字典里最有說服力的那個詞

By Ryan Gardner

The study of psychology is great for many reasons， but the main reason I became interested in it was because I wanted to learn how to become more persuasive. And the more I learn， the more Im convinced that being a master of persuasion is the closest a person can get to having a legitimate1 superpower.

An aspect I find deeply satisfying about learning something new is that moment when you have a simple realization that simultaneously unlocks a massive amount of value.2 The realization need not be so complex that can take you a lifetime to master. In some cases， all you need to remember is a single word. A word which， if used in the proper context， will make you feel like a Jedi3.

With that hyperbolic4 reader bait out of the way， the word is “because.”

The power of the word “because” was discovered in 1978 by Harvard professor Ellen Langer. If you read the entire paper， she essentially obliterates5 the notion that humans behave rationally. Through a series of experiments， she proves that whenever a“because” is appended to a request， compliance increases by over 50 percent， regardless of whether the reason is sound.6 Her most notable experiment involved skipping the line at the copy machine.7 She posed three different questions to three different control groups.

語言常常具有令人意想不到的魔力，說服力就是其中之一。如果你擅用“because”來說服別人，那么你離擁有超能力也就不遠(yuǎn)了。你若不信，不妨看看本文作者這兩個有趣的社會實驗。

* Question A： “Excuse me， I have some copies to make. May I use the Xerox machine8？” （no reason）

* Question B： “Excuse me， I have some copies to make. May I use the Xerox machine because Im in a rush？” （good reason）

* Question C： “Excuse me， I have some copies to make. May I use the Xerox machine because I need to make copies？” （bad reason）

Question A had a 60 percent compliance rate， which meant 60 percent of people let her cut in line9 for no reason. When she provided a legitimate reason， in question B， the percentage of people who let her skip the line shot up to 94 percent. Whats even more surprising， when framing the request in the language of question C， which offers a pretty inane10 reason， she got a 93 percent compliance rate！

When I first read this paper， I was so floored11 by the results that I had to try it out for myself. One lazy Sunday afternoon with nothing better to do， I went to a mall in Walnut Creek， CA to run my own experiments. I was just passing through， so I felt it was a good opportunity to try my new Jedi mind trick with limited social consequences.

And so， armed with nothing more than my complete lack of embarrassment， I set out to do two separate experiments. Due to time constraints12， I did not ask a version of question B （offering a good reason）. I only asked question A （no reason） and question C （bad reason）.

The two experiments I conducted were cutting in line at a store and getting a girls phone number. （Quick disclaimer13： I did not actually follow through after I received a positive response. I immediately explained my experiment to everyone who said yes.）

For the first experiment， I went into stores with long checkout14 lines. I did not bring a single item with me， but went to the back of the line and asked the person in front of me if I could cut. To limit the independent variables15， I tried to use the exact same words and tone every single time. My script for question A was， “Excuse me （sir/ maam）， but could I go ahead of you？” For Question C it was， “Excuse me （sir/maam）， but could I go ahead of you because Im trying to pay for this real quick？” Both questions were asked in a deadpan16 tone.

Experiment two was a little trickier17， as it involved a bit more of an extended conversation （in my limited experience， girls do not typically give out their phone number in response to a single question）. But again， to limit variability， I used the following script：

1. I only approached girls who were alone， sitting down， and gave me no prior indications of interest （i.e.， a look or a smile）.

2. My opening line was always “Excuse me， do you know where the Apple Store is？”

3. I followed that up by rambling about how my Bluetooth earbuds broke and I was looking to get the new Apple AirPods for working out.18

4. At this point， the conversation would go one of two ways： Either she was completely disinterested19 in talking to me （in which case I politely excused myself and did not ask for her phone number）， or she started talking about her own experience with Bluetooth earbuds. From there， the conversation veered20 onto other topics which were outside of my control. The most memorable conversation somehow segued from Bluetooth to the quality of weed in Colorado （I was wearing a Colorado hat）.21 Regardless， I always ended the conversation in five minutes.

5. When I was ready to move on， I asked the women who were interested： “Sorry， Ive gotta go， but you seem really interesting.” And， taking out my phone to hand it to her， “Why dont you give me your number？” （no reason）. For the women with whom I had chatted， I asked：“Sorry， Ive gotta go， but you seem really interesting.” Again， taking out my phone， “Why dont you give me your number so I can text you？” （bad reason）.

Just to reiterate， I never actually ended up taking any numbers， as tempting as it was in some cases.22 After they started to type their number， I stopped them and explained my experiment. Each woman invariably laughed at how big of a nerd I am.23

My results were remarkably similar to Ellens study！ For the linecutting experiment， I asked each question 10 times. Question A resulted in a positive response 4/10 times compared to 7/10 positive responses for question C.

For the phone number experiment， due to the somewhat lengthier nature of the interaction， I was only able to ask each question six times. Question A resulted in a positive response 1/6 times compared to 3/6 positive responses for question C！

So why does giving a reason work？ Professor Robert Cialdini （a giant in the field of persuasion） explains， “People simply like to have reasons for what they do.”

Pretty obvious when you think about it. But the strange thing， as Ellen and I empirically24 discovered， is that it hardly matters if the reason makes sense. Isnt it obvious that I have to pay for something I want to buy， and that I will use a girls phone number to text her？ Yes， but apparently， saying a reason out loud， even if its a stupid one， makes a request much more persuasive.

So， next time you ask for something， make sure to append your request with a “because.” But remember， with great power comes great responsibility. Use your new superpower wisely.

1. legitimate： 合法的，法律認(rèn)可的。

2. 學(xué)習(xí)新事物令我十分滿足的一個方面就是，在你獲得簡單領(lǐng)悟的同時也開啟了大量價值的那一刻。simultaneously：同步地，同時完成地。

3. Jedi： 絕地武士，是電影《星球大戰(zhàn)》中維護(hù)和平與正義的武士。

4. hyperbolic： 夸張的。

5. obliterate： 去除。

6. append： 附加，增補；compliance： 遵從，依從；sound： 正確合理的。

7. notable： 著名的；skip the line： 不用排隊。

8. Xerox machine： 施樂打印/復(fù)印機。

9. cut in line： 插隊。

10. inane： 空洞的，無意義的。

11. floor： 使震驚得不知所措，使啞口無言。

12. constraint： 限制。

13. disclaimer： 免責(zé)聲明。

14. checkout： （付款臺前的）結(jié)賬。

15. independent variable： 自變量。

16. deadpan： 不帶感情色彩的。

17. tricky： 復(fù)雜的，難處理的。

18. ramble： 閑聊，漫談；Bluetooth earbuds：（常用復(fù)數(shù)）藍(lán)牙耳塞；Apple AirPods： 蘋果無線耳機。

19. disinterested： 不感興趣的。

20. veer： 轉(zhuǎn)向。

21. segue： 不間斷地接下去；weed：〈口〉香煙。

22. reiterate： 重申；tempting：誘人的。

23. invariably： 不變地，慣有地；nerd： 呆子，蠢人。

24. empirically： 以經(jīng)驗（或觀察）為依據(jù)地。