Whenever you want to counter the indoctrinated thinking and rigid beliefs, try to find an antithetical character to support your position. For example, in an anti-smoking campaign, recruit a heavy-smoker favoring smoking restrictions or a tobacco sales tax increase. In an anti-war campaign, a former (or even better a current) military officer opposing a war is worth a hundred dozen hippies, and a defense contractor is priceless.
Or consider how recently the Obama administration framed a new proposal for a tax on the super-rich, which some call the millionaires’ minimum tax.
The Buffet Rule
The Obama administration doesn’t call the proposed tax on millionaires “the Forbes Billionaire Tax” or “the fat cat tax.” Instead, the proposed tax is called the “Buffet Rule,” after the billionaire investor Warren Buffett.
Buffett is the third richest person on the planet. If the reform succeeds, Buffett stands to lose more than almost anyone else. Even so, the Wizard of Omaha supports the reform that would take away more of his dollars.
So the “Buffett Rule” probably prompts people to think along these lines: either Buffett is stupid and crazy, which doesn’t seem to be the case, or the proposed reform is so compelling that he is willing to act against his self-interest and take on losses.
It will be interesting to see whether such framing will be enough to sway the Congress. But in any case, the framing of the reform is persuasive because it relies on disinterest. And research shows that people in general are notably persuaded by positions that go against one’s self-interest.
Why ‘Bad Man’ Silvestre Outshined the Famous Prosecutor: The Power of Arguing Against Self-Interest
When someone argues a position that goes against their best interest, people consider such an individual to be more honest, influential, and even more knowledgeable.
In a 1966 study, the first one to demonstrate the persuasive effect of arguing against self-interest, a convicted criminal was considered just as honest and influential as a famous prosecutor if the criminal supported a position that went against his self-interest.
In this study, junior high school students were asked whether prosecutors in Portugal should have more power. Introductory sheet described the Portuguese system as very similar to that of the US:
"The local prosecutor argues for the state (this means that he tries to get the jury to convict the defendant). A lawyer defends the accused (this means he tries to get the jury to free the defendant). This is the same procedure we follow in America."
The subjects then read an article in which either a criminal or a prosecutor said that prosecutors should have more power. The message was the same; the only difference was the source.
The criminal, a low prestige source, was described thus:
"Silvestre 'Bad Man' Riberio is now serving the third year of a 20-year sentence for smuggling and peddling dope."
When Silverstre “Bad Man” advocated for more power for prosecutors, he was obviously acting against his own self-interest.
The prosecutor, a high prestige source, was described thus:
"Antonio Martins Caetano is the Portuguese prosecutor who has sent more men to prison than any other prosecutor. Compared to most prosecutors, he is a very rich man."
Naturally, subjects realized that the prosecutor was acting in his self-interest when he advocated for more power for prosecutors.
The results showed that the subjects were more likely to support prosecutor’s power expansion when it was argued by the criminal.
On a scale 1 to 4 (1 – definitely not, 4 – definitely yes), should we adopt the suggestion to increase prosecutors’ power:
- Criminal – 2.24
- Prosecutor – 1.45
Prestige of the source (on a scale of 1 to 15):
How expert was he?
- Criminal – 11.32
- Prosecutor – 11.32
How honest was he?
- Criminal – 11.17
- Prosecutor – 10.24
How influential was he?
- Criminal – 9.54
- Prosecutor – 8.55
The technique had the same effect when the positions were reversed: the criminal was less persuasive while the prosecutor was more persuasive when they advocated for taking away power from prosecutors.
References