Understanding the Six Principles of Social Influence: Reciprocation, Consistency, Validati, Essays (high school) of Communication

Download Understanding the Six Principles of Social Influence: Reciprocation, Consistency, Validati and more Essays (high school) Communication in PDF only on Docsity! T he scientific study of the process of social influence has been under way for well over half a century, beginning in earnest with the propaganda, public information and persuasion programs of World War II. Since that time, numerous social scientists have inves- tigated the ways in which one individual can influence anoth- er’s attitudes and actions. For the past 30 years, I have partic- ipated in that endeavor, concentrating primarily on the major factors that bring about a specific form of behavior change— compliance with a request. Six basic tendencies of human be- havior come into play in generating a positive response: re- ciprocation, consistency, social validation, liking, authority and scarcity. As these six tendencies help to govern our busi- ness dealings, our societal involvements and our personal re- lationships, knowledge of the rules of persuasion can truly be thought of as empowerment. Reciprocation When the Disabled American Veterans organization mails out requests for contributions, the appeal suc- ceeds only about 18 percent of the time. But when the mailing includes a set of free personalized address labels, the success rate almost doubles, to 35 percent. To understand the effect of the unsolicited gift, we must recognize the reach and power of an essential rule of human conduct: the code of reciprocity. All societies subscribe to a norm that obligates individu- als to repay in kind what they have received. Evolutionary se- lection pressure has probably entrenched the behavior in so- cial animals such as ourselves. The demands of reciprocity begin to explain the boost in donations to the veterans group. Receiving a gift—unsolicited and perhaps even unwanted— 76 Scientific American February 2001 The Science of Persuasion The Science of Salespeople, politicians, friends and family all have a stake in getting you to agree to their requests. Social psychology has determined the basic principles that govern getting to “yes” by Robert B. Cialdini Hello there. I hope you’ve enjoyed the magazine so far. Now I’d like to let you in on something of great importance to you personally. Have you ever been tricked into saying yes? Ever felt trapped into buying something you did- n’t really want or contributing to some sus- picious-sounding cause? And have you ever wished you understood why you acted in this way so that you could withstand these clever ploys in the future? Yes? Then clearly this article is just right for you. It contains valuable information on the most powerful psychological pressures that get you to say yes to requests. And it’s chock-full of new, improved research show- ing exactly how and why these techniques work. So don’t delay, just settle in and get the information that, after all, you’ve al- ready agreed you want. convinced significant numbers of potential donors to return the favor. Charitable organizations are far from alone in taking this approach: food stores offer free samples, exterminators offer free in-home inspections, health clubs offer free workouts. Customers are thus exposed to the product or service, but they are also indebted. Consumers are not the only ones who fall under the sway of reciprocity. Pharmaceutical companies spend millions of dollars every year to support medical re- searchers and to provide gifts to individual physicians—activ- ities that may subtly influence researchers’ findings and phy- sicians’ recommendations. A 1998 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that only 37 percent of research- ers who published conclusions critical of the safety of calci- um channel blockers had received prior drug company sup- port. Among researchers whose conclusions supported the drugs’ safety, however, the number of those who had received free trips, research funding or employment skyrocketed—to 100 percent. Reciprocity includes more than gifts and favors; it also applies to concessions that people make to one another. For example, assume that you reject my large request, and I then make a concession to you by retreating to a smaller request. You may very well then reciprocate with a concession of your own: agreement with my lesser request. In the mid-1970s my colleagues and I conducted an experiment that clearly illus- trates the dynamics of reciprocal concessions. We stopped a random sample of passersby on public walkways and asked if they would volunteer to chaperone juvenile detention cen- ter inmates on a day trip to the zoo. As expected, very few complied, only 17 percent. For another random sample of passersby, however, we began with an even larger request: to serve as an unpaid counselor at the center for two hours per week for the next two years. Everyone in this second sampling rejected the ex- treme appeal. At that point we offered them a concession. “If you can’t do that,” we asked, “would you chaperone a group of juvenile detention center inmates on a day trip to the zoo?” Our concession powerfully stimulated return conces- sions. The compliance rate nearly tripled, to 50 percent, com- pared with the straightforward zoo-trip request. Consistency In 1998 Gordon Sinclair, the owner of a well-known Chica- go restaurant, was struggling with a problem that afflicts all restaurateurs. Patrons frequently reserve a table but, with- out notice, fail to appear. Sinclair solved the problem by ask- ing his receptionist to change two words of what she said to callers requesting reservations. The change dropped his no- call, no-show rate from 30 to 10 percent immediately. The two words were effective because they commissioned the force of another potent human motivation: the desire to be, and to appear, consistent. The receptionist merely modi- fied her request from “Please call if you have to change your plans” to “Will you please call if you have to change your plans?” At that point, she politely paused and waited for a www.sciam.com Scientific American February 2001 77 ST EV EN A D A M S A P Ph ot o FREE SAMPLES carry a subtle price tag; they psychologically in- debt the consumer to reciprocate. Here shoppers get complimen- tary tastes of a new product, green ketchup. The samples prime the consumer to return the favor with a purchase. The novel col- or may also make the product seem scarce, an attractive attribute. discovered that a man could increase by 350 percent the number of pedestrians who would follow him across the street against the light by changing one simple thing. Instead of casual dress, he donned markers of authority: a suit and tie. Those touting their experience, ex- pertise or scientific credentials may be trying to harness the power of authori- ty: “Babies are our business, our only business,” “Four out of five doctors rec- ommend,” and so on. (The author’s bi- ography at the end of this article in part serves such a purpose.) There is nothing wrong with such claims when they are real, because we usually want the opin- ions of true authorities. Their insights help us choose quickly and well. The problem comes when we are sub- jected to phony claims. If we fail to think, as is often the case when confronted by authority symbols, we can easily be steered in the wrong direction by ersatz experts—those who merely present the aura of legitimacy. That Texas jaywalk- er in a suit and tie was no more an au- thority on crossing the street than the rest of the pedestrians who nonetheless followed him. A highly successful ad campaign in the 1970s featured actor Robert Young proclaiming the health benefits of decaffeinated coffee. Young seems to have been able to dispense this medical opinion effectively because he represented, at the time, the nation’s most famous physician. That Marcus Welby, M.D., was only a character on a TV show was less important than the appearance of authority. Scarcity While at Florida State University in the 1970s, psychologist Stephen West noted an odd occurrence after surveying students about the campus cafeteria cuisine: ratings of the food rose significantly from the week before, even though there had been no change in the menu, food quality or prepara- tion. Instead the shift resulted from an announcement that because of a fire, cafeteria meals would not be available for several weeks. This account highlights the effect of perceived scarcity on human judgment. A great deal of evidence shows that items and opportunities become more desirable to us as they become less avail- able. For this reason, marketers trum- pet the unique benefits or the one-of-a- kind character of their offerings. It is also for this reason that they consistently engage in “limited time only” promo- tions or put us into competition with one another using sales campaigns based on “limited supply.” Less widely recognized is that scarci- ty affects the value not only of com- modities but of information as well. In- formation that is exclusive is more per- suasive. Take as evidence the dissertation data of a former student of mine, Am- ram Knishinsky, who owns a company that imports beef into the U.S. and sells it to supermarkets. To examine the ef- fects of scarcity and exclusivity on com- pliance, he instructed his telephone sales- people to call a randomly selected sam- ple of customers and to make a standard request of them to purchase beef. He also instructed the salespeople to do the same with a second random sample of customers but to add that a shortage of Australian beef was anticipated, which was true, because of certain weather conditions there. The added informa- tion that Australian beef was soon to be scarce more than doubled purchases. Finally, he had his staff call a third sample of customers, to tell them (1) about the impending shortage of Aus- tralian beef and (2) that this informa- tion came from his company’s exclusive sources in the Australian National Weather Service. These customers in- creased their orders by more than 600 percent. They were influenced by a scarcity double whammy: not only was the beef scarce, but the information that the beef was scarce was itself scarce. Knowledge Is Power Ithink it noteworthy that many of the data presented in this article have come from studies of the practices of persuasion professionals—the market- ers, advertisers, salespeople, fund-rais- ers and their comrades whose financial well-being depends on their ability to get others to say yes. A kind of natural selection operates on these people, as those who use unsuccessful tactics soon go out of business. In contrast, those using procedures that work well will survive, flourish and pass on these suc- cessful strategies [see “The Power of Memes,” by Susan Blackmore; Scien- tific American, October 2000]. Thus, over time, the most effective principles of social influence will appear in the repertoires of long-standing persuasion professions. My own work indicates that those principles embody the six fundamental human tendencies exam- ined in this article: reciprocation, con- sistency, social validation, liking, au- thority and scarcity. From an evolutionary point of view, each of the behaviors presented would appear to have been selected for in ani- mals, such as ourselves, that must find the best ways to survive while living in social groups. And in the vast majority of cases, these principles counsel us cor- rectly. It usually makes great sense to repay favors, behave consistently, fol- low the lead of similar others, favor the 80 Scientific American February 2001 PE TE R BA RR ER A S A P Ph ot o LIMITED OFFER of toys available for a short time often creates a figurative feeding frenzy at local fast-food establishments. Scarcity can be manufactured to make a commodity appear more desirable. The Science of Persuasion requests of those we like, heed legiti- mate authorities and value scarce re- sources. Consequently, influence agents who use these principles honestly do us a favor. If an advertising agency, for in- stance, focused an ad campaign on the genuine weight of authoritative, scien- tific evidence favoring its client’s head- ache product, all the right people would profit—the agency, the manufacturer and the audience. Not so, however, if the agency, finding no particular scientific merit in the pain reliever, “smuggles” the authority principle into the situa- tion through ads featuring actors wear- ing lab coats. Are we then doomed to be helplessly manipulated by these principles? No. By understanding persuasion techniques, we can begin to recognize strategies and thus truly analyze requests and offer- ings. Our task must be to hold persua- sion professionals accountable for the use of the six powerful motivators and to purchase their products and services, support their political proposals or do- nate to their causes only when they have acted truthfully in the process. If we make this vital distinction in our dealings with practitioners of the persua- sive arts, we will rarely allow ourselves be tricked into assent. Instead we will give ourselves a much better option: to be informed into saying yes. Moreover, as long as we apply the same distinction to our own attempts to influence others, we can legitimately commission the six principles. In seeking to persuade by pointing to the presence of genuine ex- pertise, growing social validation, perti- nent commitments or real opportunities for cooperation, and so on, we serve the interests of both parties and enhance the quality of the social fabric in the bargain. www.sciam.com Scientific American February 2001 81 The Author ROBERT B. CIALDINI is Regents’ Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University, where he has also been named Distinguished Graduate Research Professor. He has been elected president of the Society of Per- sonality and Social Psychology. Cialdini’s book Influence, which was the result of a three-year study of the reasons why people comply with requests in everyday settings, has appeared in numerous editions and been published in nine languages. He attributes his long-standing inter- est in the intricacies of influence to the fact that he was raised in an en- tirely Italian family, in a predominantly Polish neighborhood, in a his- torically German city (Milwaukee), in an otherwise rural state. Further Information Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence. Phillip G. Zimbardo and Michael R. Leippe. Temple University Press, 1991. Bargaining for Advantage. G. Richard Shell. Viking, 1999. Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persua- sion. Anthony J. Pratkanis. W. H. Freeman and Company, 2000. Influence: Science and Practice. Fourth edition. Robert B. Cialdini. Allyn & Bacon, 2001. For regularly updated information about the social influence process, visit www.influenceatwork.com D U SA N P ET RI C IC Influence across Cultures Do the six key factors in the social influ- ence process operate similarly across national boundaries? Yes,but with a wrinkle. The citizens of the world are human,after all, and susceptible to the fundamental tenden- cies that characterize all members of our species. Cultural norms, traditions and expe- riences can, however, modify the weight brought to bear by each factor. Consider the results of a report published this year by Stanford University’s Michael W.Morris, Joel M.Podolny and Sheira Ariel,who studied employees of Citibank, a multinational financial corpora- tion. The researchers selected four societies for examination: the U.S., China, Spain and Germany. They surveyed Citibank branches within each country and measured employees’willingness to com- ply voluntarily with a request from a co-worker for assistance with a task. Although multiple key factors could come into play, the main reason employees felt obligated to comply differed in the four na- tions. Each of these reasons incorporated a different fundamental principle of social influence. Employees in the U.S. took a reciprocation-based approach to the decision to comply. They asked the question, “What has this person done for me recently?” and felt obligated to volunteer if they owed the requester a favor. Chinese employees responded primarily to authori- ty, in the form of loyalties to those of high status within their small group. They asked, “Is this requester connected to someone in my unit, especially someone who is high- ranking?” If the answer was yes, they felt re- quired to yield. Spanish Citibank personnel based the de- cision mostly on liking/friendship.They were willing to help on the basis of friendship norms that encourage faithfulness to one’s friends, regardless of position or status. They asked, “Is this requester connected to my friends?” If the answer was yes, they were especially likely to want to comply. German employees were most compelled by consistency, offer- ing assistance in order to be consistent with the rules of the organ- ization.They decided whether to comply by asking, “According to official regulations and categories, am I supposed to assist this re- quester?” If the answer was yes, they felt a strong obligation to grant the request. In sum, although all human societies seem to play by the same set of influence rules, the weights assigned to the various rules can differ across cultures. Persuasive appeals to audiences in distinct cultures need to take such differences into account. —R.B.C. Surely, someone with your splendid intellect can see the unique benefits of this article. And because you look like a helpful person who would want to share such useful information, let me make a request. Would you buy this issue of the magazine for 10 of your friends? Well, if you can’t do that, would you show it to just one friend? Wait, don’t answer yet. Because I genuinely like you, I’m going to throw in—at abso- lutely no extra cost—a set of references that you can consult to learn more about this little-known topic. Now, will you voice your commit- ment to help? ... Please recognize that I am pausing politely here. But while I’m waiting, I want you to feel totally as- sured that many others just like you will certainly consent. And I love that shirt you’re wearing. SA