"Have these people been bitten by a Zombie virus or something? How could they think that way?" Often we are baffled by the way others think which leads us to fill in the gaps and make all sorts of guesses as to why they think and act the way they do. Turns out we can be pretty bad at reading between the lines, have you ever thought you might be the zombie?
This is the last blog in the series on the psychology and science behind how teams and groups work.
You can read the full series here.
Episode 6 summary - Good empathy, bad empathy
Here are the main points of episode 6. You can read the full episode here.
Empathy directed towards a team protects and acknowledges a team’s identity and reduces threat and defensiveness.
The person receiving the empathy has to genuinely experience the empathy for it to be effective.
Displaying empathy contributes to the successful resolution of conflict and is an effective method of persuasion.
Empathic language includes using collective terms such as “we”, “I understand” and “I agree” and less use of labeling.
Treat empathy as a skill that can be developed.
Our ability to display empathy varies depending on context and how we are feeling on a particular day.
An empathy gap between an ingroup and outgroup can lead to the condoning of harm towards the outgroup.
Stories are an effective way to invoke empathy and encourage others to see the other side of an issue.
Assessing others’ motivations - why we have to understand first
We’re not great mind readers as humans, in fact we are quite poor at working out who gets along with who. An extensive study across 26 countries using political affiliation as the basis of the research, found that we have a tendency to overestimate the negative perceptions that another group has about us. We overestimate how badly the other group perceives us (“They really hate us” - when they don’t) and we also overestimate how badly our own group perceives the other group (“we really hate them” - when we don’t). And this was found to be the case in 25 of 26 countries studied (Ruggeri, 2021).
There is also a mismatch in our perceived assessment of the motivations of others. We think they are obstructing processes more than they are. When subjects were made aware of these mismatches in perception, the level of negativity towards the other group went down (Ruggeri et. al., 2021). The point of this study isn’t that people will simply get along once their erroneous perceptions of others are pointed out (“They don’t hate you as much as you think”) but that our differences are exaggerated in our heads.
These misperceptions can lead to violent consequences, if we perceive “the others” to be a threat to our way of life. In these situations where the out-group is seen as a threat we’re more likely to endorse violence against them (Obaidi, 2018). Remember this is only perception of threat and it isn’t necessarily reality, but we act on perceptions. A public figure who claims another cultural group is a threat to a particular in-group, has to accept that they are contributing to the build up of hatred and possibly violence against that cultural group.
Organisationally this leads back to perceptions of threat and competition and the damaging effects these can have on organisational performance (see episode one). But it’s a good reminder that everyone isn’t out to make our life as difficult as possible (some are perhaps, but not everyone). A major role of leaders is to correct misperceptions between teams, as this can reduce conflict and improve cooperation between teams.
In episode 6 we looked at empathy and how useful that is in gaining another person’s perspective of the topic at hand and understanding what motivates them. The same methods can be used to understand others’ morals and values. When in discussions some of the research based strategies are to ask yourself, or the group to:
Suspend judgement for a moment, stop arguing and ask questions
Quell emotions if you can, or at least make sure they are not taking over your behaviour
Be curious about why people think the way they do
Be prepared to share yourself, reciprocity is a major value across many societies, if someone gives you part of themselves, you’re expected to do the same
Use reflective listening skills to make sure you understand and that whoever you’re talking to knows you understand.
Trust that practising empathy will get you a breakthrough in the discussions, despite the ups and downs that might occur along the way.
Articulate a desirable set of values and way of working. What behaviours and attitudes help us get there?
Bringing groups together - motivational matching
One approach to influencing and persuading that has a consistent research base to it is called motivational message matching. This involves matching your message to the “goals, needs, values, motives or concerns” of the receiver of the message (Joyal-Desmarais et. al., 2022). It might be sometimes known as the ‘What’s in it for me (WIFM)’ principle but motivational matching is more than just highlighting what people will gain from something which, as it turns out, is less successful in persuasion than other forms of motivational matching.
An example comes from one study that aimed to increase volunteering amongst the participants of the study. Messages that emphasised networking opportunities were more effective for people who were motivated by relational goals, but messages that emphasised societal benefits were more effective with people who had more altruistic goals (Joyal-Desmarais et. al., 2022). To bring groups together leaders need to understand the motivations of staff and this goes back to understanding the values and goals of individuals and teams.
Corporate messages that are connected to values are more effective than those related to the demographic characteristics of the target audience. For example using someone who is ‘like’ the target audience (e.g. age, gender, culture) to deliver the message will be less effective than a message which is framed according to values, goals and needs. Messages targeting values will also be more effective than messages that highlight what staff have to gain or lose from an intervention (Joyal-Desmarais et. al., 2022).
An organisation I worked with was relaunching it’s performance management system and used a loss-gain approach. The gain was financial reward and the loss was a punitive approach such as disciplinary action or no bonus. Compliance was poor and even resulted in industrial disputes. In the next reboot two years later the approach was different with the message more focussed on performance management as a career management and development tool and a way to improve the supervisor-staff relationship. Compliance improved by 15%, disputes went down. Appealing to personal needs and the desire to do better at work was far more effective than “don’t do it or else”.
Moral reframing
Moral reframing is one form of motivational matching that is described as:
“a position an individual would not normally support is framed in a way that is consistent with that individual's moral values” (Feinberg and Willer, 2019).
Morals and values go back to our identity and when messages are presented in line with our identity we are more likely to evaluate it positively and the message will be easier to understand. It also suggests the message may be coming from an in-group member so we’re more likely to subconsciously pay attention (Feinberg and Willer, 2019).
Our identities are strongly linked to our morals and values and we hold these very strongly. It is harder to argue against a point that is consistent with our own values. Typically we argue with other groups on the basis of our own values, which is not necessarily in line with their values (Feinberg and Willer, 2015) and this can to lead to arguments that either get nowhere or damage relationships.
The researchers of moral reframing, group our morals into five categories. These are:
harm/care
fairness/reciprocity
ingroup/loyalty
authority/respect and
purity/sanctity.
To test the validity of these morals as factors influencing people’s opinions and attitudes a number of studies were used to test the changing of opinions on contentious topics. One study did this by providing a written pro-environmental message to participants to match their values. Participants from the conservative side of politics who generally weren’t supportive of pro-environmental action, were presented with the pro-environmental message that was matched with the purity/sanctity values. For example, along with the short essay, they were shown pictures which emphasised how dirty and impure environmental degradation was. These subjects who were formally anti-environment showed greater support for pro-environmental legislation than before. This approach proved more effective than framing the message with harm/care values in mind (Feinberg and Willer, 2015).
A similar process was followed by presenting an argument to research participants who were initially against maintaining the current level of military spending. Arguments that were framed using language that aligned with fairness was the most effective argument and shifted the participants towards greater support for maintaining military spending (Feinberg and Willer, 2015).
A recently published world-wide study tested the effect of various interventions on people's actions and attitudes regarding climate change (Vlasceneau, 2024). The researchers used a similar moral foundations intervention by messaging using the ingroup/loyalty and authority/respect values. This intervention increased the number of trees planted by Australians under the age of 40 by 40%, and by Gambians by 35%, but the intervention decreased the number of trees planted by wealthy Japanese participants by 24%. This shows the use of morals and values can be variable, like any intervention, and will have different impacts depending on the motivations of the person being communicated with.
In organisations this plays out in the discussions around quality and quantity (i.e producing more against a drop off in quality), or careful planning versus implementing (i.e. making sure it’s done well compared to getting started and testing it against the market). Many discussions come back to a principle or value that supports, or otherwise, a way of getting work done. Some conflicts are simply about a task and can be resolved simply but others require a deeper discussion.
Moral reframing is just another form of motivational message matching. The more we can understand and communicate to others with their underlying motivations in mind, the better the discussion will go. Not that we don’t use the WIFM principle to highlight benefits that will come from an initiative, but combining it with values will be more effective in opening up the discussion to both perspectives.
Universal morals that build cooperation
A recently published study (Alfano, 2024) established a set of universal morals across 256 societies by analysing ethnographic (observations and interviews) accounts. These morals being a “collection of cooperative rules that help humans work together”. The authors categorised the morals and simply described them as being about helping your family and group, returning favours, acting heroically, being deferential and fair and respecting property.
Values and morals don’t require a winner and loser, there’s enough ‘respect’ or ‘team work’, or whatever your values are, to go around.
If you lead a team good place to start is to work through the norms of the group. Sometimes individuals just accept group norms without really thinking about it (Bohm et al., 2018), so an exercise that allows the group to explore their values can help shift the culture of the group. This will include asking the group to justify why these norms and values are practised and important.
As discussed in episode 2, people have an inclination to drop their moral standards when defending and supporting their in-group. This is supported by brain imaging studies that show that when assessing moral stimuli in a group context, participants show less activation in brain areas associated with self reflection (Halevy, 2015). What this means that when we’re in a group the part of the brain that asks us to stop and think about what we’re doing is less active. The lesson here is when we’re defending our group it pays to stop and check if we’re letting our in-group bias get control of us.
Research consistently shows that Intergroup bias is often based on abstract views of a group that can be at odds with the reality of the situation (e.g. “That team are all over the place, couldn’t organise anything”). Knowing individuals within a team who represent an alternative view to the common perception (i.e. “Since I’ve got to know Mary I’ve learnt she really knows what she’s doing.”), can help reduce bias by obtaining a more accurate view as it gets extended out to the broader group (e.g. “Perhaps Mary’s team is more organised than I thought?”) (Bohm et. al. 2018). Seeing two people from opposing sides talking to each other shows to other group members that the two groups may have more in common than first thought (Dovidio et. al., 2017).
Summary
We tend to overestimate how much an opposing group dislikes us and how much they are trying to disrupt us. Leaders can take a role where they correct the misinformation one group has about another
Matching a message with another person’s goals, needs or values (i.e. their intrinsic motivators) is the most effective way to communicate a message. Rather than just explaining what someone will lose or gain from an initiative.
Moral reframing (framing a message on alignment with another’s moral values) have shown to be an effective way of enabling others to see the alternative side of an argument.
Understand the motivations of other individuals and teams. Ask about purpose, goals and values and if teams can’t articulate these, encourage them to discuss them and write them down.
Ask groups and individuals why they think and act the way the do and encourage the questioning of group norms.
References
Alfano, M., Cheong, M., & Curry, O. S. (2024). Moral universals: A machine-reading analysis of 256 societies. Heliyon, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25940.
Böhm, R., Rusch, H., & Baron, J. (2018). The psychology of intergroup conflict: A review of theories and measures. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 178, 947-962.
Dovidio, J. F., Love, A., Schellhaas, F. M., & Hewstone, M. (2017). Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 606-620.
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2015). From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1665-1681.
Feinberg M, Willer R. (2019) Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2019; 13:e12501. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12501
Halevy, N., Kreps, T. A., Weisel, O., & Goldenberg, A. (2015). Morality in intergroup conflict. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 10-14.
Joyal-Desmarais, K., Scharmer, A. K., Madzelan, M. K., See, J. V., Rothman, A. J., & Snyder, M. (2022). Appealing to motivation to change attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 702 experimental tests of the effects of motivational message matching on persuasion. Psychological Bulletin, 148(7-8), 465.
Obaidi, M., Thomsen, L., Bergh, R. (2018). “They Think We Are a Threat to Their Culture”: Meta-Cultural Threat Fuels Willingness and Endorsement of Extremist Violence against the Cultural Outgroup, 2018. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 12, 1-13. doi: 10.4119/UNIBI/ijcv.647
Ruggeri, K., Većkalov, B., Bojanić, L., Andersen, T. L., Ashcroft-Jones, S., Ayacaxli, N., ... & Folke, T. (2021). The general fault in our fault lines. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(10), 1369-1380.
Vlasceanu M., et al., (2024) Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries.Sci. Adv.10, eadj5778 (2024).DOI:10.1126/sciadv.adj5778
Комментарии