So Michael Blastland concludes his fun piece for BBC News Website on Saturday November 10th 2011
Cultural cognition has much to
contribute to what might be the best approaches to convey our DVP to our buyer. Logical
argument alone will seldom be enough in persuading our client.
Is it the facts of our offer or the identity of the
salesperson that the buyer perceives ,the aspect that decides for the buyer - what
is right?
"People buy People
first"
 |
| http://www.tack.co.uk/executive-summary/ |
is an old adage in selling perhaps the study
of cultural cognition supports this. But maybe cultural cognition suggests
that our attitude to risk is swayed more
by perceived shared values.
Who do you generally
believe?
1.The casual bloke with beard and
open-necked shirt ? Maybe the late Steve Jobs?
2.The slim, smooth,
designer-specs and all-in-black type? Possibly Gok Wan?
3.The business-like, short-haired, serious
suit-and-tie? Dragon Peter Jones from the Dragon's den perhaps
4.Or maybe a different kind of man-in-jacket,
older and rounder, more
avuncular? Twitter's own national treasure Stephen Fry ?? !!!
We treat people's appearance as a
clue to their values.
Using Michael Blastland's shorthand descriptions
We expect a
'Suit', for example, to be a patriot who thinks people should stand on their
own feet. And so he is.
'Beard' supposedly dislikes corporate America and believes in more
equality. And really, are you surprised by his views?
The 'designer type' is a
cool individualist.
And 'Uncle Jacket' defends tradition.
These maybe humorous stereotypes but the fact is people do
conform roughly to them as revealed by researchers at Yale University. The
research is called the cultural cognition project.
What cultural cognition suggests
is that for examples Buyers form perceptions about the facts mostly in line with their
existing values and cultural types - of which
appearance is one part.
Do the sources of the
information I am receiving from the
sales person share my values?
Can I identify with them?
Do they reinforce my self-image?
OK then, I'll listen!!!
Why might this be so? Some of the studies relating to
risk perception suggest this line of thinking.
•
In the discipline of Neuroscience by the likes of Joseph LeDoux et.al.
they have discovered that neural pathways
ensure that humans respond initially to risky stimuli
subconsciously/instinctively, before cognition kicks in. Additionally in the
ongoing risk response that follows, the wiring and chemistry of our brain also
ensure that instinct and feelings play a significant role, sometimes the most
important role, in how we perceive and respond to danger.
Put simply, our brain is designed to subconsciously feel
first and
consciously think second, and to feel more and
think less.
• The research of Daniel Kahneman
et.al. has discovered a "mental
toolbox" of heuristics ( experience-based techniques for problem solving,
learning, and discovery) and biases we use to quickly make sense of partial
information and turn a few facts into the full picture of our judgment.
These mental shortcuts occur subconsciously,
outside (and often before) conscious reasoning. Kahnemann's research further
confirms that we are far more Homo Naturalis than Homo Rationalis.
• The Psychometric
research of Paul Slovic et.al. has revealed a palette of psychological
characteristics that make risks feel "more" frightening, or less, the
facts notwithstanding.
These 'risk perception factors'
include:
Imposed versus Voluntary
More pain and Suffering and Less Pain and Suffering
Less Benefit and More Benefit
Uncertainty and Certainty and
familiarity
• Recent research on the theory
of Cultural Cognition by Dan Kahan et.al has found that our views on risks are
shaped to agree with those we most strongly identify with, based on our group's
underlying feelings about how society should operate. We fall into four general
groups about the sort of social organisation we prefer, defined along two
axis,. We all fall somewhere along these two continua,
depending on the issue.
Hierarchists
Individualists Communitarian
Egalitarians
Individualists prefer a society
that maximizes the individual's control over his or her life.
Communitarians prefer a society in which the collective
group is mire actively engaged in making the rules and solving society's
problems ( for example Individualists deny environmental problems like climate change
because such problems require a 'we're all in this together' communal response.
Communitarians see for example climate change as a huge threat in part because it requires
a social response)
Along the other continuum, Hierarchists prefer a society
with rigid structure and class and a stable predictable status quo, while
Egalitarians prefer a society that is more flexible, that allows more social
and economic mobility, and is less constrained by 'the way it's always been'.
( for example Hierarchists deny climate change because they fear the response means shaking
up the free market-fossil fuel status quo. Shaking up the status quo is music
to the ears of Egalitarians, who are therefore more likely to believe in
climate change.)
That risk is inescapably subjective is disconcerting for
those who place their faith in the ultimate power of Cartesian thought "I
think, therefore I am"- Reason. But the robust evidence outlined above
makes clear that;
1. Risk perception is inescapably
subjective
2. No matter how well educated or informed we or the buyer maybe
may be, we will sometimes get risk wrong, producing a host of profound mistakes.
3. In the interest quality business interactions between buyers and sellers, we need a more holistic, and more realistic, approach to what risk
means. Business risk management has to recognize the risk of
misunderstandings, the risk that arises when our fears whether as Buyer or seller don't match the evidence, the
risks of The Perception Gap
Though Salespeople know that Perception is often the reality in business!
Related Links:
Professor Dan Kahan suggests related framework that was developed in part to promote effective operations of multi-national business entitities. You can find out about this work at http://www.geert-hofstede.com/
Selling to different values
http://fruitsofsuccesswithhugh.blogspot.com/2011/10/selling-to-and-with-different-buyers.html
Professor Dan Kahan suggests related framework that was developed in part to promote effective operations of multi-national business entitities. You can find out about this work at http://www.geert-hofstede.com/
Selling to different values
http://fruitsofsuccesswithhugh.blogspot.com/2011/10/selling-to-and-with-different-buyers.html
Cultural Cognition as a
Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk
Fun lecture at CRASSH , Cambridge
Uni last year about 40 minutes long Prof.Dan Kahan of Harvard Law School . Best to play in full
screen mode to see the details of his slides
Risk Perception
David Ropeik Author of
"How Risky Is It, Really?"- Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts http://www.dropeik.com/
Professor Dan Kahan of Harvard Law School and Yale asnwered some questions I had regarding use of LinkedIn and Selling and cultural cognition.
ReplyDeleteHi, Hugh.
These are interesting questions.
The constructs we use to characterize cognitive predispositions were designed very much with the formation of risk perceptions & closely related beliefs in mind; so we have not had occasion to examine what connection they might have to market behavior or attitudes.
Here are some thoughts:
1. There is a related framework that looks at how orientations very similar to the ones featured in our work influence expectations about workplace organization & management styles. They were developed in part to promote effective operations of multi-national business entitities. You can find out about this work at http://www.geert-hofstede.com/.
2. More generally, the methodological strategy behind our work involves measurement of "latent" or unobserved dispositions that one has reason to believe will influence attitudes or behaviors. As I mentioned, we designed our scales to measure dispositions that we had reason to believe influence formation of risk perceptions. It is, of course, possible that the same ones influence dispositions relevant to marketing behavior, but it seems to me that would be a fairly surprising coincidence if so. If I myself were interested in marketing behavior I think I would start by trying to assess what casual observation suggests to me are the differences in the styles, outlooks, personalities & whatnot of conspicuous examples & then try to develop a valid & reliable measurement scheme for such dispositions & test hypotheses about their impact. But the point is they would be context specific; I don't myself believe there is some illuminating master set of dispositions that apply across contexts! I'm sure you can find scales & constructs like these in the business & marketing literature, although I myself am not familiar with it. As an example, though, see Knight, G.A. Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Business Venturing 12, 213-225 (1997).
3. The dominant Mary Douglas school nowadays likely would scold me for point 2; I think they do believe group-grid is close to a theory of everything & would likely try to show that it does yield some insightful account of marketing behavior.
I don't know whether anyone of that perspective has actually addressed the topic, though. Not particulary helpful but I guess I'd recommend just google-scholar & Mary Douglas Culture Theory & see where that leads. (I have to admit that I think such a foray is likely to lead down many deadend paths; I'd mine the marketing & business field literature myself, if I were looking for empirically tested attitude, personality, or aptitude scales).
--Dan