Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion
When was the last time you made a fully informed decision? Truth be told, mine goes quite far in the past. In today's complex, rich, fast-paced, and information-laden environment where change is the only constant, we find ourselves increasingly using mental shortcuts. While our mental shortcuts may often be efficient, they also make us extremely vulnerable to the professionals of persuasion who can exploit them to their ends. The book explores the six key psychological principles that make us say 'Yes' when we should be saying 'No'.
These 6 principles are:
reciprocation,
consistency,
social proof,
authority,
liking,
scarcity.
With a few stories, experiments, and readers' feedback we get the idea of how each principle functions and, most importantly, how to say 'No'.
My Key Takeaways
Automatic, stereotyped, 'click-wirr' behavior patterns are prevalent in much of human action.
In many cases, it is the most efficient form of behaving, and in other cases, it is simply necessary.
However, they make us extremely vulnerable to anyone who knows how they work.
Often the trigger to an automated behavior will be just one tiny aspect of all available information.
Those triggers activate the automated behavior in a nearly mechanical process.
Therefore those who exploit them exert very little force. These triggers give the ability to manipulate without the appearance of manipulation.
The knowledge of how to activate these triggers is a powerful weapon of influence - and of resistance against manipulation
Reciprocation
The Principle: we should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided us. We are obligated to the future repayment of favors, gifts, invitations, and the like.
Present in all areas of life: personal relationships, business, politics, religion etc.
Why it works: our 'web of indebtedness" is a unique adaptive mechanism of human beings, allowing the division of labor, the exchange of diverse forms of goods and services.
Experiment: raffles tickets selling with/without offering them a Coke (Prof. Dennis Regan of Cornell University)
This rule is overpowering: people we might ordinarily dislike can greatly increase that we will do what they wish merely by providing us with a small favor prior to their requests.
"Benefactor before beggar" strategy (example: Hare Krishna flowers)
The rule enforces uninvited debts.
The rule can trigger unfair exchanges. The reality of internal discomfort and the possibility of external shame can produce a heavy psychological cost; we often give back more than we have received in the name of reciprocity.
Reciprocal concessions ("rejection-than-retreat") are another face of reciprocity rule. Here it is all about skillful structuring: you start with a larger request (large enough, but not outlandish), I turn it down, you make the smaller request - the one you were really interested all along, and that now looks like a concession; I feel obliged to reciprocate and say yes to your second request. A by-product of the act of concession feelings of greater responsibility for, and satisfaction with the arrangement.
The influences of reciprocity combined with the perceptual contrast principle are a super-powerful force.
How to Say No: Difficult. When an initial offer is first presented, it is difficult to know whether such offer is honest pr whether it is the initial step in an exploitation attempt. Solution? Accept the desirable first offers of others but only for what they fundamentally are, not for what they are represented to be.
2. Commitment and Consistency
The Principle: our nearly obsessive desire to be (and to appear) consistent with what we have already done.
Why it works: desire for consistency is a central motivator for our behavior because in most circumstances consistency is valued and adaptive. Inconsistency is commonly thought to be an undesirable personality trait. On top of that, mechanical consistency makes us avoid the harsh consequences of intense thinking. We just fear that if we think we will get unwelcome answers. And we want to avoid them.
Pitfall: our drive to be consistent often causes us to act in ways that are clearly contrary to our own best interests.
Story: Certain heavily advertised "hot" toys run out of stock before Christmas, making us buy some replacement gifts and return to the shop in January because we want to keep the promise. As if by miracle, we find the stocks replenished and end up with two purchases.
Commitment is the key. It's a click that is needed to trigger a consistent response.
"Foot-in-the-door technique". A salesperson strategy: any small initial sale will do because its purpose is not profit, but commitment. You can use small commitments to manipulate a person's self-image and turn citizens into "public servants", prospects into "customers, prisoners into "collaborators".Once an active commitment is made, self-image is squeezed by consistency pressure.
What people truly feel and believe comes less from their words than from their deeds.
Commitments are most effective in changing a person's self-image and future behavior when they are active, public, and effortful.
Inner choice: we accept inner responsibility for a behavior when we think we have chosen to perform it in the absence of strong outside pressure (important implication for raising kids: we should never bribe or threaten our children to do the things we want them truly to believe in"
Lowball tactic: an advantage is offered that induces a favorable purchasing decision; then, sometime after the decision has been made but before the bargain is sealed, the original purchase advantage is deftly removed. The impressive thing about this technique is its ability to make a person feel pleased with a poor choice.
How to say No. Since automatic consistency is so useful in allowing us an economical and appropriate way of behaving most of the time, we cannot decide to eliminate consistency altogether. The only way is to know when such consistency is likely to produce a poor choice. Two approaches help with that: The first occurs right in the pit of our stomach when we realize we are trapped into complying with a request that we know we don't want to perform. A way to handle people who try to use consistency is to tell them exactly what they are doing & point to the absurdity of the foolish consistency. Usually, the exploiter shrinks away guiltily or retreats in bewilderment. The second signal is when it is not clear if we are being taken and our stomachs do not catch on. We ask ourselves a question: Knowing what I now know, if I could go back in time, would I make the same choice? - then trust the first flash of feeling we experience in response.
3. Social proof
The principle: One means we use to determine what is correct is to find out what other people think is correct. The greater number of people who find an idea correct, the more the idea will be correct.
Why it works: We tend to use the Social Proof shortcut in the presence of uncertainty.
Example: no one in a crowd helping an individual with a heart attack. First, it happens with several potential helpers around, the personal responsibility of each individual is reduced. Second is pluralistic ignorance effect - an emergency is not obviously an emergency: bystanders are rather unsure than unkind. The pluralistic ignorance effect is the strongest among strangers.
We will use the actions of others to decide on proper behavior for ourselves, especially when we view those others as similar to ourselves.
The most influential leaders are those who know how to arrange group conditions to allow the principle of social proof to work maximally in their favor.
Stories: mechanical laughter, claque. Both see no need to hide the manufactured nature of the social evidence they provide. Another story: making a bet on a horse to appear as an early favorite.
How to Say No. Because the automatic pilot afforded by the principle of social proof is more often an ally than an enemy, we can't expect to want simply to disconnect it. Our best defense against autopilot disadvantages is to recognize when the data are in error: either purposely falsified or when an innocent, natural error will produce snowballing social proof (pluralist ignorance) - in the latter case, we need to check other sources of evidence in the situation - the objective facts, our prior experiences, our own judgment. This little precaution requires neither much effort nor much time.
4. Liking
The Principle: we most prefer to say yes to the requests of someone we know and like.
Strangely, this rule is used in hundreds of ways by total strangers to get us to comply with their requests.
Physical attractiveness is one of the characteristics that cause a halo effect: when one positive characteristic of a person dominates the way that person is viewed by others.
Similarity. We like people who are similar to us - in a wide variety of ways. A simple hearing of "I like you" can get you into marriage or into buying a new car.
Contact and Cooperation. Often we don't realize that our attitude toward something has been influenced by the number of times we have been exposed to it in the past. Cooperative successes increase liking.
Good Cop / Bad Cop strategy.
Association principle in the advertisements.
Azimov: all things being equal, you root for your own sex, your own culture, your own locality… and what you want to prove is that you are better than the other person. Whomever you root for represents you; and when he wins, you win.
How to Say No. Rather than trying to recognize and prevent the action of liking factors before they have a chance to work on us, we might be well advised to let them work. Our vigilance should be directed not toward the things that may produce undue liking, but toward the fact that undue liking has been produced. We focus on the effect, not on the cause. The time to react protectively is when we feel ourselves liking the practitioner more than we should under the circumstances. A question to ask ourselves: in the twenty-five minutes I've known this guy, have ai come to like him more than I should have expected? The simple recognition of unwarranted liking should be enough to get us to react against it. It also helps to mentally separate the person that you like and the thing this person is trying to sell.
5. Authority
The Principle: a deep-seated sense of duty to authority within us all.
Experiment: Milgram experiment: "It is the extreme willingness of adults to go almost any lengths on the command of an authority that constitutes the chief finding of the study".
Why it works: a multi-layered and widely accepted system of authority confers an immense advantage upon a society. Religious instruction contributes as well. Story: Abraham's story.
We are often as vulnerable to the symbols of authority as to the substance. Among such symbols are titles, increased size "fur, fins, feathers", clothes, jewelry, cars.
How to Say No. One protective tactic we can use against the authority is to remove its element of surprise; heightened awareness of authority power. While shouldn't want to resist the authority altogether, it's useful to ask the question: "Is this authority truly an expert?" This question is helpful because it focuses our attention on authority credentials and the relevance of those credentials to the topic at hand. The second question to ask is: " How truthful can we expect the expert to be here?". While asking this question, we should be aware of the little tactic that people often use to assure us of their sincerity: they will seem to argue to a degree against their own interests. Correctly done, this can be a subtly effective device for proving their honesty.
6. Scarcity
The Principle: the opportunities seem more valuable to us than their availability is limited.
Why it works: We seem to be more motivated by the thought of losing something than by the thought of gaining something of equal value. Plus, as opportunities become less available, we lose freedoms; and we hate to lose freedoms we already have.
Tactics: precious mistake, limited series, 3 calls (1 - opening call, 2 - sales pitch call while indicating it’s no longer possible to invest, 3 - a chance to invest, with a great degree of urgency), loose bait/loss leaders
Romeo and Juliet Effect. When our freedom to have something is limited, the item becomes less available, and we experience an increased desire for it. Applies not only to people but to many other things, including information.
The drop from abundance to scarcity produces a decidedly more positive reaction than does constant scarcity.
James C. Davies' theory of revolutions: we are most likely to find revolutions where a period of improving economic and social conditions is followed by a short, sharp reversal of those conditions. Revolutionaries are more likely to be those who have been given at least come taste of a better life. Lesson for would-be rulers: when it comes to freedoms, it is more dangerous to have given for a while than never to have given at all.
Not only do we want the same item more when it's scarce, but we also want it most when we are in competition for it.
How to Say No: It's difficult. Our typical reactions to scarcity hinder our ability to think. Therefore, we should use the arousal itself as our primary cue. And because More desirable does not equal Better (tasting/looking/ more comfortable etc), the question to ask ourselves is: 'What do we want from the item?'
What can we do about the expected intensified attack on our system of shortcuts? Better than evasive action is forceful counterassault. We should not consider compliance professionals who play fairly as enemies. The proper counters for counter aggression are only those individuals who falsify, counterfeit or misrepresent the evidence that naturally cues our shortcut responses.