Definition: Conversational blindness is a phenomenon whereby listeners fail to notice when speakers respond to a different question than the one they are asked.
So why is this important? Because as spokespeople for an organization, as well as private individuals, we are incessantly faced with questions that we do not want to answer, and would much rather avoid. In such situations, we can use what authors Todd Rogers and Michael I. Norton of the Harvard Business School (whose paper I am quoting above), call the “artful sidestep”, i.e. answering the wrong question so compellingly that we cause the listener to forget we have not, in fact, responded to the original question.
The fascinating finding is that the majority of people prefer an authoritative answer to the wrong question, rather than a poorly phrased one to the right question.
How to be successful at it? Here’s what I inferred from the research:
- Answer a question that is similar in tenor to the one actually asked
- Phrase your answer well, and deliver it convincingly (poor answers, even to the right question are, as I said, ill-received)
- Make sure these answers to the wrong questions are positioned in the middle of teh conversation, and not before breaks or lulls (the more time people have to process your answer before the next remark, the easier it is to realize you’re off the mark)
- Do answer some questions well and forthrightly, otherwise the lack of substance of your other responses will not be adequately concealed.
- Beware of TVs that use the crawl or display to highlight the question being answered: this heightens people’s awareness of the actual question, and diminishes conversational blindness.
Posted under PRealities, Reading Pack
This post was written by Corina on April 9, 2009
Isn’t this the politicians’ favorite tactic? It takes considerable skill to pull it off rightly–I don’t think I could do it
I was explaining the phenomenon to someone else recently and they had exactly the same response. Yes, that’s what politicians normally do, but now’s empirical evidence that it works, and some sense of how, and I’ve been trying to operationalize it for the rest of us non-political folks.
I’ve often noticed this tactic in the media. It works because in the time frame of a soundbite few reporters are willing to follow up thier question with the same question. I find this tactic hugely frustrating. At the same time highly effective. It can most often be seen when a politician is answering the first question of a series. It goes like this:
Sir don’t you (question follows)
Yes (Mr Reporter’s name) that is important, but first I think I must say (whatever point he is trying to make.
By acknowledging the question as important then deflecting to thier point most often the reporter is mollified and moves to his second quesiton.