Messengers: Who We Listen To, Who We Don't, and Why

by Stephen Martin, Joseph Marks

"In the age of fake news, understanding who we trust and why is essential in explaining everything from leadership to power to our daily relationships." -Sinan Aral

We live in a world where proven facts and verifiable data are freely and widely available. Why, then, are self-confident ignoramuses so often believed over thoughtful experts? And why do seemingly irrelevant details such as a person's appearance or financial status influence whether or not we trust what they are saying, regardless of their wisdom or foolishness?



Stephen Martin and Joseph Marks compellingly explain how in our uncertain and ambiguous world, the messenger is increasingly the message. We frequently fail, they argue, to separate the idea being communicated from the person conveying it, explaining why the status or connectedness of the messenger has become more important than the message itself.




Messengers influence business, politics, local communities, and our broader society. And Martin and Marks reveal the forces behind the most infuriating phenomena of our modern era, such as belief in fake news and how presidents can hawk misinformation and flagrant lies yet remain.

Genres: Nonfiction, Psychology, Business, Sociology, Self Help, Personal Development, Politics

352 pages, Hardcover

First published October 15, 2019

Reviews

[Dogukaan Satir · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book with simple points. It has no re-read value.

My summary:

Messengers people tend to listen:

1. Socioeconomic status:
-Looking wealthy.

2. Perceived competence:
Taking medical advice from a doctor etc.
Having mature, less round than average face(high cheekbones, angular jaw).

3. Dominance can be a forceful way to get the message across:
Dominance indications:
-Competitive, assertive, even aggressive behavior focusing on self-interest rather than empathy.
-Low pitched voice(remember Elizabeth Holmes)
-Using expensive postures, making open gestures, being happy with taking lots of space.
Signs of high testosterone is associated with strength and dominance.

4. Attractive messengers get more attention and respond:
Two research about the topic:
Even 2-month babies reward attractive faces.
(Average youthful symmetric faces signal good genes)
EVEN JURORS favored attractive criminals. (yeah we are corrupted fundamentally aren't we)
Red colors are rewarded for women(lipstick etc.).

5. Messengers who have a connection with their audience to have more success than authority:
E.g. Rasputin was highly judged by society, the ones that were more positive were sharing their birthdays with him.
We need to see messenger is on our side or not, this is tribal for us.
Successful salespeople do this a lot.
In Zimbabwe women who made a living by braiding hair were more successful at delivering messages about condom usage then doctors(who have a sign of status).

6. We respond well to warm messengers:
Warm people show others respect, friendliness, and benevolence. They avoid demonstration of hostility, rudeness or coldness and take care of others' feelings.
This is ingrained in us from a young age.
E.g. Research from 2007 shows 6-month kids engage more with puppets needs who are helpful to other puppets.
In the US drivers are given warm and cheery send-off as they start off were involved in fewer accidents ("we really appreciate your work", "hey, stay safe today" etc.)
being warm can save lives...

7. Embracing vulnerabilities are good:
Happily embracing our vulnerabilities shows us more human to the audience.
E.g. A pig in an animation movie trying to escape a farm after learning humans eat pigs reduced pork sales in the US. (anthropomorphism)

8. Trust has a huge impact on how we respond:
From relations to economics, trust is an essential ingredient of life.
For building trust, consistency is the key but you also need to be reachable/open. When we have positive, repeated, and consistent interactions with someone, we start to infer trustworthiness in them.

[Ell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Messengers: Who We Listen To, Who We Don't, and Why, is an insightful, engrossing and educative book. In the 21st century we find ourselves impacted more and more by influencers. We look to individuals we perceive as prominent and dynamic and take our social, professional, political and consumer cues from them. But how exactly does an individual gain the power to have influence over us, even when perhaps they should not? Why do some people with expertise, knowledge and good intentions get largely ignored despite their competence and proficiency? The logic and salience of the message, it turns out, is not nearly as important as the messenger. The messenger becomes inexorably linked to the message. Because the messenger conveys social context that the message does not, the messenger effectively overshadows the message itself. On both macro and micro levels, messages get lost or inflated by the very messengers that carry them. Martin and Marks examine eight crucial traits that shape effective messengers and largely determine the communicative hierarchy. Five stars.

[Yzabel Ginsberg · Rating 3 out of 5]

[I received a copy through NetGalley, in exchange for an honest review.]

An interesting read altogether, although I sometimes found it too ‘light’ and superficial. Perhaps because of the many anecdotes it contains? On the one hand, they do help in getting the point, for sure, but after a while I felt that the book would be definitely more of an introduction (with the research quoted in it having to become the actual focus at some point) than a reference all of itself. Perhaps that was the goal all along, though.

In any case, I did find this research thought-provoking. It’s not the first time that I’m faced with concepts such as ‘we believe ourselves super good at judging people, circumstances etc, but in fact we’re lousier at it than we’d think’; and, let’s be honest, when I look around me at the kind of messages we get, at who broadcasts them, at how people listen to them… Yes, I’m willing to believe that -who- delivers the message is often better heard than the message itself (or allows for the message to be misunderstood in part). Is that a constant? Not necessarily, since behaviours, physical traits, and how we read them are much more complex than meet the eye; but it doesn’t hurt to keep in mind that, yes, we may just as well be influenced by a “dominant” or “handsome” appearance rather than by sound judgement, while remaining convinced our decision is perfectly rational and informed. If this only leads to think twice and get back to finding facts and information before deciding, it’s a good thing.

(I must also admit that the book gives a few good ideas about things like posture and tone of voice to use if wanting to impress people or convey a specific meaning. After all, once aware of what people in general tend to respond to, well, might as well try to use it and see if it helps when trying to convince them myself, right?)

Conclusion: 3 to 3.5 stars. It was informative in a general way, yet I think it would’ve benefitted from a deeper analysis as well.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Forget about honing only your message. It turns out that the messenger is much more important than the message. That’s why millions react to Obama’s tweets but nobody would react to mine.

So what makes a compelling messenger? Strong and soft powers:
Strong:
1. Socio-economic position: celebrity power
2. Competence
3. Dominance: Trump vs Clinton
4. Attractiveness: cute babies and beautiful models sell stuff

Soft:
1. Warmth: warm Doctors get better results and get sued less
2. Vulnerability. But only if you are deemed competent. Otherwise it is just sad.
3. Trustworthiness
4. Charisma.

Use hard or soft powers? It depends. In emergencies and crises, hard power leaders are preferred. In peace time, soft power leaders are preferred. That is why Churchill lost the election after the war. An effective leader will alternate his approach depending on the situation. That is of course not easy to achieve.

Also we listen to favoured messengers and often ignore the validity of the message. It is difficult to avoid, and even being aware of the effects does not negate it. But we can always try.

[Dr. Tobias Christian Fischer · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m surprised about the book: but I’m convinced of the arguments and like it a lot.

[Lilisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well organized and insightful, this book is deftly packaged focusing on who we listen to, who we don’t and why. In an ever-increasingly over-crowded shrill world where competing interests and their backers are jockeying for our attention and vote - whether it’s on a product, service, or person - who carries “the message” is key. What drives us to suspend rational thinking and facts and be swayed by those influencers/messengers deployed to coax us into believing that which may or may not be true. It’s the messenger, stupid! Stephen Martin and Joseph Marks walk us through the many ways in which we are influenced by messengers - based on a multitude of factors.With specific examples and data points, the authors break down for us how we are susceptible to the messages conveyed by artful messengers regardless of what’s fact or fiction. No matter how discerning we are, we are all influenced by warmth and charisma, trustworthiness and vulnerability. We are impressed by competence and socio-economic position, swayed by attractiveness. This is an interesting and well written book, reinforcing what we may already know and shedding new light on what we may not with cited research. Messengers matter, messengers are key, beware of messengers! :-) A recommended read. Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the opportunity to read and review this book.

[Moh. Nasiri · Rating 3 out of 5]

Humans make snap judgments about messengers themselves, not just about their message.
پیش داوری های ظاهری در ارتباطات کلامی و غیرکلامی
When we listen to a message, we don’t just judge it on its merits. We judge it by the messenger who delivers it and make a rapid, instinctive assessment of their status or of how they connect with us as humans by, for example, demonstrating vulnerability or trustworthiness. We listen to and trust people not according to their intelligence or the coherence of their arguments but for reasons from the color of their clothes to the warmth of their voice. 
(blinkist)

[Tom Williams · Rating 3 out of 5]

The subtitle of Messengers is ‘Who We Listen To, Who We Don’t, And Why’. In a world that has given us Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, learning the answer to this question seems worth the effort involving reading the book, but having finished it I’m not sure that I’m any clearer.

This is a pop psychology book with all the strengths and weaknesses of that genre. It starts out with a lot of anecdotes – some mind-blowingly banal (somebody who tweeted something on the same day that Barrack Obama tweeted something very similar got millions fewer re-tweets) and some quite fascinating (employees of an Indian entrepreneur with a caring management style offered to work for nothing when her business was in trouble).

Anecdotes, though, obviously don’t make up a convincing argument so the book quotes lots of psychological experiments, some by the authors and some from other sources. The problem with this approach is that you have to take an awful lot on trust. I’m sensitive to this because my degree was in Experimental Psychology and I’m aware that very small differences in the way an experiment was conducted can have quite profound influences on the outcome. It’s difficult to be confident in the results of an experiment which has been reported in a few short paragraphs. This is an inevitable problem with this kind of book and does not reflect badly on the authors, but it does mean that if you accept their arguments you will trust the research and if you don’t you will (probably at least sometimes justifiably) dismiss the research. In fairness, research studies are well footnoted and you can follow them all up, but it is unlikely that the non-specialist reader that this book is clearly aimed at will ever do that. You have to take a lot on trust and, ironically, one of the main messages of the book is that humans are terribly bad at judging when they can take stuff on trust and when they should be more sceptical.

Leaving these reservations aside, what does it tell us? Very crudely put, it suggests that we pay more attention to the characteristics of the messenger than we do to the characteristics of the message. We like leaders to be tall and square jawed, or empathetic and caring. It’s an analysis that explains the appeal of Donald Trump. He is a classic alpha male – bombastic, dominant, and pugilistic. Some of this, according to the book, is innate. He was born with a face shape that is associated with dominance. (There is a photograph that illustrates how facial height to width ratio is calculated, enabling this to be quantified.) Some of it may have been learned over his lifetime: the way he stands, the amount he gestures with his arms, the deep timbre of his voice. Perhaps it’s significant that when comedians who do not share his political approach mimic him they tend to emphasise the speech mannerism where his voice can suddenly move into quite a high register. Or perhaps it’s not – the authors don’t mention this.

That’s part of the trouble. Human behaviour is complex. Few people are consistent. Boris Johnson is often compared to Donald Trump, but untidy blonde hair is not the attribute that the authors think is important. On the attributes they do think important – posture, vocal mannerisms, etc – Boris is almost the antithesis of Trump. He bumbles on, waffles and, to a degree, charms – but he hardly fits the stereotype of an alpha male.

In fairness to the authors, they do acknowledge the complexities that underlie many of the behaviours they analyse – but perhaps still not enough. So, for example, at one point they write:

"[Apologies] are … immensely powerful social tools, critical to the repairing or re-establishing of relationships. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd provided a formidable demonstration of this when, in the course of a four minute speech in February 2008 he issued a public apology for the way in which indigenous Australians had been treated years before he himself had achieved public office. He recognised, he said, that he needed to “apologise for the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians”."

Much later, in a separate discussion of apologies, the authors point out that an apology is only likely to be affected if it is “made quickly… made sincerely. And it needs to be made in a way that shows remorse and commitment to change in the future.” Kevin Rudd’s four minute speech could not possibly have met these criteria and yet the authors explicitly link it to “the highest satisfaction rating of any Australian Prime Minister”.

Obviously there is more going on than can be covered in one relatively short volume. In fact some of the simplifications border on the absurd. At one point the book argues that an experiment showed that facial features are so crucial that “a glance at the faces of candidates running for election was all that was needed to make an informed, and largely accurate, estimate of who would (and indeed did) win.” Whilst what a candidate looks like can be a significant factor, the suggestion that facial appearance can be used to accurately predict the outcome of real elections would, if true, suggest that the selection of legislators by popular ballot is an idea that needs to be reviewed. Personally I am not suggesting that we abolish democracy, but that we view statements like this with grave suspicion.

There is usable, and indeed valuable, stuff in this book. It does no harm for us to be reminded how much we allow irrelevant assessments of people’s social class, dominance, or empathy to affect what should be rational judgements. This can even extend to favouring loan offers which are accompanied by a photograph of an attractive woman rather than an attractive interest rate. There are practical lessons to be learned, too. My wife does some university lecturing and I have passed on the information that lecturers who make more arm movements whilst speaking are perceived as better teachers by their students. In the new world of university education, where student assessment is critical to career advancement, I can confidently predict a fair amount from arm waving next term.

Overall, though, I found this an irritating book – neither an easily read series of anecdotes nor a serious academic study, it repeatedly overpromised and underdelivered. If, however, you honestly believe that you would never form your initial (and surprisingly firm) view of somebody based on the logo on their polo shirt, then perhaps you need to read it.

[Barred Owl Books · Rating 5 out of 5]

"In the age of fake news, understanding who we trust and why is essential in explaining everything from leadership to power to our daily relationships." -Sinan Aral

We live in a world where proven facts and verifiable data are freely and widely available. Why, then, are self-confident ignoramuses so often believed over thoughtful experts? And why do seemingly irrelevant details such as a person's appearance or financial status influence whether or not we trust what they are saying, regardless of their wisdom or foolishness?

Stephen Martin and Joseph Marks compellingly explain how in our uncertain and ambiguous world, the messenger is increasingly the message. We frequently fail, they argue, to separate the idea being communicated from the person conveying it, explaining why the status or connectedness of the messenger has become more important than the message itself.

Messengers influence business, politics, local communities, and our broader society. And Martin and Marks reveal the forces behind the most infuriating phenomena of our modern era, such as belief in fake news and how presidents can hawk misinformation and flagrant lies yet remain

[Norman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Messengers is a tour de force of information, illustrations and anecdotes about why we listen to some people but not others and the effect this can have regarding what we believe or don’t. There is a plentiful list of data from scientific research from which the authors draw their conclusions. At face value it’s an excellent popular level study and draws examples from the worlds of high finance, social media, celebrity and politics to name a few. It should be required reading for anyone who wants to be better informed and aware of why we might listen to some people but reject others, of why we might reject a good argument in favour of a bad one depending on who is offering the argument. It should help us understand our own subconscious biases as well. The reason I’m giving this four rather than five is simply because while there are plenty of referenced studies and data, I simply don’t have time to check them to see if I agree with the studies themselves or the writer’s analysis of them, so to some extent I’m taking on trust the conclusions from these studies. Definitely recommended though, well worth reading.

Review via NetGalley/Random House UK/Cornerstone ARC.

[Leah Horton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thank you to Netgalley for a copy in exchange for my honest review.

This book touched on the concept that we are not able to judge as well as we think we can. I thought this was well written, but I felt there was more to be said beyond the superficial judgements we make. It makes a lot of good points though, we judge messages based not on the message itself as often as the messenger. If you feel a connection or trust towards a person or pathway for delivery you are more likely to blindly follow without knowing truth. It can be so difficult to break down messages and find the unbiased fact. This book is a good star though.

[MISS K DENTON · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating and well researched book which explains why we listen to some people over others. We live in an era where our leaders constantly lie to us and feed us biased or untrue information. This book gives some insight into why people believe them.

Easy to read and well thought out.

[Leon Bhagawanta · Rating 5 out of 5]

As it titled, this book really tell us about messenger that we naturally listen to and the reason behind it.
Every aspect really explained perfectly with universal example.
1. Hard Messengers is the things that we can see clearly on the outside like Socio-Economic Position, Competence, Dominance, and Attractiveness.
2. Soft Messengers is character of the person that made us listen and follow him/her. This include warmth, vulnerability, trustworthiness, and charisma which is considered as abstract since we can't see it but we can absolutely feel it.

[Solomiya Zahray · Rating 5 out of 5]

An essential read that makes one think about leaders, influencers and our surrounding from another engle/perspective and reevaluate the power of opinions

[Jared · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Recognising the traits of society’s messengers is crucial because they fundamentally influence not just who we listen to and what we believe, but also who we become.”

WHAT IS THIS BOOK ABOUT?
- The authors explain how in our uncertain and ambiguous world, the messenger is increasingly the message. We frequently fail, they argue, to separate the idea being communicated from the person conveying it, explaining why the status of the messenger has become more important than the message itself.

WHAT DO WE VALUE IN A MESSENGER?
- When judging the relative worth of a messenger, there is a natural tendency for audiences to assign undue levels of importance and causality to the most salient and prominent messengers.

- We fail to separate the idea being communicated in a message from the person or entity conveying it. This commonly overlooked insight – one that is frequently missed by audiences, and results in them ignoring the expert in the room – illuminates a fundamental feature of the effective messenger. They become the message.

MESSENGER EFFECT
- we describe a ‘messenger effect’ as the change in the level of influence or impact that a messenger’s message has on an audience – because they sent it.

***HARD MESSENGERS***
- Hard messengers are more likely to have their messages accepted, because audiences perceive them to possess superior status. Soft messengers, in contrast, win acceptance of their messages because they are perceived to possess a connectedness with an audience.

- Quite simply, those who are retweeted, and have the biggest impact on attitudes and thinking, are not those who are necessarily insightful or funny or clever. Instead they often simply possess some form of status.

- The traits in question are socio-economic position, competence, dominance and attractiveness.

STATUS OF THE MESSENGER
- Knowing a person’s status allows us to infer many other characteristics about them – sometimes accurately and sometimes not. Status allows us to answer a vitally important question: ‘Is this person worth listening to?’

- Lower-status people wanted affiliation and approval. Higher-status people didn’t need either.

- The common intuitive paradox applies: people who come across as too keen to make friends and impress others often end up achieving the opposite. The reason is not simply that their neediness is unattractive, but that it inadvertently signals a diminished status.

COMPETENCE
- Messengers who are seen as competent or expert have instrumental value: they are deemed to possess the know-how, experience, skills and knowledge that will help them – and potentially the wider community – achieve their goals.

- the ‘if someone looks competent, then they must be competent’ belief holds worryingly true.

DOMINANCE
- Messengers who possess dominant personalities are combative rather than friendly types.

- As humans, we are hard-wired to detect dominance, use it as a cue to navigate our social environment, and reward it with increased attention and status. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the dominant person will frequently be an effective messenger.

- As well as the visual, there is an auditory aspect to dominance. Put simply, we tend to associate high status with lower, more relaxed-sounding voices.

- When facing a dominant aggressor, strategies that centre primarily on cooperation and appeasement will frequently backfire.

ATTRACTIVENESS
- It seems the standard cues that juries use to infer guilt and inform their punishment decisions, that voters use to elect leaders, and that managers use to hire and promote workers can all be influenced by the attractiveness of the messenger before them.

PART TWO

***SOFT MESSENGERS***
- softer-driven characteristics of successful messengers: warmth, vulnerability, trustworthiness and charisma.

- Data from the World Values Survey suggests that possession of strong social relationships – or social capital – is the best predictor of human happiness, trumping wealth, income and material possessions.

- there is another route to influence: one that involves stressing connectedness rather than superiority. In contrast to society’s hard messengers, who seek to win influence by getting ahead of others, soft messengers achieve influence by getting along with their fellow humans. They do this via four traits: Warmth, Vulnerability, Trustworthiness and Charisma.

WARMTH
- sympathetic messengers are better received than their tougher colleagues in a profession,

- political scientists Lasse Laustsen and Alexander Bor found warmth to be a more important characteristic than competence, when voters came to judge political leaders.

VULNERABILITY
- residing at the core of any social connection is some form of vulnerability.

- The greater the distance that exists between a vulnerable person and a potential helper, the easier it is to ignore them.

- when people look at stigmatised individuals, such as the homeless and drug addicts, activity in the area of the brain that is involved in understanding others’ minds is reduced: they are registered as being somehow less human.

- it would appear that our brains are rather accomplished at pinning blame and, when they do, they crowd out any impulse to connect and empathise with the person at fault.

TRUSTWORTHINESS
- At its core, trust reflects the expectations that we hold about another person’s actions and intentions – it is a prediction of future good faith. There are two broad forms of trust: competence-based trust and integrity-based trust.

- At its core, trust reflects the expectations that we hold about another person’s actions and intentions – it is a prediction of future good faith. There are two broad forms of trust: competence-based trust and integrity-based trust.

- The Roman writer Publilius Syrus may have said that ‘trust, like the soul, never returns once it is gone’,

- It’s hard – near-impossible – to figure out what another person’s true motives or intentions are. It’s much easier, and requires much less effort, to make a quick assessment of them based on how they look.

CHARISMA
- It’s easy to spot charisma. But impossible to define it.’

- There are nevertheless some telltale signs that often mark out who is more likely to be regarded as charismatic. One of these is an ability to articulate a collective identity and vision.

- those who score highly on Simonton’s Charisma ratings also deployed large numbers of metaphors in their inaugural speeches.

- If metaphors trigger immediate, often emotional responses, so do stories and anecdotes. Stories have an added advantage: they can help form a personal bond between speaker and listener, by triggering thoughts of shared experience, background and struggles.

- Another quality often associated with charisma is surgency: a temperament typically characterised by a positive outlook, high energy and a strong desire for rewarding experiences.

- The most successful talks on TED.com are made by presenters who use almost twice as many hand-gestures as their less successful peers... The more speakers talk with their hands, the more they are viewed as warm and energetic.

- One mental gift that many charismatic people frequently have is the ability to process information quickly and fluidly: they think fast and so are able to make immediate judgements about situations and calibrate their behaviour accordingly. Such quick thinking precludes the agonised indecisiveness from which much cleverer people often suffer.

*** *** *** *** ***

FACTOIDS
- ‘conspicuous consumption’ – a term coined by the Norwegian-American sociologist Thorstein Veblen, who noted how certain members of society would deliberately pay more than necessary for goods and services, in order to impress the rest of society and boost their social power and prestige.

- Research has even shown that a man’s facial width-to-height ratio is a valid predicator of how aggressive he is likely to be. For example, Canadian researchers found a correlation between the width-to-height face ratios of a selection of professional ice-hockey players and the number of minutes those players lost in penalties because of their overly aggressive in-play behaviour in previous seasons.

- taller people are likely to earn much more over their career than their shorter colleagues.

- In fact anthropological records show how context can dramatically change the perceived value of the dominant messenger. For example, Native American tribes choose different chiefs dependent on whether they are at peace or at war.

- Interestingly, high heels weren’t originally intended for women, but rather as a form of riding footwear for men. Sixteenth-century Persian fighters, who greatly valued good horsemanship, would wear high heels to ensure their feet remained in the stirrups as they loaded their bows before standing upright to take aim and fire.

- John Gottman, a clinical psychologist best known for his uncanny ability to predict accurately the likelihood of couples divorcing, finds that the four most reliable predictors that a marriage will fail are signs of criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling and contempt.

- Pigs are sophisticated creatures. Like dogs, piglets are able to learn their names after two or three weeks and will respond when called.

- When he taught a class on thermodynamics at the University of Bern, shortly after publishing his famous E=mc2 equation, only a handful of students attended. And they were all his close friends. The following term his university decided to cancel the class completely.

- pratfall effect – which describes how a temporary loss in status can make a messenger appear more human, and therefore likely to receive more favourable evaluations.

BONUS
- Cassandra from Greek mythology: https://youtu.be/g6G2y35nUnc

- ‘The Big Short’ (Dr. Burry bets against the housing market): https://youtu.be/Cxjdj5_5yNM

- The manly origin of high heels: https://youtu.be/DzSaV7ewI6w

- The ‘beauty premium’ (advantage of attractive people): https://youtu.be/1b9wnZenWsA

- What are ‘dispreferred markers’?: https://youtu.be/VcDkjmdc1To

- What is the ‘pratfall effect’?: https://youtu.be/RaO8Q7C9A5I

[Hamidreza · Rating 4 out of 5]

i loved this book i like to read it again and again if i find Time

[Richard · Rating 2 out of 5]

Disappointingly, nothing new here.

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

2nd read:
This is one of my all-time favorite books, and this was my third or fourth time reading it. The book is all about what makes us listen to a person and believe what they’re saying. The authors break it down into different characteristics like how we listen to people who are attractive and we listen to people we believe are competent and trustworthy. It also talks about how people abuse this and we listen to bad actors. The problem is, nobody thinks they fall for these things, but the authors provide a ton of research, and it’ll make you start questioning why you believe what you believe when certain people say it.

1st read:
For a while, I've wondered why we listen to certain people but not to others. As I read a range of non-fiction books, I hear people quoted all the time and think, "Why is this person seen as an authority?" and "If someone else said the same thing, would anyone care?". We encounter this in our daily lives as well. Why do we listen to some but not to others? So, when I came across this book Messengers and saw it answered these questions through the lens of behavioral psychology, I had to grab a copy, and it didn't disappoint. Every now and then I come across a book that I can't put down because it answers a question I've had for a while, but it's also well-written, and that's what this book was. 

The authors explain that there are two types of messengers: hard messengers and soft messengers. If you're someone wondering how to get your message across, why you struggle with getting your message across, or why others have so much sway, get this book. As you read it, it all starts to make sense. This book has a ton of interesting studies, and it even expanded on studies that I already knew about, so it provided a fresh perspective. I loved it and will definitely read it again.

2nd read:
This has to be one of the most underrated books out there. This was my second time reading it because I just kept thinking about it, and I loved it as much as the first time. I’m sure a lot of people read this book to learn how to influence others and be heard, but it’s so much more than that. During a time where there’s so much misinformation and how we’re manipulated by various people, this book is such an important read. I love this book on so many different levels, I can’t even explain it. As someone who creates content, it’s great to learn what helps me reach people to share my ideas. As someone who listens to others, I like to know what may be influencing why I trust them. And as someone who is fascinated by human behavior, this book helps explain why people fall for misinformation, conspiracies, and other nonsense. I recommend this book to everyone, and if you enjoyed The Status Game by Will Storr, I think this is a fantastic companion book to go along with it.

[Daisy Bee · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a fascinating book bringing together research about the people who influence our lives and who we choose to listen to, and why. In Part One, 'hard' messengers are discussed. These are people who are seen as having socio-economic status, competence, dominance and attractiveness. In this context, it's explained why for example, celebrities are used to endorse high-end products such as perfume, They are selling the illusion that by buying those products, the consumer can achieve status themselves. Dominance is a trait that Donald Trump has in spades, and helps to explain his inexplicable rise to the presidency.

In Part Two, 'soft' messengers are examined. These messengers still have influence over us, but tend to convey traits such as warmth, vulnerability, trustworthiness and charisma. Various examples are cited from years of research and it is fascinating to reflect on the influences that shape us, whether it be in personal relationships, in our career choices, in who we vote for and the products we buy.

Anyone who has an interest in psychology and current affairs, will thoroughly enjoy this well-researched and well-written book.

[Theodore Kinni · Rating 4 out of 5]

A broad survey and synthesis of research regarding the qualities that make for effective messengers. Hard not to conclude that we’re pretty much idiots when it comes to choosing to whom we will listen, believe, and follow. (Pub date: 10/15/19)

[Nick Masters · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are loads of ways to summarise this book, particularly through quotations such as;

“Hard messengers are more likely to have their messages accepted, because audiences perceive them to possess superior status. Soft messengers, in contrast, win acceptance of their messages because they are perceived to possess a connectedness with an audience”

Essentially the book then breaks down hard messenger’s status (formed by socio-economic position, competence, dominance, and physical attractiveness) and the soft messenger’s connectedness-driven characteristics (warmth, vulnerability, trustworthiness, and charisma). We are provided some really astounding case studies, along with the pros and cons of each, and pretty much learn that all are great, but need to be used correctly and at the right time to the right audience.

What are the take-aways (other than I am happy with more good genes ;)? Not sure really. Fore and foremost, the messenger is more important than the message! It is also very clear that most people make their minds up instinctively within split seconds, and that disinformation is insidious. There really are some informative gems in each chapter, it just feels like the book might have benefited by spending some time on how best to manipulate your own strengths/weaknesses to your benefit.

It is worth noting that the final line succinctly wraps up the book;

“Our fundamental personalities may be genetically coded and remain relatively stable over time, but just about everything else our lives is fair game to the messengers in society that we listen to.”

Thanks NetGalley and Random House UK for a review copy.

[Alison Bradbury · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book takes you by the hand and walks you through the different personality types of a whole range of messengers from Politicians to Social Media Influencers end even your friends. Chock full of supporting Psychological research, some really well known, some less well known but all equally relevant. It explains why during times of national crisis that voters tend to prefer a more robust leader who displays more dominant personality types, and why at the rest of the time voters are drawn to leaders who display more altruistic or warm characteristics who are more likely to be a gentle guiding hand. In relation to recent events, for example Brexit and Trump's Presidency, the writers attempt to explain how these events came about and these demonstrated the success of events against the considered wisdom. It is easy to see how people can have their opinion changed by a speakers body language, hand gestures or the subtle use of their personality, all without the listener being aware of it.

If you have an interest in the human psyche or want to be able to spot when you are being manipulated then this is the book to you.

[Vanessa Princessa · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book thanks to Blinkist.

The key message in these blinks:

When we listen to a message, we don’t just judge it on its merits. We judge it by the messenger who delivers it and make a rapid, instinctive assessment of their status or of how they connect with us as humans by, for example, demonstrating vulnerability or trustworthiness. We listen to and trust people not according to their intelligence or the coherence of their arguments but for reasons from the color of their clothes to the warmth of their voice. 

What to read next:

Talking to Strangers (2019) 

You’ve just learned how small factors – the way we perceive someone’s attractiveness, competence, or warmth – can have a big effect on how we interact with them. If these lessons have piqued your interest in the psychology of human behavior, why not check out our blinks to Talking to Strangers, the 2019 bestseller from Malcolm Gladwell. 

These blinks pick up a related theme: the question of how not knowing someone impacts our engagement with them. They explore how we make assumptions that are typically ill-informed and sometimes even dangerous. 

[Yuen Tan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I should have just read the book summary on this one instead ... if you are interested in the subject I would suggest Robert Cialdini’s book (Steve’s mentor) instead.
The book is promising - knowledgeable expert authors, 60 years of research in psychology, sprinkle of interesting research cases, current important massagers (think D Trump). Yet, it is somehow flat.

Essentially, massagers are as important (if not more important in certain cases) as the message he/she carries. The 8 messengers effects of ‘hard’ (position, competence, dominance, attractiveness) and ‘soft’ (warmth, vulnerability, trustworthiness, charisma).

‘Just world hypothesis’ - people believe those at the top - by virtue that they are at the top - deserve their high position.

“How tribal we are, and how susceptible we can be to the merest suggestion that a message is on our side and could potentially make for a cooperative partner.”

“Charisma - ability to articulate a collective of entity and vision... possesses a talent for reducing complexity, sometimes to almost binary choices involving in-groups and out-groups ...”

[Anne · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fascinating and well researched book looking into why we believe some people and not others. The authors show that although we think we make considered choices about who to listen to, we usually just react to the messenger. They identify 8 traits that determine who gets heard and who gets ignored. The psychology is interesting from the influence of the shoes we wear and the verbal and physical cues we pick up on. Sadly they show that looking and sounding right is more important than the actual content of the message.

The book is well researched and easy to read even though it has a lot of information. It isn’t a dry academic tome but a captivating look at why the messenger is becoming more important than the message. We now live with “influencers” who encourage us to buy or watch etc without us knowing who they really are.

This is recommended if you like entertaining psychology and to have your views challenged so that you become aware of your own biases or mistakes. I was given a copy of this book by Netgalley in return for an honest review.

[Ian · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book could not be more timely. Never before have the messengers been so much more important than facts, statistics, in fact anything quantifiable and verifiable. How can this be? Why are some people able to get their message to gain traction while others, often much better qualified, struggle to get heard let alone make an impact?

Full of useful illustrative examples, many almost straight out of the news, this book is not only an explanation of why some messengers are successful but also how, on a good day, with a following wind, all things being equal, someone hoping to get a message across could maximise their potential.

It also challenges the reader to consider how rationally they choose who to believe. Well written, academically sound but accessible to all, maybe this should be required reading. This is a book for our time and is highly recommended.

ARC courtesy Netgalley.

[Colin Marks · Rating 5 out of 5]

We all think we're a good judge of people and aren't easily influenced, but numerous studies have shown this isn't true. We're likely to be more patient if the car in front that doesn't move when a traffic light turns green is executive, and we're more likely to listen to Ian Botham tell us how to survive a nuclear attack than a scientist or someone from the military.

Messengers, by journalist Stephen Martin and psychologist Joseph Marks, discusses who influences us most, and why. The personal attributes of a messenger, as with a leader, aren't particularly surprising (socio-economic position, competence, dominance, attractiveness, warmth, vulnerability, trustworthiness and finally charisma) but the book explores each of these, with plenty of examples from scientific studies.

An interesting book, full of anecdotes and case studies, well worth a read.

Book supplied by Netgalley for an honest review.

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

Messengers by Stephen Martin and Joseph Marks should be one of those books that everybody reads. This book looks at what makes us decide whether to listen to and if we trust their message. The authors, behavioural experts explore the traits that determine if we are heard or if we are ignored, showing how an appearance or financial status can have a huge impact on people listening if when the message might be wrong. Analysing the nature of speakers with they use cues, both verbal and physical to give signals that their message should be trusted. This is a fascinating book especially for anyone who needs to do public speaking.

[Sophie Childs · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a freelance copywriter, this was an incredibly useful book on why the messenger is just as important - if not more so - as the message and how you can make sure you're heard.

Easy to read and highly accessible, it covers a wealth of research which explains the complexities around getting people to listen and why it is we'll accept the same information from one source when we''d reject it from another.

It's a book which is invaluable to anyone who needs to communicate effectively, whether that be a leader, social media influencer or, yes, a writer.

Thanks to Netgalley for the ARC without obligation.

[AR · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you've read Cialdini and Gladwell, you can skip this shallow attempt at repeating the deeper, more insightful and useful information shared by the aforementioned two other authors. In Messengers, Marks and Stephen provide their theories in shallow and overly presumptuous ways which would probably annoy the more well read and well versed reader and student of human behavior and psychology. Maybe I have read too many of these books by better researchers and authors. If I could return this book and get my money back I would. But it's too much trouble to return it. So I am recycling it. Save your money and read Cialdini, Gladwell, Csikszentmihalyi, Gardner, instead.