Sources and evidence for the sales course

Prospect theory

Kahneman & Tversky · Foundations, The Buyer’s Mind; Advanced, Disqualification

People judge a choice against a reference point, usually what they already have, and losses from that point weigh more than gains of the same size. In the same work, people tended to avoid risk when choosing between gains and to take it when choosing between losses. The course uses it to explain why a well-argued benefit is discounted while the cost of changing feels larger than it is, and why a seller who is behind target may favour long shots.

Where it stops applying. The size of the effect varies with the person, the stakes and how a choice is presented. The course treats it as a reliable tendency, not a law that predicts any one buyer.

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185

Status quo bias

Samuelson & Zeckhauser · Foundations, The Buyer’s Mind

A measured preference for keeping things as they are, independent of the merits. Doing nothing is not a neutral option for a buyer; it is actively preferred. The course uses it to explain why buyers who agree with you still do not buy.

Where it stops applying. Keeping the present arrangement is sometimes the right choice. Some buyers should not change, and the course says so.

Samuelson, W. & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status Quo Bias in Decision Making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564

The endowment effect, and the argument about it

Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler; Plott & Zeiler; Isoni, Loomes & Sugden · Foundations, The Buyer’s Mind

In these experiments people asked much more to give up something they owned than they would pay to get the same thing. Plott and Zeiler ran the mug experiment again with procedures designed to remove participants’ misunderstandings about the trading, and the gap for mugs disappeared; Isoni, Loomes and Sugden, using the same procedures, found that a gap persisted for lotteries. The course teaches the argument, and uses what survives it: owners and non-owners often value the same thing differently, so a buyer’s present way of working may be worth more to them than it looks from outside.

Where it stops applying. How large the effect is depends on how the exchange is set up, and the researchers still disagree about its size and cause. These are laboratory findings about objects and gambles, not observations of buyers.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L. & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325–1348. https://doi.org/10.1086/261737

Plott, C. R. & Zeiler, K. (2005). The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the “Endowment Effect,” Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations. American Economic Review, 95(3), 530–545. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828054201387

Isoni, A., Loomes, G. & Sugden, R. (2011). The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the “Endowment Effect,” Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations: Comment. American Economic Review, 101(2), 991–1011. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.2.991

Framing

Tversky & Kahneman; Levin, Schneider & Gaeth · Foundations, The Buyer’s Mind

The same choice, described in different but equivalent ways, can lead people to opposite preferences. Levin, Schneider and Gaeth reviewed the research and separated three kinds of framing: of a risky choice, of a single attribute, and of a goal, where stressing what is lost by not acting tended to persuade more than stressing what is gained. The course uses it to read the buyer’s own cost back as what keeps happening while nothing changes.

Where it stops applying. Framing changes how a choice is seen, not the facts of the choice, and its effects vary in size from task to task. The course teaches framing that stays accurate, never framing that misleads.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683

Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L. & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804

Confirmation bias

Nickerson · Foundations, Diagnosis

People tend to look for and interpret evidence in ways that support what they already believe. The course uses it to explain why sellers hear signs that a deal is real and miss the signs that it is not, and how to ask questions that can prove you wrong.

Where it stops applying. A broad review across many settings, not a study of selling. The course applies it by analogy.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

What trust rests on

Mayer, Davis & Schoorman · Foundations, Trust

A model in which one party trusts another based on their ability, their goodwill towards them and their integrity. The course uses those three parts to show buyers what they need to see before they rely on you.

Where it stops applying. A theoretical model of trust inside organisations. It says what trust rests on, not how to produce it quickly, and the course does not pretend otherwise.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335

Implementation intentions

Gollwitzer · Foundations, Commitment and The Follow-Through

Plans of the form “if this happens, then I will do that” help people turn an intention into action. The course uses it to agree next steps that say who does what, and when, instead of “let’s keep in touch”.

Where it stops applying. It helps people act on goals they already hold. It does not create the goal, so it is no substitute for a buyer who actually wants to change.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation Intentions: Strong Effects of Simple Plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493

Anchoring, resemblance and what comes to mind

Tversky & Kahneman; Furnham & Boo · Foundations, The Buyer’s Mind, Diagnosis and The Problem Frame

When people estimate a number, they tend to start from a value in front of them and adjust too little. A review by Furnham and Boo drew together research finding anchoring in many settings, purchasing, negotiation and forecasting among them, in people with expertise as well as without, and hard to remove by warning people about it. In the same paper, Tversky and Kahneman described judging how likely something is by how much it resembles a typical case, and how often it happens by how easily examples come to mind. The course uses them to let a buyer’s estimate start from their own evidence, to test a diagnosis that rests on a resemblance to a past deal, to turn a buyer’s memory of a problem into a count, and to explain why the first figure in a negotiation carries so much weight.

Where it stops applying. These are tendencies under uncertainty, not fixed rules. How far a given number moves a given person varies, and building an estimate from its parts is a sensible response, not a remedy shown to remove the effect.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

Furnham, A. & Boo, H. C. (2011). A Literature Review of the Anchoring Effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.008

First offers as anchors

Galinsky & Mussweiler · Advanced, Concession Architecture and Price Under Pressure

In negotiation experiments, the first offer pulled the final agreement towards it, and focusing on the other side’s position or one’s own goals reduced the pull of an opponent’s first offer. The course uses it to decide when to name a price first and how to respond to theirs.

Where it stops applying. Moving first is not always an advantage. When you know little about what the deal is worth to the other side, an early number can work against you.

Galinsky, A. D. & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors. JPSP, 81(4), 657–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.657

The fixed-pie assumption

Thompson & Hastie · Advanced, Positions and Interests

Negotiators often assume that whatever one side gains, the other loses, and so miss agreements that would suit both. The course uses it to teach finding out what each side actually needs before arguing about price.

Where it stops applying. Based on negotiation exercises in a research setting. The course treats it as something to check for, not as a description of every buyer.

Thompson, L. & Hastie, R. (1990). Social perception in negotiation. OBHDP, 47(1), 98–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(90)90048-E

Principled negotiation

Fisher, Ury & Patton · Advanced, Positions and Interests, The Zone of Agreement, Price Under Pressure, Deadlock and Walkaway, and Deal Architecture

Practical guidance from a book on negotiation: look behind each side’s position to the interests that produced it, know your best alternative to an agreement, invent options before deciding among them, and settle differences by standards both sides can accept. The course uses it to find what a buyer needs behind what they ask for, to set a walk-away point, to answer pressure, and to shape a deal when the whole cannot be agreed at once.

Where it stops applying. Guidance argued from cases and experience, not a tested finding. Every lesson that rests on it says so, and the course notes where its case against bargaining over positions sits uneasily with a planned set of concessions.

Fisher, R., Ury, W. & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes, 3rd edn. Penguin. First published 1981.

Investigative negotiation and creating value

Malhotra & Bazerman · Advanced, Positions and Interests, The Zone of Agreement, Concession Architecture, Price Under Pressure, Professional Buyers, Deal Architecture and Commercial Terms

Practical guidance from a book on negotiation: find out why the other side wants what it asks for, plan concessions and tie each one to something in return, negotiate from the weaker side without revealing it, and use terms that depend on what happens or that put each risk with the side better placed to carry it. The course uses it across Advanced’s lessons on concessions, price, other offers and terms.

Where it stops applying. Guidance argued from research and cases, not a tested finding as the book applies it. Every lesson that rests on it says so, and where the course is less sure of the exact form of the book’s advice, the lesson describes it in general terms.

Malhotra, D. & Bazerman, M. H. (2007). Negotiation Genius. Bantam.

Businesses often do not invoke the contracts they sign

Macaulay · Advanced, Commercial Terms

An interview study of how businesses actually use contracts, which its author called preliminary. It reported that businesses often plan their exchanges without relying on the contract to enforce them, and that when something goes wrong they tend to settle it between themselves, through the relationship, rather than by invoking the contract or the law. The course uses it to teach a seller to take the buyer through each term in plain words, what it commits each side to, for how long and what happens if circumstances change, because that shared understanding is what the two sides will usually live by.

Where it stops applying. Interviews from one country and period, not a measurement, and not a study of selling; its author called it preliminary. It describes what businesses tended to do, not what any one buyer will do, and it says nothing about the legal effect of a term, which is for the parties’ lawyers. The application to a sale is the course’s own.

Macaulay, S. (1963). Non-contractual relations in business: A preliminary study. American Sociological Review, 28(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/2090458

Terms that fit the transaction

Williamson · Advanced, Commercial Terms

A theory of how an exchange is best governed: it depends on how uncertain the exchange is, how often it recurs, and how far either side must make investments that would lose their value outside this exchange. A side that makes such an investment needs a safeguard, and more of one the more it has put in. The course uses it to teach a seller to name what each side would put in that it could not use elsewhere, and to offer a protection in proportion.

Where it stops applying. A theory, not a test, and not about selling. It does not say what a particular term should be or what it means in law, which is for the parties’ lawyers. The application to a sale is the course’s own, and the lesson labels it so.

Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233–261. https://doi.org/10.1086/466942

Written terms and the working relationship tend to go together

Poppo & Zenger · Advanced, Commercial Terms

A survey of companies’ outsourcing relationships, which found that formal contracts and relational governance tended to go together, as complements rather than substitutes. The course uses it to teach a seller neither to trade clear terms for goodwill nor goodwill for clear terms, and to write down with the buyer what each side will do when something goes wrong.

Where it stops applying. A survey, so it shows what tends to go together, not what causes what, and it studied outsourcing relationships, not sales. The application to a sale is the course’s own, and the lesson says so.

Poppo, L. & Zenger, T. (2002). Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 707–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.249

The zone of agreement

Raiffa · Advanced, Positions and Interests and The Zone of Agreement

An analysis of negotiation: an agreement is possible only where the most one side would agree to is at least the least the other would accept, and when two sides weigh several issues differently, there are packages both prefer to splitting every issue down the middle. The course uses it to judge whether a deal can be made at all, and to trade across issues rather than split each one.

Where it stops applying. An analysis, not an experiment. It defines when agreement is possible and when better packages exist; it does not measure how often negotiators find them. Real limits are often uncertain, and they move as each side’s alternatives change.

Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press.

Concern for both outcomes

De Dreu, Weingart & Kwon · Advanced, Positions and Interests

A meta-analysis of negotiation experiments: negotiators who cared about the other side’s outcome as well as their own tended to solve problems more and reach agreements with more value for both sides, where something also made giving way costly for them. The course uses it to teach holding firm on what matters to you while working on what the buyer needs.

Where it stops applying. Combines experiments, mostly negotiation exercises built so that better agreements for both sides existed. It describes tendencies across studies, not what any one negotiation will do.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R. & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 889–905. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.889

Precise first offers

Mason, Lee, Wiley & Ames; Loschelder, Stuppi & Trötschel · Advanced, Concession Architecture

In negotiation studies, people who received a precise first offer tended to make counteroffers closer to it than people who received a round one, and judged its maker as better informed; a second group of researchers found the same. The course uses it to state a price exactly as it adds up from its parts.

Where it stops applying. Set negotiation tasks over a single figure, measuring the next counteroffer, not the final agreement. The course requires the precision to be real: a figure built from its parts, which the buyer can be shown.

Mason, M. F., Lee, A. J., Wiley, E. A. & Ames, D. R. (2013). Precise offers are potent anchors: Conciliatory counteroffers and attributions of knowledge in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 759–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.013

Loschelder, D. D., Stuppi, J. & Trötschel, R. (2014). “€14,875?!”: Precision boosts the anchoring potency of first offers. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613499942

Range offers

Ames & Mason · Advanced, Concession Architecture

In negotiation studies, a first offer given as a range whose lower end was the offerer’s own figure tended to draw better counteroffers than that figure alone, because both ends of a range tend to count. The course uses it to put the seller’s figure at the foot of any range, with each end tied to a real package.

Where it stops applying. Set negotiation tasks, measuring the next counteroffer. The warning against a range that ends at your figure, and tying each end to a package, are the course’s own inferences from the finding.

Ames, D. R. & Mason, M. F. (2015). Tandem anchoring: Informational and politeness effects of range offers in social exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(2), 254–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000016

Concessions given without return

Kwon & Weingart · Advanced, Concession Architecture

A study of how negotiators respond to concessions the other side makes without anything given in return: their own concessions, how they explain the other side’s move, and how they judge the negotiation. The course uses it, described in general terms, to give every move a reason and, where possible, a return.

Where it stops applying. A negotiation study, which the course describes only in general terms until its details are checked. What a buyer might conclude from a move given for nothing is the course’s own reasoning, and is labelled as such.

Kwon, S. & Weingart, L. R. (2004). Unilateral concessions from the other party: Concession behavior, attributions, and negotiation judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.263

Final deadlines

Moore · Advanced, Price Under Pressure

A study of final deadlines in negotiation, after which neither side can reach agreement, which found benefits negotiators did not expect. The course uses the logic of a final deadline to tell deadlines that bind both sides from those that bind one, and to state a real deadline of the seller’s own honestly.

Where it stops applying. Negotiation studies with clean deadlines, described in general terms. Whether and how to state your own deadline is the course’s inference. Most deadlines in a sale are not final for both sides, and invented ones are ruled out.

Moore, D. A. (2004). The unexpected benefits of final deadlines in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00046-3

Common errors in negotiation

Bazerman & Neale; Bazerman & Samuelson; Samuelson & Bazerman; Neale & Bazerman; Shubik · Advanced, Positions and Interests, The Zone of Agreement, and Deadlock and Walkaway

Errors negotiators tend to make, set out in Bazerman and Neale’s book: assuming that whatever the other side gains, you lose; the winner’s curse, where having an offer accepted is itself a sign of having paid too much; overconfidence that your own position will prevail; seeing the same terms as losses rather than gains; and escalating commitment to a negotiation because of what has already gone into it. Where the original paper is on the course’s list, the lesson cites it: Bazerman and Samuelson’s auctions and Samuelson and Bazerman’s experiments between two sides for the winner’s curse, Neale and Bazerman’s study of framing and overconfidence, and Shubik’s auction game for escalation. The course uses them to check a quick yes, a standstill and a final move before it is made.

Where it stops applying. Auctions, negotiation exercises and a game built to produce escalation, not sales. Where the original research is not on the course’s list, the lesson cites the book and says so. The course treats each error as a tendency to check for, not a prediction about any one negotiator.

Bazerman, M. H. & Neale, M. A. (1992). Negotiating Rationally. Free Press.

Bazerman, M. H. & Samuelson, W. F. (1983). I won the auction but don’t want the prize. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 27(4), 618–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002783027004003

Samuelson, W. F. & Bazerman, M. H. (1985). The winner’s curse in bilateral negotiations. In V. L. Smith (Ed.), Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 3 (pp. 105–137). JAI Press.

Neale, M. A. & Bazerman, M. H. (1985). The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/256060

Shubik, M. (1971). The dollar auction game: A paradox in noncooperative behavior and escalation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 15(1), 109–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200277101500111

How organisations buy

Johnston & Lewin · Advanced, The Room, How Spend Gets Approved and Competitive Displacement

A review that draws decades of studies of organisational buying into one framework. Buying runs as a process among a group of people over time; the group tends to grow with what is at stake and how new the purchase is; its members bring different goals to the same purchase; and much of what it does can be read as a way of reducing the risk it sees. The course uses it to anticipate who will take part, how they will disagree, who sees the case last, and why a supplier the buyer already has is hard to replace.

Where it stops applying. A review of studies of organisations buying, not of sales conversations. It describes tendencies across many organisations, not how a given one will buy, and the course describes it in general terms, without figures.

Johnston, W. J. & Lewin, J. E. (1996). Organizational buying behavior: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Business Research, 35(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(94)00077-8

Why cases look too good

Flyvbjerg · Advanced, How Spend Gets Approved and Forecasting Honestly

An argument, drawn from studies of many large public projects, that costs have commonly come in above forecast and benefits below, too consistently to be chance. It offers two explanations, optimism and deliberate misrepresentation when cases compete for approval, and a remedy: judge a plan by the record of similar ones. The course uses it to explain why approvers discount a case that looks too good, to build a buyer’s case from the record of comparable changes, and to name the deliberate version of a seller’s forecast shaded towards what the reader wants.

Where it stops applying. Drawn from records of large public projects, not purchases between businesses. Judging a plan by the record of similar ones is a method the paper advocates, not an experiment showing that it wins approval.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). From Nobel Prize to Project Management: Getting Risks Right. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280603700302

How purchasing sorts what it buys

Kraljic · Advanced, Professional Buyers

A framework, set out for people who run purchasing, that sorts purchases by how much they matter to the organisation’s results and how hard or risky their supply is, giving four categories with an approach for each: little effort for the least important, competition on price where suppliers are plentiful, securing supply where it is scarce, and analysis and longer relationships where a purchase is both important and hard to supply. The course uses it to find out which kind of purchase a buyer thinks they are making before arguing about its importance.

Where it stops applying. A framework argued from reasoning and experience in a management article, not a tested finding, and the course says so. It is written from the buying side and says nothing about how a seller should respond. Not every purchasing team sorts its purchases this way.

Kraljic, P. (1983). Purchasing must become supply management. Harvard Business Review, 61(5), 109–117.

Roles in organisational buying

Webster & Wind · Advanced, Professional Buyers, The Room and How Spend Gets Approved

A general model of organisational buying: the people involved in a purchase form a buying centre, in which members play roles such as users, influencers, buyers, deciders and gatekeepers, and each acts on motives that are about the task and motives that are not. Roles are not job titles. The course uses it to map who does what in a purchase, and to reach the people who decide without ever using what is bought.

Where it stops applying. A model built from earlier research and argument, not a test, and the course labels the lesson that rests on it as guidance. Real buying groups vary, and one person can hold several roles or none of the usual ones.

Webster, F. E. & Wind, Y. (1972). A general model for understanding organizational buying behavior. Journal of Marketing, 36(2), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297203600204

Information only one person holds

Stasser & Titus · Advanced, The Room

In experiments with small groups of students choosing among candidates, discussion tended to dwell on information every member already had, and groups whose information favouring the best choice was split among members rarely found it. The course uses it to help what one member of a buying group knows reach the others, honestly and without taking sides.

Where it stops applying. Laboratory groups of students making a set choice, not organisations buying. The course describes the studies in general terms, and its account of why shared information dominates is its own summary.

Stasser, G. & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1467–1478. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467

How unstructured decisions actually run

Mintzberg, Raisinghani & Théorêt · Advanced, How Spend Gets Approved and Disqualification

A field study of strategic decisions, reconstructed from the people who made them, which described three broad phases, finding and diagnosing the problem, developing options and selecting one, and found that decisions were often interrupted, delayed and sent back to earlier phases. The course uses it to read a decision that goes back a step as a normal part of how organisations decide, and to find out which step it went back to.

Where it stops applying. A descriptive model from a field study of a number of decisions, not an experiment and not a study of purchases, and the course says so. It describes how decisions tended to run, not how any one organisation will decide.

Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D. & Théorêt, A. (1976). The structure of “unstructured” decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(2), 246–275. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392045

Considering suppliers, and changing them

Heide & Weiss · Advanced, Competitive Displacement

A survey of organisational buyers in a high-technology market that treated two decisions separately: whether to consider suppliers beyond the present one, and whether to change. The course uses the distinction to tell a buyer who is looking from a buyer who is ready to change, and to treat an invitation to make an offer as a first step, not a decision.

Where it stops applying. A survey of buyers in one kind of market, which shows what went together, not what causes what. The course relies on the distinction the study drew, not on which conditions went with which decision, and says so.

Heide, J. B. & Weiss, A. M. (1995). Vendor consideration and switching behavior for buyers in high-technology markets. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299505900303

What holds a business relationship

Morgan & Hunt; Palmatier, Dant, Grewal & Evans · Advanced, Competitive Displacement, Disqualification and Referral and Reputation

Morgan and Hunt’s model puts commitment and trust at the centre of lasting business relationships, built by shared values, communication, the relationship’s benefits and what it would cost to end it, and damaged by taking advantage of the other side; it fitted survey data from retailers in one trade better than a rival model. Palmatier, Dant, Grewal and Evans pooled many studies and found relationship measures linked to sellers’ results, with relationships with a person tending to count for more than with a firm. The course uses both to find out what holds a buyer to the supplier they have before trying to replace it, and, since the pooled studies also measured what customers said about a seller to others, to ask for an introduction once a buyer has something to vouch for and to treat taking advantage as something that will be talked about.

Where it stops applying. A model tested on survey data and a meta-analysis; neither is an experiment, both show association rather than cause, and neither studied a seller displacing a supplier. That a failure handled well may add to trust is the course’s reading of the model.

Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800302

Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D. & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.4.136

Explaining an outcome stated as fact

Mitchell, Russo & Pennington · Advanced, Disqualification and The Loss Post-Mortem

In experiments, people asked to explain an event described as having already happened tended to produce more reasons for it than people asked about the same event described as only possible. The course uses it to find the reasons a deal will be lost by writing the loss as a fact, then testing the strongest reason with the buyer; and, after a real loss, to warn that reasons come easily and need testing before one is written down as the cause.

Where it stops applying. Experiments with described events, not deals, which the course describes in general terms. They counted reasons, not better decisions; more reasons are not necessarily the right ones, and each still needs testing.

Mitchell, D. J., Russo, J. E. & Pennington, N. (1989). Back to the future: Temporal perspective in the explanation of events. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960020103

Hindsight is not foresight

Fischhoff · Advanced, The Loss Post-Mortem

In experiments, people told how a past event turned out tended to judge that outcome as more likely, as it would have looked beforehand, than people not told; they still did so when asked to set the outcome aside, and they rated the details that fitted it as more relevant. The course uses it to review a lost deal from what was written at the time, not from memory, and to separate what could have been known from what only looks clear afterwards.

Where it stops applying. Experiments with written accounts of past events, not deals or a person’s own work. They show the direction of the effect, not its size, and some outcomes really were foreseeable. Applying it to a seller’s review is the course’s inference.

Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(3), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.1.3.288

Outcome bias

Baron & Hershey · Advanced, The Loss Post-Mortem

In experiments, people rating written cases tended to judge the same decision as better thought out, and its maker as more competent, when the outcome was good than when it was bad, with the information at the time unchanged. The course uses it to grade each decision in a lost or won deal on what was known when it was made, apart from the result.

Where it stops applying. Experiments with written cases about other people’s decisions, not deals. They show which way the outcome tends to move a grade, not how far; a result can still be a fair clue where what was known is unclear. Applying it to a seller’s review is the course’s inference.

Baron, J. & Hershey, J. C. (1988). Outcome bias in decision evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.569

What being answerable does to judgement

Lerner & Tetlock · Foundations, The Buyer’s Mind, Objection as Information and The Follow-Through; Advanced, Forecasting Honestly

A review of research on accountability: the expectation of having to justify what you believe or do to someone else. Its central argument is that accountability does not simply improve judgement. People answerable to an audience whose views they did not know, before committing themselves, tended to think harder and anticipate objections; people who knew the audience’s views tended to shift towards them; and people answerable after committing tended to defend the position they had taken. Answering for how a judgement was made tended to go with more careful judgement than answering for how it turned out. The course uses it for a buyer who must justify a change to others, for the questions that buyer expects to be asked, and for a seller reporting a forecast to a manager whose need is known.

Where it stops applying. A review of experiments run under varied conditions, not a single study and not a study of selling; the course says so. It describes tendencies, not how a given buyer or seller will respond, and applying it to a sale or a forecast is the course’s inference.

Lerner, J. S. & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the Effects of Accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255

Forecasting that can be scored

Tetlock & Gardner · Foundations, The Craft; Advanced, Forecasting Honestly

A book for general readers describing research on forecasting, including a tournament in which volunteers forecast world events as probabilities that could be scored. A small group did consistently best; in the authors’ account they started from how often things of the kind happen, broke hard questions into parts, changed their forecasts often in small steps as news arrived, and kept score. The course uses it to have a seller write reads of their own deals with a date and a chance, score them, and move a reported forecast as the news comes.

Where it stops applying. A book for general readers, not a research paper, and the course says so. The tournament asked about world events, which a forecaster cannot change; a seller’s actions change the outcomes they forecast. Applying it to a seller is the course’s inference.

Tetlock, P. E. & Gardner, D. (2015). Superforecasting. Crown.

Omission and commission

Spranca, Minsk & Baron · Foundations, The Buyer’s Mind; Advanced, Competitive Displacement, The Loss Post-Mortem and Ethics Under Pressure

In experiments with written scenarios, people tended to judge harm caused by failing to act less harshly than the same harm caused by acting, with motives and consequences held equal. The course uses it to explain why a buyer feels safer waiting than changing, why a seller reviewing a lost deal tends to list what was done and miss what was not, and why a limit a buyer never asks about feels innocent to leave unsaid.

Where it stops applying. Experiments with written scenarios about other people, not purchases or a person’s own conduct. They show which way judgements lean, not how far, and the course describes them in general terms.

Spranca, M., Minsk, E. & Baron, J. (1991). Omission and Commission in Judgment and Choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 76–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(91)90011-T

Dishonest a little, and still honest

Mazar, Amir & Ariely · Advanced, Ethics Under Pressure

In experiments in which people could overstate their own scores on simple puzzles without being checked, they tended to overclaim by a little, far less than they could have, which the authors explained as keeping their view of themselves as honest; they overclaimed more when the act was a step removed from money. The course uses it to show how a seller’s small stretch, “yes” for “mostly”, comes easily and feels honest, and to answer at the size of the truth.

Where it stops applying. Experiments with puzzles and small sums, built so that cheating was easy and safe, not sales. They show a direction, not how far a given seller goes. The paper’s experiment on moral reminders is taught only beside the large multi-lab replication that failed to reproduce it, in the next entry.

Mazar, N., Amir, O. & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633–644. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633

A failed replication of the moral-reminder effect

Verschuere · Advanced, Ethics Under Pressure

A registered replication, run across many laboratories to a plan fixed before any data were collected, of the experiment in the previous entry’s paper in which recalling moral rules before a task reduced cheating. The large multi-lab replication failed to reproduce the moral-reminder effect. The course teaches it beside the original paper, so that the lesson on the small stretch offers no reminder of a code as a remedy, and holds the rest of the paper with care.

Where it stops applying. A replication of one experiment, not of the paper’s other studies; the course uses it neither for nor against them. Like the original, it used a simple task in a setting built for the purpose, not selling.

Verschuere, B. et al. (2018). Registered Replication Report on Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008). Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918781032

Blind spots in ethical decisions

Bazerman & Tenbrunsel · Advanced, Ethics Under Pressure

A book for general readers by two researchers, describing research on how people act against their own ethical standards without noticing: the ethical side of a decision fading when it is seen as a business decision; predicting better behaviour than people show, and remembering it kindly; not noticing others’ wrongdoing when noticing would cost them; and judging harm done through an intermediary less harshly. The course uses it for four lessons on a seller under pressure: plain words, lines decided in advance, reading as if you gained nothing, and owning what is said for you.

Where it stops applying. A book for general readers, not a research paper, and the course says so in every lesson that rests on it; the lessons rest on the book’s account and describe its studies only in general terms. None of the research studied sellers, and its application to them is the course’s inference.

Bazerman, M. H. & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011). Blind Spots. Princeton University Press.

Givers, takers and matchers

Grant · Advanced, Referral and Reputation and The Twenty-Year Career

A book for general readers describing research on giving and taking at work: most people try to keep exchanges even, notice when someone takes more than their share and tend to pass it on; old contacts people had lost touch with, once reconnected, tended to give newer and more useful help than current ones; and givers were found at both ends of success, with those who kept their own interests in view, which the book calls otherish, tending to last where selfless givers burned out. The course uses it to treat a small advantage kept quietly as something that will travel, to get back in touch with former buyers who saw a seller’s work, and to give generously in a way that lasts.

Where it stops applying. A book for general readers, not a research paper, and the course says so; the lessons rest on its account of the research. None of it studied sellers and buyers, and the application is the course’s inference.

Grant, A. M. (2013). Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success. Viking.

Three buying situations

Robinson, Faris & Wind · Advanced, Account Expansion

A book reporting a study of how purchasing was done in a few companies, best known for sorting organisational purchases into three buying situations: the straight rebuy, reordered with little looking around; the modified rebuy, a familiar purchase with something changed, in which other suppliers get a look; and a new task, a problem the organisation has not met before. The course uses it to ask which situation a proposal for more work will start in an account the seller already has, and to keep the work already running out of it where that is honest.

Where it stops applying. A classification drawn from observing a few companies, not a tested finding, and the course says so. It names situations; it does not measure how often a purchase is reopened. Treating most expansion as a modified rebuy is the course’s reading of it.

Robinson, P. J., Faris, C. W. & Wind, Y. (1967). Industrial Buying and Creative Marketing. Allyn & Bacon.

The record a customer keeps

Bolton · Advanced, Account Expansion

One study of customers of a service paid for continuously, surveyed about their satisfaction and followed to see how long they kept it, with a model of satisfaction accumulated over time. Satisfaction measured beforehand went with how long people stayed; customers with longer experience leaned more on their accumulated view; and losses from later experiences were reported to weigh more than similar gains. The course uses it to find out what is in a buyer’s record of a seller, and settle anything unresolved, before proposing more.

Where it stops applying. One study of consumers of one service, with a model fitted to survey answers and records: it shows what went together, not what caused what, and says nothing about business buyers or proposals for more. Applying it to an account is the course’s inference.

Bolton, R. N. (1998). A dynamic model of the duration of the customer’s relationship with a continuous service provider: The role of satisfaction. Marketing Science, 17(1), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.17.1.45

Attachment, staying and share of spending

Verhoef · Advanced, Account Expansion

One field study of a financial services company’s customers, surveyed and then followed in its records. Customers’ affective commitment, an attachment to the supplier that is about wanting to stay, went with both staying and a growing share of their business going to the company, and so did loyalty programmes with an economic reward. The effects were small. The course uses it to measure an account by the share of the buyer’s spending a seller has, not only by whether it renews, and to look for growth where people would miss working with the seller.

Where it stops applying. One company’s consumer customers, with surveys and records and small effects: it shows what went together, not what caused what, and did not study organisations or sellers. Treating customer share as a seller’s share of an account is the course’s inference.

Verhoef, P. C. (2003). Understanding the effect of customer relationship management efforts on customer retention and customer share development. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 30–45. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.4.30.18685

The relationship with no contract

Reinartz & Kumar · Advanced, Account Expansion

A study of a firm’s customers who bought with no contract binding them. Because such customers stop without saying so, the researchers estimated from each customer’s own purchase record how likely they were still buying, reading the gap since the last purchase against that customer’s usual rhythm, and examined what went with a longer profitable life; features of the customers’ buying and of the firm’s contact with them did. The course uses the problem the study was built around: in work a buyer orders as needed, the end is a silence, to be noticed from the gap and asked about.

Where it stops applying. Models fitted to one firm’s purchase records: they show what went together, not what caused what, and the estimate that a customer is still buying is a probability, not a fact. The study did not ask customers why they stopped, or study organisations or sellers.

Reinartz, W. & Kumar, V. (2003). The impact of customer relationship characteristics on profitable lifetime duration. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.1.77.18589

Behaviour modelling training

Taylor, Russ-Eft & Chan · Advanced, Teaching the Craft

A meta-analysis of studies of training in which a behaviour is set out in key points, shown, practised and given feedback. Its largest effects were on learning, with smaller but real effects on behaviour at work, and knowledge tended to fade while skill held up better. Use at work went with showing the behaviour done badly as well as well, practice on situations the trainees supplied, the trainees’ superiors being trained too, and rewards for using it at work. The course uses it to teach a colleague a selling behaviour, and to make the work around them ask for it.

Where it stops applying. A pooling of studies of training for many kinds of work, of varied quality, none of them selling; its findings on transfer are associations across programmes, not experiments that changed one feature at a time. Applying it to teaching a seller is the course’s inference.

Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F. & Chan, D. W. L. (2005). A meta-analytic review of behavior modeling training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 692–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.692

Skill decay

Arthur, Bennett, Stanush & McNelly · Advanced, Teaching the Craft

A meta-analysis of studies in which people were trained, went a period without using the skill and were tested again. Performance tended to decline over the period without use, more as the period grew longer, and tasks of thinking and accuracy tended to lose more than physical and speed-based ones. The course uses it to rehearse a seller’s rare skills, such as a walk-away line, shortly before they are needed, and to teach skills close to their first use.

Where it stops applying. A pooling of studies of many kinds of skill, mostly in training settings, none of them selling; tendencies, not rates. The review did not test rehearsal before use, and that remedy is the course’s inference.

Arthur, W., Bennett, W., Stanush, P. L. & McNelly, T. L. (1998). Factors that influence skill decay and retention: A quantitative review and analysis. Human Performance, 11(1), 57–101. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1101_3

Job burnout

Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter · Advanced, The Twenty-Year Career

A review of research describing burnout as a prolonged response to long-running strain at work, with three parts, exhaustion, cynicism and a sense of inefficacy, and engagement as its opposite. Across the research it reviewed, features of the job were more strongly related to burnout than features of the person, and it described six areas of mismatch between a person and their work: workload, control, reward, community, fairness and values. The course uses it to notice wearing down early, especially cynicism about buyers that sounds like experience, and to ask for one specific change where the work does not fit.

Where it stops applying. A review across many occupations, none of them selling, describing patterns, not a way for anyone to diagnose themselves. The course says plainly that it is not health advice, and points to a doctor or another qualified professional.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B. & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

Adaptive selling

Spiro & Weitz · Advanced, The Twenty-Year Career

Defined adaptive selling as changing what a salesperson does, within a conversation or across conversations, on what they perceive about the selling situation, and built a questionnaire measure of it, tested on salespeople’s answers to check that it held together and related to other measures as the idea predicted. The course uses it to read the situation and change the approach, keeping the facts the same for every buyer.

Where it stops applying. A measure of salespeople’s ratings of themselves, tested on survey data: it shows what goes together, not what causes what, and does not say which adaptations work. The course supplies the situations from its other lessons, by inference.

Spiro, R. L. & Weitz, B. A. (1990). Adaptive selling: Conceptualization, measurement, and nomological validity. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379002700106

What goes with sales performance

Verbeke, Dietz & Verwaal · Advanced, The Twenty-Year Career

A meta-analysis of studies of what goes with sales performance. Among the factors most strongly related to it were selling-related knowledge, adaptiveness, role ambiguity, which went with lower performance, cognitive aptitude and engagement; the authors asked whether salespeople have become knowledge brokers. The course uses it for adapting to the buyer and, in its last lesson, for what lasts across a career: knowledge of how buyers decide, used and renewed.

Where it stops applying. Pooled correlational studies: they show what went with performance, not what caused it, and none measured this course. The course promises no result from them.

Verbeke, W., Dietz, B. & Verwaal, E. (2011). Drivers of sales performance: a contemporary meta-analysis. Have salespeople become knowledge brokers? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(3), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0211-8

Overconfidence

Russo & Schoemaker · Advanced, Pipeline Judgment

An article for managers describing tests in which people gave ranges they were confident would contain a true answer, and the ranges tended to be far too narrow. It separates knowing something from knowing the limits of what you know. The course uses it to separate what a seller knows about a deal from what they assume, and to widen ranges until they are honest.

Where it stops applying. An article for managers, not a report of a single experiment, and the course says so. The tests it describes used questions with known answers, not deals, and its remedies are argued rather than tested here.

Russo, J. E. & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1992). Managing overconfidence. Sloan Management Review, 33(2), 7–17.

Timid choices and bold forecasts

Kahneman & Lovallo · Foundations, The Buyer’s Mind and The Problem Frame; Advanced, Pipeline Judgment

An article arguing, from psychological research, that people tend to treat each case as unique: forecasting from the plan in front of them rather than the record of similar cases, which makes forecasts bold, and judging each risky choice alone rather than as one of many, which makes choices timid. The course uses the first to forecast a buyer’s decision from their own record, and the second to help a buyer see one decision beside others like it, and a seller decide a hard step as a rule across every deal rather than deal by deal.

Where it stops applying. An argument drawn from research, not a new experiment, and not a study of selling; the course says so. Applying it to a buyer’s timetable or a seller’s pipeline is the course’s inference.

Kahneman, D. & Lovallo, D. (1993). Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts. Management Science, 39(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.39.1.17

The sunk cost effect

Arkes & Blumer · Foundations, The Buyer’s Mind; Advanced, Pipeline Judgment

Once people have invested money, time or effort, they are more likely to keep going, even when stopping would be better. The course uses it to explain why a buyer keeps an arrangement they have put a great deal into, and later lessons on walking away and disqualification refer back to it for the seller who keeps chasing a deal.

Where it stops applying. Not every decision to continue is an error. Sometimes what has already been done does change what the next step is worth.

Arkes, H. R. & Blumer, C. (1985). The Psychology of Sunk Cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4

Escalation of commitment

Staw · Foundations, The Buyer’s Mind; Advanced, Pipeline Judgment

People who were personally responsible for a decision that went badly committed more resources to it. The course uses it for the buyer who chose the current approach and is reluctant to admit it is failing, and later lessons on walking away and disqualification refer back to it for the seller who will not let a dead deal go.

Where it stops applying. A role-play study with business students. Real organisations add pressures the study did not include.

Staw, B. (1976). Knee-Deep in the Big Muddy: A Study of Escalating Commitment to a Chosen Course of Action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90005-2

The planning fallacy

Buehler, Griffin & Ross · Foundations, The Buyer’s Mind

People underestimate how long their own tasks will take, even when they know similar tasks ran late before. The course uses it to explain why sales forecasts slip, and to forecast from what a buyer has done rather than what you hope.

Where it stops applying. Studied on people predicting their own tasks. The course applies it to forecasting when a deal will close, which is an analogy, and says so.

Buehler, R., Griffin, D. & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the “Planning Fallacy”: Why People Underestimate Their Task Completion Times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366–381. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.366

Choice overload, and its limits

Iyengar & Lepper; Scheibehenne, Greifeneder & Todd; Chernev, Böckenholt & Goodman · Foundations, The Buyer’s Mind; the free diagnostic

Iyengar and Lepper found that people offered a large range of options were in some cases less likely to choose at all. Chernev, Böckenholt and Goodman analysed a further body of studies and found overload more likely when the options are complex, the choice is hard, the chooser is unsure what they want, and they want to keep the effort of deciding low. The course uses it to settle the buyer’s priorities first, then offer few options, each tied to one of them, and say which it recommends.

Where it stops applying. Contested. A later review of many studies by Scheibehenne, Greifeneder and Todd found the average effect was close to zero, with the effect appearing only under some conditions. The course presents it that way: fewer options are not always better.

Iyengar, S. S. & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995–1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995

Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R. & Todd, P. M. (2010). Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1086/651235

Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U. & Goodman, J. (2015). Choice Overload: A Conceptual Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 333–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.08.002

Loss aversion without a gamble

Tversky & Kahneman · Foundations, The Problem Frame

A model of choice without risk, in which people judge options as gains and losses from a reference point, and losses weigh more than gains of the same size. The reference point is usually the present, but it can also be set by what a person expects or aims for. The course uses it to find out what the buyer measures the present against, since the same present can feel like a loss from one point and a gain from another.

Where it stops applying. The studies asked people to make hypothetical choices about goods, jobs and money, not decisions inside organisations. They show that the reference point matters and can shift, not which one a given buyer will use.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937956

Self-persuasion

Aronson · Foundations, The Buyer’s Mind

In a review of research that grew out of the study of cognitive dissonance, Aronson made the case that people are moved more, and for longer, by reasons they produce themselves than by reasons they are handed. The course uses it to explain why a cost the buyer states behaves differently from a cost the seller asserts, and to ask questions in an order that lets the buyer build the figure.

Where it stops applying. The research was mostly laboratory and field experiments on attitudes and behaviour, not sales. The course holds the step to a buying decision as a working hypothesis, not a law.

Aronson, E. (1999). The Power of Self-Persuasion. American Psychologist, 54(11), 875–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088188

Commitment language

Amrhein, Miller, Yahne, Palmer & Fulcher · Foundations, The Buyer’s Mind

In a study of 84 people in counselling for drug use, the strength of the commitment clients expressed in their own words about changing predicted their later drug use. The course uses it to suggest listening to how strongly a buyer speaks about acting, in their own words, rather than how strongly they agree with yours.

Where it stops applying. A clinical setting, not a commercial one. The step from there to a buying decision is an inference, and the course says so.

Amrhein, P. C., Miller, W. R., Yahne, C. E., Palmer, M. & Fulcher, L. (2003). Client Commitment Language during Motivational Interviewing Predicts Drug Use Outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(5), 862–878. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.5.862

The principles of influence

Cialdini · Foundations, Earning Attention, Trust, Articulation and Commitment; Advanced, Concession Architecture

Cialdini describes tendencies that lead people to agree to requests: returning a favour or a concession, staying consistent with what they have committed to, liking, deferring to authority, following what similar people have done, and judging a thing by what came just before it. The course uses them for the first contact, evidence of ability, examples from other buyers, how a price is set beside a cost, commitments that hold and concessions that are returned, and sets out how easily each is abused.

Where it stops applying. A book for general readers, reporting research by Cialdini and others in many settings, few of them sales between organisations. It shows which way people tend to lean, not how far a given buyer will. The course rules out every use that works by deceiving the buyer.

Cialdini, R. B. (2021). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, new and expanded edn. Harper Business. First published 1984.

Why people comply

Cialdini & Goldstein · Foundations, Earning Attention, Trust and Commitment

A review of research on compliance and conformity. It places reciprocation, and commitment and consistency, among the main principles that lead people to agree, and separates what people see others do from what they see others approve of. The course uses it with Cialdini’s book, for giving before asking, the small first request, examples from similar buyers and commitments that hold.

Where it stops applying. It covers social influence in general, not sales. It shows tendencies across groups of people, not what a particular buyer will do.

Cialdini, R. B. & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015

The foot in the door

Freedman & Fraser · Foundations, Earning Attention

People who had agreed to a small request were later more likely to agree to a much larger one, in one study even when the second request came from a different person about a different matter. The course uses it to make the first request in a sale small, and worth granting on its own.

Where it stops applying. The studies involved householders and civic requests, not buyers. A small step taken in order to trap someone into a large one is manipulation, and the course rules it out.

Freedman, J. L. & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. JPSP, 4(2), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023552

The reason given for a request

Langer, Blank & Chanowitz · Foundations, Earning Attention

Asked by a stranger to let them use a copying machine first, people agreed to a small request about as often when the reason had no information in it as when it was real. For a larger request, only a real reason helped. The course uses it to argue that a buyer asked for their time will look at what the reason contains, so the reason has to be about them.

Where it stops applying. One setting, with strangers and favours measured in pages, not buyers. A real reason makes a request worth considering; it does not oblige anyone to agree.

Langer, E., Blank, A. & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action. JPSP, 36(6), 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.6.635

Reason-based choice

Shafir, Simonson & Tversky · Foundations, Earning Attention and Commitment

A review of research finding that people often decide by looking for reasons they could give for a choice, especially when they expect to have to justify it, and tend to put a decision off when no clear reason is available. The course uses it to give the buyer a sentence they could repeat to a colleague, and to explain why a choice with no clear reason stalls.

Where it stops applying. The research concerns laboratory and everyday choices, not purchases between businesses. It does not say how much a repeatable reason will help with a given buyer, and the reason has to be true.

Shafir, E., Simonson, I. & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49(1–2), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90034-S

Conflict and the deferred decision

Tversky & Shafir · Foundations, Commitment

People who imagined coming across one attractive option tended to take it; when a second attractive option, better in a different way, was added, more of them chose to wait. A clearly worse second option did not have that effect. The course uses it to help the buyer resolve the conflict between two good options at the point of commitment, or not to create it.

Where it stops applying. Imagined choices about everyday items, not decisions in organisations. It shows which way people lean when options conflict, not how often a given buyer will defer, or for how long.

Tversky, A. & Shafir, E. (1992). Choice under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision. Psychological Science, 3(6), 358–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00047.x

Asking questions, and being liked

Huang, Yeomans, Brooks, Minson & Gino; Yeomans, Brooks, Huang, Minson & Gino · Foundations, Diagnosis, Trust and Objection as Information

In conversations between people who had just met, those who asked more questions were liked more, mostly through follow-up questions that took up what the other person had said. A later paper by the same team describes the benefit as cumulative. The course uses it for a narrow point: asking about what a buyer has just said tends to make them like you more.

Where it stops applying. The studies measured liking, not trust, between people who had just met. They did not study sales, and they do not test the practitioner research on questioning that Diagnosis also uses.

Huang, K., Yeomans, M., Brooks, A. W., Minson, J. & Gino, F. (2017). It doesn’t hurt to ask: Question-asking increases liking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 430–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000097

Yeomans, M., Brooks, A. W., Huang, K., Minson, J. & Gino, F. (2019). It helps to ask: The cumulative benefits of asking follow-up questions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(6), 1139–1144. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000193

What sellers did in successful large sales

Rackham · Foundations, Diagnosis, Articulation, Objection as Information, Commitment and The Craft

Rackham’s book reports his firm’s observational research on a large number of sales calls, mostly in large sales. It sorts sellers’ questions into four kinds, separates a stated problem from a stated want, separates descriptions of an offer from benefits that answer a stated need, sorts how meetings end, and reports that closing techniques went with less success in large sales. The course uses it for the questions of discovery, describing an offer, preventing objections, asking for the next step and taking a new behaviour into real conversations.

Where it stops applying. Research by the author’s own firm, reported in a book, not in a paper checked by other researchers, and mainly about large sales. It shows what went with success, not what caused it, and nothing else on the course’s list tests it. The course treats it as careful practitioners’ evidence, and where a lesson rests on its advice alone, it says so.

Rackham, N. (1988). SPIN Selling. McGraw-Hill.

Teaching, tailoring and taking control

Dixon & Adamson · Foundations, The Problem Frame, Articulation and Objection as Information

The book reports a study by the authors’ own firm that sorted sales representatives into five profiles, and found one far more common than the others among the highest performers, most of all in complex sales. The course uses three of that profile’s habits: offering a view of the buyer’s business they had not had, as a view they can test; shaping the case to what each person needs, without changing the facts; and holding a point the buyer needs held.

Where it stops applying. Research by the authors’ own firm, in a book written for sellers and their managers, not checked by other researchers. It is an association with performance as the companies measured it, not proof of cause, and nothing else on the course’s list tests it.

Dixon, M. & Adamson, B. (2011). The Challenger Sale. Portfolio.

Attunement, the blemished frame and buoyancy

Pink · Foundations, Diagnosis, Articulation and Objection as Information

A book for general readers on selling that reports other researchers’ work: on taking another person’s point of view, on a small drawback that made a description more favourable under some conditions, and on how people explain a setback to themselves. The course uses it for hearing a problem as the buyer does, naming one honest drawback, and explaining a no in a way that can be acted on.

Where it stops applying. Pink is a writer reporting other people’s studies, which are not on the course’s list and have not been checked here against their original papers. They were mostly experiments, not sales conversations.

Pink, D. H. (2012). To Sell Is Human. Riverhead Books.

Fast and slow thinking

Kahneman · Foundations, Earning Attention, Diagnosis, The Problem Frame, Articulation, Objection as Information, The Follow-Through and The Craft

A book for general readers drawing together research on judgement. The course uses several of the effects it describes: the limits of deliberate attention, the ease with which something is taken in, the confident story built only from what is in front of you, the focusing illusion, narrow and broad framing, answering an easier question, regression to the mean, hindsight and judging by outcomes, memory of the worst moment and the end, the halo effect, a case judged by the average of its points, and when intuition can be trusted.

Where it stops applying. The research it describes used laboratory tasks and everyday judgements, not sales. Each application in the course is the lesson’s own inference, and the lessons say so.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Defaults and the design of choices

Thaler & Sunstein · Foundations, The Problem Frame and The Follow-Through

Thaler and Sunstein argue that there is no neutral way to present a choice, that the option which takes effect when nobody decides tends to stick, and that a well-designed arrangement expects mistakes and gives prompt feedback. The course uses it to put the present arrangement on the list as an option the buyer chooses, and to plan the first weeks after a yes around the mistakes people will make.

Where it stops applying. A book drawing on research and examples mostly from personal decisions, government and finance, not purchases between organisations. Its principles are design advice, not measured findings about sales.

Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge. Yale University Press.

Deliberate practice, and the argument about it

Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer; Macnamara, Hambrick & Oswald · Foundations, The Craft

Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Römer found that the violin students judged best had, on their own estimates, spent more time over the years practising alone, and called practice designed to improve one part of performance, with feedback, deliberate practice. Macnamara, Hambrick and Oswald pooled studies of practice and performance and found that practice explained a smaller share of the differences between people than the theory implied, smallest of all in the professions. The course uses both to separate experience from practice, and builds its drills on one narrow moment with feedback.

Where it stops applying. The size of the effect is contested, and the course teaches the disagreement. The research studied musicians, players and students, not sellers, and the course’s drills have not been tested in the field.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T. & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363

Macnamara, B. N., Hambrick, D. Z. & Oswald, F. L. (2014). Deliberate Practice and Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1608–1618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535810

Feedback that makes performance worse

Kluger & DeNisi · Advanced, Teaching the Craft

A review and meta-analysis of studies that measured performance after feedback. On average feedback helped, but in more than a third of the cases it reduced performance. The authors proposed that feedback helps when it keeps attention on the task, and can harm when it draws attention to the self. The course uses it to teach feedback on one named point, about what was done and what to do next, with no verdict on the person, praise included.

Where it stops applying. None of the studies was of selling. The theory is the authors’ account of the pooled results, not a separate test, and nobody can say in advance which feedback will harm which person.

Kluger, A. N. & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254