Think of a number from 2 to 10.
Multiply your number by 9.
Add the two numbers of your total together.
Take 5 away from your answer.
Now, match your number to a letter of the alphabet.
For example, if your answer is 1, it equals A; if it’s 2, it equals B; if it’s 3, it equals C; if it’s 4, it equals D and so on.
Think of a country in Europe beginning with your letter.
With the second letter of your country, think of an animal that begins with it. An animal, not a bird or a fish.
Now think of the colour of your animal.
Was your animal…
A grey elephant in Denmark?
---
Welcome to semantic priming.
What we think next is heavily influenced by what was activated beforehand.
- In this example, asking for a country in Europe primes you to think about familiar European countries. Asking for an animal primes you to run through a list of animals that begin with E.
Availability bias is playing a role here, too, because whatever is most familiar will likely form your answer.
But perhaps the hidden gem in this exercise is something we overlook.
Constraint Architecture.
- While you had a sense of free will in the choices you were making, the mathematical scenarios were designed to narrow your answers to the number 4.
- Same with focussing on European countries and animals rather than fish or birds.
The exercise preserves your sense of autonomy while guiding you to the desired outcome.
So, what does this mean for you at work?
Let’s say you’re dealing with a colleague who is notoriously difficult to pin down on deadlines.
You could ask “when can you get this to me?”, but you are better to ask “I need this for Thursday’s client meeting. Is Wednesday morning or afternoon more realistic for you?”
In a budget discussion, open with a success so your stakeholders feel positive about investments paying off. Then mention the problem that’s playing on their mind (or should be) – like a competitor stealing share or falling behind AI adoption – before offering one or two solutions (constraining their choice).
The key lesson from the exercise is this: You cannot NOT influence.
Whenever you are communicating, it’s not a question of whether you are influencing, it’s a question of how well you are influencing – and for whose benefit.
🌟 If you found this interesting, let me know! Buy me a virtual coffee ☕ or forward this email ↗️ to someone who also might like it. Your support means I can keep sharing ideas about behavioural science for free.
💪 Find out where your team can do better (influencing diagnostic)
📈 Take your team to the next level of influence (team development)
🧠 Learn the science of Influencing Action (online course)
Hey, are we connected yet?
