PART 2: CAN I CHANGE YOUR MIND?

A neuroscience take on influencing others - Part 2

The challenges we face when trying to shift someone’s perspective, particularly when they hold an opposing view, was discussed in Part 1 of this article. We prefer to hold on to our long-held beliefs when we’re presented with another point of view, even in the face of highly credible but opposing evidence. As the brain favours order and safety, new information is often filtered out.

We also looked at social threats and how they impact on our capacity to think differently. A great example of this is the current hyper-safe environment most humans on the planet are living through right now, with COVID19.

If we take a look through the lens of David Rock's SCARF model (Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness and Fairness); the panic buying that ensued in supermarkets due to uncertainty about the future is based on a threat response. People having limited control over outcomes thereby reducing their autonomy is creating heightened stress, division and even civil unrest in the community. This then compromises our sense of fairness and we see some people acting out.

Now that we’ve understood how the environment can be a ‘barrier’ to thinking differently, we’ll look at this on the flip-side: how we can help support others by building a ‘bridge’ to enable them to develop new or different thinking.

The social domains in SCARF can also activate the brains ‘reward circuitry’. For example, an increase in fairness activates connections in the brain similar to the ones for receiving a monetary reward. The same can be said in relation to an increase in status or certainty which can generate a burst of dopamine and leave us feeling slightly elated. Our field of view broadens and motivation increases.

What does all this have to do with influencing a change in perspective? Put simply; if we’re not considering the sensitivities to these social threats, and leveraging the reward response in the brain - we miss the opportunity to influence others. With that in mind, here are five practical tips to consider:

1.Provide psychological safety:

Thinking differently requires new neural connections to be established. However, this can’t happen unless a person feels comfortable and safe. The SCARF domains give us clues about how to avoid a ‘threat’ response and consider how we might tap into that 'reward' response. Ask yourself the following and take note of these ideas, and you may have some of your own:

• Are there opportunities to make the person feel more valued, acknowledged and included (Status)?

• Could you explain/expand more on what the topic is about, provide context from your perspective ( Certainty)?

• Ensure there is a sense of control. Simple verbal cues like ‘is this making sense/sounding ok?’ can help create a subtle sense of control (Autonomy).

• Has trust already been established or is there an opportunity to build more? Sharing more about yourself and inviting some connection is also helpful (Relatedness).

• Think about whether the topic is likely to trigger a sense of unfairness as this is often related to why strongly held beliefs are deeply rooted (Fairness). If so, could this be validated with empathy, deep listening and understanding?

2. Limit distraction and consider energy levels

Making new brain connections requires space for the working memory. The imposing world of devices and technology have created acceptable but unhelpful norms. The idea of multitasking was once considered a valuable skill. Recent studies say it dilutes efficiency because we can’t devote our full attention to each thing. This habit is still well ingrained in many of us, filling up our working memory and eliminating any chance of creating new brain connections.

Consider energy levels and the time of the day. Late in the afternoon after a long day of meetings might not be the right time to influence. Remember, new brain connections demand energy and glucose. If these are depleted, the default hard-wired beliefs will overpower and dominate.

3. Find common ground

When the brain receives new information, it tries to link the information to already hard-wired brain connections or, it may reject or filter out the information. Julia Dhar, Champion Debater and Strategist at Boston Consulting Group says that the most persuasive people enter a debate by first, finding common ground.

Find that thing about the topic you can both agree on and spend some time discussing it. This may also increase trust and welcome an openness from the person you are trying to influence. You can then build your case from that shared perspective.

4. Appreciate the brain’s unique blue-print

It has been famously said by neuroscientists ‘The brain has more possible connections than there are known atoms in the universe’. Hundreds of billions of possible connections thereby illuminating the enormous capacity we have to expand our thinking, but also, these infinite connections make us so very unique and individual.

If we each have unique connections then it carries that influencing others may have more to do with the individual than it does with us. When we try to influence others, we make the unconscious assumption that the other person’s brain makes the same connections as we do. We then try to influence them in a way that would convince us. Science now tells us that allowing people to think for themselves, increases commitment to action.

5. Let people think for themselves

We can encourage this by first; creating a setting that allows a ‘sense of control’ so individuals feel comfortable reaching a new perspective on their own. Next, avoid spending time discussing what is known and ‘hardwired’ such as a current problem or drama and the way it has been tackled in the past. Instead, focus on leading questions that invite the person into visioning something new, this naturally forges new connections. An example might be: “What challenges do you think the GM is facing right now?” This invites the person to re-frame the situation from another perspective and takes them out of their rhetorical thinking and into new brain territory. New connections are formed and the brain literally changes.

A coaching skill I learnt through the Neuroleadership Institute, was that the most powerful way to support someone with new insight was by inviting them to answer some of these open-ended visioning based questions. It’s all too easy for us to revert to the usual responses to a known problem, because that all comes from our hardwiring. Inviting and challenging them to formulate something new in their own mind, that makes sense to them, and that creates their own ‘aha’ moment, is powerful and much more likely to be sustained.

Love and kindness trumps persuasion and coercion

Neuroscience research is literally shaping how we understand ourselves and each other. The great news is that the brain isn’t so mysterious after all. Science has illuminated some key barriers and bridges to building new connections. We can leverage these and create the best environment to support ourselves and others.

What’s most surprising and heartening is that being more loving, kind, respectful, fostering trust and fairness is much more powerful than having a compelling argument. However, this implies that we also have to be willing to be open and supportive even in the face of opposing viewpoints.

If you think of a time that you were influenced by someone else, you will most likely say that person was someone you could trust, who didn’t judge you and allowed you to be your best self.

Thanks for taking the time to read. Please share and comment if this article resonated for you.

David Rock (2006). Quiet Leadership. New York: Harper Business. P1-27.

Julia Dahr. (2018). How to disagree productively and find common ground. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phgjouv0BUA. Last accessed 23 August 2020.

David Rock. (2008). SCARF: a brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others. Neuroleadership Journal. 1 (1), 1-10.

David Rock, Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D. . (2006). A Brain-Based Approach to Coaching . International Journal of Coaching in Organizations, 2006. 1 (1), 1-13.