Influence

I wanted to find out which psychological principles influenced the tendency to comply with a request.

I have characterized such principles as levers of influence and will be discussing some of the most important in this book.

Although there are thousands of different tactics that compliance practitioners employ to produce yes, the majority fall within seven basic categories. Each of these categories is governed by a fundamental psychological principle that directs human behavior and, in so doing, gives the tactics their power.

This book is organized around these seven principles, one to a chapter. The principles—reciprocation, liking, social proof, authority, scarcity, commitment and consistency, and unity—are discussed both in terms of their function in society and in terms of how their enormous force can be commissioned by a compliance professional who deftly incorporates them into requests for purchases, donations, concessions, votes, or assent.1

three motives of persuaders: reciprocation, liking, and unity for when relationship cultivation is primary; followed by social proof and authority for when reducing uncertainty is foremost; followed in turn by consistency and scarcity for when motivating action is the principle objective.

One favorite and profitable tactic of certain compliance professionals is to give something before asking for a return favor. The exploitability of the tactic is due to three characteristics of the rule of reciprocation. First, the rule is extremely powerful, often overwhelming the influence of other factors that normally determine compliance with a request. The rule becomes particularly potent when the gift, favor, or service is personalized or customized to the recipient’s current preferences or needs. Second, the rule applies even to uninvited first favors, thereby reducing our ability to decide whom we wish to owe and putting the choice in the hands of others. Finally, the rule can spur unequal exchanges; to be rid of the uncomfortable feeling of indebtedness, an individual often agrees to a request for a substantially larger favor than the one he or she received.

instead of providing a first favor that stimulates a return favor, an individual can make an initial concession that stimulates a return concession.

By starting with an extreme request sure to be rejected, a requester can then profitably retreat to a smaller request (the one desired all along), which is likely to be accepted because it appears to be a concession.

Research indicates that aside from increasing the likelihood a person will say yes to a request, the rejection-then-retreat technique also increases the likelihood the person will carry out the request and agree to such requests in the future.

This is the case because, after participating in a reciprocal exchange of concessions, people feel more responsible for and more satisfied with the outcome.

compliance is not systematic rejection of the initial offers of others. Rather, we should accept initial favors or concessions in good faith but be ready to redefine them as tricks should they later be proved as such. Once they are redefined in this way, we should no longer feel a need to respond with a favor or concession of our own.

second factor that influences liking and compliance is similarity. We like people who are like us, and we are more willing to say yes to their requests, often in an unthinking manner.

Another such factor is praise. Compliments generally enhance liking and, hence, compliance.

genuine compliments are those delivered behind the recipient’s back and those selected to give the recipient a reputation to live up to, by continuing to perform the desired behavior.

Increased familiarity through repeated contact with a person or thing is yet another factor that normally facilitates liking.

One positive circumstance that works especially well is mutual and successful cooperation. A fifth factor linked to liking is association.

Upon recognizing that we like a requester inordinately well under the circumstances, we should step back from the interaction, mentally separate the requester from his or her offer, and make any compliance decision based solely on the merits of the offer.

The principle of social proof states that one important means people use to decide what to believe or how to act in a situation is to examine what others are believing or doing there.

Social proof is most influential under three conditions. The first is uncertainty. When people are unsure, when the situation is ambiguous, they are more likely to attend to the actions of others and to accept those actions as correct.

second condition under which social proof is most influential involves “the many”: people are more inclined to follow the lead of others in proportion to the others’ number. When

we become willing to follow because the action appears to be more (1) correct/valid, (2) feasible, and (3) socially acceptable.

The third optimizing condition for social-proof information is similarity. People conform to the beliefs and actions of comparable others, especially their peers—a phenomenon we can call peer-suasion.

Acting contrary to their own preferences, many normal, psychologically healthy individuals were willing to deliver dangerous levels of pain to another person because they were directed to do so by an authority figure. The strength of the tendency to obey legitimate authorities comes from systematic socialization practices designed to instill in members of society the perception that such obedience constitutes correct conduct.

people have a tendency to do so in response to mere symbols of authority rather than to its substance. Three kinds of symbols effective in this regard are titles, clothing, and trappings such as automobiles.

persuasive effect of being seen as an authority is maximized by also being seen as a credible such authority—one perceived as both expert (knowledgeable on the relevant topic) and trustworthy (honest in the presentation of one’s knowledge).

It is possible to defend ourselves against the detrimental effects of authority influence by asking two questions: Is this authority truly an expert? and How truthful can we expect this expert to be? The first directs our attention away from symbols and toward evidence for authority status.

we should be alert to the trust-enhancing tactic in which communicators first provide mildly negative information about themselves. Through this strategy, they create a perception of honesty that makes all subsequent information seem more believable to observers.

scarcity principle holds for two reasons. First, because things difficult to attain are typically more valuable, the availability of an item or experience can serve as a shortcut cue to its quality; and, because of loss aversion, we will be motivated to avoid losing something of high quality. Second, as things become less accessible, we lose freedoms. According to psychological reactance theory, we respond to the loss of freedoms by wanting to have them (along with the goods and services connected to them) more than before.

In addition to its effect on the valuation of commodities, the scarcity principle also applies to the way information is evaluated. The act of limiting access to a message causes individuals to want to receive it and to become more favorable

The scarcity principle is most likely to hold under two optimizing conditions. First, scarce items are heightened in value when they are newly scarce. That is, we value those things that have recently become restricted more than we do those that were restricted all along. Second, we are most attracted to scarce resources when we compete with others for them.

Psychologists have long recognized a desire in most people to be and look consistent within their words, beliefs, attitudes, and deeds. This tendency for consistency is fed from three sources. First, good personal consistency is highly valued by society. Second, aside from its effect on public image, generally consistent conduct provides a beneficial approach to daily life. Third, a consistent orientation affords a valuable shortcut through the complexity of modern existence.

Within the realm of compliance, securing an initial commitment is the key. After making a commitment (that is, taking an action, stand, or position), people are more willing to agree to requests in keeping with the prior commitment.

Commitments are most effective when they are active, public, effortful, and viewed as internally motivated (voluntary), because each of these elements changes self-image.

Commitment decisions, even erroneous ones, have a tendency to be self-perpetuating because they can “grow their own legs.” That is, people often 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.

People say yes to someone they consider one of them. The experience of “we”-ness (unity) with others is about shared identities—tribe-like categories that individuals use to define themselves and their groups, such as race, ethnicity, nationality, and family, as well as political and religious affiliations.

Members of these groups favor the outcomes and welfare of fellow members over those of nonmembers. “We”-group members also use the preferences and actions of fellow members to guide their own, which enhances group solidarity. Finally, such partisan tendencies have arisen, evolutionarily, as ways to advantage our “we”-groups and, ultimately, ourselves.

The perception of belonging together with others is one fundamental factor leading to feelings of “we”-ness. This perception is generated by commonalities of kinship (amount of genetic overlap) as well as by commonalities of place (including one’s home, locality, and region).

The experience of acting together in unison or coordination is a second fundamental factor leading to a sense of unity with others.

Other ways involve repeated reciprocal exchange, joint suffering, and co-creation.