The ever-accelerating pace and informational crush of modern life have been utilized to produce a distinct kind of automatic, mindless compliance from people, that is, a willingness to say “yes” without thinking first. This particular form of unthinking compliance will become more prevalent in the future. It will be increasingly important, therefore, for the society to understand the how and why of automatic influence.
This book is about the Psychology of compliance and helps us, as victims, identify the techniques of compliance professionals who have been using the principles on us in a daily basis. The author of the book combines the school principles with 3-year outside-of-school real experiences with compliance professionals, such as sales representatives, to produce the 6 fundamental psychological principles that direct human behaviors:
- Reciprocation
- Consistency
- Social Proof
- Authority
- Liking
- Scarcity
It’s a good book that reminds us that persuasion is rooted in building genuine connections
Reciprocation
Rule for ReciprocationWe should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided us
Human societies derive a truly significant competitive advantage from the reciprocity rule, and consequently the political authorities make sure their members are trained to comply with and believe in it. As a result, there is general distaste for those who take but make no effort to give in return, and we will avoid being considered as such persons. It is those attempts of such avoidance that individuals find opportunities to take advantage of on us
Although we all agree that people are more willing to do a favor for someone they like, under the rule of reciprocation, even the relationship between liking and compliance was completely wiped out, demonstrating the overpowering effectiveness of the rule. For those who owed somebody a favor, it made no difference whether they like that person or not; they felt a sense of obligation to repay him.
People we might ordinarily dislike, such as an unwelcome sales operator, disagreeable acquaintances, or even an unpopular organization, can greatly increase the chance that we will do what they wish merely by providing us with a small favor prior to their requests. Such small favor could be the “free sample” in marketing fields, a free book, or even a flower, or even the acceptance of a refusal followed by a smaller compliance request.
One feature of the reciprocity is that a small initial favor can trigger a substantially larger return favor. This is often exploited by manipulators. The reason for us to accept such unfair exchange is that most of us find it highly disagreeable to be in a state of obligation. It weighs heavily on us and demands to be removed. For this reason alone, we may be willing to agree to perform a larger favor than we received, merely to relieve ourselves of the psychological burden of debt.
Commitment and Consistency
Motivated by the human tendency for continuous commitment, People’s desire for consistency has been a central motivation of our behaviors, because a high degree of consistency is normally associated with personal and intellectual strength while inconsistency is commonly thought to be an undesirable personality trait. It is at the heart of logic, rationality, stability, and honesty.
On the other hand, this highly-valued good personal consistency can be disastrous when it occurs unthinkinly. First, it offers a shortcut through the density of modern life. Once we have made up our minds about an issue, stubborn consistency allows us a very appealing luxury: We really don’t have to think hard about the issue anymore. We need only believe or do whatever is consistent with our earlier decision. We do so the allure of such a luxury allows us a convenient, relatively, effortless, and efficient method for dealing with complex daily environments that make severe demands on our mental energies and capacities. Second, when we are desperately longing for a solution and spot a one that we think should solve the problem, the tendency of becoming consistent pushes us to our comfort zone by ignoring any other rational opposing view. In this case, automatic consistency shields us against any painful yet meaningful thoughts.
Such consistency can also be exploited by those who would prefer that we not think too much in response to their requests for our compliance. The author mentions the example of toy companies’ strategy to boost post-Christmas sales. Normally, people over-spend during Christmas season which resulted in low sales during post-Christmas period. The toy companies did the trick with pre-Christmas TV advertisement that shows attractive Christmas toys for children. The parents would normally promis the advertised toy as Christmas gift for them. But later they undersupply the stores with these toys and substitute them with other toys of equal values and re-advertise those toys that have gotten the parents to promise. In the end, the toy companies make double-money with the substitutes and the original toys.
Principle of Social Proof
American public hates canned laughter in television shows. Why, then, is canned laughter so popular with television executives? Experiments have found that the use of canned merriment causes an audience to laugh longer and more often when humorous material is presented and to rate the material as funnier. In addition, some evidence indicates that canned laughter is more effective for poor jokes. Why would we laugh more given the mechanically fabricated merriment? The book answers this question by introducing The Principle of Social Proof (PSP):
The Principle of Social ProofOne way we use to determine what is correct is to find out what other people think is correct
Example of PSP:
- how fast we drive on highway
- how to eat the chicken at a dinner party
- the actions of those around us
The PSP explains why, on commercial product websites, we see they list companies that are using the products - we see using their products as more appropriate when others are doing the same thing. In the case of canned laughter, we use other’s laugh to help decide what is humorous and when mirth is appropriate. The fact that we laugh based simply on a patently fraudulent laughter shows that people can exploit our preference for shortcuts, our tendency to react automatically on the basis of partial evidence. One example is the aforementioned “cheep-cheep” of baby turkey. The mother turkey gets fooled by the sound because it makes judgements based only on the sound.
More examples of PSP:
- Bartenders often “salt” their tip jars with a few dollar bills at the beginning of the evening to simulate tips left by prior customers and thereby to give the impression that tipping with folding money is proper barroom behavior
- Advertisers list “best-sellers”
- Charity uses incessant listing of donors
- Salesmen are taught to spice their pitches with numerous accounts of individuals who have purchased the product (“Since 95% of the people are imitators and only 5% initiators, people are persuaded more by the action of others tha by any proof we can offer”)
Application of PSP
Elimination of Undesirable Behavior
Showing a video (or a film examples) of a boy playing nicely with a dog helps children to remove fear of dogs. This is an example of changing people’s behavior.
We Intend to Follow Others Under Uncertainty
Book P98 - Cause of a woman’s death is due to uncertainty
In general, when we are unsure of ourselves, when the situation is unclear or ambiguous, when uncertainty reigns, we are most likely to look to and accept the actions of others as correct.**
The story: A woman was murdered on a city street. 30 bystanders who observed the process never called police.
Analysis: Bypassing the sayings of those observers (e.g. “I don’t know; I don’t want to get involved”) as well as the peripheral observations about people being unfeeling in a “Cold Society”, the core issue lies in PSP: In times of such uncertainty, the natural tendency is to look around at the actions of others for clues. We can learn, from the way the other witnesses are reacting, whether the event is or is not an emergency. Bystanders are unsure rather than unkind. When they are unsure, they follow others who are also unsure.
How to reduce the uncertainty of others: Be certain on what you need (e.g. You, in blue jacket, I need help. Call an ambulance) This brings back the original purpose of this book: How to produce compliance with a request - No general request to group of people; pick out one person and assign the task to that person instead; otherwise it is easy for everyone to assume that someone else should help. This explains why commercial product website has a chat window - they want to pick up you as that specific person in blue jacket!
Inclined to Follow Similarity
We are more inclined to follow the lead of a similar individual than a dissimilar one.
An example is the advertiser who knows that one successful way to sell a product to ordinary viewers (who compose the largest potential market) is to demonstrate that other “ordinary” people like and use it.
How to Guard Against the Information That Social Proof Provides
PSP gives us shortcut to make right decisions but not always. The key is to identify the wrong data in the crowd. Purposely falsified social evidence is an example of wrong data. e.g. canned laughter
Liking
A social rule - we most prefer to say yes to the request of someone we know and like.
“It’s gotten to the point now where i hate to be invited to Tupperware parties. I’ve got all the containers I need; and if I wanted any more, I could buy another brand cheaper in the store. But when a friend calls up, I feel like I have to go. And when I get there, I feel like I have to buy something. What can I do? It’s for one of my friends”
Examples:
- charity (P127)
- Endless-chain sales strategy (P128)
Physical Attractiveness
Halo Effects - A halo effect occurs when one positive characteristic of a person dominates the way that person is viewd by others
Physical attractiveness triggers halo effect. We automatically assign to good-looking individuals such as favorable traits as talent, kindness, honesty, and intelligence (we make these judgements without being aware that physical attractiveness plays a role in the process)
Unsettling research indicates that our judicial process is similarly susceptible to the influences of body dimensions and bone structure. e.g. handsome man received lighter sentences in criminal trials
Attractive people are more likely to obtain help when in need and are more persuasive in changing the opinions of an audience.
Similarity
In addition to physical appearance, we like people who are similar (opinion, personality, background, life-style) to us.
Example
- Dress
- Interests - a strong example: Car salesmen, for example, are trained to look for evidence of such things while examining the customer’s trade-in. If there is camping gear in the trunk, the salesman might mention, later on, how he loves to get away from the city whenever he can; if there are golf balls on the back seat, he might remark that he hopes the rain will hold off until he can play the eighteen holes he has schedules for later in the day; if he notices that the car was purchased out of state, he might ask where the customer is from and report - with surprise - that he (or his wife) was born there, too
Compliments - We are Phenomenal Suckers for Flatter
The information that someone fancies us can be a bewitchingly effective device for producing return liking and willing compliance. So, often in terms of flattery or simple claims of affinity, we hear positive estimation from people who want something from us
This reflects a lot of phenomenons in our society:
- why you see those celebrities give holiday greetings on TV
- why you see sales people regularly sends you “happy new year” or “I like you” card.
Familiarity - Contact & Cooperation
For the most part, we like things that are familiar to us.
Why familiarity plays a role in liking? Our attitude toward something is influenced by the number of times we have been exposed to it in the past.
But this does not apply in all cases (Schooling exception). Hence the concept of “cooperation” is introduced. The concept is illustrated in the following experiment:
Children are splited into 2 competing groups -> Groups starts to fight against each other triggered by the grouping itself -> cooperation. e.g. combined forces to fix water problem, pull food truck, and renting a movie -> the common goals ended the battles between groups -> they become friends
My thoughts
- This experiment is very similar to video games in which people form 2 competing groups to fight against each other. The psychological effect is that people will separate each other more and more, which is not a great act
- “The crucial procedure was the experimenters’ imposition of common goals on the groups” - Managing a group of people in organization should focus on the innate personal goals of each individual employees
It is important to know when cooperation is appropriate because sometimes competition has its place, too. It can serve as a valuable motivator of desirable action and an important builder of self-concept.
Done with children experiment, the book states that
- although the familiarity produced by contact usually leads to greater liking, the opposite occurs if the contact carries distasteful experience with it
- the evidence that team-oriented learning is an antidote to this disorder may tell us about the heavy impact of cooperation on the liking process.
How does all above apply to the persuasion of product buying? Compliance professionals are forever attempting to establish that we and they are working for the same goals, that we must “pull together” for mutual benefit, that they are, in essence, our teammates
Thoughts
- While choosing from potential employee candidates, organizations must carefully consider the goal alignment between corporate and the individual, so as to let employee do more good tings to their groups.
- I think this is one of the reason for “Mission Statements”
- IMPORTANT - example of Good/Bad Cop P150
Conditioning and Association
There is a natural human tendency to dislike a person who brings us unpleasant information, even when that person did not cause the bad news. The simple association with it is enough to stimulate our dislike. Vice Versa - establish connection between product and goodies.
e.g.
- Good-looking models standing around car
- Linking of celebrities to products in advertisement
- Congressional representatives traditionally announce to the press the start of federal projects that will bring new jobs or benefits to their home states; this is true even when a representative has had nothing to do with advancing the project or has, in some cases, voted against it
- Luncheon technique - We become fonder of the people and things we experience while we were eating (food is a source of positiveness)
- Pavlov: If the presentation of food to a god was always accompanied by the sound of a bell, soon the dog would salivate to the bell alone, even when there was no food to be had
- Luncheon technique is an application of Pavlov’s experiment: there are many normal responses to food besides salivation, one of the being a good and favorable feeling.
Concentrate on the liking effect rather than preventing it and notice the over-behavior of liking (e.g. the feeling that we have come to like the practitioner more quickly or more deeply than we would have expected).
Scarcity
Scarcity Principle (SP) - Opportunities seem more valuable to us when their availability is limited
The idea of potential loss plays a large role in human decision making. People seem to be more motivated by the thought of losing something than by the thought of gaining something of equal value (e.g. homeowners told how much money they could lose from inadequate insulation are more likey to insulate their homes than those told how much money they could save).
A reason that SP works is because as opportunities become less available, we lose freedoms; and we hate to lose the freedoms we already have:
Fundamental of Psychological Reactance Theory - Whenever free choice is limited or threatened, the need to retain our freedoms makes us desire them (as well as the goods and services associated with them) significantly more than previously
Application of SP - “Limited-Number Tactic”
The customer is informed that a certain product is in short supply that cannot be guaranteed to last long.
LN tactic assumes that the things that are difficult to possess are typically better than those that are easy to possess - availability decides on quality.
Application of SP - Fight for Freedom
e.g.
- Romeo and Juliet
- Cigarette ads via woman rights
- Visitor purchases gun in gun-free city - people want what has been banned and therefore to presume that it is more worthwhile
Extending SP - NEW Scarcity is More Powerful (Cookie Experiment)
Not only do we want the same item more when it is scare, we want it most when we are in competition for it.
e.g.
- “hurry-to-buy” on e-commerce
- Salespeople fake rich buyer/competitor to indecisive customer
How Do We Say No to Scarcity?
According to the cookie experiment, the joy is not in experiencing a scarce commodity but in possessing it.
Whenever we confront the scarcity pressures surrounding some item, we must also confront the question of what it is we want from the item. If the answer if that we want the thing for the social, economic, or psychological benefits of possessing something rare, then, fine; scarcity pressures will give us a good indication of how much we would want to pay for it - the less available it it, the more valuable to us it will be. But very often we don’t want a thing purely for the sake of owning it. We want it, instead, for its utility value; we want to eat it or drink it or touch it or hear it or drive it or otherwise use it. In such cases it is vital to remember that scarce things do not taste or feel or sound or ride or work any better because of their limited availability.
Metan Tape
Doubling the price of a never-sold jewelry triggered the sold-out of it -> there is a pattern “expensive = good quality” -> There is a specific feature of some identity that triggered human actions (purchase expense jewelry)
The pattern is triggered a tap of actions from us
We have our preprogrammed tapes; and, although they usually work on our advantage, the trigger features that activate them can be used to dupe us into playing them at the wrong times.
Example of Mental Tape - Ask for Favor
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.
The word “because” is a trigger of successful compliance request. e.g. cut in line to make copies (Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies?)
Example of Mental Tape - Expensive = Good
e.g. jewelry example above
People learned from past experience that normally the price of an item increases along with its worth. Although it is not always correct, over all of the past and future situations of their lives, betting those shortcut odds may represent the most rational approach possible. Rich people are more likely to make rational decisions with less amount of time. The extra earned time can be used for other valuable investments, such as reading.
Why we make such mental shortcuts? Because we don’t have the time, energy, or capacity for it. Instead, we must very often use our stereotypes, our rules of thumb to classify things according to a few key features and then to respond mindlessly when one or another of these trigger features is present. In today’s world, slow = failure. We have to act super quickly on all things to get there faster than others.
“Civilization advances by extending the number of operations we can perform without thinking about them”. Take coupon as an example, we expect discount coupons to do double duty. Not only do we expect them to save us money, we also expect them to save us the time and mental energy required to think about how to do it.
Since most of us know very little about our automatic behavior patterns, they make us terribly vulnerable to anyone who does know how they work.
Contrast Principle
Contrast Principle - We may be less satisfied with the physical attractiveness of our own lovers because of the way the popular media bombard us with examples of unrealistically attractive models.
Examples of Contrast Principle:
- When a man enters a cloth store to buy an expensive three-piece suit and cheap sweater, the sales person will always guide the man to buy the suit first
- Realty salesman shows undesirable houses first and then good houses