This natural tendency becomes problematic when it is used to acquire political influence, for example when politicians accept money or favors from lobbyists or others in exchange for later votes. Lobbyists are of course free to financially support candidates holding positions that align with the goals of their group. It becomes a concern when it appears there may be an implicit agreement involved. A 2016 study in the American Journal of Political Science showed that even without an understood agreement, though, politicians are more likely to listen to a donor than to another local constituent (see figure).
Reciprocity
Access to U.S. Congressional Officials
The second model that Cialdini describes is commitment—if you agree (or commit) to something, however small, you are more likely to continue to agree later. That’s because not being consistent causes psychological discomfort, called cognitive dissonance (see Chapter 1).
Commitment explains why websites favor button titles like “I’ll sign up later” instead of “No thanks”; the former implies a commitment to sign up at a later time. The sales foot-in-the-door technique follows the same principle, where a mattress salesperson tries to get a “small yes” out of you (asking, for instance, “Do you want to sleep better at night?”), since that makes it more likely they’ll get to a “big yes” (in answer to “Do you want to buy this mattress?”).
Salespeople will also try to find common ground through a model Cialdini calls liking. Quite simply, you are more prone to take advice from people you like, and you tend to like people who share characteristics with you. That’s why they ask you questions such as “Are you a baseball fan?” or “Where did you grow up?” and, after your response, they might tell you, “I’m a Yankees fan too!” or “Oh, my cousin lives there. . . .”
The technique of mirroring also follows this model, where you mirror the physical and verbal cues of people you talk to. People tend to do this naturally, but trying to do this more (for example, consciously folding your arms when they fold their arms) can help you gain people’s trust. Studies show that the more you mirror, the more you will be perceived as similar.
People want to emulate the people they like and trust. “Global Trust in Advertising,” a 2015 Nielsen survey of consumers across sixty different countries, found that 83 percent of people trusted recommendations from their friends and family (people they typically like), a higher rate than any form of advertising studied. This is why word-of-mouth referrals are so important to businesses. Some even base their entire business model on them. Think of the many businesses that have sellers hold sales parties with their friends. This tactic was popularized in modern business with companies like Tupperware (containers), Amway (health and home products), Avon (skin care), and Cutco (knives, which, incidentally, Gabriel sold as a teenager). Recently this business model has become even more popular, including the hundreds of new businesses enabled by social media, such as LuLaRoe (clothing) and Pampered Chef (food products).
A fourth influence model is known as social proof, drawing on social cues as proof that you are making a good decision. You are more likely to do things that you see other people doing, because of your instinct to want to be part of the group (see in-group favoritism in Chapter 4). Think of fashion and food trends or “trending” stories and memes online.
Social proof can be effective in encouraging good choices. You have probably seen signs in hotels encouraging you to reuse your towels because it is better for the environment. Cialdini and others hypothesized in the October 2008 Journal of Consumer Research that reuse would increase if the signs instead pointed out that most other guests reuse their towels, and they were right. The social proof message increased towel reuse by 25 percent compared to the standard environmental message. Similarly, universities like Sacred Heart University are using social proof to combat binge drinking, informing students that most of their peers do not engage in the dangerous practice.
Unfortunately, social proof is also effective at encouraging bad behavior. Park rangers at Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona are rightly concerned about theft of petrified wood, as it is the central attraction of their park. Researchers compared two messages: “Please don’t remove the petrified wood from the park, in order to preserve the natural state of the Petrified Forest” and “Many past visitors have removed the petrified wood from the park, changing the natural state of the Petrified Forest.” The latter, negatively framed message had the effect of tripling theft! Sadly, this same concept also extends to suicide rates, which have been shown to increase following media reports of suicide.
The form of social proof most prevalent in our society now is arguably social media. With the Russian attempts to influence elections in the U.S. and other countries, social media is playing an increasingly central role in global politics. In more everyday situations, follower counts are used as a proxy for social proof, brands retweet or otherwise show real people using their products, and Facebook advertisements showcase which friends have already “liked” a certain company or product.
Scarcity is another influence model, this one describing how you become more interested in opportunities the less available they are, triggering your fear of missing out (FOMO). So-called “limited-time offers” and “once-in-a-lifetime opportunities” prey on this fear. These are easy to spot online, such as the travel site that says there are “only 3 rooms left at this price,” or the retailer reporting “only 5 left in stock.” Scarcity signals also often imply social proof, e.g., this shirt is going to run out because it is so popular.
Scarcity
Cialdini’s sixth major influence model is authority, which describes how you are inclined to follow perceived authority figures. In a series of sensational experiments described in his book Obedience to Authority, psychologist Stanley Milgram tested people’s willingness to obey instructions from a previously unknown authority figure. Participants were asked to assist an experimenter (the authority figure) in a “learning experiment.” They were then asked to give increasingly high electric shocks to “the learner” when they made a mistake. The shocks were fake, but the participant wasn’t told that at the time; the learner was really an actor who pretended to feel pain when the “shocks” were sent. This study has been replicated many times, and a meta-analysis (see Chapter 5) found that participants were willing to administer fatal voltages 28 percent to 91 percent of the time!
In less dramatic settings, authority can still be powerful. Authority explains why celebrity endorsements work, though which types of celebrity endorsements are the most effective changes over time. Nowadays kids are less likely to know Hollywood celebrities and more likely to be influenced by YouTubers or Instagrammers. Similarly, author Michael Ellsberg recounted in Forbes magazine how a guest post on author Tim Ferriss’s blog translated into significantly more book sales than a prime-time segment about his book on CNN and an op-ed printed in the Sunday edition of The New York Times.
Authority also explains why simple changes in wardrobe and accessories can increase the likelihood of getting you to do something. For instance, lab coats were worn in the Milgram experiments to convey authority.
Sometimes people even try to support an argument by appealing to a supposed authority even if that person does not have direct expertise in the relevant area. For example, advocates of extreme dosing of vitamin C cite that Linus Pauling, a two-time Nobel Prize winner, supports their claims, despite the fact that he received his awards in completely unrelated areas.
Authorities are often more knowledgeable of the facts and issues in their area of expertise, but even then, it is important to go back to first principles and evaluate their arguments on merit. In the words of astrophysicist Carl Sagan, from his book The Demon-Haunted World: “One of the great commandments of science is, ‘Mistrust arguments from authority.’ . . . Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.” (See paradigm shift in Chapter 1.)
Simi
larly, a lack of a certain credential shouldn’t be the sole basis for refuting a person’s argument either. We firmly believe that any intelligent person could learn about any topic with the right research and enough time.
Cialdini’s influence models can be used in many situations, including in adversarial ones where you are trying to persuade others to make certain choices. If you want a crash course on the use of these mental models in real-life just go to a casino, where all of them are used simultaneously to ultimately take your money. Casinos give away a lot of free stuff (reciprocity); they get you to first buy chips with cash (commitment); they try to personalize your experience to your interests (liking); they show you examples of other people who won big (social proof); they constantly present you with offers preying on your fear of missing out (scarcity); and dealers will even give you suboptimal advice (authority). Beware. There is a reason why the house always wins!
PERSPECTIVE IS EVERYTHING
Outside of Cialdini’s six principles, there are several other mental models you can use for influence in conflict situations (and elsewhere), all of which are related to framing (see Chapter 1). Recall how the framing of a concept or situation can change the perception of it, such as how a newspaper headline can frame the same event in dramatically different ways, causing the reader to take away different conclusions. This change in perspective can be used as an effective influence model for good or bad, especially in moments of conflict.
The essay Common Sense by Thomas Paine played a critical role in securing American independence from Great Britain and serves as a potent example from history to illustrate the effectiveness of framing. As the American Revolution began in 1776, most American colonists still thought of themselves not as Americans but as Britons, but after Paine’s intervention that framing started to reverse.
Despite increasing hostility between the two sides, colonists were holding out hope for a peaceful reconciliation with their home country. However, it had become clear to some, such as Paine, that King George III was never going to grant the colonists the rights they deserved, and that declaring and fighting for independence was the only way to secure those rights. Paine thought that it was wishful thinking to believe that the conflict would somehow resolve itself amicably and favorably for the colonists, without the admittedly severe consequences of war. Paine’s genius was in realizing that many more colonists would need to start thinking of themselves as Americans if they were going to secure the rights they sought.
In this context, Paine published Common Sense, which made a compelling case for independence in clear, passionate prose. In fact, it was so compelling that it sold more than 500,000 copies in its first year of publication, when the population of the colonies was only 2.5 million—now, that’s a bestseller!
Paine made it clear to many colonists that Britain did not really consider them Britons, citing the way Britain had been treating them. He then made the case, from the perspective of a colonist, that uniting with other colonists to fight for independence as newly minted Americans was the only long-term sensible option. Common Sense ends like this:
Under our present denomination of British subjects, we can neither be received nor heard abroad: The custom of all courts is against us, and will be so, until, by an independence, we take rank with other nations.
These proceedings may at first appear strange and difficult; but, like all other steps which we have already passed over, will in a little time become familiar and agreeable; and, until an independence is declared, the Continent will feel itself like a man who continues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day, yet knows it must be done, hates to set about it, wishes it over, and is continually haunted with the thoughts of its necessity.
And it worked. Paine successfully framed the argument in a way that got people to buy into his idea, getting them to start to think of themselves as Americans first, not Britons. This created the necessary support for the United States Declaration of Independence, which was written later that year. In fact, John Adams, the second president of the U.S., wrote that “without the pen of the author of Common Sense, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.”
In conflicts, you may similarly get the outcome you want by winning people over to your point of view. Thomas Paine did this masterfully by building allies when a conflict was unavoidable. Sometimes you may use framing in this way to prevent a direct fight altogether.
There are some more subtle aspects of framing to consider, captured in a few mental models that we explore in the rest of this section. Let’s think about a more mundane situation than the American Revolution: getting a babysitter. While mid-career professionals are unlikely to take up babysitting for extra cash, they are likely to babysit for free when a friend is in a pinch. The first scenario is framed from a market perspective (“Would you babysit my kids for fifteen dollars an hour?”) and the second is framed from a social perspective (“Can you please do me a favor?”). The difference in the way this situation is framed can be thought of as social norms versus market norms and draws on the concept of reciprocity from the previous section.
When you consider something from a market perspective (like babysitting for money), you consider it in the context of your own financial situation and its impact on you in an impersonal way (“I can earn sixty dollars, but it may not be worth my time”). In contrast, when you consider something from the social perspective (like doing your friend a favor), you consider it in the context of whether it is the right thing to do (“My friend needs my help for four hours, so I am going to help her”).
In his book Predictably Irrational, economist Dan Ariely offers another illustrative example, of an Israeli daycare center trying to address the problem of parents showing up late to pick up their kids. As the problem became prevalent, the daycare instituted a fine for showing up late. In spite of the fine, this policy actually resulted in more late pickups. Ariely explains:
Before the fine was introduced, the teachers and parents had a social contract, with social norms about being late. Thus, if parents were late—as they occasionally were—they felt guilty about it—and their guilt compelled them to be more prompt in picking up their kids in the future. . . . But once the fine was imposed, the day care center had inadvertently replaced the social norms with market norms. Now that the parents were paying for their tardiness, they interpreted the situation in terms of market norms. In other words, since they were being fined, they could decide for themselves whether to be late or not, and they frequently chose to be late. Needless to say, this was not what the day care center intended.
But the real story only started here. The most interesting part occurred a few weeks later, when the day care center removed the fine. Now the center was back to the social norm. Would the parents also return to the social norm? Would their guilt return as well? Not at all. Once the fine was removed, the behavior of the parents didn’t change. They continued to pick up their kids late. In fact, when the fine was removed, there was a slight increase in the number of tardy pickups (after all, both the social norms and the fine had been removed).
You must be careful not to inadvertently replace social norms with market norms, because you may end up eliminating benefits that are hard to bring back (see irreversible decisions in Chapter 2). Once social norms are undermined, the damage has been done and they are no longer norms. So take pause when you’re thinking about introducing monetary incentives into a situation where social norms are the standard.
Social Norms vs. Market Norms
Social Norms
No money involved
No instant payback
Community situations
Market Norms
Money involved
Transactional
Business situations
You may run into similar issues when situations revolve around the perception of fairness. Economists use a game called the ultimatum game to study how the perception of fairness affects actions. Here’s how it works:
The game is played by two people. One person receives some money (say $10). This first person offers to split the money with the second person (say $5/$5, $7/$3, $8/$2, or whatever they want). This offer is an ultimatum, so the second person only has two choices: to accept or reject the offer. If its accepted, they both keep the offered split, and if rejected, they both get nothing.
The purely logical way to play the ultimatum game is for the first person to offer the minimum (e.g., a $9.99/$0.01 split) and for the second person to accept it, since otherwise they would get nothing, and there is no other negotiation possible. In practice, though, across most cultures, the second person usually rejects offers lower than 30 percent of the total, because of the perceived unfairness of the offer. In these circumstances the second person would rather deny the first person anything, even at the expense of receiving nothing themselves.
It is important that you keep this strong desire for fairness in mind when you make decisions that impact people important to you, such as those in your family (chore distribution, wills, etc.) or your organization (compensation, promotions, etc.). Just like social norms versus market norms, framing can have a substantial effect on the perception of fairness in various situations. Another pair of framings that come up often is distributive justice versus procedural justice.
Distributive justice frames fairness around how things are being distributed, with more equal distributions being perceived as more fair. By contrast, procedural justice frames fairness around adherence to procedures, with more transparent and objective procedures being perceived as more fair.
Super Thinking Page 25
