroborating evidence? What if they need to hear from multiple sources before they’ll change?

For stronger attitudes, boulders, or cases where more proof is needed, the sprinkler strategy won’t garner as much traction. Reach person A in New York and they’ll still tell B, C, and D. But because people need to hear from multiple sources before they’ll change, hearing from just person A won’t be enough. Target just one person in each market and they’ll tell everyone they know, but no one else will change

Consequently, when more corroborating evidence is needed, using a fire hose is more effective. Rather than targeting one person in two markets (i.e., person A and person E), concentrate all the efforts in one place (i.e., person A and person B). Both recipients will tell their friends, and because each prospect has heard from two others, they’ll change as well. It will take more time to eventually reach the second market, but the fire hose will provide enough proof for people to change.

Individuals and organizations can be classified into different segments: groups or types of people and businesses

Whether it’s better to concentrate resources in one group or spread them out across two or more groups depends on the threshold for change.

If a little proof is enough to drive action, then a sprinkler strategy is ideal. Go after each group simultaneously without much depth

But when corroborating evidence is needed, concentrating resources becomes more important. Focus on teens first and later go after moms. Target just the Accounting group initially, then move on to Marketing. Create social incubators where people can’t help but hear from multiple sources, increasing the likelihood that they’ll switch too

Pebble or Boulder?

When trying to change minds, it’s important to be able to judge the difference between pebbles and boulders. Between attitudes and opinions, products and services, behaviors, ideas, and initiatives that need only a little proof versus ones that need a lot more

To get a sense of whether something is more like a pebble or a boulder, think about how easy it is to change. The more expensive, time-consuming, risky, or controversial something is, the less likely it is to be a pebble and the more likely it is to be a boulder. Something that requires more proof.

Epilogue

Rather than trying to persuade people, they reduce?Reactance?by encouraging people to persuade themselves. Seeds of Peace has a desired destination in mind, but rather than forcing campers toward it, they allow for agency. They lay out a series of exercises and experiences that let campers pick their own paths to that outcome.

Instead of making a big ask right away, Seeds of Peace works to shrink the?Distance. Rather than expecting opposing sides to be friends on day one, the camp starts by asking for less. Just sleep in the same cabin. Eat at the same table. Engage in the same activities and begin a dialogue. These activities help switch the field and find an unsticking point.

In this way, Seeds of Peace also reduces?Uncertainty. Not only do they lower the up-front cost, allowing people who would normally fear one another to interact in a safe, neutral environment, they drive discovery. They don’t sit back and hope the two sides interact; they create situations where interactions happen naturally. And the fact that the camp lasts for only a few short weeks makes things reversible. Worst case, campers will be back to their regular lives soon.

Finally, by giving campers multiple interactions with different outgroup members, they provide?Corroborating?Evidence. Even if Habeeba and an Israeli girl become friends, it’s easy for Habeeba to see the one Israeli girl as unique. Sure, that girl is Israeli, but she’s not like those other Israelis. She’s different. And so Habeeba’s trust toward Israelis in general doesn’t really change. But when Habeeba has positive interactions with multiple Israelis, it’s harder not to shift her attitudes toward them as a group. Meaning that she’s much more likely to trust other Israelis she meets in the future.

Finding the Root

Behavioral scientist Kurt Lewin once noted, If you want to truly understand something, try to change it. But the reverse is also true. To truly change something, you need to understand it

Too often, as potential change agents we focus on ourselves. We center on the outcome we’re looking for or the change we’re hoping to see. We’re so blinded by the belief that we’re right that we assume if we just provide more information, facts, or reasons, people will capitulate.

But more often than not, things don’t budge. And by focusing so much on ourselves and what we want, we forget the most important part of change: understanding our audience.

Not just who they are, and how their needs might be different than ours, but—as we’ve talked about throughout the book—why they haven’t changed already. What barriers or roadblocks are stopping them? What parking brakes are getting in the way?

The more we learn about what is preventing someone from changing, the easier it is to help. And to realize that things aren’t as zero-sum as they may seem

People think that, when changing minds, someone has to lose. Either they change or I’m worse off. That things are black-and-white and there are only two ways to go

But the truth is often more complex

Find those barriers, those parking brakes, and the rest will follow

The Power of Catalysts

The story of Seeds of Peace highlights several important points

First, anyone’s mind can be changed. Whether it is about what to buy (Acura experience), how to vote (deep canvassing), or whether to quit smoking. Whether it’s farmers adopting new innovations (hybrid corn), customers using new services (Dropbox), or kids eating their vegetables. Even in the unlikeliest of situations. Whether it’s getting addicts to go to rehab, bank robbers to come out with their hands up, or conservatives to support transgender rights. Whether it’s getting Israelis and Arabs to trust one another, meat eaters to become vegetarian, or companies to change their culture

That’s not to say it’s easy to catalyze change, or that everyone’s mind can be changed overnight. Take a look at big changes, and they’re rarely that abrupt

Second, when it comes to change, there’s a better way. Not by pushing harder, or adding more energy, but by removing barriers to change. Reducing roadblocks. Being a catalyst.

Whether it’s about shifting minds, changing behavior, or inciting action, catalysts REDUCE roadblocks

REACTANCE

When pushed, people push back. So rather than telling people what to do, or trying to persuade, catalysts allow for agency and encourage people to convince themselves.

ENDOWMENT

People are attached to the status quo. To ease endowment, catalysts surface the costs of inaction and help people realize that doing nothing isn’t as costless as it seems

DISTANCE

Too far from their backyard, people tend to disregard. Perspectives that are too far away fall in the region of rejection and get discounted, so catalysts shrink distance, asking for less and switching the field.

UNCERTAINTY

Seeds of doubt slow the winds of change. To get people to un-pause, catalysts alleviate uncertainty. Easier to try means more likely to buy

CORROBORATING EVIDENCE

Some things need more proof. Catalysts find corroborating evidence, using multiple sources to help overcome the translation problem

Whether you’re trying to convince a client, change an organization, or disrupt the way an entire industry does business, think about what roadblocks are preventing change and how you can reduce them.

Here is a checklist that will help mitigate common barriers

REDUCE REACTANCE

How can you allow for agency? Like the truth campaign, encouraging people to chart their path to your destination?

Can you provide a menu? Like asking kids whether they want their broccoli or chicken first, can you use guided choices?

Like Smoking Kid, is there a gap between attitudes and behavior, and if so, how can you highlight it?

Rather than going straight for influence, have you started with understanding? Have you found the root? Like Greg Vecchi, built trust and use that to drive change?

EASE ENDOWMENT

What is the status quo and what aspects make it attractive?

Are there hidden costs of sticking with it that people might not realize?

Like financial advisor Gloria Barrett, how can you surface the costs of inaction?

Like Cortés, or Sam Michaels in IT, how can you burn the ships to make it clear that going back isn’t a feasible option?

Like Dominic Cummings and Brexit, can you frame new things as regaining a loss?

SHRINK DISTANCE

How can you avoid the confirmation bias by staying out of the region of rejection?

Can you start by asking for less? Like the doctor who got the trucker to drink less soda, chunking the change and then asking for more?

Who falls in the movable middle and how can you use them to help convince others?

What would be a good unsticking point and how can you use it to switch the field? Like deep canvassing, by finding a dimension on which there is already common ground to bring people closer

ALLEVIATE UNCERTAINTY

How can you reduce uncertainty and get people to un-pause? Can you lower the barrier to trial?

Like Dropbox, can you leverage freemium?

Like Zappos, how can you reduce the up-front costs, using test drives, renting, sampling, or other approaches to make it easier for people to experience something themselves?

Rather than waiting for people to come to you, can you drive discovery? Like the Acura experience, by encouraging people who didn’t know they might be interested to check it out?

Can you reduce friction on the back end by making things reversible? Like Street Tails Animal Rescue did with a two-week trial period, or as others do with lenient return policies?

FIND CORROBORATING EVIDENCE

Are you dealing with a pebble or a boulder? How expensive, risky, time-consuming, or controversial is the change you’re asking people to make?

How can you provide more proof? Like interventionists, by making sure people hear from multiple sources saying similar things?

What similar but independent sources can you call on to help provide more evidence?

How can you concentrate them close in time? Making sure people hear from multiple others in a short period?

For larger-scale change, should you use a fire hose or a sprinkler? Concentrate scarce resources or spread them out?

But the last point is the most important one. And that is that anyone can be a catalyst.

You don’t have to be a slick talker or have the best PowerPoint deck. You don’t have to have a huge advertising budget or work for a big organization. And you don’t have to have twenty years of domain expertise, know how to speak with your hands, or be the most charismatic person in the room.

Normal people, in difficult situations, who became catalysts. By finding the root, and removing barriers, they were able to change minds

Everyone has something they want to change. Politicians want to change voting behavior and marketers want to build their customer base. Employees want to change their bosses’ perspectives and leaders want to transform organizations. Spouses want to change their partners’ minds and parents want to shift their children’s behavior. Start-ups want to change industries and nonprofits want to change the world