Latest news with #IanMacRae
The Sun
23-05-2025
- General
- The Sun
Psychologist reveals how to walk in, sit and what to say in ANY job interview… and 4-second rule for a big advantage
I THINK we can all agree - job interviews are nerve-wracking. Psychologist Ian MacRae tells The Sun exactly how to walk in, sit down, and the golden words to say in any interview. 3 Because - as the UK's job market continues to weaken and wages remain stagnant - it's never felt more important to nail that first impression. How to walk in "Be confident when you enter, and when you are speaking - but don't be overconfident or aggressive when the other person is speaking," says MacRae, a member of the British Psychological Society. "Aim to be confident in your own approach and your own answers without dominating the conversation." While humbleness is generally considered a good quality - and is absolutely necessary in some jobs, such as caring roles - it's not a good idea to talk down your achievements. "False humility is rarely well received," explains MacRae. "If you're talking about your accomplishments, be confident about them." There is a balance to be struck between being confident and warm. Confidence can easily be mistaken for cockiness if it's overdone, according to MacRae. "Research shows both confidence and warmth significantly improve social perceptions, so don't overdo the confidence so much that you fail to listen to the other person, or respond to them respectfully," he says. "Show that you're confident you can do the job, but that you're receptive to learning." Anger is a natural response to seeing an ex move on and have a baby, says tv psychologist 3 How you should sit Now you might not think you need tips on something as simple as sitting in a chair - but posture is important. According to MacRae, "it influences both how you are seen and how you feel". To really give off the best impression, MacRae suggests relaxing your shoulders, keeping your feet grounded and your hands visible. Try not to hunch forward. With your hands visible, you may be less likely to fidget. If you tend to fidget, don't take along props that you are more likely to fidget with. Ian MacRaePsychologist Most people fidget, especially when they're nervous. But "pronounced, loud and exaggerated" fidgeting can be a distraction to an interviewer, according to MacRae. "If you tend to fidget, don't take along props that you are more likely to fidget with," he says. "The last thing you want to be doing is spinning around a vape pen or constantly checking a mobile phone during an interview - this goes for remote interviews too. "If you tend to fidget, be very careful what you place around you on the desk. If your hands need to be busy, take notes." MacRae also suggests modelling your posture on whoever is interviewing you - without being an obvious copycat, of course. "Generally, when you are attentive to the other person's body language, you naturally mimic it to a certain degree," he says. "So don't consciously try to mirror their actions but pay attention to their posture, facial expressions and body language to pick up more clues and context about the questions they are asking." 3 The advert trick Now nobody can tell you what to say to win over an interviewer - not even ChatGPT. But there are some golden phrases you can use, quietly given to you by the hiring company through the form of a job advert. "Good job adverts - not all adverts - will give you some important clues and keywords about what matters," explains MacRae. "Learn the keywords and what they are often code for." Though preparation goes a long way in an interview. The best thing you can do is to demonstrate that you understand what's required for the role, what kind of challenges there will be, and that you have the capacity to solve those problems. As MacRae notes, there is no "set of magic words" that is going to secure you a job offer. But preparing some general talking points and questions relevant to the job will put you in better stead. "The best thing you can do is to demonstrate that you understand what's required for the role, what kind of challenges there will be, and that you have the capacity to solve those problems," MacRae adds. "Asking questions that demonstrate you understand what is required in the role can really help." These days, people have to go through multiple rounds of interviews to land a job offer. Another tip up MacRae's sleeve is to ask the recruiter what the next interviewer is looking for. "They'll often tell you," he says. "And that can really help you prepare. Write down what they tell you." MacRae continues: "If they can't or won't tell you, that's also an important piece of information if they don't really know what they're looking for." Try to practice common interview questions with a friend or family member to make any surprise questions feel less intimidating. The 4-second rule It's the big day - you've done all the preparation you can, all you need to do now is walk into the job interview and shine. But those pesky nerves creep in, and you're afraid your mind might go blank at a crucial moment. According to MacRae, mental prep helps just as much as prior notetaking about the role. He suggests a simple four-second rule that can help "reset your system" by quickly slowing your heart rate and lowering your cortisol - the stress hormone. "There is strong evidence that techniques like box breathing works, in for 4, hold for 4, out for 4, hold for 4," says MacRae. "Just a few rounds before the interview can help you relax." If you want this technique to be really effective - it's best to start practising it now. "The more you practise calming techniques before you need them, the easier they are to activate under pressure," MacRae explains.
BBC News
27-03-2025
- General
- BBC News
The simple trick to change other people's minds
People will be far more open-minded than you realise if you adopt these simple conversational techniques. "The growth of knowledge depends entirely upon disagreement," claimed the philosopher Karl Popper. He was writing about the dangers of dogma in science – but his words could equally apply to anyone's worldview. And if you want a disagreement to end by changing someone's mind, you have to do it in the right way. As I found in my recent book on social connection, new psychological research can help us to have more constructive conversations about controversial issues. Some of the strategies surprised me. While some social media users are keen to remind us that "facts don't care about your feelings", studies suggest that people are considerably more likely to listen to our arguments if we talk about our personal experiences of the issues under discussion. Be curious One of the main drivers of serious disagreement was apparent in the recent Friendship Study, which comprised a questionnaire I devised with psychologist Ian MacRae, offered to readers in July and August of last year. In one section, participants were asked to imagine a discussion with someone who disagreed with them about certain political or social issues. Afterwards, each participant was asked about their intentions – whether they aimed to persuade the other person, learn from them, or argue with them – and also their impression of the other person's intentions. Overall, the 1,912 participants overestimated how much other people wanted to persuade them of their point of view, and how much they were looking for an argument. At the same time, they underestimated how much the other person wanted to learn and understand the different opinions. This is worth remembering whenever we find ourselves in a conflict: the other person may be more open to a good-faith discussion than we think, and we should treat them with the respect that entails. Given that our conversation partner might underestimate our curiosity about their views, we should also make more effort to express our interest in their views. By demonstrating our good intentions to learn and understand, we will encourage them to lower their defences so that they are more open to an honest exchange of ideas. Often it is as simple as asking the right question. In the late 2000s, Frances Chen and colleagues at Stanford University invited students to engage in an online debate about whether the university should introduce a new set of exams. Unsurprisingly, many students were dead set against the idea. Crucially, they thought they were chatting to their peers, but their debating partners were really the experimenters themselves – who followed very rigid scripts that varied depending on whether the participant was in the experimental group or the control group. While exchanging opinions, you shouldn't be afraid of sharing your first-hand experience of the issue at hand; indeed, it may just strengthen your argument In half of the conversations, the experimenters asked the students to elaborate on their views. For example, they might listen to a student's argument and respond: "I was interested in what you're saying. Can you tell me more about how come you think that?" For the other trials, the conversation did not include any request for more information on the participants' beliefs. It was a tiny change in the script, but the addition of the single question changed the whole tone of the debate by provoking a considerably more open-minded response from the participants. They were more willing to continue the conversation and to receive further information on the other person's arguments, for instance. We might be a little sceptical of the results from a single experiment, but Guy Itzchakov at the University of Haifa in Israel and his colleagues came to very similar conclusions in a series of studies involving hundreds of participants. Actively asking questions about people's beliefs and the reasons they hold those views leads them to lower their defences, so that they are considerably more receptive to alternative opinions. After these kinds of conversations, participants were considerably more likely to agree with statements such as "I feel that I ought to re-evaluate the event now, after the conversation" – suggesting that they had become more thoughtful about the issues that they had discussed. Get personal While exchanging opinions, you shouldn't be afraid of sharing your first-hand experience of the issue at hand; indeed, it may just strengthen your argument. This fact does not seem to be widely recognised. When Emily Kubin at the University of North Carolina and colleagues asked 251 participants to describe the best ways to present their opinion on an issue such as same-sex marriage or abortion, 56% chose the presentation of facts and evidence, while just 21% selected the expression of personal experience. We saw similar patterns within our Friendship Study. When we asked people to rate seven persuasion strategies, "civility" was number one, followed by "logic and reason". "Personal experience" came in at number five. Kubin's experiments, however, suggest that it can be a potent tool of persuasion. Her team asked 177 participants to read about three people's opinions on topics like taxation, coal mining or gun control, before rating their respect for each person, and that person's rationality. No matter what their initial stance, the participants gave considerably higher ratings if they knew that the person had personal experience of the issue at hand. Reading short texts online may seem a far cry from real-life encounters, but Kubin has also tested the principle in face-to-face dialogues on gun control, using a further sample of 153 local people who lived near the university. Once again, someone using a personal experience to portray their views commanded more respect from their conversation partner and was perceived to be more rational in their views. There are, of course, good reasons to be wary of purely subjective accounts if they are not accompanied by any statistics, and an overreliance on an emotional appeal could raise the other person's suspicions. But the two approaches do not have to be mutually exclusive, and your point of view may be better received if you combine the two. By demonstrating genuine curiosity, sharing your personal experiences, and maintaining a civil attitude, you may be surprised by your potential to connect – and gain a wiser worldview in the process Consider a recent examination of the 2018 midterm elections demonstrated. The study measured the progress of 230 canvassers, conversing on a range of political issues with 6,869 voters across seven US locations. Some were asked to make their case using purely statistical arguments – concerning, for instance, the common fear that immigration increases crime – while others were asked to exchange personal stories, in addition to presenting factual evidence. More like this: • Friendship in divided times: People don't want to argue with you as much as you think • Why do I feel so lonely even though I'm surrounded by people? • Seven ways to improve your sleep according to science Each of the voters took opinion polls before and after they met the canvassers. The researchers found that the mutually respectful exchange of experiences was more likely to shift opinion than conversations that focused more on impersonal facts and statistics. While the overall effects were small – resulting in a five-percentage-point shift in views on immigration, for example – this should be taken in context. On average, the conversations lasted just 11 minutes in total, yet a significant number of people started to change strongly held views. Listen and learn Throughout your conversations, you should make sure that you maintain a basic level of civility – not only to your discussion partner, but also when you are talking about anyone else who may be involved in the debate, including public figures. Research by Jeremy Frimer at the University of Winnipeg and Linda Skitka at the University of Illinois at Chicago has shown that rude behaviour is far more likely to alienate the person you wish to persuade than change their opinion, and it may even disaffect people who were already coming around to your point of view. They describe this as the Montagu Principle, named after the 18th-Century English aristocrat Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who declared that "civility costs nothing and buys everything". By demonstrating genuine curiosity, sharing your personal experiences, and maintaining a civil attitude, you may be surprised by your potential to connect – and gain a wiser worldview in the process. * David Robson is an award-winning science writer and author. His latest book, The Laws of Connection: 13 Social Strategies That Will Transform Your Life, was published by Canongate (UK) and Pegasus Books (USA & Canada) in June 2024. He is @davidarobson on Instagram and Threads and writes the 60-Second Psychology newsletter on Substack. -- If you liked this story, sign up for The Essential List newsletter – a handpicked selection of features, videos and can't-miss news, delivered to your inbox twice a week. For more science, technology, environment and health stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.
BBC News
26-03-2025
- General
- BBC News
The mind-changing method measured in minutes
People will be far more open-minded than you realise if you adopt these simple conversational techniques. "The growth of knowledge depends entirely upon disagreement," claimed the philosopher Karl Popper. He was writing about the dangers of dogma in science – but his words could equally apply to anyone's worldview. And if you want a disagreement to end by changing someone's mind, you have to do it in the right way. As I found in my recent book on social connection, new psychological research can help us to have more constructive conversations about controversial issues. Some of the strategies surprised me. While some social media users are keen to remind us that "facts don't care about your feelings", studies suggest that people are considerably more likely to listen to our arguments if we talk about our personal experiences of the issues under discussion. Be curious One of the main drivers of serious disagreement was apparent in the recent Friendship Study, which comprised a questionnaire I devised with psychologist Ian MacRae, offered to readers in July and August of last year. In one section, participants were asked to imagine a discussion with someone who disagreed with them about certain political or social issues. Afterwards, each participant was asked about their intentions – whether they aimed to persuade the other person, learn from them, or argue with them – and also their impression of the other person's intentions. Overall, the 1,912 participants overestimated how much other people wanted to persuade them of their point of view, and how much they were looking for an argument. At the same time, they underestimated how much the other person wanted to learn and understand the different opinions. This is worth remembering whenever we find ourselves in a conflict: the other person may be more open to a good-faith discussion than we think, and we should treat them with the respect that entails. Given that our conversation partner might underestimate our curiosity about their views, we should also make more effort to express our interest in their views. By demonstrating our good intentions to learn and understand, we will encourage them to lower their defences so that they are more open to an honest exchange of ideas. Often it is as simple as asking the right question. In the late 2000s, Frances Chen and colleagues at Stanford University invited students to engage in an online debate about whether the university should introduce a new set of exams. Unsurprisingly, many students were dead set against the idea. Crucially, they thought they were chatting to their peers, but their debating partners were really the experimenters themselves – who followed very rigid scripts that varied depending on whether the participant was in the experimental group or the control group. In half of the conversations, the experimenters asked the students to elaborate on their views. For example, they might listen to a student's argument and respond: "I was interested in what you're saying. Can you tell me more about how come you think that?" For the other trials, the conversation did not include any request for more information on the participants' beliefs. It was a tiny change in the script, but the addition of the single question changed the whole tone of the debate by provoking a considerably more open-minded response from the participants. They were more willing to continue the conversation and to receive further information on the other person's arguments, for instance. We might be a little sceptical of the results from a single experiment, but Guy Itzchakov at the University of Haifa in Israel and his colleagues came to very similar conclusions in a series of studies involving hundreds of participants. Actively asking questions about people's beliefs and the reasons they hold those views leads them to lower their defences, so that they are considerably more receptive to alternative opinions. After these kinds of conversations, participants were considerably more likely to agree with statements such as "I feel that I ought to re-evaluate the event now, after the conversation" – suggesting that they had become more thoughtful about the issues that they had discussed. Get personal While exchanging opinions, you shouldn't be afraid of sharing your first-hand experience of the issue at hand; indeed, it may just strengthen your argument. This fact does not seem to be widely recognised. When Emily Kubin at the University of North Carolina and colleagues asked 251 participants to describe the best ways to present their opinion on an issue such as same-sex marriage or abortion, 56% chose the presentation of facts and evidence, while just 21% selected the expression of personal experience. We saw similar patterns within our Friendship Study. When we asked people to rate seven persuasion strategies, "civility" was number one, followed by "logic and reason". "Personal experience" came in at number five. Kubin's experiments, however, suggest that it can be a potent tool of persuasion. Her team asked 177 participants to read about three people's opinions on topics like taxation, coal mining or gun control, before rating their respect for each person, and that person's rationality. No matter what their initial stance, the participants gave considerably higher ratings if they knew that the person had personal experience of the issue at hand. Reading short texts online may seem a far cry from real-life encounters, but Kubin has also tested the principle in face-to-face dialogues on gun control, using a further sample of 153 local people who lived near the university. Once again, someone using a personal experience to portray their views commanded more respect from their conversation partner and was perceived to be more rational in their views. There are, of course, good reasons to be wary of purely subjective accounts if they are not accompanied by any statistics, and an overreliance on an emotional appeal could raise the other person's suspicions. But the two approaches do not have to be mutually exclusive, and your point of view may be better received if you combine the two. Consider a recent examination of the 2018 midterm elections demonstrated. The study measured the progress of 230 canvassers, conversing on a range of political issues with 6,869 voters across seven US locations. Some were asked to make their case using purely statistical arguments – concerning, for instance, the common fear that immigration increases crime – while others were asked to exchange personal stories, in addition to presenting factual evidence. More like this:• Friendship in divided times: People don't want to argue with you as much as you think• Why do I feel so lonely even though I'm surrounded by people?• Seven ways to improve your sleep according to science Each of the voters took opinion polls before and after they met the canvassers. The researchers found that the mutually respectful exchange of experiences was more likely to shift opinion than conversations that focused more on impersonal facts and statistics. While the overall effects were small – resulting in a five-percentage-point shift in views on immigration, for example – this should be taken in context. On average, the conversations lasted just 11 minutes in total, yet a significant number of people started to change strongly held views. Listen and learn Throughout your conversations, you should make sure that you maintain a basic level of civility – not only to your discussion partner, but also when you are talking about anyone else who may be involved in the debate, including public figures. Research by Jeremy Frimer at the University of Winnipeg and Linda Skitka at the University of Illinois at Chicago has shown that rude behaviour is far more likely to alienate the person you wish to persuade than change their opinion, and it may even disaffect people who were already coming around to your point of view. They describe this as the Montagu Principle, named after the 18th-Century English aristocrat Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who declared that "civility costs nothing and buys everything". By demonstrating genuine curiosity, sharing your personal experiences, and maintaining a civil attitude, you may be surprised by your potential to connect – and gain a wiser worldview in the process. * David Robson is an award-winning science writer and author. His latest book, The Laws of Connection: 13 Social Strategies That Will Transform Your Life, was published by Canongate (UK) and Pegasus Books (USA & Canada) in June 2024. He is @davidarobson on Instagram and Threads and writes the 60-Second Psychology newsletter on Substack. --
