Harvard’s “most persuasive word” might just be a scam

A Harvard study from 1978 says that the word “because” is so persuasive that some journalists believe it “obliterates the notion that humans behave rationally.” 

But has that held up over time? Or is this just another way to twist natural human behaviors into something negative and ominous?

After conducting the study, Harvard psychology professor Ellen Langer came to the hypothesis that social behavior is simply done without much conscious thought. Langer’s research, now called the copy machine experiment, tested how willing people were to let someone cut ahead of them in line for the copy machine.

There were three different variations of what the participant could have asked the person in front of them: one in which the cuttert provided no reason for cutting in line (“Excuse me, I have some copies to make. May I use the Xerox machine?”), another where they gave a good reason (“Excuse me, I have some copies to make.

May I use the Xerox machine because I’m in a rush?”) , and a third where they gave a bad reason (“Excuse me, I have some copies to make. May I use the Xerox machine because I need to make copies?”).

When someone asked without giving a reason, the person in front of them was 60% likely to comply with their request. When a good reason was given, however, compliance shot up exponentially, with a 93% likelihood that the participant could cut in line. But most surprisingly, when a bad reason was given, those in front of the participants were 94% likely to comply with their request.

To Langer, this indicated that humans don’t process information at a reasonable rate and that we may just be acting on autopilot when a request is made of us. 

Other explanations

But  it could also be  that when you hear  the word “because,” you assume that someone else has a legitimate reason that they’re asking you for a favor. But that’s not called being an ignorant automaton. That’s called being a nice person.

Regretfully for researchers like  Langer, scientists have proven that though human beings might be pretty stupid, we’re also relatively good-natured and selfless, according to other studies.

Were the results of the Langer experiment viewed through the lens of a self-centered American culture? After all, there are still societies that serve each other, helping each other out during times of stress and sadness, and making compromises that they trust will ultimately benefit society at large. Just because.

The takeaway

Let’s say you’re at the copy machine, and someone says, “I need to go in front of you because I need to make copies.” Do you really need to perform an interrogation? Do they need a good reason to cut ahead of you? Let’s say someone is trying to get ahead of you for reasons you can’t identify, and they seem rude or inconsiderate about it. Would it ruin the rest of your day if you let this anxious, angry person have their way?

It’s a fact that, as a matter of principle, their action is morally wrong and slightly asinine. But is the inconvenience truly that off-putting? Will it impact your career, or the arc of your life? Or do you want to take the high road, let this rageful, narcissistic person get a small power trip out of their system, and proceed to go about your day?

It won’t make you mindless or senseless if you choose not to argue with someone in the Xerox line. It may even grant you a greater sense of inner peace in the long run to let these little things go — even if it takes two minutes longer to make your copies.