Using Cognitive Biases to Sell: Ethics or Manipulation? – Sep. 2024

Bruno Delezenne

Image by atlascompany on Freepik

Cognitive biases are systematic distortions in how we perceive, think, and make decisions. These are the “mental shortcuts” our brains use to process information more quickly. In the realm of sales, cognitive biases have been thoroughly examined in books such as Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini, Petit traité de manipulation à l’usage des honnêtes gens (A Small Treatise on Manipulation for Honest People) by Jean-Léon Beauvois and Robert-Vincent Joule, Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, and Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness by Richard Thaler.

For sales professionals, these biases can serve as powerful tools. However, for buyers, they often pose a challenge, requiring effort to resist undue influence. These biases significantly affect a buyer’s judgement and decision-making speed, which, in turn, can be exploited for manipulative purposes. Yet, the question arises: Can cognitive biases also serve an ethical purpose, assisting customers in making decisions that have a positive impact?

The purpose of cognitive biases

Making decisions and purchasing products or services often involves accepting change, pushing boundaries, and occasionally taking personal risks. This process can be incredibly challenging, which is precisely why salespeople exist—to guide their clients through often complex decisions.

To achieve this, salespeople engage in active listening, provide valuable information, and collaboratively develop solutions. But these efforts aren’t always sufficient. Anyone who has faced a complex purchasing decision knows how easy it is to doubt, seek further clarification, or postpone the decision. This is why salespeople often encounter prolonged purchasing processes.

Given these challenges, salespeople frequently leverage various cognitive biases to help clients move forward. They may appeal to authority (“Trust me, you’re taking a significant risk if you don’t act now“), social proof (“Your competitors have already done it“), or scarcity (“Hurry, there’s almost none left“).

So, ethical or unethical?

The ethicality of using cognitive biases hinges on two critical factors. First, sincerity. Am I genuinely an expert (authority)? Has the market truly embraced my solution (social proof)? Are we really facing a stock shortage (scarcity)?

Second, the focus should be on who benefits from these biases. If they are used solely for the salesperson’s benefit, aiming at hitting sales targets, then the risk of manipulation increases. However, if these biases are employed to support the customer and their project, they can help facilitate progress—much like a coach would.

To illustrate, as a customer, I once experienced significant frustration when I decided too late for a family event. The salesperson, with whom I had co-constructed the lunch plan, failed to alert me to the urgency of confirming the details. He didn’t leverage my sensitivity to scarcity to help me make a timely decision. In essence, he didn’t fulfil his role as a salesperson, leading to the failure of my project. Thus, cognitive biases can be justified when they are centred on the customer’s needs, the project’s impact, and providing support toward a goal the buyer genuinely desires.

In conclusion, a particularly powerful and ethical bias is that of coherence and commitment. Studies show that each step toward a goal strengthens the commitment to achieving it. This principle motivates coaches to encourage a “first small step.” Similarly, salespeople often define a “next step” with their clients—a step initiated by the client rather than the salesperson. The aim is less about planning and more about fostering commitment. This approach serves as a genuinely ethical “boost,” provided it is directed toward benefiting the customer.

Bruno Delezenne

Follow me: