The statement, spoken brazenly by a work colleague, momentarily floored me. I thought deception and lying were the same thing. A little bit of research suggests there may be a difference.

In ‘Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics’, the author claims there are three different kinds of deception: lying, spinning, and concealment.

Lying is when a person makes a statement he knows to be false in order to deceive the target audience. “Lying can involve making up facts that one knows to be false or denying facts that one knows to be true.”  In addition, a person is lying when he uses true facts to make the case that something is true which he knows is not true.

On the other hand, spinning is when a person emphasizes certain facts to make a point, while, at the same time, avoiding inconvenient facts that detract from the point. “Spinning is all about interpreting the known facts in a way that allows the spinner to tell a favorable story.”

Finally, concealment happens when a person doesn’t reveal information that would weaken the point he is trying to make. That person is hiding the truth.

As a society, we view each of these deceptions differently.  The basic tenets of many cultures include the commandment “Thou shalt not lie.” On the other hand, concealment is discouraged but viewed as less troubling than lying; it is designated as the sin of omission.  Of the three types of deception, only spinning seems to be permitted by society.  According to popular wisdom, traditional marketers and politicians base their careers on spinning.

Follow me on twitter (@jbecher) – no lying, no spinning, and no concealment.

The most fascinating book I’ve read in a long time, ‘But Wait… There’s More,’ explains the science behind infomercials. Virtually every element of an infomercial is based on scientific research and designed to manipulate you into taking action. For example, infomercials have a higher return on investment when they air late at night, not just because airtime is less expensive, but because

viewers defenses started to topple as they grew sleepy. When the [surrounding] programming was lousy, many more people purchased products.

Ron Popeil, often described as the father of the infomercial, popularized the countdown technique, in which he warned people he only had a certain number of units (“supplies are limited!”) and lowered the quantity displayed as the end of the pitch neared. Before time ran out, he stopped selling the last few items and switched to a new product. Frustrated buyers would be less likely to let future offers get away.

The more complicated the pricing scheme, the better. The “but wait, there’s more!” makes it harder to judge the value of the offer and the preponderance of add-on freebies creates the appearance of a good deal.  Shipping and handling fees are almost always concealed until after the purchase decision has been made. Once you’ve made the emotional decision to purchase the ab roller to improve your health, you are unlikely to hang up just because you have to spend a few more dollars.

And, of course, words matter (my mantra!). The pitches always say “when you call,” not “if you call” which subtly encourages you to do it. The host typically asks the viewers to “tell a friend” about the incredible offer so they feel indebted for his act of generosity and reciprocate by making a purchase.  And of course, the classic “if the lines are busy, please call back” creates a sense of panic in viewers that they may miss out on the deal that everyone else is getting.

The ‘But Wait… There’s More’ book also settled a multi-decade mystery for me. Why do commercials show knives cutting through such odd objects? Shoes, wood, and even a coin.  I’ve never understood the psychology of that display. The answer is distressingly simple: if the knife can cut through a cement block, it clearly can stand up to whatever task you have for it in your own kitchen.  This raises the perceived value in your mind, allowing the manufacturer to charge more.

Please tell a friend this post will be available for free for the next 7 days.  But wait, there’s more: if you follow me on twitter (@jbecher), I’ll throw in a subscription to this blog.

Neither of these ideas is necessarily true in sports or in business.  In a book titled ‘There Is an I in Team’, Cambridge Business School Professor Mark de Rond explores a variety of research studies and comes to the conclusion that a focus on interpersonal harmony can actually hurt team performance.  Talented team members self-censor their contributions to keep the peace. In fact, the book quotes a Harvard study which found that “grumpy orchestras played […] better than orchestras in which all the musicians were quite happy”.

The book examines why it’s so hard to get teams to realize their potential and how to enable individuals to work more effectively on teams. Here’s Prof de Rond summarizing his findings:

According to another Harvard study cited in the book, creating a team of overachievers is not necessarily the best way to maximize performance.  The study of sell-side equity analysts found overall performance started to suffer when the percentage of stars rose above a certain level. “Don’t overspend to recruit high-status employees,” concludes this research; “stars work best in a supportive network of competent performers.”

All of this reminds me that comparisons between sports and businesses can be tricky.  I’m sure it’s difficult for sports managers to figure out the optimal mix of stars and team players but at least the goals are clear and the team members’ results are easy to measure. In business, the goals are many and individual contribution tough to prove.

Whether you believe in stars or teams, my advice is to pay attention to the outcomes. As Michael Jordan famously once said, there may be no letter ‘i’ in the word team but there is an ‘i’ in win.

The answer might surprise you, as it’s not saving the environment or saving money. People are more likely to reuse their hotel towels if they are told that everyone else is doing it.

This variant of the ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ effect seems hard to believe but has been confirmed in a variety of scientific studies.  For example, researchers asked nearly 1000 Californians to predict which of four messages would be most successful at persuading them to conserve energy:

1. conserving energy helps the environment
2. conserving energy protects future societies
3. conserving energy saves you money;
4. many of your neighbors are already conserving energy.

Not surprisingly, respondents rated the fourth option as least likely to influence their behavior. However, in practice, the researchers found this was actually the most effective in changing behavior; nearly twice as strong as a predictor of energy conservation as any other message.

Britain’s officials improved their tax collection rate 50% by following a similar approach.  Rather than sending threatening letters to people who didn’t pay their taxes on time, they appealed to their civic duty and pointed out the majority of their neighbors had already paid. By doing so, they collected £5.6 Billion ($8.6 B) more revenue than they had the previous year.

The desire to fit in is so innate that we do not recognize it influences our behavior. In a frequently-cited study, scientists showed they could influence NYC subway commuters to increase their donations to street musicians by 8 times, simply by having other people visibly donate. In other words, seeing their ‘neighbors’ donate caused commuters to donate more. Study participants who were interviewed afterwards failed to recognize they were influenced by others.  Instead, they claimed “I liked the song he was playing”; “I’m a generous person”; and “I felt sorry for the guy.”

Of course, marketers have long used peer pressure as a way of creating more interest in a product. Famously, infomercial writer Colleen Szot changed the traditional line of “Operators are standing by” to “If operators are busy, please call again”.  The suggestion you might miss out on a product that all of your neighbors were buying created a stronger call-to-action.

Given all of this research, it’s not surprising that hotels are turning to the same technique to get us to reuse towels and sheets. And it’s working.

By the way, 75% of your neighbors who read this blog tweeted it or emailed it to a friend.

I was inspired to learn more by Janine Benyus’ ‘The Promise of Biomimicry’ TED talk.

Since watching that talk, I have read about dozens of biomimicry examples, including:

• the Shinkansen bullet train that emulates the kingfisher’s beak so it travels more quietly at very high speeds (LINK),
• wind turbines that are more efficient because they mimic whale fins (LINK),
• self-healing plastics that fix themselves by creating a ‘scab’ much like humans do when they get a cut (LINK), and
• high-rise buildings that cool and heat themselves by imitating termite mounds (LINK).

I have been most fascinated by the use of biomimicry in medicine. For example, while researching alternatives to toxic paints that discourage the growth of barnacles on ship hulls, University of Florida scientists noticed that Galapagos sharks do not suffer from this problem. Further investigation proved a microscopic pattern on the sharks’ scales make them naturally resistant to bacteria.

When this pattern is commercially replicated onto surface coverings for hospital countertops and bathroom doors, bacteria growth is reduced by a staggering 80%. This approach now seems like the most promising way to stem the tide of drug-resistant bacteria MRSA and C-diff, the so-called superbugs that cause difficult-to-treat infections in hospitals.

By some accounts, MRSA and C-diff kill more than 30,000 people per year in the U.S. Despite tens of millions of dollars of drug research, the solution may lie in mimicking the scales of a shark.

Follow me on twitter (@jbecher)

In the experiment, 40 subjects were asked to describe a set of ambiguous photos and then returned three days later to take a personality test. Participants who were graded as introverts had more mentions of numbers, used more definite articles (i.e. “a”, “the”), and made more distinctions in their speech (i.e. use of words like “but” and “except”).  On the other hand, extroverts used more colorful adjectives and described objects/events that were not visible in the photos. When asked, the extroverts admitted to engaging in interpretation.

These results may not be surprising since previous research has shown that introverts behave more cautiously due to fear of punishment. Extroverts tend to be more thrill seekers, and therefore may be more expansive in their word choices.  As one article summarized, “introverts tell it like it is; extroverts tell it like it might be.”

It’s an intriguing theory but I wonder if there are flaws in the study.  Using only 40 subjects from the same company may not be a representative sample.  In addition, the authors did not consider other personality factors that might affect language use. This could be a situation of correlation but not cause.

I’ve read the study a few times but there aren’t enough details for me to decide for myself.  The author must be an extrovert.

A detailed analysis of more than 22K subjects in 42 separate psychology studies demonstrates this startling result. The simple act of telling people they don’t have to do something makes it much more likely they will. In the studies, subjects donated more money to charity, agreed more readily to participate in a survey, and gave more to someone asking for a bus fare home.

This ‘But You Are Free‘ effect is based on the fact humans become more closed-minded when their choices are reduced by others. Explicitly giving people the right to say no reaffirms our freedom to choose. In psychological terms, the appearance of choice increases compliance to a request.

The exact phrase used is not critical; “but obviously do not feel obliged” works just as well as “but you are free.”  While significantly stronger when done in person, this effect even works in print or in email.  As a result, marketers should consider including these phrases in the call-to-action portions of campaigns.

You should follow me on twitter (@jbecher) but you are free not to.

If you’re like most people, you probably didn’t know the answers are White Castle and Diners’ Club. While both companies still exist, they now have relatively small share in what has turned out to be very large markets.

In an earlier post, I argued the benefits of the so-called first mover advantage are exaggerated:

While being first in category helps, it doesn’t guarantee success. Atari was the first video game, Visicalc the first desktop spreadsheet, and Mosaic the first Internet browser.  None are leaders in their categories.  This is not just a technology phenomenon. Gablinger was the first low-calorie beer but lost the market to Miller Lite.

In a book called Copycats, Professor Oded Shenkar takes an even more extreme position: first movers have an inherent disadvantage because they have to pave the way for something new.  It’s faster, less risky, and more profitable to imitate.  For example, Diners’ Club had to invest considerable time and money convincing consumers to use a plastic card instead of cash.  Furthermore, they had to convince merchants to accept these cards and pay a transaction fee.  Visa and MasterCard, both of which came later, didn’t have these obstacles.

This idea is not necessarily new. As far back as 1966 noted economist Theodore Levitt claimed in HBR:

Imitation is not only more abundant than innovation, but actually a more prevalent road to business growth and profits.

Levitt uses IBM (computers), Texas Instruments (transistors), Holiday Inns (motels) and RCA (television) as examples of companies that were successful based on imitation, rather than innovation.

Perhaps, as Shakespeare said, there is nothing new under the sun. Certainly, imitation is more prevalent than innovation and, done well, can be a successful tactic.

But I, for one, bet on a core of innovation. And I think you should imitate that.

I’ve been meaning to renew my annual practice of blogging about LSSU‘s list of banished words but I guess I kicked the can down the road. Since I’m passionate about the subject, I doubled down on a recent flight.  Fueled by boneless wings (my Superfood of choice), I created this post.

The gurus of banishment came up with the following list for 2013:

• Fiscal cliff
• Kick the can down the road
• Double down
• Job creators
• Passionate
• YOLO ”You only live once”
• Spoiler alert
• Bucket list
• Trending
• Superfood
• Boneless wings
• Guru

Banishing these words from your vocabulary should be on your bucket list.  They are a waste of effort and, after all, you (SPOILER ALERT) only live once.

In an experiment popularized by the book of the same name, volunteers were told to keep track of how many times a basketball was passed between players. While the ball was being tossed, someone in a gorilla suit walked between them in plain view. Very few people noticed the gorilla because they were so focused on counting the passes.

The invisible gorilla study is the most famous example of a phenomenom called “inattentional blindness.” When we pay close attention to one thing, we often fail to notice other things – even if they are obvious. The authors of the book modified the original video to reinforce the point.  Watch the updated video to see if you notice anything unusual:

If you’re like most people – including me – you didn’t notice the person leaving the game or the background curtains change color.  You had inattentional blindness.

One thing has always bothered me about the gorilla experiment. Counting basketball passes is not a real-life task and the participants have no training in it. It’s possible they are easily fooled or just lazy. Would the same thing happen to experts?

A recent study from Brigham and Women’s Hospital confirms experts suffer from inattentional blindness and raises some uncomfortable questions in the process.  The scientists asked experienced radiologists to identify white nodules within five CT scans made up of hundreds of images of lung tissue – a process used to identify potential lung cancer.  In one of the scans, the scientists inserted an image of a gorilla almost 50 times the size of a nodule.

Despite its relatively large size and its incongruous presence in the CT scans, only four of the 24 radiologists noticed the gorilla. It’s not that it was difficult to see; eye-tracking data showed clearly that the radiologists looked right at it. And when later told to look for a gorilla, nearly everyone found it.

The scientists repeated the experiment on untrained volunteers and none noticed the gorilla.  Not surprisingly, the radiologists were also much better at spotting the warning signs of lung cancer.

The confirmation that expert observers suffer from inattentional blindness raises some troubling questions. By training radiologists to identify white nodules, are they more likely to miss other life-threatening anomalies?  Could the same issues pertain to other expert observers like MRI technicians, air traffic controllers, and police officers?

That’s one scary gorilla.