Psychology – Page 4

Engaging with an Unreceptive (or Hostile) Audience

CAVEAT: This is geared less toward sales and more toward partnerships.

Often, we are required to develop partnerships with organizations and people who are less than receptive to our message. Even if we are passionate about what we are doing, we sometimes are unable to convince people to partner with us.

As part of my community engagement work, I have attempted to partner with several large religious organizations. In one instance, I was specifically told by the organization’s leader they would not be working on this project…nothing personal, but the organization was making a stand against the government’s involvement in this matter.

Being shutdown or rejected like this is difficult. I left this interaction with questions about how to better approach the situation. I spent some time reviewing over other, previous interactions which started out similarly. And, I feel the following points were very helpful to me to engage with unreceptive or hostile audiences:

Actively listen to their viewpoint and objections. I often have a tendency to have my response or rebuttal already formed prior to the other person even ending their statement. This is the wrong approach. This is something that I am actively working on—being a better active listener. I need to ingest and digest the other person’s points of view before continuing to develop a relationship. I need to listen to their full statement before I attempt to counteract it.

Meet them where they are physically and mentally. Physically, it is important for me to show that I am willing to go wherever they want to meet — to break down the tradition of meeting halfway or having the other person come to me. This go-to-them attitude shows that I respect their time so much I will make a personal sacrifice to meet them.

From a mental standpoint, meeting them where they are means for me to empathize with their position. Often, I find myself taking a more indignant position—I know that I am right because I am right. Or, I know I am right because this is how it is going to eventually be. In my time with the FBI, I had this mentality in certain instances. I would participate in joint projects and activities with my colleagues from other agencies, but I knew when things “got real”, we (the FBI) would probably take over and control the environment. After all, we were the feds.

Be open to change or modification. While we all have standards to adhere to, it is important that we know the rules and protocols well enough that we can change or modify to meet their needs. As a former Bible school student, I learned about missionary work being done in South America. Many, effective, missionaries would learn about the indigenous cultural traditions and then find a way to marry up the Gospel with the local traditions. There were times, obviously, this didn’t work. But, it is important, especially when dealing with an unreceptive audience, to attempt this method as best as possible.

Be patient. One of my favorite expressions is “it’s not a sprint, it is a marathon.” This is important for how view our progress with these audiences. We should realize that we may not be able to immediately change or sell them to our cause. We should try to focus on the little wins we make along the way.

I’ve used this expression before, but instead of viewing this process like ‘The Game of Life’, we should view it as ‘Monopoly.’ We should realize there are going to be many cycles we make around the board before we get to a stage of having some comfort or control in the environment.

Like in the game Monopoly, there are always going to be times in which we have to venture into other peoples’ territories. This can be scary, but if we “actively listen to their viewpoint and objections,” “meet them where they are,” “be open to change or modification,” and “be patient,” then we will be more successful in our journey.

Read the original here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/engaging-unreceptive-hostile-audience-darin-challacombe

A Simple But Powerful Tool: Thank You Cards

Within the past month, we have been interviewing applicants for a senior recruiter position. As part of human resources, I have panel interviewed applicants. Earlier this week, we came to a decision. The decision was between two very qualified individuals. Both had great skillsets, interviewed well, and would fit the chemistry of our office. I initially gave my recommendation for one, but changed it after I received something from the other applicant.

For me, it was interesting how the simple act of a “thank you for interviewing me” email from this applicant impacted my decision so strongly. And, as serendipitous as things usually are, I ran across a recent article on this topic by Kumar and Epley (2018) in Psychological Science.

This study was straight-forward enough. In a series of four experiments, individuals sent gratitude letters to recipients; the senders and recipients were subsequently asked to complete surveys about the experience. Of course, not every recipient completed the survey, but enough did to get some clear results.

Kumar and Epley (2018) found people do not truly appreciate the value of gratitude on others. In three of the four experiments, the senders underestimated the recipients’ positive reaction to the gratitude. This undervaluing of the impact appeared to influence whether someone would express gratitude.

These researchers also suggested expressing gratitude in person or verbally made more of an impact than sending a card or letter. The latter appears to people as not being as sincere. It is definitely harder to express gratitude in person to someone, but it is important.

I have a stack of “thank you” cards on my desk. I fill one of these out when someone goes out of their way to help me. I try to take some time periodically to write these notes of gratitude to people. Sometimes I get a response; sometimes I do not. Either way, I feel that this small investment, overall, pays dividends. Given this research, I will try to more explicitly express gratitude in person from here on out.

Cultural Competency Defined

Last Saturday, I had the privilege of facilitating a group on the topic of cultural competency. The group of about 50 people were completing the training in order to be qualified to volunteer at Kansas City, Missouri-area elementary schools. This training was developed to provide people with the opportunity to be open and vulnerable to learning new cultures.

During this two-hour training, we developed a definition of cultural competency based on words and phrases given in a group activity:

The open and appropriate engagement of others through awareness, sensitivity, adaption, understanding, curiosity, and compassion in order to be responsive to others.

I liked this definition because it does seem to encapsulate what the training was attempting to do: Be appropriate and open when engaging with others who are different. Put aside the implicit biases we may have about others. Understand, every person is different and unique; and, while stereotypes may be (sometimes helpful) cognitive shortcuts, they often cause us to make incorrect assumptions about others.

Human attraction: What spinal curvature can tell us about potential mates

One of the subs I follow on Reddit had a link to a 2015 study in Evolution and Human Behavior on lumbar curvature. The study results suggested males found females attractive due to their spinal curvature, because it indicated a greater ability to bear children. That’s interesting, eh?

In the past several decades, a new field of research has developed in psychology: Evolutionary psychology. This field focuses on evaluating the evolutionary value of human behavior. For example, obsessive-compulsive hoarding behavior likely is because of our ancestors needing to save food/material for the winter months.

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, mating strategies are usually separated by short- and long-term goals. Long-term mating is generally done for the purposes of choosing a potential mate; whereas, short-term mating is likened to brief sexual encounters (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Perilloux, Cloud, & Buss, 2012). Buss and Schmitt’s (1993) sexual strategies theory proposed females and males gain different benefits from the different types of mating (e.g., long- vs. short-term).

Instead of devolving into a discussion of mating strategies, I want to point out how this the 2015 study tracks with other research. Males engage in long-term mating strategies focused on reproduction (Strout, Fisher, Kruger, & Steeleworthy, 2010). A female who is more viable—more able to produce children—is considered better than one older. Specifically, Buss (1994) identified several key areas related to reproductive viability. In fact, researchers have found males find youth and fertility-linked traits (e.g., facial symmetry, hip-to-waist ratio, body mass index, etc.) as being desirable.

This also tracks with what we know about historical mating techniques. Our ancestral males typically utilized physical appearance as the primary facet, with social reputation and observable behavior as the two other facets to determine a female’s reproductive success. (Females, on the other hand, focused more on males who were able to protect and provide for them and their offspring.)

Overall, female and male long- and short-term mating strategies are different but follow along a similar focus, at least from the evolutionary perspective. This desire for reproduction often makes men more inclined to engage in multiple short-term mating rituals, contradicting females’ intent to just seek out potential longer-term mates.

So, the next time you think someone is attractive, it might be nice to parse out why that is? Face? Body? Or, some innate evolutionary drive.

Tweet this: Extremists continue utilizing social media

The Parkland, Florida, high school shooting yesterday once again underscores the continual need to prevent these incidents. Prevention strategies tend to follow along the same path of hardening these soft targets: Metal detectors or increased/more visible security measures. The main counterbalance to these strategies is, of course, money.

While news regarding this shooting continues to develop, sources are reporting the shooter had a significant online presence. It appears there were escalating comments and posts. Was it possible to have previously predicted this shooter’s violent activities?

The Tactical Decision Making Research Group believes it may indeed be possible. Their research on Identifying Vulnerable Persons (IVP) provides a framework for this approach. Originally developed for non-intelligence and non-law enforcement professionals to utilize, IVP lays out a outline for evaluating an individual’s social media footprint.

Scot A. Terban recently posted about violent extremist usage of social media. His article focuses mostly on Daesh (ISIS) and other violent Islamic extremist individuals. The IVP also tends to focus on violent Islamic extremists. However, I would argue there is a need for this same scrutiny to be applied to sovereign citizens, white supremacists, and other domestic terror-based collectives.

Other thoughts?