Influence

Introduction | P.XVII

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 doing so, gives the tactics their power. [...] The principles reciprocation, liking, social proof, authority, scarcity, commitment and consistency, and unity.

Levers of Influence -> Click, Run | P.4

A well-known principle of human behavior says that when we ask someone to do us a favor, we will be more successful if we provide a reason. People simply like to have reasons for what they do.

Levers of Influence -> Simplifying by Betting the Shortcut Odds | P.9

[...], there is an unsettling tendency in our society to accept unthinkingly the statements and directions of individuals who appear to be authorities on a topic. That is, rather than thinking about an expert's arguments and being convinced (or not), we frequently ignore the arguments and allow ourselves to be convinced just by the expert's status as an "expert". This tendency to respond mechanically to one piece of information in a situation is what we have been calling automatic or click, run responding; the tendency to react on the basis of a thorough analysis of all of the information can be referred to as controlled responding. Quite a lot of laboratory research has shown that people are more likely to deal with information in a controlled fashion when they have both the desire and the ability to analyze it carefully; otherwise, they are likely to use the easier click, run approach.

Levers of Influence -> Jujitsu | P.16

Relatedly, if we are talking to an attractive individual at a party and are joined by a comparatively less attractive one, the second will strike us as being less attractive than he or she actually is. Some researchers warn that the unrealistic attractive people portrayed in the popular media may cause us to be less satisfied with the looks of the genuinely available romantic possibilities around us. The researchers demonstrated that increasing exposure to the exaggerated sexual attractiveness of sensual models in the media lowers sexual desirability of our current mates.

Levers of Influence -> Jujitsu | P.19

One thing I quickly noticed was that whenever Phil began showing a new set of customers potential buys, he would start with a couple of undesirable houses. [...] They were what the company called "setup" properties. The company maintained an unappealing house or two in its lists at inflated prices. These houses were not intended to be sold to customers but only to be shown to them so that the genuine properties in the company's inventory would benefit from the comparison.

Automobile dealers use the contrast principle by waiting until the price of a car has been negotiated before suggesting one option after another. In the wake of a many-thousand-dollar deal, a couple hundred extra dollars for a nicety such as an upgraded sound system seems almost trivial in comparison. [...] The trick is to bring up the options independently of one another so that each small price will seem petty when compared to the already determined much larger price.

Reciprocation -> The Rule Is Overpowering | P.32

A gift to my child is a gift to me. In general, business operators have found that after accepting a gift, customers are willing ot purchase products and agree to requests they would have otherwise declined.

Reciprocation -> Personalization via Customization | P.43

A while ago my colleague sent me an article from a sales magazine, describing the shock a high-level executive of a global hotel chain got after reviewing the results of his company's costly "Seamless Customer Experience" program. It wasn't guests with an errorless stay who reported the highest satisfaction ratings and future loyalty. Rather, it was those who experienced a service stumble that was immediately put right by the hotel staff. There are multiple ways to understand why this occurred. For example, it may be that after guests know that the organization can efficiently fix mistakes, they become more confident that the same will be true in any future dealings. I don't doubt this possibility, but I believe another factor is at work too: The remedy may well be perceived by guests as "special, personalized assistance" the hotel has gone out of its way to provide. By virtue of the rule of reciprocation, the hotel then becomes deserving of something special in return, in the form of superior ratings and loyalty.

Reciprocation -> The Rule Enforces Uninvited Debts | P.46

We can see why it would be beneficial for the organization to have the cards viewed as a gift instead of as merchandise: there is a strong cultural pressure to reciprocate a gift, even an unwanted one, but there is no such pressure to purchase an unwanted commercial product.

Liking -> Conditioning and Association | P.108

Our instruction in the way negative association works seems to have been primarily undertaken by our parents. Remember how they were always warning us against playing with the bad kids down the street? Remember how they said it didn't matter if we did nothing bad ourselves because, in the eyes of the neighborhood, we would be known by the company we kept? Our parents were teaching us about guilt by association; they were giving us a lesson in the negative side of the principle of association. And they, too, were right. People do assume that we have the same personality traits as our friends.

Social Proof -> People Power | P.133

TODO.

Social Proof -> Similarity: Peer-suation | P.166

"Well, I'm three years old, and Tommy is three years old. And Tommy can swim without a ring, so that means I can too." I could have kicked myself. Of course it would be to little Tommy, not to a six-foot-two graduate student, that Chris would look for the most relevant information about what he could or should do.

Social Proof -> A Social-Proof Shortcut (to the Future) | P.189

[...] It seems to run counter to the studies we're covered showing people prefer to conform to the majority. Does it indicate that when a trend is visible, social proof is no longer all-powerful? Yes and no. Existing levels of social proof may no longer win, but another version of the concept may. Because we assume they will continue in the same direction, trends don't just tell us where others' behaviors have been and are now; we think they also tell us where others' behaviors will be. Thus, trends give us access to a special and potent form of social proof - future social proof. [...]

On the basis of these results, I no longer give my previous advice to individuals who have something new to offer that possesses limited current popularity. Rather than urging them away from the principle of social proof and toward one of the other principles, I ask if over a reasonable period of time, they have honest evidence of growing popularity. If yes, I recommend making that fact the central feature of their message - because, as their audiences will presume, such evidence will be an indicator of genuine worth and future popularity.

Authority -> Trustworthiness | P.227

XX.

Authority -> Trustworthiness | P.228

Warren Buffett, who with his partner Charlie Munger has led the Berkshire Hathaway investment company to astounding levels of growth and worth, is widely recognized as the greatest financial investor of our time. Not content to rest on his expertise laurels, Buffett consistently reminds current and potential stockholders of the other component of credibility he possesses: trustworthiness. Near the start of his annual reports, usually in the first page or two of test, he describes a mistake he's made or a problem the company has encountered during the past year and examines the implications for future outcomes. Rather than burying, minimizing, or papering over difficulties, which seems to be the tack taken all too frequently in other annual reports, Buffett demonstrates that he is, first, fully aware of problems inside the company and, second, fully willing to reveal them. The emergent advantage is that when he then describes the formidable strengths of Berkshire Hathaway, readers are ready to trust in them more deeply than before - because they are coming from a manifestly trustworthy communicator.

Scarcity | P.245

It is worth asking what it is about the idea of loss that makes it so potent in human functioning. One prominent theory accounts for the primacy of loss over gain in evolutionary terms. If one has enough to survive, an increase in resources will be helpful but a decrease in those same resources could be fatal. Consequently, it would be adaptive to be especially sensitive to the possibility of loss (Haselton & Nettle, 2006).

Scarcity -> Limited Numbers | P.251

When I speak to business groups about the scarcity principle, I stress the importance of avoiding the use of such tricks as providing false limited-number information. In response, I regularly get a version of the question "But what if we can deliver as much as the market demands? How can we use the power of scarcity?" The solution is to recognize that scarcity applied not only to the count of items but also to the traits or elements of the items. First, identify a feature of your product or service that is unique or so uncommon that it can't be obtained elsewhere at the same price or at all. Then, market honestly on the basis of that feature and the attendant benefits that will be lost if it is missed. If the item doesn't have a single such feature, it may well possess a unique combination of features that can't be matched by competitors. In that case, the scarcity of that unique set of features can be marketed honestly.

Scarcity -> Psychological Reactance | P.263

When something becomes less available, our freedom to have it is limited, and we experience an increased desire for it. We rarely recognize, however, that psychological reactance has caused us to want the item more; all we know is we want it. To make sense of our heightened desire for the item, we begin to assign it positive qualities.

Scarcity -> Optimal Conditions | P.271

"Oh, good, this means that when people know they're getting something new, their desire for it will shoot up." But in fact, what that [...] increase really meant was that when people know what they can't have, their desire for it will shoot up. [...]

Once again, we see a less available item is more desired and valued.

Scarcity -> Optimal Conditions | P.271

Do we value more those things that have become recently less available or those things that have always been scarce? [...] The drop from abundance to scarcity produced a decidedly more positive reaction [...] than did constant scarcity.

Scarcity -> Optimal Conditions | P.281

[...] extreme caution is advised whenever we encounter the devilish construction of scarcity plus rivalry.

Commitment and Consistency -> Commitment Is the Key | P.307

The tactic's effectiveness fits with the account of an Atlanta-based acquaintance [...] who - despite following standard advice to describe fully all the good reasons he should be hired - was having no success in job interviews. To change this outcome, he began employing the consistency principle on his behalf. After assuring evaluators he wanted to answer all their questions as fully as possible, he added, "But, before we start, I wonder if you could answer a question for me. I'm curious, what was it about my background that attracted you to my candidacy?" As a consequence, his evaluators heard themselves saying positive things about him and his qualifications, committing themselves to reasons to hire him before he had to make the case himself. He swears he has gotten three better jobs in a roy by employing this technique.

Commitment and Consistency -> The Effort Extra | P.333

A pair of researchers, Ellot Aronson and Judon Mills, decided to test their observation that "persons who go through a great deal of trouble or pain to attain something tend to value it more highly than persons who attain the same thing with a minimum of effort." [...] They found that college woman who had to endure a severely embarrassing initiation ceremony in order to gain access to a [...] group convinced themselves their new group and its discussions were extremely valuable, even though Aronson and Mills had rehearsed the other group members to be as "worthless and uninteresting" as possible. Different coeds who went though a much milder initiation ceremony or went though no initiation at all, were decidedly less positive about the "worthless" new group they had joined. Additional research showed the same results when coeds were required to endure pain rather than embarrassment to get into a group. The more electric shock a woman received as part of the initiation ceremony, the more she later persuaded herself that her new group and its activities were interesting, intelligent, and desirable.

Unity -> Systems Engineering | P.402

Psychologists have long asserted the existence of two ways of assessing and knowing. The most recent such assertion to gain widespread attention is Daniel Kahneman's treatment of the distinction between System 1 and System 2 thinking. The first is dast, associative, intuitive, and often emotional, whereas the second is slower, deliberative, analytical, and rational. Support for the separateness of the two approaches comes from evidence that activating one inhibits the other. Just as it is difficult to think hard about an occurrence while experiencing it emotionally, fully experiencing the experiencing the occurrence is difficult while parsing it logically. There's an implication for influence: persuaders would be wise to match the System 1 versus 2 orientation of any appeal to the corresponding orientation of the recipient. Thus, if you are considering a car purchase primarily from the standpoint of its emotionally relevant features, a salesperson would be well advised to approach you with feelings-related arguments. Research suggests that saying "I feel this is the one for you" will be more successful. But if you are considering the purchase primarily on rational grounds, then "I think this is the one for you" would be more likely to close the lase. [...] For anyone interested in maximizing persuasive success, the critical takeaway from this section should not be merely that music is allied with System 1 responding or that, when channelred to that kind of responding, people act imprudently. The far larger lesson involves the importance of matching the System 1 versus 2 character of a persuasive communication with the System 1 versus 2 mindset of its intended audience. Recipients with non-rational, hedonistic goals should be matched with messages containing nonrational elements such as musical accompaniment, whereas those with rational, pragmatic goals should be matched with messages containing rational elements such as facts.

[...] music should only be used to advertise familiar, feelings-based products (such as snack foods and body scents) in an emotional context - that is, where thinking is unlikely. For products that have high personal consequences and strong supportive arguments (such as safety equipment and software packages) - that is, for which hard thinking is likely to be undertaken and productive - background music actually undercuts ad effectiveness.

Unity -> Repeated Reciprocal Exchange | P.405

The Arons and their coworkers helped explain this kind of willing assent by showing how extended reciprocal exchanges bind the transactors together. They did so by employing a particularly unifying type of reciprocal exchange, strong enough to "unify" people into love with one another: reciprocal self-disclosure. The procedure was not complicated. In pairs, participants took turns reading questions to their partner, who would answer, and who would then receive theirs partner's answer to the same item. Advancing through the thirty-six questions required participants to disclose progressively more personal information about themselves and, in turn, to learn more personal information about their partners. [...] Relationships deepened beyond all expectations. The procedure generated feelings of closeness and unity that are unparalleled within a forty-five-minute span, especially among complete strangers in an emotionally sterile laboratory setting. [...] [...] Dr. Aron described two aspects of the procedure she felt are key to its effectiveness. First, the items escalate in personal discursiveness. When responding, participants increasingly open themselves to one another in a trusting way, representative of tightly bonded pairs. Second, and in keeping with the overarching theme of tis section of the chapter, participants do yo by acting together - that is, in a coordinated, back-and-forth fashion, making the interaction inherently and continuously synchronized.

Unity -> Co-creation | P.413

[...] the results of a study I helped conduct to investigate the effects of manager's degree of personal involvement in the creation of a work product. I'd expected that the more involvement managers felt they'd had in generating the final product in concert with an employee, the higher they would rate its quality, which is what we found: managers led to believe they's had a large role in developing the end product rated it more favorably [...]. In addition, we found that the managers with the greatest perceived involvement rated themselves more responsible of the quality in terms of their greater perceived managerial control over their employee [...]. But I didn't at all expect a third finding. The more the manager attributed the success of the project to themselves, the more they also attributed it to the ability of their employee. [...] How could supervisors with greater perceived involvement in the development of a work product see themselves and a single coworker on the project as each more responsible of its successful final form? There's only 100 percent of personal responsibility to be distributed. So if one party's perceived personal contribution goes up, by simple logic, the work partner's should go down. I just didn't get it at the time, but no I think I do. If co-creation causes at least a temporary merging of identities, then what applies to one partner also applies ot the other, distributional logic notwithstanding.

Unity -> Asking for Advice Is Good Advice | P.415

However, within such marketing partnerships, requested consumer input must be framed as advice to the company, not as opinions about or expectations for the company. The differential phrasing may seem minor, but it is critical to achieving the company's unitization goal. Providing advice puts a person in a merging state of mind, which stimulates a linking of one's own identity with another party's. Providing an opinion or expectation, on the other hand, outs a person in an introspective state of mind, which involves focusing on oneself. These only slightly different forms of feedback - and the different merging versus separating mindsets they produce - can have a significant impact on consumer engagement with a brand. [...] One more finding from the survey clinches the unitization case for me: the participants rated all three types of feedback equally helpful [...]. So it wasn't that those who gave advice felt connected with the brand because they thought they had aided it more. Instead, having to give advice put participants in a togetherness state of mind rather than a separateness stat of mind just before they had to reflect on what to say about the brand.

This set of results also clinches for me the wisdom of asking for advice in face-to-face interactions with friends, colleagues, and customers. It should even prove effective in our interactions with superiors. Of course, it is rational to worry about a potential downside - that by asking a boss for advice, you might come off as incompetent or dependent or insecure. While I see the logic of such a concern, I also see it as mistaken because the effects of co-creation are not well captured by rationality or logic. But they are exceedingly well captured by a particular, socially promotive felling in the situation - the feeling of togetherness. The novelist Saul Bellow reportedly observed, "When we ask for advice, we are usually looking for an accomplice." I'd only add on the basis of scientific evidence that id we get that advice, we usually get that accomplice. And what better abettor to have on a project than someone in charge?

Unity -> Unifying Practices | P.423

Employing the most effective form of commonality in this regard, mutual identity, Rabbi Kalisch was able to save his people by pointing to a shared Asian identity with Japanese captors; and one member of a couple in mid-dispute was able to gain agreement by just reminding the other of their common identity as partners. Want to make Democrats and Republicans in the United States feel more positively toward one another? Remind them of their common identity as Americans.

Instant Influence -> Shortcuts Shall Be Sacred | P.442

Because technology can evolve much faster than we can, our natural capacity to process information is likely to be increasingly inadequate to handle the abundance of change, choice, and challenge that is characteristic of modern life. More and more frequently, we find ourselves in the position of lower animals - with a mental apparatus unequipped to deal thoroughly with the intricacy and richness of the external environment. Unlike the lower animals, whose cognitive powers have always been relatively deficient, we have created our own deficiency by constructing a radically more complex world. The consequence is the same as that of the animals' long-standing one: when making a decision, we will less frequently engage in a fully considered analysis of the total situation. In response to this "paralysis of analysis", we revert increasingly to focusing on a single, usually reliable feature of the situation.

Levers of Influence | P.21

Ethologists, researcher who study animal behavior in the natural environment, have noticed that among many animal species, behavior often occurs in rigid and mechanical patterns. Called fixed-action patterns, these mechanical sequences are noteworthy in their similarity to certain automatic (click, run) responses by humans. For both humans and subhumans, the automatic-behavior patterns tend to be triggered by a single feature, or trigger feature, can often prove valuable by allowing an individual to decide on a correct course of action without having to analyze carefully and completely each of the other pieces of information in the situation.

The advantage of such shortcut responding lied in its efficiency and economy; by reacting automatically to a normally informative trigger feature, an individual preserves crucial time, energy and mental capacity. The disadvantage of such responding lies in its vulnerability to silly and costly mistakes; by reacting to only a piece of the available information (even a usually predictive piece), an individual increases the chances of error, especially when responding in an automatic, mindless fashion. The chances of error increase even further when other individuals seek to profit by arranging (through manipulation of trigger features) to stimulate a desired behavior at inappropriate times.

Much of the compliance process (wherein one person is spurred to comply with another person's request) can be understood in terms of a human tendency for automatic, shortcut responding. Most of us have developed a set of trigger features for compliance - that is, specific pieces of information that normally tell us when compliance with a request is likely to be correct and beneficial. Each of these trigger features for compliance can be used like a level (of influence) to move people to agree with requests.

Perceptual contrast - the tendency to see two things that are different from one another as being more different than they actually are - is a lever of influence used by some compliance practitioners. For example, real-estate agents ,ay show prospective home buyers one or two unattractive options before showing them a more attractive home, which then seems more attractive that it would have if shown first. An advantage of employing this lever of influence is that its tactical use typically goes unrecognized.

Reciprocation | P.71

According to sociologists and anthropologists, one of the most widespread and basic norms of human culture is embodies in the rule of reciprocation. The rule requires that one person try to repay, in form, what another person has provided. By obligating the recipient of an act to repayment int he future, the rule allows one individual to give something to another with confidence that it is not being lost. This sense of future obligation within the rule makes possible the development of various kinds of continuing relationships, transactions, and exchanges that are beneficial to society. Consequently, all members of all societies are trained from childhood to abide by the rule or suffer serious social disapproval.

The decision to comply with another's request is frequently influenced by the reciprocity rule. 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 recipients's current preferences or needs. Second, the rule applies even to uninvited fist favors, thereby reducing our ability to decide whom we wist to oew and putting the choice in the hands of others. Finally, the rule can spur unequal exchanges; the 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.

Another way the rule of reciprocation can increase compliance involves a simple variation on the basic theme: instead of providing a first favor that stimulates a return favor, an individual can make 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 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.

Our best defense against he use of reciprocity pressures to gain our 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 pater be proved as such. Once they are redefines in this way, we should no longer feel a need to respond with a favor or concessions of our own.

Liking | P.124

People prefer to say yes to individuals they like. Recognizing this rule, compliance professionals commonly increase their effectiveness by emphasizing several factors that increase their overall likability.

One such feature is physical attractiveness. Although is has long been suspected that physical beauty provides an advantage in social interaction, research indicates the advantage may be greater than supposed. Physical attractiveness engenders a halo effect that leads to the assignment of other traits such as talent, kindness, and intelligence. As a result, attractive people are mre persuasive both in terms of getting what they request and changing others' attitudes.

A second factor that influences liking and compliance is similarity. We like people who are like us, and we are more willing ot say yes to their requests, often in an unthinking manner. Another such factor is praise. Compliments generally enhance liking and, hence, compliance. Two particularly useful types of 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 facilitated liking. This relationship holds true principally when the contact takes place under positive rather than negative circumstances. One positive circumstance that works especially well is mutual and successful cooperation. A fifth factor linked to liking is association. By connecting themselves or their products with positive things, advertisers, politicians, and merchandisers frequently seek to share in the positivity through the process of association. Other individuals as well (spots fans, for example) appear to recognize the positive effect of simple connections and try to associate themselves with favorable events and distance themselves from unfavorable events in the eyes of observers.

A potentially effective strategy for reducing the unwanted influence of liking on compliance decisions requires sensitivity to the experience of undue liking for a requester. 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.

Social Proof | P.197

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. Powerful such effects have been found among both children and adults and in such diverse activities as purchase decisions, charity donations, and phobia remission. The principle of social proof can be used to stimulate a person's compliance with a request by communicating that many other individuals (the more, the better) are or have been complying with it. Therefore, simply pointing to the popularity of an item elevates its popularity.

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. In ambiguous situations, for instance, the decisions of bystanders to offer emergency aid are much more influenced by the actions of other bystanders than when the situation is a clear-cut emergency.

A 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 see multiple others performing an action, 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-suation. Evidence for the powerful influence of the actions of similar others can be seen in suicide statistics compiled by sociologist David Phillips. The statistics indicate that after highly publicized suicide stories, other troubled individuals, who are similar to the suicide-story victim, decide to kill themselves. An analysis of the mass-suicide incident at Jonestown, Guyana, suggests the group's leader, Reverend Jim Jones, used both of the factors of uncertainty and similarity to induce a herdlike suicide response from the majority of the Jonestown population.

The social-proof BIG MISTAKE many communicators make is to decry the frequency with which an unwanted behavior (drinking and driving, teen suicide, etc.) is performed, as a way to stop it. However, they don't recognize that within the lament "Look at all the people who are doing this undesirable thing" lurks the undercutting message "Look at all the people who are doing it," which can make it worse cia the principle of social proof.

When communicators are not able to use existing social proof because their idea, cause, or product does not have widespread support, they may be able to harness the power of future social proof by honestly describing trending support, which audiences expect to continue.

Recommendations to reduce our susceptibility to faulty social proof include cultivating a sensitivity to counterfeit evidence of what similar others are doing and recognizing that the actions of similar others should not form the sole basis for our decisions.

Authority | P.238

In the Milgram studies, we see evidence of strong pressures for compliance with the requests of an authority. 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. In addition, it is 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, 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, clothes, and trappings such as automobiles. In studies, individuals possessing prestigious forms of one or another of the symbols (and no other legitimizing credentials) were accorded more deference or obedience by those they encountered. Moreover, in each instance, those individuals who deferred or obeyed underestimated the effect of the authority pressures on their behaviors.

Authority influence flows from being viewed as either in authority or an authority. But the first of these types, merely being in charge, has its problems. Ordering people to do things often generates resistance and resentment. The second type of authority, being viewed as highly informed, avoids this problem, as people are usually willing to follow the recommendations of someone who knows more than they do on the matter at hand.

The 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 (hones in the presentation of one's knowledge). To establish their trustworthiness, communicators may admit to a (usually minor) shortcoming of their case, which can be swept aside later by the presentation of outweighing strengths.

It is possible to defend ourselves against the detrimental effects of authority influence by asking two questions: Is the authority truly and 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. 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 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 | P.289

According to the scarcity principle, people assign more value to opportunities that are less available. The use of this principle for profit can be seen in such compliance techniques as the "limited number" and "deadline" tactics, wherein practitioners try to convince us that if we don't act now, we will lose something of value. This engages the human tendency for loss aversion - that people are more motivated by the thought of losing something than by the thought of gaining something of equal value.

The 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 cure 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.

As a motivator, psychological reactance is present throughout the great majority of the life span. However, it is especially evident at a pair of ages: the terrible twos and the teenage years. Both of these times are characterized by an emerging sense of individuality, which brings to prominence issues of control, rights, and freedoms. Consequently, individuals at these ages are especially averse to restrictions.

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 to it. In the case of censorship, the effect of greater favorability toward a restricted message occurs even before the message has been received. In addition, messages are more effective if perceived as containing exclusive (scarce) information.

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.

It is difficult to steel ourselves cognitively against scarcity pressures because they have an emotion-arousing quality that makes thinking difficult. In defense, we might try to be alert to a rush of arousal in situations involving scarcity. Once altered, we can take steps to calm the arousal and assess the merits of the opportunity in terms of why we want it.

Commitment and Consistency | P.360

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. By being consistent with earlier decisions, one reduces the need to process all the relevant information in future similar situations; instead, one merely needs to recall the earlier decision and to respond consistently with it.

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. Thus, many compliance professionals try to induce people to take an initial position that is consistent with a behavior they will later request from these people. Not all commitments are equally effective in producing consistent future action. Commitments are most effective when they are active, public, effortful, and viewed as internally motivated (voluntary), because each of these elements changes self-image. The reason they do so is that each element gives us information about what we must truly believe.

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. This phenomenon explains the effectiveness of certain deceptive compliance practices such as "throwing the low-ball".

Another advantage of commitment-based tactics is that simple reminders of an earlier commitment can regenerate its ability to guide behavior, even in novel situations. In addition, reminders do more than restore the commitment's vigor, they appear to intensify it by strengthening one's related self-image.

To recognize and resist the undue influence of consistency pressures on our compliance decisions, we should listen for signals coming from two places within us: our stomachs and our heart of hearts. Stomach signs appear when we realize we are being pushed by commitment and consistency pressures to agree to requests we know we don't want to perform. under these circumstances, it is best to explain to the requester that such compliance would constitute a brand of foolish consistency in which we prefer not to engage. Heart-of-heart signs are different. They are best employed when it is not clear to use that an initial commitment was wrongheaded. Here, we should ask ourselves a crucial question: "Knowing what I now know, if I could go back in time, would I make the same commitment?" One informative answer may come as the first flash of felling registered. Commitment and consistency tactics are likely to work especially well on members of individualistic societies, particularly those wo are over fifty years old, who, hence, should be particularly wary of their use.

Unity | P.435

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.

Research into "we"-groups has produced three general conclusions. 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. These three constants have surfaced in a wide range of domains, including business, politics, sports, and personal relationships.

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 on's home, locality, and religion).

The experience of acting together in unison or coordination is a second fundamental factor leading to a sense of unity with others. Shared musical experience is one way people can act together and feel consequent unity. Other ways involve repeated reciprocal exchange, joint suffering, and co-creation.

It may be possible to use the unifying effects of belonging together and acting together to increase the odds of getting together as a species. It would require choosing to share, with out-group members, family experiences in our homes, neighbor experiences in our communities and friendship experiences in our social interactions.

Other kinds of connections involving national identity, mutual enemies, joint emotional experience, and shared perspective can also lead to feelings of unity with out-group members; unfortunately, they are often short-lived. However, focusing concentrated, repeated attention on such connections may make them more enduring by increasing their perceived importance.

Instant Influence | P.446

Modern life is different from that of an earlier time. Owing to remarkable technological advances, information is burgeoning, alternatives are multiplying, and knowledge is exploding. In this avalanche of change and choice, we have had to adjust. One fundamental adjustment has come in the way we make decisions. Although we all wish to make the most thoughtful, fully considered decision possible in any situation, the changing form and accelerating pace of modern life frequently deprive us of the proper conditions for such a careful analysis of all the relevant pros and cons. More and more, we are forced to resort to another decision-making approach - a shortcut approach in which the decision to comply (or agree or believe or buy) is made on the basis of a single, usually reliable piece of information. The most reliable and, therefore, most popular such single triggers for compliance are those described throughout this book. They are commitments, opportunities for reciprocation, the compliant behavior of similar others, feelings of liking or unity, authority directives, and scarcity information.

Because of the increasing tendency for cognitive overload in our society, the prevalence of shortcut decision-making is likely to increase proportionately. Compliance professionals who infuse their requests with one or another of the levers of influence are more likely to be successful. The use of these levers by practitioners is not necessarily exploitative. It only becomes so when the lever is not a natural feature of the situation but is fabricated by the practitioner. In order to retain the beneficial character of shortcut response, it is important to oppose such fabrication by all appropriate means.