شنیدن و نگه‌داشتن این اپیزود
پخش را شروع کن؛ هنگام رفتن به صفحه‌های دیگر هم ادامه پیدا می‌کند.
برای خواندن و مرور دوباره
گفت‌وگو را به متن همراهت تبدیل کن
متن کامل و خوانای این اپیزود در Word و PDF، همراه با نقشهٔ تصویری موضوعات.
کتابخانه و بازخورد
برای شناخت بهتر پیش از شنیدن
این اپیزود هنوز بررسی عمیق نشده است
در اپیزودهای بررسی‌شده، پادگرد خلاصه، محورهای گفتگو، فصل‌های قابل پخش و پرسش‌های مهم را از متن اپیزود استخراج می‌کند.
تحلیل این اپیزودتکمیل این اپیزود
اگر مهمان یا اسپانسری جا افتاده، از فهرست موجود انتخاب کن یا نام تازه‌ای پیشنهاد بده. پیشنهادها بعد از بررسی مدیر عمومی می‌شوند.
متن منتشرشده توسط پادکستر
توضیحات اپیزود
Admin: Telegram ID : ad_lumi It’s not just about the number of reasons, though. It’s also how they fit together. A university once approached me to see if I could bring in donations from alumni who had never given a dime. My colleagues and I ran an experiment testing two different messages meant to convince thousands of resistant alumni to give. One message emphasized the opportunity to do good: donating would benefit students, faculty, and staff. The other emphasized the opportunity to feel good: donors would enjoy the warm glow of giving. The two messages were equally effective: in both cases, 6.5 percent of the stingy alumni ended up donating. Then we combined them, because two reasons are better than one. Except they weren’t. When we put the two reasons together, the giving rate dropped below 3 percent. Each reason alone was more than twice as effective as the two combined. The audience was already skeptical. When we gave them different kinds of reasons to donate, we triggered their awareness that someone was trying to persuade them—and they shielded themselves against it. A single line of argument feels like a conversation; multiple lines of argument can become an onslaught. The audience tuned out the preacher and summoned their best defense attorney to refute the prosecutor. As important as the quantity and quality of reasons might be, the source matters, too. And the most convincing source is often the one closest to your audience. A student in one of my classes, Rachel Breuhaus, noticed that although top college basketball teams have rabid fans, there are usually empty seats in their arenas. To study strategies for motivating more fans to show up, we launched an experiment in the week before an upcoming game targeting hundreds of season ticket holders. When left to their own devices, 77 percent of these supposedly die-hard fans actually made it to the game. We decided that the most persuasive message would come from the team itself, so we sent fans an email with quotes from players and coaches about how part of the home-court advantage stems from the energy of a packed house of cheering fans. It had no effect whatsoever: attendance in that group was 76 percent.
نظرها
هنوز نظری نوشته نشده.
