Messengers

Why do we sometimes trust a celebrity's political advice over an expert's? The answer lies not in the message but in the messenger.

1. We Judge Messages By the Messenger

People don’t solely evaluate the content of a message; they assess the messenger. Snap judgments often decide whether we accept or reject the message.

The 2008 financial crash offers a perfect example. Michael Burry, a brilliant investor who predicted the crisis, was largely ignored due to his awkward demeanor and unconventional appearance. Instead, more polished communicators, like journalist Michael Lewis, gained attention despite only relaying Burry’s insights. Appearance and communication style mattered more than the actual ability to forecast.

Similarly, when it came to public information campaigns, governments often chose messengers with status and charm—even from unrelated fields. In the UK, sports icons like Kevin Keegan delivered nuclear attack advice, leveraging their fame and public appeal to gain trust.

Examples

• Michael Burry’s warnings were ignored while Michael Lewis was heard.
• British athletes fronting nuclear attack messages.
• Quick judgments on teacher competence based on silent, ten-second videos.

2. Socioeconomic Status Affects How We Respond

People instinctively react differently depending on someone’s perceived wealth or societal position.

Experiments demonstrate this bias. Psychologists Doob and Gross put a rusty Ford and a polished Chrysler in the same driving scenario. More drivers honked at the beat-up Ford than the luxury Chrysler, revealing deference to perceived higher status. It’s not just on the roads where this bias appears. Jaywalkers wearing suits attracted more followers than those in denim, suggesting that status implies trustworthiness and safety.

The "Just World Hypothesis" explains some of this behavior: people subconsciously assume that high-status individuals earned their position through intelligence or hard work. This bias causes us, often unconsciously, to defer to them.

Examples

• 84% of drivers honked at the low-status car, compared to 50% at the luxury car.
• Suit-clad jaywalkers were followed more often than those in casual clothes.
• Belief in status correlating to competence influences reactions.

3. Perceived Competence Drives Believability

People instinctively judge someone's competence within seconds—and these assessments can shape decisions.

A fascinating medical mishap reveals this dynamic. A nurse administered ear drops into a patient’s rectum because the doctor’s written instructions seemed authoritative. Visual signals, like doctors’ stethoscopes or a politician’s "competent" facial structure, also boost credibility. Humans have learned to associate specific visual or social cues with expertise, even if the cues hold no true grounding.

One study asked participants to rate candidates’ competence based on headshots. The results matched election outcomes. Similarly, Swiss children as young as five could predict French parliamentary election winners just by assessing faces for apparent skill.

Examples

• Ear drops administered incorrectly due to blind faith in instructions.
• Stethoscopes symbolizing expertise without functional use.
• Children predicting election winners based on facial competence.

4. Dominance Can Command Attention

Displays of dominance—assertive posture or low-pitched voices—often compel authority, but they don’t guarantee likeability.

Lyndon B. Johnson, Senate majority leader in the 1950s, famously invaded personal space to pressure lawmakers. These tactics worked because dominance signals authority. Body language also conveys dominance; expansive gestures or occupying space can indicate status. Similarly, Dutch experiments showed taller or dominant-looking individuals frequently received deference in social settings.

Even vocal dominance matters. Research demonstrates that lower-pitched voices are preferred in leaders. Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May, for instance, worked with voice specialists to sound more authoritative, reinforcing their positions.

Examples

• Lyndon B. Johnson’s invasive yet effective persuasion tactics.
• Taller individuals given priority in physical space.
• Lower-pitched voices favored in leadership trials.

5. Physical Attractiveness Amplifies Influence

Attractive individuals receive more attention and benefits—from babies staring at them longer to jurors giving them leniency.

Studies show consistent traits in what humans find attractive: facial symmetry, youthfulness, and averageness. These features suggest genetic health, which explains why we instinctively trust attractive people. On resumes, photos of attractive candidates garnered more call-backs. In courtrooms, jurors treated attractive defendants with more leniency—even in serious criminal cases.

Even small enhancements like wearing specific colors can boost perceptions. Female servers wearing red lipstick, for instance, earned higher tips from diners, showcasing attractiveness’s subconscious power in shaping opinions.

Examples

• Babies staring longer at attractive faces in experiments.
• Attractive candidates receiving 20% more call-backs.
• Mock trials favoring attractive defendants with lighter judgments.

6. Connection to the Audience Matters

Finding shared traits or building a personal bond with an audience often outweighs status as a means of trust.

When psychologists framed the villainous Rasputin as sharing a birthday with participants, those participants rated him less negatively. This connection, even if shallow, showed the human tendency to align with familiarity. One successful public health program in Zimbabwe utilized hair-braiders as messengers for HIV awareness. Their familiarity and trust within their community made them more effective than traditional health workers.

This reinforces that shared identity or common ground creates openness. Simply connecting on personal traits can significantly enhance a listener’s willingness to engage.

Examples

• Shared birthdays causing positive biases in judgment.
• Zimbabwean hair-braiders successfully spreading safe-sex messages.
• Sales boosted by pointing out shared traits with customers.

7. Warmth Encourages Trust and Engagement

Warm messengers win over audiences by demonstrating empathy, friendliness, and respect.

In the 1985 Texaco vs. Pennzoil lawsuit, Texaco lost partly because its legal team lacked warmth and came off as rude. Meanwhile, Pennzoil lawyers seemed approachable, swaying public opinion. People naturally gravitate toward those who use pleasantries, offer kind words, or treat them considerately. Studies even found that bus drivers starting shifts with warm greetings experienced fewer accidents.

Children as young as six months show this bias. They prefer "kind" puppets helping others in experiments, revealing how warmth shapes social bonds early in life.

Examples

• Texaco’s rude lawyers lost favor in the eyes of a jury.
• Warm greetings reducing workplace incidents among bus drivers.
• Children favoring helpful puppets in developmental psychology.

8. Vulnerability Taps Into Empathy

Authentic vulnerability helps audiences relate, often creating deeper bonds than a display of perfection.

When Theresa May danced clumsily during a political event, it unexpectedly boosted her relatability. Vulnerability shows humanity, and people respond with empathy, as studies on medical professionals show. Hygiene campaigns, for instance, successfully improved compliance when the messaging focused on the vulnerability of patients rather than the doctors themselves.

Media representation of vulnerability can also have real-world impacts. Babe, a film about a lovable pig, caused a marked drop in pork sales because it encouraged empathy for the protagonist’s plight.

Examples

• Theresa May’s dancing earning positive attention.
• Hand-hygiene compliance rising due to patient-focused messaging.
• The movie Babe significantly reducing pork consumption.

9. Trustworthiness is Key to Messaging Success

Trust determines whether people risk believing in a messenger—not just their facts or charisma.

Trust builds over time through consistent behavior. A study of telecom engineers revealed those who frequently communicated with colleagues earned trust and higher productivity. Trust, however, doesn’t always require truth. Donald Trump supporters, for example, trust him not because he never lies, but because of his consistency in pursuing core principles.

Judgments about trustworthiness often depend on larger, instinctive feelings toward someone’s character rather than intellectual calculation. People want to believe a messenger aligns with their values and goals.

Examples

• Engineers fostering trust through dialogue and cooperation.
• Donald Trump’s support system rooted in perceived consistency.
• Workplace trust influenced by repeated positive interactions.

Takeaways

1. Build trust by being dependable in your actions and engaging in regular, open communication.
2. Find ways to connect with your audience, whether through shared traits or a display of vulnerability.
3. Pay attention to visual and social cues—like dressing the part or using warmth in communication—to enhance your influence.