Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

Wikipedia Donation Blunder

Have a look at the below image (click to enlarge).  It is a Wikipedia Donation request.  As a student of influence what do you think they could have done differently to enhance the donations they received? Note the yellow highlighting on the text is Wikipedia’s. Wikipedia Donation  Source page: https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:FundraiserLandingPage&country=AU&uselang=en&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_source=donate&utm_campaign=C13_en.wikipedia.org
Some Great Comment Below to challenge we set!
Here are my thoughts!

Text:

What Wikipedia have done in the text is anchor readers to the average amount of $15 and then in an attempt to show how just a little bit will help have drawn reader’s attention to the amount of $3.  Therefore those who would have given more have become subjected to the sticky middle of Consensus (remember those who used less energy and when told the average amount they relaxed their good deeds and fell back to the average). Wikipedia run the risk of taking the larger donations and bringing them back toward the average and even worse to the $3 amount because that is all they need – irrational because they would love more – but as Dan Ariely has shown us people are far from rational.

Some amended text could have made a statement about Wikipedia’s independence and they will never run ads.  Mention they do not take Government funds and survive on donations made by readers just like you.  They could have said if everyone reading this request right now was to make some form of donation (not mentioning the $3) they could raise sufficient money in 1 hour to keep Wikipedia available and ad-free for another.  Then if they listed the donation amounts starting at $100 they would increase the amount people donate using what we know of Contrast and Wikipedia knowing the average is $15.

By starting at $3 they are more likely to get less because of the ordering, anchoring people low and the framing of the request through the text suggests $3 is enough.

So our advice to Wikipedia – flip the order in the donation panel – starting at $100.  In the text remove the amounts and focus the message on Social Proof – where other readers just like you are making donations to keep us ad free.

Finally, Jeremy’s comment below is perfect.  Wikipedia has given so much to the world, mention that for years they have given the framework, kept it one place on the internet that is ad free and now this is the reader’s chance to help keep this valuable resource available for everyone for years to come.

Great work Wikipedia (and for our community I have shared this post with them).

 

The post Wikipedia Donation Blunder appeared first on Social Influence Consulting Group.

Deception Detection Debunked

dreamstimefree_23862612-200x300

Courtesy DreamsTime

Evaluating Truthfulness is nothing new, but new technology and training programs based on validated scientific studies have sparked new interest in this field of study.  Pursuit Magazine goes in depth about about behavioral science’s perceptive on how to conduct successful interviews.

Deception detection is not as simple as many people, who are often times untrained, believe or want to believe. Experts agree that it is a complex assessment and requires years of training to be not only good at detecting deception but also accurate.

Individuals such as Joe Navarro and Mark Frank often revisit training techniques or strategies (either via research for a book or in teaching proven techniques to others) to stay on the top of their skill of evaluating truthfulness.

Pursuit Magazine points out that ‘despite what popular books on nonverbal behavior may say, there’s no scientific evidence that crossed arms or legs indicate a non-receptive person, or that deceivers touch their noses, avert their eyes, or cover their mouths.  Unfortunately, deception detection isn’t so simple, say behavioral scientists who actually study communication and deceit using scientific methods. Spotting a lie, it seems, is an inexact science.’

Pursuit interviewed Humintell’s Director Dr. David Matsumoto for this article and he commented, “a problem with academic research on the topic: Many experiments are based on low-stakes lies. In the real world, lies that concern investigators or potential employers are usually high stakes—in other words, liars in the interrogation room have a lot more to lose than study participants.“

According to Caroline Keating, good liars are ultimately good actors. Her advice on how to lie convincingly is to “rehearse” in order to reduce anxiety.  “Good lying, like good acting, is an art that requires a plausible story, well-practiced.“

The article also pointed out that Matsumoto has been at the forefront of academic scholarship on nonverbal behavior and cross-cultural psychology.  When asked what actions investigators can take to improve their sensitivity to deception, Matsumoto said:

“Get trained on the VALIDATED indicators of veracity and deception, both verbal and nonverbal.”
“Learn to strategize their interviewing techniques to maximize the potential for them to receive CLEAR verbal and nonverbal signals to interpret.”

To learn more about proven, effective techniques used to catch liars in high-stakes situations as well as some history and experts in the field of nonverbal behavior read the entire article.