In a famous social psychology experiment, psychologist Elizabeth Langer and colleagues had a confederate (that is, a person working for the researchers) ask to cut in line to use a copy machine. After an introductory statement (“Excuse me, I have five pages”), the confederate asked for permission to cut the line in one of three ways.
The three different requests and their success rates were:
- Condition I: May I use the Xerox machine? 64% success rate
- Condition II: May I use the Xerox machine because I’m in a rush? 94% success rate
- Condition III: May I use the Xerox machine because I need to make copies? 93% success rate
The greater success rates in Conditions II and III are generally attributed to the fact that a reason was offered for the request. Crucially, however, the “reason” in Condition III didn’t add any relevant information—of course the confederate needed to make copies, he was asking to cut in line at a copy machine.
Langer and colleagues’ Xerox study is widely cited as a justification for why the word because is powerful in conversation. Because encourages people to think there’s an underlying reason for what you are saying, even when the reason might be circular or nonsensical, as in Condition III above.
But before we run around and start attaching because to any old excuse we can find, we need to put this study in context. Unlike Langer and colleagues’ experiment in which people were strangers, in real life we almost always know the people we are trying to persuade. Communication tricks or ruses are wildly counterproductive with people we know because we have to live with them after the fooling, and because they have multiple opportunities to figure out what we’ve done. (Tricks aren’t recommended with strangers either. People hate it when we make them feel dumb.)
So while it is certainly interesting that so many people agreed with the bogus excuse in Condition III, what’s most useful about Langer’s experiment is Condition II.
In Condition II, because is the hub that connects the conversational goal (I need to cut in line) to the why behind it (I’m in a rush). This is a very helpful template to use when we develop our conversational goals because it forces us to have a goal and reason for our goal. Herein lies the real power of because—people want to know why we are asking them to do something.
Assume that you have a coworker who ignores your emails, causing you delays at work. Your goal is to get the colleague to respond promptly. The reason for your goal is that the delays are causing you trouble on other projects. In one statement, your goal and the reason for it are: I need you to reply more quickly to my emails because the delays are causing me trouble.
Or, let’s say that you need an extra day to submit a report. All together: Could I have an extra day for the Jones report (goal) because I ran late on the monthly inventory (reason). Or you want a coworker to take your place at a meeting: Could you attend the marketing meeting for me (goal) because I am swamped with our quarterly reconciliations (reason).
The communication lesson to take from Langer and colleagues’ experiment isn’t that because is a miracle word. The lesson is that we should go out of our way to show people the why behind our requests.
People want to know why. In goal-oriented conversations, make sure you tell them.
Originally posted on mouthpeaceconsulting.com.