People make buying decisions based on patterns shaped by personality, communication style, and trust.

Traditional pressure tactics and scripted approaches often trigger resistance instead of commitment.

Adapting pace, style, and curiosity builds trust and makes influence natural.

At this moment, somewhere in the world, a business owner is sitting through a sales pitch. The salesperson is polished and confident, running through a script designed to handle every concern. The product may be excellent, and the presentation is flawless; however, the owner is checking the clock, wishing it would end. Not because the solution is wrong, or because the price is too high, but because something about the conversation feels off. Simply put, the salesperson is speaking a language the buyer doesn’t process. If you’re a business owner—or have ever been on the receiving end of a sales pitch—you’ve probably experienced the same disconnect.

This isn’t just a sales issue—it’s an understanding people issue. Influence, whether in business, leadership, or negotiation, works only when you understand how people actually process information, assess risk, and decide who to trust. Ignore those patterns, and even the best message delivered with good intentions often fails to land.

People make many decisions quickly and intuitively rather than through careful analysis. When pressure is applied, they often resist—even if the outcome could benefit them. And people differ widely in how they process information and respond to persuasion.

To explore this further, I interviewed Jay Aldebert, chief growth officer at International Services, Inc., a diagnostic advisory firm that has analyzed thousands of privately held businesses worldwide. His research focuses on how personality, trust, and decision patterns influence the way business decisions are made.

Personality Shapes How Decisions Are Made

Have you ever walked out of a meeting feeling like you explained everything clearly, but the other person just didn’t absorb it? They nodded politely, yet the conversation never clicked. This kind of disconnect is common in business and usually isn’t about disagreement. One factor that often plays a role is that people process information differently based on their personality.

Personality isn’t just a list of traits. It’s the lens through which people interpret the world. Some respond best to data, analysis, and details. Others respond to stories, relationships, or big-picture ideas. Labels like “analytical” or “intuitive” can describe tendencies, but what matters most is understanding how these differences influence trust and choices.

“Personality styles are languages,” Aldebert says. “Everyone has a primary style that guides how they take in information, build trust, and make decisions. If I’m not speaking that language, it doesn’t matter how strong my argument is—they won’t hear it.”

Behavioral science research confirms this. For instance, communication accommodation theory holds that people respond better when communicators adapt to their style. Along the same lines, if we view someone as similar to us or belonging to a group we identify with, we may be more likely to match our communication style to theirs. Matching tone, pace, and approach lowers friction, builds trust, and makes people more receptive. How you communicate can matter just as much as what you communicate.

Why Pressure Often Fails

When people feel forced into a choice that doesn’t match how they process information, pushback is almost inevitable. Persuasion isn’t just about presenting facts—it’s also about how people experience choice.

Research on psychological reactance shows that when people feel their freedom to choose is threatened, they respond defensively and resist the message. In one study, participants were shown emergency-preparedness messages framed in two ways: one emphasized choice (“the decision is yours”), and the other gave a direct order (“you must prepare”). People who saw the choice-focused message were more willing to take action, while those who received the directive message felt pressured and were less likely to follow through.

This matters in business conversations, too. Pressuring someone for a quick “yes” often produces short-term compliance but rarely builds real commitment. Understanding how people perceive choice—and adjusting your approach—reduces resistance and increases the likelihood of genuine agreement.

Before someone considers an idea or decision, their brain is already evaluating the person presenting it. In fact, research shows that we quickly assess facial expressions, tone of voice, and behavioral consistency. The amygdala—a key brain region for social evaluation—responds differently to faces judged as trustworthy versus untrustworthy. This means that even before the message itself is processed, the brain is making rapid trust judgments based on nonverbal cues. Any mismatch or incongruence can trigger a defensive reaction, making it harder for the listener to engage with the ideas presented.

Practical Steps for Real Conversations

If you want your ideas to land, start by paying attention to how people actually process information. Here are some practical tips to consider.

Watch how they process information: Some people respond first to facts and data, others to stories or relationships. Noticing which approach someone naturally prefers tells you more about how to communicate than any script or framework.

Recognize engagement, not just resistance: When someone pushes back or challenges your ideas, pause instead of reacting immediately. Often, that pushback means you’ve reached the real decision-maker—it’s a signal that the conversation is in the engagement zone.

Know when to ease off: If pushback turns into quiet withdrawal, short answers, or overly polite agreement, the person has likely entered a disengaged mode. Back off—forcing more pressure at this stage usually shuts the conversation down completely. According to Aldebert, “When someone retreats like this, it’s not rejection—it’s their mind signaling that the conversation has gone too far. Respect that space, and you can come back to the discussion later with a better chance of real engagement."

Adapt your style and pace: Move at the other person’s speed. Fast explanations can overwhelm careful thinkers, while too much detail can frustrate someone who prefers big-picture summaries. Matching their pace helps your message actually sink in.

Prioritize understanding over persuasion: People trust those who get how they think. Ask questions, listen carefully, and show curiosity. When someone feels truly understood, influence happens naturally without forcing agreement.

Human decision-making isn’t random, and it isn’t the same for everyone. People may process information through predictable patterns shaped by personality, thinking style, and how they respond to pressure. Influence works best when you notice these patterns and adjust how you communicate. Failed attempts at persuasion may not always be about the product, the price, or even the argument; they're often about a mismatch between how the message is delivered and how the other person’s mind naturally works.

Once you start paying attention to these signals—how someone takes in information, responds to pressure, or shows trust—conversations feel different. They become clearer, more connected, and more productive. And when the conversation changes, decisions do too. It’s less about forcing agreement and more about understanding the person in front of you.

© 2026 Ryan C. Warner, Ph.D.

Giles, H., Edwards, A. L., & Walther, J. B. (2023). Communication accommodation theory: Past accomplishments, current trends, and future prospects. Language Sciences, 99, 101571.

Javor, A., Kindermann, H., Koschutnig, K., & Ischebeck, A. (2018). The neural correlates of trustworthiness evaluations of faces and brands: Implications for behavioral and consumer neuroscience. European Journal of Neuroscience, 48(6), 2322-2332.

Mseer, I. N. (2025). Communication Accommodation Theory; for Understanding Cultural Communication Dynamics. Journal of Digital Media and Artificial Intelligence, 2(01), 27-33.

Reynolds-Tylus, T., & Gonzalez, A. M. (2021). The utility of choice-enhancing language in emergency preparedness messages: An application of psychological reactance theory. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness, 15(3), 282-285.

© Psychology Today