The author of this book is the "Godfather of Influence", a famous social psychologist and a world-renowned authority on persuasion and influence research Robert Cialdini . In this book, Dr. Cialdini explains why some people are so persuasive, yet we are so gullible. The six psychological secrets hidden behind impulsively obeying the behavior of others are the root of it all.
We will share the content of this book in three issues:
The first issue describes the characteristics of influence and the first two weapons through three parts: "Weapons of Influence" and "Reciprocity" and "Commitment and Consistency";
The third issue In the second issue, relevant influence weapons are explained through the two parts of "social identity" and "preference"; in the third issue of
, the last two influence weapons are described through the two parts of "authority" and "scarcity".
Weapons of influence
We live in a colorful world, an era of information explosion, which also means that we have to make countless decisions every day. According to Cornell University research, modern people There are 226.7 decisions made every day just about food.
In order to cope with the complex and changing world and reduce the burden, our brains have a set of rules that are responsible for automating most behaviors, taking shortcuts, filtering out "irrelevant" information and choices, and then evolving a set of habits, that is, mechanical laws. Sexual behavior patterns.
Harvard social psychologist Alan Langer cleverly revealed this automatic reaction pattern of humans through an experiment.
When people were queuing up to use the copier , the researcher wanted to jump in line and said to the person in front: "I'm sorry, I have 5 pages to print. Because I am in a hurry, can I use the copier first?" 94% of people agreed to let her be in front of them.
then changed the way she made the request: "I'm sorry, I have 5 pages to print. Can I use the copier first?" As a result, only 60% of people agreed to her request.
Finally, the researchers tried the third method: "Sorry, I have 5 pages to print. Can I use the copier first? Because I have to print something." As a result, 93% of people agreed.
It is the word "because" that triggers the automatic compliance response of the subjects in the experiment, even if there is no reasonable reason. In fact, patterned automatic behaviors are quite common in most human activities. However, it is true that these automatic behavioral patterns always appear in a mechanized and unthinking way. They come from the psychological principles or paradigms we have learned through experience, which makes us They are always ignored. But some people with ulterior motives see through these principles and treat them as weapons within reach—automatic weapons of influence.
The weapon of influence is like a heavy stick. As long as you use it, you can make another person obey. But at the same time, this process is complex and ingenious. If used properly, the user does not even need to tighten the muscles. It is just like Tai Chi with four ounces of force.
Next, let’s look at the six basic weapons of influence: reciprocity, commitment and consistency, social proof, preference, authority, and scarcity.
Reciprocity
The principle of reciprocity says that if others give us any benefits, we should try our best to repay them. Reciprocity and the accompanying sense of debt repayment, this "debt network" is a unique adaptive mechanism of human beings. With it, human beings can realize the division of labor, exchange different forms of goods and services, and make individuals dependent on each other. , condensed into high-efficiency units.
How the principle of reciprocity works
The influence of the principle of reciprocity is very powerful. Let's illustrate it through a psychological experiment.
The experimenter told the subjects that they were participating in an "art appreciation" experiment, and that they had to rate several paintings with another person (pretending to be the subject's experimental assistant, let's call him "Qiao"). The researchers used two methods. experiment in different environments. During the break, Joe, the experimental assistant who pretended to be the subject, brought back Coke several times and gave a can to the subject. On other occasions, Joe did not give anything to the subject.
Later, after all the drawings had been scored, the experimenter temporarily left the room, and Joe asked the subject to do him a favor. He said that he was selling raffle tickets for a new car, and if he sold the most tickets, he would get a $50 bonus. Joe asked the subjects to buy some lottery tickets at a price of 25 cents each: "Help me, I can buy one, but the more the merrier." There is no doubt that the subjects who had accepted Joe's kindness before bought them. Lotteries come more generously. On average, subjects who drank Joe's dime Coke (priced in the 1960s) bought two of his raffle tickets, with some buying seven. Even if you only look at the average, the return he received was a full five times his initial investment!
Furthermore, in addition to being interested in the persuasive role of reciprocity, psychologists have also investigated the impact of personal favorability on compliance with others' requests. To measure the relationship between the subjects' favorable opinion of Joe and buying his lottery tickets, the researchers asked them to fill out several rating forms. These ratings could tell how the subjects felt about Joe. He then compared the favorability index with the number of lottery tickets purchased. People showed a clear tendency: the more they liked Joe, the more lottery tickets they bought for him. What's interesting about this experiment, however, is that once the subjects accepted Joe's Coke, the relationship between liking and compliance completely took a back seat. For subjects who owed Joe a favor, it made no difference whether they liked him or not; they felt obligated to repay him, and that's exactly what they did. People who said they didn't like Joe bought as many lottery tickets as people who said they liked Joe.
From this experiment, we can see the three main characteristics of the reciprocity principle.
First, the principle of reciprocity is so powerful that it overrides another factor that usually affects compliance decisions (namely, whether you like the person making the request). If other people, no matter how weird, annoying, or unpopular they are, give us a small favor first, we increase the odds that we will do what they ask of us.
The principle of reciprocity has a second characteristic. A person can trigger our sense of indebtedness by forcing some benefits on us. In the previous experiment, the favors Joe provided to the subjects were not requested by the latter, and no subject refused the Coke he handed him. There's an important asymmetry here - Joe has all the real options.
In addition, the principle of reciprocity has another characteristic. The initial small favor given by others can make the person involved feel indebted, and eventually return a much larger favor. In the experiment, Joe's return was five times his investment. Because feeling indebted is so uncomfortable, most of us feel that being indebted to others is unpleasant and weighs heavily on us. Moreover, people who violate the principle of reciprocity and accept kindness without trying to repay others are not welcome in social groups. The heavy psychological burden is more unbearable than the material loss.
Reciprocal concessions
Using the principle of reciprocity to make others comply with requests, there is a second way. It's more subtle than giving a favor directly and asking for it in return, but in some ways it's also more effective: if someone gives in to us, we feel obligated to give in too.
The principle of reciprocity determines the compromise process, and we can use the first concession as a highly effective compliance technique. This technique is very simple and is generally called the "rejection-retreat" technique. Scientists conducted an experiment to test the effectiveness of the rejection-back technique (making a larger request first, and then making a real smaller request after being rejected).
Researchers pretended to be representatives from the County Youth Mentoring Program and asked college students if they would spend a day, free of charge, accompanying a group of juvenile delinquents on a tour of the zoo. Unsurprisingly, 83% said no. However, the researchers selected another group of college students from the same sample and slightly adjusted the questioning techniques. Before asking them to accompany juvenile delinquents to the zoo for free, they are first asked to do a greater "good deed" - to spend two hours a week as counselors for juvenile delinquents for at least two years; when they refuse this extreme After the request (all of them refused), he then made a small request to accompany him to the zoo. As a result, the number of college students who agreed to accompany him to the zoo tripled than before.
The larger the initial request, the better this approach works because there is more room for the illusion. But there are limits to this. If the initial request is so extreme that it is unreasonable, it will backfire. At this time, the party who first makes the extreme request will be considered to be lacking in sincerity. A truly talented negotiator will exaggerate his initial position just enough to bargain, make a series of small concessions, and finally get the desired result from the other party.
So what can be done to offset the impact of the social principle of reciprocity? Rejecting the requester's initial goodwill or concession may allow us to successfully sidestep the problem. However, when we first encounter a request, it can be difficult to tell whether it is genuine or an attempt to take advantage of us. Another solution may be better. If we really agree with someone else's proposal, then we might as well accept it; if the proposal has ulterior motives, then we should ignore it. The principle of reciprocity only says to repay goodwill with goodwill, but it does not say to repay trickery with goodwill.
Commitment and consistency
The principle of commitment and consistency means that everyone has a desire to be consistent in words and deeds. Once we make a choice or take a stance, we immediately encounter internal and external pressure to do what we say we will do. Under such pressure, we will find ways to use actions to prove that our previous decisions are correct.
According to people's general feeling, inconsistent words and deeds is an undesirable personality trait. A high degree of consistency in words and deeds is mostly linked to a strong personality and outstanding intelligence. It is the core of logic, stability and honesty. And, most of the time, if we are consistent in what we do, we will do well. Without consistency, our lives will be difficult and scattered. As long as we have made up our mind about something, persisting to the end will bring us an extremely rare benefit: we no longer have to use reason to think about it hard.
Commitment is the key
Once we realize that human actions are inevitably guided by powerful forces that remain consistent, an important and practical question arises: Where does this power come from? What is it that presses the play button and activates the irresistible tape of consistency? Social psychologists think they've figured out the answer: commitment.
Many business organizations often use this method. Businessmen doing small business are almost not motivated by profits, but to establish commitment. With a commitment, subsequent business will come naturally, and it is not uncommon to make big business. This method of starting with a small request and eventually asking people to agree to a larger request is called "stepping up to the threshold."
Psychologists conducted an experiment: they sent researchers to pretend to be volunteers and make a ridiculous request to the community owners.
Researchers are asking homeowners to agree to erect a large public service sign on their front lawn that reads "Drive Carefully." The sign was large enough to block the view of the front of the house. Most people declined the request (only 17% said yes), but one group of homeowners responded particularly positively, with 76% agreeing to donate their front yards. This is mainly related to something that happened two weeks ago: they made a small commitment to ensure driver safety. At that time, a volunteer came to their home and asked them to agree to erect a three-inch (7.26cm) warning sign in front of the yard that read "Be a safe driver." Almost everyone agreed, but the impact it had on people was extremely shocking.
Psychologists didn’t stop there. They found a new group of owners and tried a slightly different procedure. Initially, the owners received a petition asking them to sign in support of "protecting the environment," and almost everyone signed. After about two weeks, the psychologist sent a new volunteer to these homes and asked the residents to agree to erect a large "Drive Carefully" sign on their front lawn. As a result, nearly half of the people agreed to erect a large "Drive Carefully" sign on their front lawn. A "Drive with Care" sign was set up in the yard.
This is because signing petitions to protect the environment has changed the way these people view themselves. They see themselves as good citizens who are public-spirited and perform their civic duties. A good personality will gradually make people develop in a better direction. Even if it is just a show at the beginning, over time, they will do what they want and not go beyond the rules.
Not all commitments affect self-image. For commitments to achieve this effect, other conditions must be met: they must be actively, openly and freely chosen by the parties after some effort.
The power of written commitment
Many people know that Zeng Guofan is a very self-disciplined person. Many of his habits are formed by relying on this power. The diary he writes every day always states his past, expresses his aspirations, and " Send it to friends and relatives, and you will achieve something day by day.
This is because once you take the initiative to make a commitment, your self-image will be subject to consistency pressure from both internal and external aspects. On the one hand, there is pressure inside people to adjust their self-image to be consistent with their behavior; on the other hand, there is a more secret external pressure, and people will adjust their image according to how others perceive them. Because others think we believe what we write (even if we have no choice but to write it), this force once again forces us to adjust our self-image to be consistent with our written statement.
In full view
Public commitments often have lasting effect. The more public a position is, the less willing people are to change it.
A famous experiment conducted by the distinguished psychologists Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerald illustrates how public commitment can further lead to consistent behavior.
The basic process of the experiment is to show college students some straight lines and let them estimate their lengths in their heads. At this point, a group of students needs to disclose their initial judgments, write out their estimates, and sign their names. Another group of students also had to commit to their estimates, but they only had to secretly write the values on a magnetic tablet and erase them without anyone seeing. Students in the third group didn't have to commit to themselves at all, just remember the initial estimate.
The researchers then presented the new evidence and told all the students that their initial estimates were wrong and that they now had the opportunity to correct their estimates.
results are very clear. Students who did not write down their initial estimates were the least concerned about these choices. Compared with the students who had not made a commitment, the students who simply wrote their estimates on magnetic boards for themselves to see were less willing to change their minds, even though they had made the estimates to themselves without anyone knowing. promise. The students who were least willing to change their initial stance were the students who recorded their initial estimates in public, and their public commitment turned them into the most stubborn.
Extra effort
There’s another reason why a written commitment is so effective: It requires more effort than a verbal commitment. The evidence clearly shows that the more effort put into a commitment, the greater the impact it has on the person making the commitment. People who work hard to get something tend to value it more than people who get it easily. For example, for a group that wants to build lasting cohesion and a sense of excellence, some trials make future members feel that the group they join is more attractive and valuable.
Inner choices
Commitments that can effectively change a person's self-image and future behavior seem to be made by the parties involved in front of everyone, with great efforts and initiative. However, there is another more important characteristic of effective commitment than the three mentioned above (openness, initiative, effort).
Social scientists have determined one thing: We will only take inner responsibility for our actions when we believe that there is no strong pressure from the outside world. Generous prizes are one such type of external pressure, which can make us perform a certain action, but it is not enough to make us voluntarily take responsibility for this action. The same goes for powerful threats, which can induce immediate compliance but are unlikely to lead to long-term commitment.
Psychologist Jonathan Friedman conducted an experiment that provides us with some enlightenment in this regard. He found a tempting toy and told a group of little boys in grades 2 to 4 that it was wrong to play with it. He wanted to see if what he said was still effective six weeks later.
Friedman knew that it was easy to get a boy to temporarily obey: Just threaten the child with severe punishment if he was caught playing with the robot, and then an adult stayed nearby and pretended to be strict "enforcement". He successively found 22 different boys to try this. In the few minutes he left, 21 children had not touched the robot. The powerful threat seemed to work. But six weeks later, when he was not present, almost all the children played with the toys.
Friedman’s experiment didn’t end here. He selected another group of boys and tweaked the program slightly. All he told his children was not to play with the robot while he was out of the room because "that's not right." This time, he didn't threaten the child. The instructions worked, and like the previous group of boys, only one of the 22 children touched the robot during Friedman's brief absence. Six weeks later, when he was not present, only 33% chose the robot, which was far lower than the number in the previous set of experiments.
These understandings are of great significance to educating children. For things we want our children to truly believe, we must not rely on bribes or threats to get them to do it. The pressure of bribes and threats will only make children temporarily comply with our wishes. If we not only want them to be temporarily compliant, but also want them to believe that what they are doing is right, and that they will continue to do what we like to see even if we do not provide external pressure on the spot, then we have to do something Make arrangements so that they take responsibility for their actions.
For all the reasons discussed above, "compliance experts" love the promise of inner change. Of course, all of the submission techniques discussed here can be used for both good and evil purposes, depending on the skill of the user. (Thanks for reading. For more exciting content, please pay attention to the "Tanghulu Reading" public account!)
