Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Power DynamicsCase StudiesWhat's in it for them guys, WIIFT …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

What's in it for them guys, WIIFT, never forget it!

#31 · April 7, 2021, 3:49 pm

Love these exercises :).

Here's my guess:

Lucio, can you (the "can you" empowers you to be able to say "no" and gives you an out) do me a favor ("do me a favor" = I know you won't be getting much out of this, hence why I'm being honest about it being a favor to me) and scan the signed authorization form over to me, please ("please": can't go wrong using respectful communication with a high-quality individual—using it once at the end also avoids overdoing it)?
Reason I ask is the mandatory refurbishments will add up to over €1 million. And, these are mandatory refurbishments we don't want to deny (avoids using the inherently low-power "can't"). So, if you want to (the "if you want to" preserves your power) save money on this, that form will give us our best shot at spreading the cost over three years (avoids the "we should" to follow the assertive feedback-giving rule: give advice in close relationships and information in non-close ones).
If you could ("if you could" gives you back your freedom to avoid the task) scan that form over I'd be very grateful ("grateful" = I'd find a way to make up for this in the future). And, if you don't want to, no worries, it's up to you (a variation of the "on your honor gambit"—it empowers them to make the final call while helping you come across less desparate...which is always good for negotiations).

What do you guys think?

Lucio Buffalmano, Musicforthejuan and 4 other users have reacted to this post.

#32 · April 7, 2021, 5:17 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on April 7, 2021, 5:17 pm
Much much better, Ali!
Albeit no email can guarantee action, that increases the odds, plus does not annoy the receiver -which is a big win in itself-.
Another option was also to be very clear about the give-back, and done in a friendly manner.
Something like:
I know you're busy and a freedom-lover :), I wish I'd have that attitude and lifestyle myself, so no pressure (BOOM! Now she's using empathy well: she knows me! And she's building me up in the same sentence. Plus, now she's giving me the full credit: if I do this favor, I do it in spite of me not liking external tasks on my to-do list: she's making it explicit that it's a big ask in my world).
Happy to invite you over for dinner when you come back, maybe with Lyn, our new neighbor, she's pretty cool (she had introduced a new neighbor who seemed cool, and she might have added real value by organizing a dinner together: it's always good to have a dinner with cool people, plus making friends with your neighbors). Of course, we'll do that no matter the signed paper or not :D (so now it doesn't seem like she's playing tit for tat. Now I want to earn my "right" to sit at that dinner while being a value-giver, so I want to send that paper)
Of course, the fact that she had recently intro-ed someone was a coincidence since she had put this new neighbor in CC -I had to make the move and intro myself-.
But that was an opportunity loss to give value: instead of randomly putting people in CC, introduce them to each other. Neighbor gain from knowing each other and being friendly to each other.
And since it's so important for her to get those condominium stuff doner her way, she could make her work so much easier if she'd give value by making herself the "connector".
She's also looking for a guy BTW, and connecting people and asking them to bring along a friend for a dinner together will only bring more men in her life, increasing the odds of finding a partner.
Some other ways to make it easier
Attach the form all filled up: you need the form, then at least fill it all up except the signature. Then say "it only needs the signature"
Say "also a picture is fine": it's 2021, still scanning shit? Ask if a picture is also fine, she also has the email record of me OK-ing if someone complains. That makes my work easier
Ask if an electronic signature is OK: maybe I can sign it electronically, or with Photoshop. She desperately needs that form, she must find out
Ask me if there's "any other way she can support": that makes her communication kinder, less "dominant" -which is always annoying-, and might give her something to work on to get it done

Much much better, Ali!

Albeit no email can guarantee action, that increases the odds, plus does not annoy the receiver -which is a big win in itself-.

Another option was also to be very clear about the give-back, and done in a friendly manner.
Something like:

I know you're busy and a freedom-lover :), I wish I'd have that attitude and lifestyle myself, so no pressure (BOOM! Now she's using empathy well: she knows me! And she's building me up in the same sentence. Plus, now she's giving me the full credit: if I do this favor, I do it in spite of me not liking external tasks on my to-do list: she's making it explicit that it's a big ask in my world).
Happy to invite you over for dinner when you come back, maybe with Lyn, our new neighbor, she's pretty cool (she had introduced a new neighbor who seemed cool, and she might have added real value by organizing a dinner together: it's always good to have a dinner with cool people, plus making friends with your neighbors). Of course, we'll do that no matter the signed paper or not :D (so now it doesn't seem like she's playing tit for tat. Now I want to earn my "right" to sit at that dinner while being a value-giver, so I want to send that paper)

Of course, the fact that she had recently intro-ed someone was a coincidence since she had put this new neighbor in CC -I had to make the move and intro myself-.
But that was an opportunity loss to give value: instead of randomly putting people in CC, introduce them to each other. Neighbor gain from knowing each other and being friendly to each other.
And since it's so important for her to get those condominium stuff doner her way, she could make her work so much easier if she'd give value by making herself the "connector".
She's also looking for a guy BTW, and connecting people and asking them to bring along a friend for a dinner together will only bring more men in her life, increasing the odds of finding a partner.

Some other ways to make it easier

Attach the form all filled up: you need the form, then at least fill it all up except the signature. Then say "it only needs the signature"
Say "also a picture is fine": it's 2021, still scanning shit? Ask if a picture is also fine, she also has the email record of me OK-ing if someone complains. That makes my work easier
Ask if an electronic signature is OK: maybe I can sign it electronically, or with Photoshop. She desperately needs that form, she must find out
Ask me if there's "any other way she can support": that makes her communication kinder, less "dominant" -which is always annoying-, and might give her something to work on to get it done

Astronomically Revolutionised, Ali Scarlett and 2 other users have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#33 · April 25, 2021, 5:37 am

Quote from Ali Scarlett on April 25, 2021, 5:37 am
Here's the video I'm case studying:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QSUWw1TKkY

This video's title is "I Need Your Help" and Jeremy Fragrance, my absolute favorite fragrance expert hands down, opens his video with this:
Jeremy: "Hi guys, I need your help. I need you to share my videos and to buy my fragrances."
Now, I love the guy and I wish he didn't post this video. Here's why:
WIIFT Fail 1: No Future Value-Signaling
The title says, "I Need Your Help."
I doubt it would have hurt much to say, "I'd be very grateful for your help," to signal that he'd give back to his audience sometime in the future. In other words, whatever help he's asking for from his viewers, the people watching this aren't sure if they'll ever get anything out of this.
WIIFT Fail 2: Low-Power Approach
Usually, when someone says, "I need your help," it's because they don't have the status or power to negotiate for win-win. They're unable to make it a fair exchange. So, since they can't say, "What can we do to make this work," they say, "Help me please."
That puts Jeremy in a submissive position. His value and status lowers as he basically communicates he—and his fragrances—have no real value to offer here.
Why is that a problem?
Jeremy was in a position to start his video by saying his fragrances are the best in the world which he instead says later in the video. If he would have led with that, people would have a better understanding that it's a win for them as well to purchase his fragrances.
But, when he leads by only saying, "I need your help," it implies that there's not enough value in the fragrances on their own to warrant negotiation, hence why he must resort to begging.
WIIFT Fail 3: Makes It Difficult for the Helpers
He says, "I need you to buy my fragrances...". Plural? As in, you want us to buy more than one?
Here's the price for only one of his fragrances:
And, that's the cheapest one in his whole line.
What would have made things easier, would have been to be more specific by choosing one fragrance you want everyone who watched the video to buy and, perhaps, to offer a discount code as a further incentive.
Now, the rest of his video is OK in my opinion. I only wish his initial statement would have had a bit more power-protecting (i.e. share my videos if you enjoy them, etc.), but I wanted to do a WIIFT breakdown of the first two sentences of the video to share how a simple shift in one's choice of words can make a huge difference.
*Note: I'm open to being corrected anywhere I was wrong in this case study. I feel I have a good handle on WIIFT dynamics, but I'm still human :).

Here's the video I'm case studying:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QSUWw1TKkY

This video's title is "I Need Your Help" and Jeremy Fragrance, my absolute favorite fragrance expert hands down, opens his video with this:

Jeremy: "Hi guys, I need your help. I need you to share my videos and to buy my fragrances."

Now, I love the guy and I wish he didn't post this video. Here's why:

WIIFT Fail 1: No Future Value-Signaling

The title says, "I Need Your Help."

I doubt it would have hurt much to say, "I'd be very grateful for your help," to signal that he'd give back to his audience sometime in the future. In other words, whatever help he's asking for from his viewers, the people watching this aren't sure if they'll ever get anything out of this.

WIIFT Fail 2: Low-Power Approach

Usually, when someone says, "I need your help," it's because they don't have the status or power to negotiate for win-win. They're unable to make it a fair exchange. So, since they can't say, "What can we do to make this work," they say, "Help me please."

That puts Jeremy in a submissive position. His value and status lowers as he basically communicates he—and his fragrances—have no real value to offer here.

Why is that a problem?

Jeremy was in a position to start his video by saying his fragrances are the best in the world which he instead says later in the video. If he would have led with that, people would have a better understanding that it's a win for them as well to purchase his fragrances.

But, when he leads by only saying, "I need your help," it implies that there's not enough value in the fragrances on their own to warrant negotiation, hence why he must resort to begging.

WIIFT Fail 3: Makes It Difficult for the Helpers

He says, "I need you to buy my fragrances...". Plural? As in, you want us to buy more than one?

Here's the price for only one of his fragrances:

And, that's the cheapest one in his whole line.

What would have made things easier, would have been to be more specific by choosing one fragrance you want everyone who watched the video to buy and, perhaps, to offer a discount code as a further incentive.

Now, the rest of his video is OK in my opinion. I only wish his initial statement would have had a bit more power-protecting (i.e. share my videos if you enjoy them, etc.), but I wanted to do a WIIFT breakdown of the first two sentences of the video to share how a simple shift in one's choice of words can make a huge difference.

*Note: I'm open to being corrected anywhere I was wrong in this case study. I feel I have a good handle on WIIFT dynamics, but I'm still human :).

Lucio Buffalmano, Matthew Whitewood and Deleted user have reacted to this post.

#34 · April 25, 2021, 7:16 am

Good one Ali, yeah, the WIIFT was totally missing.

And the way he asked was also not ideal.

WHEN DIRECT REQUESTS CAN WORK

By the way, WIIFT being just one element of more general social exchange dynamics, there are also some exceptions to the rule.

So for example, if someone has built great relationships and has lots of social capital -a big if BTW, not everyone does that-, then asking for direct help can result in more forthcoming help than if he had given a WIIFT.
That's because he'd have the social capital to be on the closer, more emotional side of the relationship -something that would get lost if he gave a WIIFT, which turns the exchange into a "colder", more rational one-.

BUT... Some conditions apply.
For example, there should be a reason for asking so directly to buy your stuff.
For example, if he had said "the channel is being demonetized and the business is at risk, I need your help to keep it afloat", then it would have worked.

Obviously, as per Ali's analysis, this wasn't such an exception.

Without any reason for the ask, without giving value whatsoever neither present nor future, and by fielding his request in an overly assertive manner, he rubbed people off the wrong way.

Ali Scarlett, Matthew Whitewood and 2 other users have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#35 · April 25, 2021, 9:56 am

Thanks for sharing this case study analysis Ali and to Lucio for explaining the dynamics of direct requests.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on April 25, 2021, 7:16 am
BUT... Some conditions apply.
For example, there should be a reason for asking so directly to buy your stuff.
For example, if he had said "the channel is being demonetized and the business is at risk, I need your help to keep it afloat", then it would have worked.
Obviously, as per Ali's analysis, this wasn't such an exception.
Without any reason for the ask, without giving value whatsoever neither present nor future, and by fielding his request in an overly assertive manner, he rubbed people off the wrong way.

I see why using a direct approach would be ineffective.
I'm thinking that asking directly with a reason would work with the loyal supporters of his channel.
And those who have gained value from his videos on fragrances.
Though there are a couple of downsides as discussed.

The risks of using this approach could be

Giving the buyers a lot more power - essentially he is shifting from portraying your brand as high-demand, high-end to depending on buyers to keep you afloat
Ruins the brand - ties in with the above point. The image does not match up against his high prices as Ali pointed out.
People may start to think why others are not buying his fragrance - Are his fragrances really that good?

Making Requests in an Overly Assertive Manner

Lucio: Without any reason for the ask, without giving value whatsoever neither present nor future, and by fielding his request in an overly assertive manner, he rubbed people off the wrong way.

I see what you mean.
He comes across as entitled to the support of his subscribers.

He is telling people how they can support him through a standalone video.
He could have at least gave some value like point to his previous video on how to choose the right fragrance for your next event for example.

Transitioned, Deleted user and 2 other users have reacted to this post.

#36 · May 26, 2021, 5:08 pm

Quote from Ali Scarlett on May 26, 2021, 5:08 pm
The other day, I received a letter in the mail from Children's National Hospital. This was the letter:
"Free Gift!"
So, I'm thinking, "I donated all of the profits from my book's six-week launch to Children's National Hospital. So, they could be surprising me with a gift to encourage me to continue giving in the future. Hehe, not a bad move :)."
Of course, I open the letter. And, this is what they wrote:
They go from giving me a gift to asking me for one.
The free gift they promised turned out to be a set of stamps that they attached to the bottom of the page. Then, on the back of that same page, they wrote this:
A form asking for my credit card information as an alternative to mailing them a check.
This was a little upsetting to read because I felt like I had been manipulated into opening the letter:
Letter that implies you're getting a "free gift" on the surface and then contains a request for a gift inside (= emotional manipulation: lying)
And, I suppose if on the letter they promised a free gift and then the gift turned out to be stamps to mail them a donation, then they're really giving:
WIIFT Fail: Trojan Horse Value
If I were a complete idiot and I looked at the stamps and said, "Oh, wow, stamps for donations, how nice of them, I ought to put this gift to good use now," then it would result in a win-lose with me losing. And, that would mean that the value they gave is trojan horse value.
But, I noticed there was another letter inside. So, I figured there would be some added explanation. Maybe something had happened where they really needed some additional cash from people who've shown they are willing to donate. After all, we're living in COVID times.
The second letter said:
One note that made me feel uncomfortable was the one in handwriting, made to look like a personal note especially for me. And, according to the end of the letter, it was written by the president of the hospital herself:
D: "The enclosed address labels are a gift for you. Please use the first one when you make a donation that brings hope and healing to critically ill and injured children!"
Here's why that note made me feel uncomfortable:
"...when you make a donation..." (= power taking: "when" I make a donation? You're not even going to ask? This takes away my power and freedom to say "no".)
"The enclosed address labels are a gift for you." (= social exchange manipulation: tries to frame it as "this is a win for you because we've given you this gift, so it would be a win-win if you gave back with a donation".)
"The enclosed address labels are a gift for you." (= social credit inflating: with the personal handwriting, it frames this message—and, by extension, the gift included in the message—as an exception that was only done especially for me.)
"...Please use the first one..." (= power taking: respectful, yet still an order. And, I don't work for you.)
Deep down, I loved that they valued my donations enough to reach out to me again. Even if this was an automated message sent to everyone, I make donations because I care about living out my WHY. And, to have an organization as big as Children's National Hospital send me a letter asking for me to continue contributing makes me feel like I want to give more. It makes me feel valued.
But, I dislike the way they went about asking. And, a part of their letter that made me feel a little annoyed was:
"I'm sending you these address labels because I know you care deeply about kids..." (= self-prospecting: makes a statement that's designed to make me answer internally “yes” so that I can self-prospect and feel emotionally closer to the writer of the letter.)
"That's why I hope you'll give a special gift today." (= no "real" value given here and not enough social capital with me to ask for anything. Yet, they neglect to express that they'd be grateful—provide no social IOU—and do no future value-signaling.)
I agree with Lucio that self-prospecting is a great and ethical technique. Yet, this one made me feel a bit annoyed because it was being used to set up a win-lose situation.
I've convinced myself that I'm donating for the kids, not for the donation team. That's why I'll continue to give well into the future.
And, even so, I wish they never did this.

The other day, I received a letter in the mail from Children's National Hospital. This was the letter:

"Free Gift!"

So, I'm thinking, "I donated all of the profits from my book's six-week launch to Children's National Hospital. So, they could be surprising me with a gift to encourage me to continue giving in the future. Hehe, not a bad move :)."

Of course, I open the letter. And, this is what they wrote:

They go from giving me a gift to asking me for one.

The free gift they promised turned out to be a set of stamps that they attached to the bottom of the page. Then, on the back of that same page, they wrote this:

A form asking for my credit card information as an alternative to mailing them a check.

This was a little upsetting to read because I felt like I had been manipulated into opening the letter:

Letter that implies you're getting a "free gift" on the surface and then contains a request for a gift inside (= emotional manipulation: lying)

And, I suppose if on the letter they promised a free gift and then the gift turned out to be stamps to mail them a donation, then they're really giving:

WIIFT Fail: Trojan Horse Value

If I were a complete idiot and I looked at the stamps and said, "Oh, wow, stamps for donations, how nice of them, I ought to put this gift to good use now," then it would result in a win-lose with me losing. And, that would mean that the value they gave is trojan horse value.

But, I noticed there was another letter inside. So, I figured there would be some added explanation. Maybe something had happened where they really needed some additional cash from people who've shown they are willing to donate. After all, we're living in COVID times.

The second letter said:

One note that made me feel uncomfortable was the one in handwriting, made to look like a personal note especially for me. And, according to the end of the letter, it was written by the president of the hospital herself:

D: "The enclosed address labels are a gift for you. Please use the first one when you make a donation that brings hope and healing to critically ill and injured children!"

Here's why that note made me feel uncomfortable:

"...when you make a donation..." (= power taking: "when" I make a donation? You're not even going to ask? This takes away my power and freedom to say "no".)
"The enclosed address labels are a gift for you." (= social exchange manipulation: tries to frame it as "this is a win for you because we've given you this gift, so it would be a win-win if you gave back with a donation".)
"The enclosed address labels are a gift for you." (= social credit inflating: with the personal handwriting, it frames this message—and, by extension, the gift included in the message—as an exception that was only done especially for me.)
"...Please use the first one..." (= power taking: respectful, yet still an order. And, I don't work for you.)

Deep down, I loved that they valued my donations enough to reach out to me again. Even if this was an automated message sent to everyone, I make donations because I care about living out my WHY. And, to have an organization as big as Children's National Hospital send me a letter asking for me to continue contributing makes me feel like I want to give more. It makes me feel valued.

But, I dislike the way they went about asking. And, a part of their letter that made me feel a little annoyed was:

"I'm sending you these address labels because I know you care deeply about kids..." (= self-prospecting: makes a statement that's designed to make me answer internally “yes” so that I can self-prospect and feel emotionally closer to the writer of the letter.)
"That's why I hope you'll give a special gift today." (= no "real" value given here and not enough social capital with me to ask for anything. Yet, they neglect to express that they'd be grateful—provide no social IOU—and do no future value-signaling.)

I agree with Lucio that self-prospecting is a great and ethical technique. Yet, this one made me feel a bit annoyed because it was being used to set up a win-lose situation.

I've convinced myself that I'm donating for the kids, not for the donation team. That's why I'll continue to give well into the future.

And, even so, I wish they never did this.

Lucio Buffalmano, Matthew Whitewood and Deleted user have reacted to this post.

#37 · May 26, 2021, 5:50 pm

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on May 26, 2021, 5:50 pm
Sad to read this.
That charities often take advantage of people's good intentions.
Especially that you went the extra mile after putting all that effort into writing and publishing the book to donate to the hospital.
Painting a perception of a free gift is manipulative.
I would be greatly annoyed too.
It seems that the hospital managers are using a manipulative judge role with society on their side.
But, I dislike the way they went about asking. And, a part of their letter that made me feel a little annoyed was:
"I'm sending you these address labels because I know you care deeply about kids..." (= self-prospecting: makes a statement that's designed to make me answer internally “yes” so that I can self-prospect and feel emotionally closer to the writer of the letter.)
"That's why I hope you'll give a special gift today." (= no "real" value given here and not enough social capital with me to ask for anything. Yet, they neglect to express that they'd be grateful—provide no social IOU—and do no future value-signaling.)
This is particularly manipulative, and quite a few charities seem to employ these tactics.
It's a combination of shaming and guilt-tripping.
For shaming, they are making use of the societal frame that giving back to disadvantaged kids should be what a good person in society would do.
And if you don't "care" about the kids, you should feel a bit ashamed.
For guilt-tripping, they make use of people with good intentions and values.
They manipulate the message such that giving back would be what aligns with your own internal values.
And if you don't give back, you should feel guilty.
As you have mentioned Ali, they disregard the law of social exchange and use these manipulative techniques.
So, I'm thinking, "I donated all of the profits from my book's six-week launch to Children's National Hospital. So, they could be surprising me with a gift to encourage me to continue giving in the future. Hehe, not a bad move :)."
As you said, I also think it would be smarter of them to give an actual, free gift.
Now, their manipulative communication puts an emotional barrier for you to give them.
They could have used value-adding persuasion like gratitude and appreciation.
And who knows, a more honest, transparent hospital for children may come around.
Or maybe you will even set up your own initiative for children.
PS: I love your posts by the way.
The formatting is always top-notch with lots of details.
And I learnt to use Snipboard from you.

Sad to read this.
That charities often take advantage of people's good intentions.
Especially that you went the extra mile after putting all that effort into writing and publishing the book to donate to the hospital.

Painting a perception of a free gift is manipulative.
I would be greatly annoyed too.

It seems that the hospital managers are using a manipulative judge role with society on their side.

But, I dislike the way they went about asking. And, a part of their letter that made me feel a little annoyed was:
"I'm sending you these address labels because I know you care deeply about kids..." (= self-prospecting: makes a statement that's designed to make me answer internally “yes” so that I can self-prospect and feel emotionally closer to the writer of the letter.)
"That's why I hope you'll give a special gift today." (= no "real" value given here and not enough social capital with me to ask for anything. Yet, they neglect to express that they'd be grateful—provide no social IOU—and do no future value-signaling.)

This is particularly manipulative, and quite a few charities seem to employ these tactics.
It's a combination of shaming and guilt-tripping.

For shaming, they are making use of the societal frame that giving back to disadvantaged kids should be what a good person in society would do.
And if you don't "care" about the kids, you should feel a bit ashamed.

For guilt-tripping, they make use of people with good intentions and values.
They manipulate the message such that giving back would be what aligns with your own internal values.
And if you don't give back, you should feel guilty.

As you have mentioned Ali, they disregard the law of social exchange and use these manipulative techniques.

So, I'm thinking, "I donated all of the profits from my book's six-week launch to Children's National Hospital. So, they could be surprising me with a gift to encourage me to continue giving in the future. Hehe, not a bad move :)."

As you said, I also think it would be smarter of them to give an actual, free gift.
Now, their manipulative communication puts an emotional barrier for you to give them.
They could have used value-adding persuasion like gratitude and appreciation.

And who knows, a more honest, transparent hospital for children may come around.
Or maybe you will even set up your own initiative for children.

PS: I love your posts by the way.
The formatting is always top-notch with lots of details.
And I learnt to use Snipboard from you.

Lucio Buffalmano, Ali Scarlett and Deleted user have reacted to this post.

#38 · May 26, 2021, 6:34 pm

Quote from Ali Scarlett on May 26, 2021, 6:34 pm
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on May 26, 2021, 5:50 pm
PS: I love your posts by the way.
The formatting is always top-notch with lots of details.
And I learnt to use Snipboard from you.
Thank you, Matthew! It warms my heart to read this more than you might realize man :).
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on May 26, 2021, 5:50 pm
It seems that the hospital managers are using a manipulative judge role with society on their side.
(...)
It's a combination of shaming and guilt-tripping.
For shaming, they are making use of the societal frame that giving back to disadvantaged kids should be what a good person in society would do.
And if you don't "care" about the kids, you should feel a bit ashamed.
That's certainly possible.
As far as shaming, I think that comes down to attaching a more direct judge role to the message.
For example:
D: "That's why I hope you'll give special gift today." (poor social strategy: provides no incentive to give a special gift and, therefore, misses the WIIFT)
As opposed to:
D: "That's why I'll appreciate it if you give a special gift today." (implied negative judge role: implies that if I don't give a special gift today, instead of being appreciative she'll be disappointed—a negative judge role that might involve some shaming later)
And, on your second note:
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on May 26, 2021, 5:50 pm
(...)
For guilt-tripping, they make use of people with good intentions and values.
They manipulate the message such that giving back would be what aligns with your own internal values.
And if you don't give back, you should feel guilty.
I see what you mean here, yet, so far, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Where I think some guilt-tripping could have happened is earlier on in the letter where they mentioned a kid named Makai. They said:
D: "Makai is a happy teen who loves to swim, write and take care of his chickens. After everything he's endured, he deserves all the simple joys he can get!"
And, now, imagine if after saying that they wrote:
D: "That's why, after everything Makai's been through, I hope you'll give him a special gift today, so he can continue living his life as a happy teen."
In my opinion, there could be some slight guilt-tripping involved because:
"...so he can continue living his life as a happy teen." (= pushes one to appreciate the consequences of not giving, which could make that person feel guilty for choosing not to give)
Still, I could be wrong about both notes above, this is simply what I'm feeling in the dynamics here.
BTW, I have a note in my phone about suggesting "outspread frames" as a frame control technique. Right now, there doesn't seem to be a name for when one uses a widely held frame—such as a frame that's already held by most of society—to negotiate for what they want. So, I think it could be a great addition.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on May 26, 2021, 5:50 pm
PS: I love your posts by the way.
The formatting is always top-notch with lots of details.
And I learnt to use Snipboard from you.

Thank you, Matthew! It warms my heart to read this more than you might realize man :).

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on May 26, 2021, 5:50 pm
It seems that the hospital managers are using a manipulative judge role with society on their side.
(...)
It's a combination of shaming and guilt-tripping.
For shaming, they are making use of the societal frame that giving back to disadvantaged kids should be what a good person in society would do.
And if you don't "care" about the kids, you should feel a bit ashamed.

That's certainly possible.

As far as shaming, I think that comes down to attaching a more direct judge role to the message.

For example:

D: "That's why I hope you'll give special gift today." (poor social strategy: provides no incentive to give a special gift and, therefore, misses the WIIFT)

As opposed to:

D: "That's why I'll appreciate it if you give a special gift today." (implied negative judge role: implies that if I don't give a special gift today, instead of being appreciative she'll be disappointed—a negative judge role that might involve some shaming later)

And, on your second note:

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on May 26, 2021, 5:50 pm
(...)
For guilt-tripping, they make use of people with good intentions and values.
They manipulate the message such that giving back would be what aligns with your own internal values.
And if you don't give back, you should feel guilty.

I see what you mean here, yet, so far, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Where I think some guilt-tripping could have happened is earlier on in the letter where they mentioned a kid named Makai. They said:

D: "Makai is a happy teen who loves to swim, write and take care of his chickens. After everything he's endured, he deserves all the simple joys he can get!"

And, now, imagine if after saying that they wrote:

D: "That's why, after everything Makai's been through, I hope you'll give him a special gift today, so he can continue living his life as a happy teen."

In my opinion, there could be some slight guilt-tripping involved because:

"...so he can continue living his life as a happy teen." (= pushes one to appreciate the consequences of not giving, which could make that person feel guilty for choosing not to give)

Still, I could be wrong about both notes above, this is simply what I'm feeling in the dynamics here.

BTW, I have a note in my phone about suggesting "outspread frames" as a frame control technique. Right now, there doesn't seem to be a name for when one uses a widely held frame—such as a frame that's already held by most of society—to negotiate for what they want. So, I think it could be a great addition.

Lucio Buffalmano and Matthew Whitewood have reacted to this post.

#39 · May 26, 2021, 7:07 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on May 26, 2021, 7:07 pm
Yeah, when you get that many power moves into a single reach-out, it's bound to feel like someone is manipulating.
One might discuss whether or not it's fair to deploy that many power moves if it helps bring money for a good cause, but then we'd open a new can of worms and go very off-topic.
Personally, I feel that the bait and switch of the false gift was the biggest offender there.
Second is the sheer amount of various power moves that, as it righteously happened to Ali, can annoy the receiver.
GUILT TRIPPING AND JUDGE ROLE
On Matthew's "social shaming", judge role, and guilt-tripping, there can be some overlap among the different constructs of course.
I agree with Ali it's not a perfect case of guilt-tripping or judge role, albeit depending on how you receive, it might be both.
Agree with Ali's analysis on guilt-tripping.
For the judge role, it also depends on the receiver.
Do you want her approval? feel bad if you don't get it?
I think that for many people with a conscience, there are some judge power dynamics involved, since she's got that judging power embedded in her role. She's the one driving all the donations effort, so many people would feel like she's got the authority to judge whether others are being "giving enough", or not.
GENERAL MANIPULATION
Moving beyond the specific techniques and constructs, there is definitely some potential emotional manipulation.
Frame Spreading
On "frame spreading" that Ali mentions, I think it's a great point.
This would end up being a subset of "power borrowing", where you borrow power from various different social norms that most people either approve or, or disapprove of (can have a thread for this, or maybe into the dictionary thread).
Something similar happened to me recently where someone told that "if I wanted to help the locals, then I'd go for this option here". The implied frame there was that helping the locals was good, and if I didn't, I wasn't being good.
That was also leveraging a commonly-held belief that "helping locals" is good -and, in some cases, it can be true. Not always though, and can be abused-.
HOW ABOUT WARNING THEM?
Have you thought of sending them an email with your analysis, Ali?
Or maybe a link here?
They might not realize that they're doing something very wrong, and they might end up changing their communication style.

Yeah, when you get that many power moves into a single reach-out, it's bound to feel like someone is manipulating.

One might discuss whether or not it's fair to deploy that many power moves if it helps bring money for a good cause, but then we'd open a new can of worms and go very off-topic.

Personally, I feel that the bait and switch of the false gift was the biggest offender there.
Second is the sheer amount of various power moves that, as it righteously happened to Ali, can annoy the receiver.

GUILT TRIPPING AND JUDGE ROLE

On Matthew's "social shaming", judge role, and guilt-tripping, there can be some overlap among the different constructs of course.

I agree with Ali it's not a perfect case of guilt-tripping or judge role, albeit depending on how you receive, it might be both.
Agree with Ali's analysis on guilt-tripping.

For the judge role, it also depends on the receiver.
Do you want her approval? feel bad if you don't get it?
I think that for many people with a conscience, there are some judge power dynamics involved, since she's got that judging power embedded in her role. She's the one driving all the donations effort, so many people would feel like she's got the authority to judge whether others are being "giving enough", or not.

GENERAL MANIPULATION

Moving beyond the specific techniques and constructs, there is definitely some potential emotional manipulation.

Frame Spreading

On "frame spreading" that Ali mentions, I think it's a great point.

This would end up being a subset of "power borrowing", where you borrow power from various different social norms that most people either approve or, or disapprove of (can have a thread for this, or maybe into the dictionary thread).

Something similar happened to me recently where someone told that "if I wanted to help the locals, then I'd go for this option here". The implied frame there was that helping the locals was good, and if I didn't, I wasn't being good.
That was also leveraging a commonly-held belief that "helping locals" is good -and, in some cases, it can be true. Not always though, and can be abused-.

HOW ABOUT WARNING THEM?

Have you thought of sending them an email with your analysis, Ali?

Or maybe a link here?

They might not realize that they're doing something very wrong, and they might end up changing their communication style.

Deleted user and secretkey have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#40 · May 26, 2021, 7:56 pm

HOW ABOUT WARNING THEM?
Have you thought of sending them an email with your analysis, Ali?
Or maybe a link here?
They might not realize that they're doing something very wrong, and they might end up changing their communication style.

Do you think that an email will be risky?
In this sense, the receiver may be Machiavellian and intentionally quote & misconstrue the message.
Maybe calling would be safer.