Page 100 - The Social Animal

82 The Social Animal

broker is probably an expert, and this might influence you to buy. On
the other hand, the broker has something to gain by giving you this
tip (a commission), and this could lower her effectiveness. But sup-
pose you happened to overhear her telling her close friend that a par-
ticular stock was about to rise. Because she was obviously not trying
to influence you, you might be more readily influenced.
Several years ago, the nonhypothetical brokerage firm E. F. Hut-
ton incorporated this very scenario into a series of highly successful
television commercials. A typical commercial opened with a shot of
two people engaged in private conversation in a noisy, crowded
restaurant. When one person began to pass on some stock advice
from E. F. Hutton, a sudden hush fell over the room and everyone—
waiters, customers, busboys—strained toward the speaker to over-
hear the tip. “When E. F. Hutton talks,” said the announcer, “people
listen.”The implication is clear: Everyone in the restaurant is getting
in on advice that wasn’t intended for them, and the information is all
the more valuable as a result. When communicators are not trying to
influence us, their potential to do so is increased.
This is exactly what Elaine Walster and Leon Festinger discov-
34
ered a few years before the Hutton commercial was invented. In their
experiment, they staged a conversation between two graduate stu-
dents in which one of them expressed his expert opinion on an issue.
An undergraduate was allowed to overhear this conversation. In one
experimental condition, it was clear to the participant that the grad-
uate students were aware of his presence in the next room; therefore,
the participant knew that anything being said could conceivably be
directed at him with the intention of influencing his opinion. In the
other condition, the situation was arranged so that the participant
believed the graduate students were unaware of his presence in the
next room. In this condition, the participant’s opinion changed sig-
nificantly more in the direction of the opinion expressed by the grad-
uate students.

Attractiveness Where do these findings leave Peyton Manning
or Tiger Woods urging us to eat Wheaties or wear Nikes? Clearly,
they are trying to influence us. Moreover, they are operating in their
own self-interest; when we take a close look at the situation, it’s clear
that Wheaties and Nike are paying these athletes a huge amount of
money to hawk their products. We expect them to recommend these