This content is locked. Please login or become a member.
So when a lot of times we think about using words, we think about using them to convey or request information from others, but language actually does a lot more than that. It suggests what it means to engage in a particular action and who’s responsible, who’s at fault, who’s to blame, or who gets credit for doing something.
Some researchers were trying to get people to turn out to vote. Obviously, we all know that we should vote, but we don’t always make the time. For some people, they said, “Hey, would you please go vote?” as we often might do, but for another group of people, they said, “Hey, would you please be a voter?” The difference between vote and voter is infinitesimally small, just one letter in this case. Yet, that one letter led to about a 15% increase in people’s likelihood of turning out at the polls. Why might one be more effective than the other?
And it turns out, it comes down to the difference between actions and identities. There’re all sorts of actions we know we should take. We know we should help, we know we should vote, we know we should do a variety of different things, but we’re often busy and we often don’t have enough time. What we care more about though than taking certain actions, is holding desirable identities. We all want to see ourselves as smart and competent and intelligent in a variety of different things. And so if actions allow us to claim desired identities, well, now we’re much more likely to engage in those actions. Voting, I know I should vote. Oh, I’m too busy. Well, hold on. If voting allows me to show myself and others that I am a voter, I’m much more likely to engage in that behavior.
Often we describe people in terms of adjectives. So-and-so is hardworking. So-and-so is creative. But it turns out by switching those actions into identities, we can make people more likely to take those actions. So rather than describing someone as hardworking, describing them as a hard worker will make that trait seem more persistent and more likely to last. Making these things seem like more stable traits will make people we describe that way seem more likely to persist in those behaviors in the future and more likely to engage in those actions.
It turns out, actually the same thing happens in the negative side, but in the opposite direction. Obviously, cheating on a test is bad, but when cheating on a test would make you a cheater, people are much less likely to do it, right? They don’t want to claim that negative identity. There’s a great old campaign that takes advantage of this. Rather than telling people not to litter, they told people, don’t be a litter bug. I don’t know about you, but being a litter bug, well, littering, I know I’m not supposed to do, but hold on, I don’t want to be a litter bug. That sounds like a really negative identity. And so I’m less likely to engage in that action to avoid claiming that undesired identity.