Influence

By Robert B. Cialdini, Ph. D.

Introduction
Robert Cialdini is a Professor of Psychology at Arizona
State University and has spent many years devoted to the
scientific investigation and research of persuasion
techniques. His book "Influence" has become a classic.
Within his book Cialdini lists six basic social and
psychological principles that form the foundation for
successful strategies used to achieve influence.

Those six principles are:

Rule of Reciprocity
According to sociologists and anthropologists, one of the most widespread and basic norms of human
culture is embodied in the rule of reciprocity. This rule requires that one person try to repay what another
person has provided. By obligating the recipient to an act of repayment in the future--the rule for
reciprocation allows one individual to give something to another with the confidence that it is not being
lost.

This sense of future obligation according to the rule makes possible the development of various kinds of
continuing relationships, transactions, and exchanges that are beneficial to society. Consequently,
virtually all members of society are trained from childhood to abide by this rule or suffer serious social
disapproval.

The decision to comply with someone's request is frequently based upon the Rule of Reciprocity. Again, a
possible and profitable tactic to gain probable compliance would be to give something to someone before
asking for a favor in return.

The opportunity to exploit this tactic is due to three characteristics of the Rule of Reciprocity:
1. The rule is extremely powerful, often overwhelming the influence of other factors that normally
determine compliance with a request.
2. The rule applies even to uninvited first favors, which reduces our ability to decide whom we wish
to owe and putting the choice in the hands of others
3. The rule can spur unequal exchanges. That is--to be rid of the uncomfortable feeling of
indebtedness, an individual will often agree to a request for a substantially larger favor, than the
one he or she first received.

Another way in which the Rule of Reciprocity can increase compliance involves a simple variation on the
basic theme: instead of providing a favor first that stimulates a returned favor, an individual can make
instead an initial concession--that stimulates a return concession.

One compliance procedure, called the "rejection-then-retreat technique", or door-in-the-face technique,
relies heavily on the pressure to reciprocate concessions. By starting with an extreme request that is sure
to be rejected, the requester can then profitably retreat to a smaller request--the one that was desired all
along. This request is likely to now be accepted because it appears to be a concession. Research
indicates, that aside from increasing the likelihood that a person will say yes to a request--the rejection-
then-retreat technique also increases the likelihood that the person will carry out the request a will agree
to future requests.

Topics
Introduction
Rule of Reciprocity
Commitment and Consistency
Social Proof
Liking
Scarcity
The best defense against manipulation by the use of the Rule of Reciprocity to gain compliance is not the
total rejection of initial offers by others. But rather, accepting initial favors or concessions in good faith,
while also remaining prepared to see through them as tricks--should they later be proven so. Once they
are seen in this way, there is no longer a need to feel the necessity to respond with a favor or concession.

Commitment and Consistency

People have a desire to look consistent through their words, beliefs, attitudes and deeds and this
tendency is supported or fed from three sources:

1. Good personal consistency is highly valued by society.
2. Consistent conduct provides a beneficial approach to daily life.
3. A consistent orientation affords a valuable shortcut through the complexity of modern existence.
That is-- by being consistent with earlier decisions we can reduce the need to process all the
relevant information in future similar situations. Instead, one merely needs to recall the earlier
decision and respond consistently.

The key to using the principles of Commitment and Consistency to manipulate people is held within the
initial commitment. That is--after making a commitment, taking a stand or position, people are more willing
to agree to requests that are consistent with their prior commitment. Many compliance professionals will
try to induce others to take an initial position that is consistent with a behavior they will later request.

Commitments are most effective when they are active, public, effortful, and viewed as internally motivated
and not coerced. Once a stand is taken, there is a natural tendency to behave in ways that are stubbornly
consistent with the stand. The drive to be and look consistent constitutes a highly potent tool of social
influence, often causing people to act in ways that are clearly contrary to their own best interests.

Commitment decisions, even erroneous ones, have a tendency to be self-perpetuating--they often "grow
their own legs." That is--those involved may add new reasons and justifications to support the wisdom of
commitments they have already made. As a consequence, some commitments remain in effect long after
the conditions that spurred them have changed. This phenomenon explains the effectiveness of certain
deceptive compliance practices.

To recognize and resist the undue influence of consistency pressures upon our compliance decisions--we
can listen for signals coming from two places within us--our stomach or "gut reaction" and our heart.

?? A bad feeling in the pit of the stomach may appear when we realize that we are being pushed by
commitment and consistency pressures to agree to requests we know we don't want to perform.
?? Our heart may bother us when it is not clear that an initial commitment was right.

At such points it is meaningful to ask a crucial question, "Knowing what I know now, if I could go back,
would I have made the same commitment?"

Social Proof

One means used to determine what is correct is to find out what others believe is correct. People often
view a behavior as more correct in a given situation--to the degree that we see others performing it.

This principle of Social Proof can be used to stimulate a person's compliance with a request by informing
him or her that many other individuals, perhaps some that are role models, are or have observed this
behavior. This tool of influence provides a shortcut for determining how to behave. But at the same time it
can make those involved with using this social shortcut --vulnerable to the manipulations of others who
seek to exploit such influence through such things as seminars, group introduction dinners, retreats etc.
Group members may then provide the models for the behavior that each group plans to produce in its
potential new members.

Social proof is most influential under two conditions:

1. Uncertainty--when people are unsure and the situation is ambiguous they are more likely to
observe the behavior of others and to accept that behavior as correct
2. Similarity--people are more inclined to follow the lead of others who are similar.

Some recommendations on how to reduce susceptibility to contrived social proofs would include a greater
sensitivity to clearly counterfeit evidence. That is--what others are doing and their behavior should not
form a sole basis for decision-making.

Liking

People prefer to say yes to individuals they know and like. This simple rule helps to understand how
Liking can create influence and how compliance professionals may emphasize certain factors and/or
attributes to increase their overall attractiveness and subsequent effectiveness. Compliance practitioners
may regularly use several factors.

Physical attractiveness--is one feature of a person that often may help to create some influence. Although
it has long been suspected that physical beauty provides an advantage in social interaction, research
indicates that this advantage may be greater than once supposed. Physical attractiveness seems to
engender a "halo" effect that extends to favorable impressions of other traits such as talent, kindness, and
intelligence. As a result, attractive people are more persuasive both in terms of getting what they request
and in changing others' attitudes.

Similarity--is a second factor that influences both Liking and compliance. That is--we like people who are
like us and are more willing to say yes to their requests, often without much critical consideration.
Praise--is another factor that produces Liking, though this can sometimes backfire when they are crudely
transparent. But generally compliments most often enhance liking and can be used as a means to gain
compliance.

Increased familiarity--through repeated contact with a person or thing is yet another factor that normally
facilitates Liking. But this holds true principally when that contact takes place under positive rather than
negative circumstances. One positive circumstance that may works well is mutual and successful
cooperation.

A final factor linked to Liking is often association. By associating with products or positive things--those
who seek influence frequently share in a halo effect by association. Other individuals as well appear to
recognize the positive effect of simply associating themselves with favorable events and distancing
themselves from unfavorable ones.

A potentially effective response that reduces vulnerability to the undue influence of Liking upon decision-
making requires a recognition of how Liking and its attending factors may impact our impression of
someone making requests and soliciting important decisions. That is-- recognizing how someone making
requests may do inordinately well under certain circumstances--should cause us to step back from some
social interaction and objectively separate the requester from his or her offer or request. We should make
decisions, commitments and offer compliance based upon the actual merits of the offer or request.

Authority

In the seminal studies and research conducted by Milgram regarding obedience there is evidence of the
strong pressure within our society for compliance when requested by an authority figure. The strength of
this tendency to obey legitimate authorities is derived from the systematic socialization practices designed
to instill in society the perception that such obedience constitutes correct conduct. Additionally, it is also
frequently adaptive to obey the dictates of genuine authorities because such individuals usually possess
high levels of knowledge, wisdom, and power. For these reasons, deference to authorities can occur in a
mindless fashion as a kind of decision-making shortcut. When reacting to authority in an automatic
fashion there is a tendency to often do so in response to the mere symbols of authority rather than to i ts
substance.
Three types of symbols have been demonstrated through research as effective in this regard:

1. Titles
2. Clothing
3. Automobiles.

In separate studies investigating the influence of these symbols--individuals that possessed one or
another of these symbols, even without other legitimizing credentials, were accorded more deference or
obedience by those they encountered. Moreover, in each instance, those individuals who deferred and/or
obeyed these individuals underestimated the effect of authority pressures upon their behavior.
Asking two questions can attain a meaningful defense against the detrimental effects of undue influence
gained through authority.

1. Is this authority truly an expert?
2. How truthful can we expect this expert to be?

The first question directs our attention away from symbols and toward actual evidence for authority
status. The second advises us to consider not just the expert's knowledge in the situation, but also his or
her trustworthiness. With regard to this second consideration, we should be alert to the trust-enhancing
tactic in which a communicator may first provide some mildly negative information about himself or
herself. This can be seen as a strategy to create the perception of honesty--making subsequent
information seem more credible to those listening.

Scarcity

According to the Principle of Scarcity--people assign more value to opportunities when they are less
available. The use of this principle for profit can be seen in such high-pressure sales techniques as only a
"limited number" now available and a "deadline" set for an offer. Such tactics attempt to persuade people
that number and/or time restrict access to what is offered. The scarcity principle holds true for two
reasons:

1. Things difficult to attain are typically more valuable. And the availability of an item or experience
can serve as a shortcut clue or cue to its quality.
2. When something becomes less accessible, the freedom to have it may be lost.

According to psychological reactance theory, people respond to the loss of freedom by wanting to have it
more. This includes the freedom to have certain goods and services. As a motivator, psychological
reactance is present throughout the great majority of a person's life span. However, it is especially evident
at a pair of ages: "the terrible twos" and the teenage years. Both of these periods are characterized by an
emerging sense of individuality, which brings to prominence such issues as control, individual rights, and
freedoms. People at these ages are especially sensitive to restrictions.

In addition to its effect on the valuation of commodities, the Principle of Scarcity also applies to the way
that information is evaluated. Research indicates that the act of limiting access to a message may cause
individuals to want it more and to become increasingly favorable to it. The latter of these findings, that
limited information is more persuasive--seems the most interesting. In the case of censorship, this effect
occurs even when the message has not been received. When a message has been received, it is more
effective if it is perceived to consist of some type of exclusive information.

The scarcity principle is more likely to hold true under two optimizing conditions

1. Scarce items are heightened in value when they are newly scarce. That is things have higher
value when they have become recently restricted--more than those than those things that were
restricted all along have.
2. People are most attracted to scarce resources when they compete with others for them.

It is difficult to prepare ourselves cognitively against scarcity pressures because they have an emotional
quality that makes thinking difficult. In defense, we might attempt to be alert regarding the sudden rush of
emotions in situations involving scarcity. Perhaps this awareness may allow us to remain calm and take
steps to assess the merits of an opportunity in terms of why we really want and objectively need.

This is based upon the summary notes within the book--Influence. By Robert B. Cialdini, Ph.D.
(Quill, NY, 1984 (Revised 1993)