Добавил:
Upload Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
новое 3 курс.doc
Скачиваний:
3
Добавлен:
14.11.2019
Размер:
105.47 Кб
Скачать

Do you mind babysitting my elephant? how asking a bizarre question is the best way to win people over

  • The technique is more effective that the 'foot-in-the-door' approach, according to a new study

  • An outrageous question reframes the real request to make it sound more reasonable

By David Gardner

3 September 2012

If you want to get someone to do what you want, try asking them first if they’d mind babysitting your pet elephant! 

According to a new study, the best way to win people over to your side is to start with an outrageous demand first. 

Researchers found that when a person encounters a strange request, they’re much more likely to agree to the next thing you ask for. 

The sneaky technique is a more effective version of the classic ‘foot- in-the-door’ approach, according to the study author Dariusz Dolinski, a researcher at the Warsaw School of Social Sciences and Humanities in Poland. 

But while a street beggar might ask for the time and then follow up with a request for spare change, Dolinski suggests it’s better to make the first question more bizarre or extreme.

In an office context, a boss might ask an employee to work weekends and holidays for a whole year and take a pay cut. When that request gets turned down, the manager should get better results with the follow-up asking for a report to be turned in by Friday.

The outrageous question effectively reframes the real request to make it sound much more reasonable.

Dolinski says the reason the approach is so successful is because the weird question throws off our usual refusal script.

Instead of instinctively saying no, we question why we’re being asked something so out of the ordinary and wonder whether we should have been so quick to refuse. 

When the subsequent question comes along, we’re still off balance and much more open to complying, he claims. 

To test his theory, the researcher had a colleague stop people on the way into a supermarket and say to them: ‘Excuse me, but I suffer from terrible back pain and I cannot bend down. My shoelaces are undone. Could you please be so kind as to tie them for me?’ 

Some other passers-by were given a routine marketing survey. 

Moments later, the same people were approached right at the door to the supermarket and asked by a woman if they would ‘keep an eye’ on her shopping cart full of groceries.

She explained her husband had her car keys and it was hard to push the cart around and look for him because it had a broken wheel. 

Dolinski found that people were much more likely to mind the woman's shopping cart when they had been previously asked to fulfill an unusual request — to tie someone else's shoelaces.

Expensive organic food isn't healthier and no safer than produce grown with pesticides, finds biggest study of its kind

  • Stanford University team find no evidence of added health benefits

  • Also found customers aren't always getting pesticide free produce when they buy organic

By Jenny Hope

3 September 2012

It comes at a premium price, but it seems organic food may not be worth shelling out for.

Researchers claim it is no more nutritious than food grown using pesticides and chemicals – and won’t benefit your health.

Many people pay as much as a third more for organic food in the belief that it is healthier and safer. However, Dr Dena Bravata and colleagues from Stanford University Medical Centre, California, found no clear evidence of any significant added health benefits.

They also found that there was no guarantee organic food would be pesticide-free – a key attraction for many consumers – though it did have lower levels.

Senior author Dr Bravata said: ‘There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health.’

The results, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal, come from the biggest review yet of existing studies comparing the two types of food.  However, UK campaigners said the survey was not equipped to detect real differences.

Researchers sifted through thousands of papers looking into the health benefits of organic food.

The review included studies of people with organic and conventional diets, as well as research into nutrient levels, bacterial, fungal or pesticide contamination.

Researchers found no consistent differences in the vitamin content of various foods. They also found no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk.

They were also unable to identify specific fruits and vegetables for which organic appeared consistently to be the healthier choice.

Co-researcher Crystal Smith- Spangler, who is also an instructor of medicine at Stanford’s School of Medicine, said: ‘Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious. We were a little surprised that we didn’t find that.’

The researchers did find organic produce was 30 per cent less likely to be contaminated with pesticides than conventional fruit and vegetables, but not guaranteed to be pesticide-free, while pesticide levels of all foods came within the allowable safety limits.

Two studies of children found lower levels of pesticide residues in the urine of those on organic diets, though for all those studied the levels were below allowable safety thresholds.

A spokesman for the Soil Association said: ‘This US study, of limited application in Europe, found organic food helps people avoid pesticides in their food.

‘However, the scientific methodology used for the review, while suitable for comparing trials of medicines, is not right for comparing different crops.’

Organic farming may not be better for the environment, according to Oxford University scientists.

They found organic milk, cereals, and pork all generated higher greenhouse gas emissions than their conventionally farmed counterparts. Organic beef and olives produced lower emissions.