In a recent post, I extolled the virtues of Robert Cialdini‘s Yes!: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive. The book is wonderfully designed in 50 short chapters to describe the results of 50 different randomized field experiments. The format of, say, 1,800 words per chapter is a bit unusual. But I found it a great way to catch up on some really interesting research. In my previous post, I told you about the Petrified Forest study. But I can’t help but pass on a couple more of my favorite studies.
Chapter 35 describes Ellen Langer‘s great field experiment focusing on the impact of an inane excuse:
In one study, Langer arranged for a stranger to approach someone waiting in line to use a photocopier and simply ask, “Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?” Faced with this direct request to cut ahead in the line, 60 percent of the people were willing to agree to allow the stranger to go ahead of them. However, when the stranger made the request with a reason (“May I use the Xerox machine, because I’m in a rush?”), almost everyone (94 percent) complied. … Langer [also] tested one more version of the request. This time, the stranger also used the word “because” but followed it with a completely meaningless reason. Specifically, the stranger said, “May I use the Xerox machine, because I have to make copies?” Because you have to make copies? Who doesn’t? … Despite the hollowness of the “reason” the stranger provided, it generated nearly the same elevated levels of compliance as when the reason was wholly legitimate (93 percent).
Yes! also indulges the Freakonomics fascination with the impact of baby names. Chapter 30 argues that your name might impact your vocation. Chapter 30 quotes a scene from the NBC comedy The Office, in which Dwight Schrute is caught in a lie about going to the dentist. Dwight’s boss, Michael Scott, asks Dwight for his dentist’s name and “after a long, awkward pause, Dwight replies, ‘Crentist.’”
Michael: Your dentist’s name is Crentist?
Dwight: Yeah.
Michael: Huh … sounds a lot like dentist.
Dwight: Maybe that’s why he became a dentist.
Crentist sounds silly, but researchers have found that people named Dennis are more likely to become dentists. An article, “Why Susie Sells Seashells by the Seashore,” finds that in the U.S. population the names Jerry, Dennis, and Walter rank 39th, 40th, and 41st among male first names. But in the national directory of the American Dental Association there are close to twice as many Dennises (482) as Walters (252) and Jerrys (270). “Similarly, people whose names begin with ‘Geo’ (e.g., George, Geoffrey) are disproportionately likely to do research in the geosciences (e.g., geology).”
To be honest, I’m not fully persuaded that either of these results is true. Perhaps I was particularly on guard because the book is explicitly about persuasion. But at least 20 of the “50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive” got me thinking about possible follow-ups. If you’re looking for an easy entry point into the empirical psychology literature on persuasion, this book might be the ticket.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Sitting in front of a screen and reading about someone asking to cut in line to make copies is a very different thing from having the person in front of you asking the question, and expecting an answer. I imagine the “that is a crazy person” thought won’t occur to most people until after they’ve already let them cut in line out of reflex, if then.
My BS detector goes off full blast when I here “your name determines your occupation.” Even if there is a correlation, causation is a very different thing. For instance, parents who want their children to become geologists (perhaps because they are geologists themselves) might pick a name beginning with “geo”.
why not be polite and let someone go ahead?
The name/profession link is spurious. Andrew Gelman at Columbia Statistics Dept has written about this, see his blog.
I can just imagine parents and/or peers saying things like, “Dennis the dentist” or ” George the geologist”–just to be witty. Then it comes to mind later on in life while flipping through college catalogs.
If someone asks me “Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?” I’ll definitely say yes. I know that he will only take a minute or so and that, if he is asking, he is probably truly in a rush.
But if he says “May I use the Xerox machine, because I’m in a rush?” I don’t have any indications of the time he will take.
Jim says: “I have had people get visible angry when I don’t let them “ cut” when they ask. It is as though it is a given that by “asking” I am obliged by law or something to allow them.”
A more dangerous variant of this happened recently on a highway in the region where I work. I was one car behind a couple of guys who got into it where the road narrowed, and when they got out and were yelling at each other, I could hear what they were saying. Guy A was in the left lane, which is the lane that continued through. Guy B was in the lane that narrowed and ended. Guy B had tried to pull into the main lane and Guy A was angry that he was butting in.
Guy A had practically driven up the tailpipe of the suv in front of him after Guy B tried to get between the suv and Guy A. The car ahead of me started riding Guy A’s bumper so Guy B couldn’t get in. Guy B kept saying they “had” to let him in and they were blocking him. Guy A and the driver from the car behind both told Guy B he was trying to “butt in” the line. (Which he was; he pulled out from behind me half a block earlier, gunned his engine, and then tried to pull in behind the suv.) Guy B kept saying he was going to call the cops on the other drivers.
Eventually so many horns sounded they all got back in their cars, but I’m surprised no one got into a crash or shot. They pulled away just in time — the cops came up just as everything loosened up and all parties were driving away.
I’m sure it’s an interesting book and I’ll probably get around to reading it, eventually. But you picked a bad example to quote for people who have read his earlier work. The “inane excuse” study was also cited in Cialdini’s “Influence”, which makes me wonder how much fresh content I’ll get from “Yes!”