In the video below Dr. Matsumoto explains the structure of traits- dispositions that we have to act or behave in a certain way.
Studies that involve analyzing traits, especially across cultures, have come to find that there seems to be a universal structure of traits. That is, people all around the world have basic traits that are consistent regardless of the culture they are from, such as conscientiousness, openness, agreeableness, extroversion, and neuroticism.
Click here to view the embedded video.
These “Big Five Traits”, as psychology has coined them, have been found in every culture that has been studied (this is not to say that different cultures do not display any other traits).
“There is a lot of evidence that suggests that there is a biological component to traits [as well as a cultural one],“ purported Dr. Matsumoto.
The college football season is now behind us and the last national champion of the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) era has been crowned. Congratulations to the Florida State Seminoles. While the BCS format was better than relying on multiple human polls (AP, UPI, coaches, etc.) each crowning it’s own national champion, the BCS was not without controversy. Continual controversy about which teams were the top two at year-end is a big reason fans are eagerly awaiting next season because the national champion will be determined in a four-team playoff system.While a playoff might be better than the current format, you can imagine the 5th, 6th and perhaps 7th teams will all believe they have a strong case for being one of the top four. Perhaps the controversy will only expand and maybe the additional intrigue will make the season even more exciting.What’s interesting about fans is their fanaticism. If you watch a game with diehard fans from opposing teams, a game where you have no stake in the outcome, you’ll see and hear interesting things.Each fan will believe the referees are against their team and favoring the opposing team. They’ll be quick to point out every infraction the referees missed that would have benefitted their team and they’ll argue most of the calls made against their team. Each fan will also think the television commentators are pulling for the other team and you might even hear them say ESPN or other media outlets are against their team. It’s almost an “us against the world” mentality. Fans are also an interesting bunch when it comes to admitting defeat or when another team might just be better. This came to light more than a month ago when my favorite college team (not my alma mater) – The Ohio State Buckeyes – lost their conference championship game. After 24 straight wins, that one loss dashed their hopes of playing for the national championship. A relative who is a big Michigan Wolverines (OSU’s big rival) fan took particular joy in telling me how Ohio State just can’t run with “the big dogs.” It didn’t matter to him that Ohio State had beaten his team 10 of 12 years, won the Big 10 championship six years in a row during one recent stretch, had won 24 straight games, made more BSC bowl game appearances than any other team, won as many BSC bowl games as any other team, played in three national championships and won the big game once. Pretty compelling resume for someone to conclude Ohio State has been much better than Michigan for the past 10-12 years. If it sounds like I’m bragging, I am a bit, but truthfully it was to point out how irrational fans can be. Under no circumstance would my relative ever admit the Buckeyes are better than the Wolverines, even over the past dozen years despite the clear evidence. Why do we irrationally hold on to certain beliefs in spite of the evidence against us, and continue to justify our beliefs? I believe it has to do with the principle of consistency. This principle of influence alerts us to the reality that people feel internal psychological pressure and external social pressure to remain consistent with what they’ve said, done or believed in the past.In his book Influence Science and Practice, Robert Cialdini shares a story about people going to a transcendental meditation workshop that promoted flying and walking through walls among other things. Despite the clear evidence against these practices people desperate for change went to the introductory session then justified their investment of time and money.It’s psychologically hard on us to admit that perhaps we were wrong about something and to stop justifying it. We see this phenomenon in more than sports. Take politics for example. We were led to believe if Obama was re-elected over Romney that our economy would suffer immensely. A gauge that’s often used to see how the economy is doing is the Dow Jones Industrial average. The Dow was around 13,000 before the election and despite a 300-point drop in the days immediately after the election it now hovers at record levels between 16,400 and 16,500. Democrats will say it is evidence their policies work while Republicans will give reasons for the rise other than government policy. Had the scenario been reversed and it was Romney that was elected, Republicans would gloat and Democrats would say the Dow increase is due to unethical business practices that really hurt most Americans. One thing is for sure; neither side would ever concede and say, “Perhaps we were wrong and they were right.” They will come up with reasons to justify their position.When my team lost that conference championship, as hard as it was, I acknowledged Michigan State deserved to win. Then Michigan State showed more metal beating a very good Stanford team in The Rose Bowl. Meanwhile my team was again outplayed in The Orange Bowl and lost, despite having opportunities to win. Ohio State was very good but not one of the elite teams this year and I’m okay admitting that.So what does all this mean for you in terms of influence? The next time you get into a debate about which people have a very personal stake – sports, politics, religion, certain social issues, etc. – recognize first of all, no matter what you say or do some people will refuse to change their point of view. But at least you know that now and perhaps it will lessen your frustration. If you want to dislodge people from irrational consistency here are five tips that might help: Don’t allow your emotions to get the best of you.Don’t argue your point because that will cause defensiveness.Ask questions that might get the other person to acknowledge small points where you might be correct.When the other person has a valid point acknowledge it.Exhibit patience because it might take several communications to gain ground. 
Brian Ahearn, CMCT® Chief Influence Officer influencePEOPLE Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.
People are fond of analogies that help them visualize concepts that are sometimes difficult to grasp. Steve Jobs was use one when he said, “Computers are like a bicycle for our minds.” Another common analogy is people describing the human brain as a computer. One analogy that’s kicked around quite a bit in politics is this, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” That’s easy to picture. After all, when the tide rolls in all boats sit higher relative to the docks they’re tied to or some other stationary object. Politicians like to use the phrase when it comes to the economy. If more tax cuts are given to the wealthiest people they’ll spend their extra money creating jobs or buying more stuff. Either way, more goods are sold which means more people are employed to produce and sell those goods. Everyone is better off; all boats have been lifted.But there’s a problem. The analogies we use are just that – analogies. They’re merely comparisons to help us understand but they’re not the actual thing. In one sense they’re like a map. A map can be a helpful tool but it’s still a map and not the actual terrain. It can never fully represent the real thing and the more diverse the terrain is, the less a map can fully represent it.People who use the rising tide analogy want us to believe everyone is better off when the wealthiest among us do better. There’s some truth to that however, it ignores a basic tenant of behavioral economics – how we make comparisons and decisions.You see, most people don’t simply look a their situation relative to how they were at some point in the past. Rather, we have a habit of comparing ourselves to others in the moment.We see this publicly played out in sports all the time. Let’s say an athlete has a great year and gets a huge raise because he’s considered among the best in his sport. He’s happy! But the moment he learns someone else just got more money, discontentment sets in. No longer does he care that he’s making significantly more than he used to. Instead he feels slighted compared to the other athlete he just learned about.The same can be said of the average American. While many may be a little better off than they were five or ten years ago based solely on their income they don’t necessarily see it that way. That’s probably because they’re not simply comparing their take home pay to prior paychecks. In fact, if inflation, medical bills or other things that occur in life have eaten away at their take home pay, people tend to feel they’re working harder than ever but have little or nothing to show for it.Another comparison point comes when people hear about senior executive compensation at large corporations. For example, did you know back in 2005 the average CEO made 525 times more than the typical American worker made? That pay differential took a significant dip due to the recession but it’s trending back up and was 369 times more in 2012.Can you see why someone might be disgruntled? Most people have an innate sense of fairness, and of right and wrong, and when that gets violated many people would rather get nothing just to see the other person get nothing too. It doesn’t make economic sense because economically a little bit of something is better than a lot of nothing. Several years ago I conducted survey with my blog readers. One question read: You’re playing a game and your partner was given $100 to share with you any way they see fit. The two of you get to keep the $100 but only if you think you’ve been treated fairly. What’s the least amount you would want in order to not reject the deal?Just over two thirds of the respondents said sharing $50 of the $100 would be fair. The average for all responses was $41.88. Even though they’d have been better off even just getting a dollar, the vast majority would reject the deal if the split wasn’t about equal. It doesn’t make sense economically because if you were given $30, $20, even $1 that’s better than nothing, and more than you started with. But that’s not how most people typical think and behave. When people don’t feel they’re being treated fairly they take action…even if those same actions might hurt themselves in the end.The tide may be rising but all the people in the little boats stare at the luxury liners and perceive those ships are getting the bigger lift and they don’t like it. My fear is this; if our government in conjunction with big business doesn’t come up with ways to make the average workers feel like they’re being compensated in a more equitable way, the consequences could be worse for all of us in the long run. Whether or not you agree with the “We are the 99%” and March on Wall Street movements, they reflect what I’m talking about here. People are unhappy and they’re starting to take action.A take away for those of you who aspire to be more effective persuaders would be this – whenever you use analogies to make a point, make sure the analogies are appropriate for your audience or your best laid plans could backfire on you. 
Brian Ahearn, CMCT® Chief Influence Officer influencePEOPLE Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.