"Psychology of Influence". Book in 15 minutes.
Salute, ZChSovtsy, we share with you the summari (summary) on the already classic book "The Psychology of Influence" by Robert Cialdini. Surely some of the conclusions will seem familiar to you, but this is due to the enormous popularity of the book itself, ideas and examples from which the authors of business literature like to borrow. Interestingly, Robert Cialdini wrote his book with the aim of teaching readers to recognize manipulations and not succumb to them, but they began to use it with the opposite purpose - as a set of effective techniques for persuasion and "powdered brains."
People react to so many things around them in an automatic, stereotyped way. In this we are like animals. A hen turkey rushes even at a stuffed ferret - its worst enemy. But it is worth connecting a tape recorder to this stuffed animal, which makes a "chip-chip" sound (so little turkeys shout), and the turkey will not only not rush at the stuffed ferret, but will take it under itself.
Our reactions are in many ways similar to those of animals, although they are much more complex and less predictable. We actually need automatic thinking. It allows you to concentrate on the primary tasks, giving the autopilot the secondary ones. But the problem is that our propensity for automation can be used against us by unscrupulous people.
The automatism of reactions can be expressed in different ways. For example, Robert Cialdini gives the following example - once in a jewelry store, buyers instantly bought up turquoise jewelry after a double price was set on it by mistake. Why? Buyers felt that a higher price meant better quality. They did not analyze the situation in order to find out the real value of turquoise. People had enough information that turquoise is of high quality since it is so expensive. The stereotype took effect - expensive means good.
"
It 's
not surprising that, with no particular knowledge of jewelry, buyers determined the value of jewelry by its value."
It may seem surprising to many, but automatic human thinking prevails over conscious reactions.
It is not for nothing that Robert Cialdini chose the words of the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead as an epigraph to the first chapter of his book:
"Civilization is moving forward by increasing the number of operations that we can carry out without thinking about them."
When do we react automatically? Robert Cialdini notes that numerous laboratory studies have shown that people tend to react meaningfully to information when they have both the desire and the ability to carefully analyze it; otherwise, people usually prefer clicking, buzzing.
For all their usefulness, stereotypical reactions make us very vulnerable to those who are well versed in how they work. Surprisingly, despite the huge prevalence of automatic reactions, ordinary people know little about them.
Take the contrast principle that salespeople use every now and then. It works great, but almost no one realizes its effect. How does it work? When you buy an expensive item, for example, a car, the seller will most likely offer you to buy next related products - a stereo system or floor mats. It is possible that you do not need a stereo system or rugs, but you are likely to buy something, because the price of related products against the background of the high price of the car will seem insignificant. And if you buy an expensive suit, the seller will definitely try to shove you with a pair of shirts and a tie. This is the principle of contrast.
By the way, you can check the effect of the contrast principle at home. You need to take three containers: with cold water, with hot water and with water at room temperature. One hand must be dipped into a container of cold water, and the other into a container with hot water. After a few seconds, both hands should be immersed in warm water. It will seem to you that the temperature of the water is different - for a hand that has been immersed in cold water, the water will feel warmer than for a hand that has been immersed in hot water. This way you will clearly see that your perception depends on previous events.
The rule of mutual exchange is one of the most powerful tools for influencing people on each other. What does it mean? The vast majority of people are guided by the quid pro quo rule in their lives. We try to repay the fact that the other person did something for us. It is our biological trait that has helped human society survive.
Thanks to the rule of mutual exchange, there is a division of labor, trade, the provision of services and many other inalienable areas of modern life. This rule is deeply rooted in our system of relations and has become part of our morality. We abhor and condemn those who only take and do not share with anyone. However, in addition to the obvious advantages, this rule also has a downside - it makes us an easy target for manipulators. Quite a few people know how to benefit from our sense of appreciation.
An interesting fact is that the influence of the rule of mutual exchange on a person is so great that we can act to please someone who we do not like at all.
“Think about hidden possibilities. People you dislike - unattractive or obsessive traders with difficult temperaments, strange or unpopular organizations - can force you to do what they want by simply showing you a little favor before they make their claims. "
Robert Cialdini gives an example of the actions of members of the Society of Krishna, who, before asking a person for a donation, give him a gift - a book, a magazine of the Society "Back to Godhead" or, which is most simple and cheap, a flower. An unsuspecting passer-by who suddenly discovers that a flower has been thrust into his hands should never be allowed to return that flower, even if the person claims that he does not need it. “No, this is our gift to you,” says the fundraiser, refusing to accept the flower back. Only after a member of the Hare Krishna Society has thus activated the rule of mutual exchange, the passer-by is asked to make a donation to the Society. This strategy has proven to be fantastically effective and has brought large-scale profits to the Krishna Society.
The rule of mutual exchange is actively and successfully used in trade. An example that everyone will remember is the distribution of free samples. Even such a seemingly innocent thing releases a natural binding force.
A favorite place to give out free samples is in the supermarket, where customers are often given small pieces of a particular type of cheese or meat to sample. For many people, it is difficult to accept a sample from a constantly smiling company representative, returning only a toothpick and walking away. Many people buy this product even if they don't really like it.
Anyone can launch the mechanism of the mutual exchange rule by rendering us an unsolicited service, while waiting for our gratitude.
Of course, the rule of mutual exchange is necessary for the normal development of society, however, what to do in the event that we are forced to acquire what we do not need?
Manipulation can lead to unequal exchange through an artificial sense of gratitude.
Psychologically, we hate to be indebted to anyone. This causes discomfort, so we strive to immediately repay our benefactor. And we usually return more than we received.
“One student of mine made this quite clear in her writing:“ Learned from bitter experience, I no longer allow the guy I am dating to pay for my drink. I want none of us to feel like I'm sexually obligated. "
Research confirms that there is reason for this concern. If a woman, instead of paying herself, allows a man to buy himself a drink, she automatically begins to be considered (by both men and women) more sexually available to him. "
Another way to use the reciprocity rule is through mutual concessions. But this is a more sophisticated way.
To illustrate it, Robert Cialdini describes the following example:
“Once I was walking down the street, and suddenly an eleven or twelve year old boy came up to me. He introduced himself and said he was selling tickets to the annual Boy Scouts, which would take place next Saturday night. The boy asked if I would like to buy some tickets for five dollars apiece. Since the Boy Scout show was not the sort of event I wanted to attend on Saturday night, I turned it down.
“Okay,” the boy said, “if you don't want to buy tickets, how about large bars of chocolate? They are only a dollar apiece. "
I bought a pair and immediately realized that something worthwhile had happened because: a) I don't like chocolate; b) I love dollars; c) I was left with two chocolate bars I did not need; d) the boy left with my two dollars. "
This example demonstrates our tendency to believe that we must yield to someone who is inferior to us. This rule is useful in normal relationships when partners make compromises in order to maintain the relationship. But often it becomes a tool in the hands of manipulators, turning into a method of obtaining consent in the spirit of "refusal-then-retreat".
Thus, the described method is often used by persons negotiating in the field of labor relations. These people start out by making extreme demands that they have no interest in fulfilling. They then allegedly retreat through a series of seeming concessions and thus obtain real concessions from the opposite side. It may seem that the higher the initial requirement, the more efficient the procedure, since in this case there are more opportunities for illusory concessions. However, this is true only up to a certain limit.
A study at Bar-Ilan University in Israel found that if the initial requirements are so difficult to meet that they appear unreasonable, the tactics backfire against those who use them.
Even though people can recognize manipulation and not be led by it, this tactic remains very effective also because the victim feels satisfaction after receiving a concession, which leads to further concessions.
Is it possible to somehow resist this? Robert Cialdini does not recommend categorically rejecting offers of help or concessions from other people. It is not a fact that the people who offer them act out of selfish interests.
Accept offers, but consider them objectively. If you agree to a service, keep in mind that you have a social obligation to provide reciprocal service in the future.
If you recognize the trick, then you should not respond with a favor.
Commitment and consistency
According to one study, people who come to the racetrack are better at assessing the horse's prospects after they place a bet on it.
The explanation for this phenomenon lies in social influence. We all strive to live up to what we have already done. Moreover, we support this image of ourselves both in the eyes of others and in our own.
"Once we have made a choice or taken a position, we will strive to behave in accordance with the commitments we have made and try to justify the earlier decision.
"
Psychologists have known for a long time what a huge role the principle of consistency plays in managing people. A person can maintain his image so stubbornly that he acts contrary to his true interests and needs.
Why? Robert Cialdini gives the following explanation:
“A person whose beliefs, words, and deeds are at odds with each other is usually considered confused, two-faced, or even mentally ill. On the other hand, consistency is associated with intelligence, strength, logic, rationality, stability, and honesty. As the great English physicist Michael Faraday said, consistency is sometimes more favored than right. "
Consistency is definitely a good quality. But the problem is that we are consistent even when it hurts us. Our desire for consistency is used by many for their own benefit. Example: A foot-in-the-door tactic, where a person is persuaded to make a big purchase after they have bought something small.
The first sale of something insignificant is not for profit, its purpose is to obtain a commitment.
That is why you need to be very careful when agreeing to other people's demands, despite their seeming insignificance. These minor demands can actually be a tool in a game that tries to force you to compromise on bigger things by using what you want to be and appear to be consistent.
"Such an agreement can not only force us to yield on similar but much more serious demands, it can also force us to make a variety of major concessions that are only remotely related to the small courtesy that we have shown earlier."
Have you ever wondered what the people who ask you (for example, on the street) to sign their petitions do with all the signatures they receive? Often they do nothing with these signatures, since their main goal is usually to force those who subscribe to take on some kind of obligation and, accordingly, take a certain position.
People who signed the petition are more likely to take steps in the future that match their position.
An important conclusion that follows from all this is that when a person's opinion of himself becomes what someone needs, he will automatically obey all the demands put forward by the exploiter that are consistent with his idea of himself.
How to protect yourself from such manipulations?
In life, we need to be consistent. However, we need to be able to distinguish the normal sequence from its stupid version, which forces us to act to our detriment. You should listen to your feelings. When you intuitively feel that you are being manipulated, pay attention to the logic of consistency and point out its absurdity to the one who is trying to force you into a commitment.
Another powerful weapon of influence is the principle of social proof. According to this principle, we determine what is right by figuring out what other people think is right. We consider our behavior to be correct if we see other people behaving the same way.
This is not just a herd feeling. The addiction to this behavior helps us in social life, but it also makes us vulnerable to manipulators.
“We are so used to focusing on other people's reactions when determining what is funny that we can also be forced to respond to the sound rather than the essence of the real phenomenon. Just as the sound of a "chip-chip" separated from a real turkey can induce a turkey to be motherly, so a recorded "ha ha" separated from a real audience can make us laugh. Television presenters exploit our addiction to rational methods, our tendency to react automatically based on an incomplete set of facts. They know their tapes will trigger our tapes. Click, buzzed. "
This feature of ours is also used, for example, by bartenders who put their own money on the table, leaving the appearance of a tip. Seeing that someone has already left a tip, customers are more willing to give it themselves.
Advertising agents love to tell us that a product is "selling out surprisingly fast." You don't need to convince us that the product is good, just say that many people think so.
Surprisingly, the principle of social proof also affects a person's experience of pain, as evidenced by experiments in which people reacted less painfully when they saw that others did not respond in any way to painful actions.
Social proof works best in uncertainty.
"In general, when we are not confident in ourselves, when the situation seems to us unclear or ambiguous, when uncertainty rules the ball, we tend to look back at others and recognize their actions as correct."
However, as Robert Cialdini notes, when we focus on others in an incomprehensible situation, we miss an important fact.
“These people may also be watching our reactions. In ambiguous situations, everyone's desire to know what others are doing can lead to the so-called phenomenon of pluralistic ignorance, which is of deep interest to psychologists.
This phenomenon manifests itself, for example, in the inaction of people when they see a person lying on the street, or hear suspicious sounds.
The problem is that other people think the same way.
What can be done?
The key is to understand that bystanders, if there are more than one, do not help, rather because they are unsure of the need for help, rather than because they are callous in nature. People don't help because they don't know if there is really an emergency and whether they should take action. When people feel responsible for what is happening, they are extremely responsive. Therefore, in difficult situations, be specific, ask specific people for help. And in situations where they are trying to sell you something with social proof, try to turn off your autopilot and be more vigilant.
This effect is that we respond more quickly to the requests of those we know. Professional manipulators also know how to use this feature to their advantage. For example, in the company Shaklee, specializing in the trade of household goods, agents who walk through apartment buildings are obliged to ask the client which other of his friends and relatives he could recommend.
Teamwork tends to reduce hostility and build friendships. Many selfishly take advantage of this, declaring something in the spirit of "We work with you for the same goal" or "We are with you in the same team." So, for example, the seller can show the buyer that he is allegedly on the same team with him, "knocking out" preferential terms for the client from the boss. The same principle is used in the game of the good cop and the bad cop known to everyone from the movies.
To illustrate this rule, Robert Cialdini cites the example of the famous experiment of psychologist Stanley Milgram, which demonstrated that in the presence of oppressive authority, even adults and sane people are able to perform actions that endanger the life and health of another person. Unsurprisingly, authoritarian governments seek obedience from their citizens.
But we should not unambiguously interpret our tendency to obey authority as a negative quality. The power of authorities, in contrast to anarchy, gives society significant advantages in the form of the possibility of developing structures that regulate production, trade, defense and social spheres of life. However, the tendency to obey can also mean obedience without hesitation when they (reflection) are necessary. For example, in medicine, medical personnel too often automatically obey doctors, which is why many erroneous decisions are implemented that could have been avoided through open discussion.
In addition, very often the principle of authority is used by scammers posing as experts who, in fact, are not any authorities. Such people can create around themselves what Robert Cialdini calls "a cloud of authority" in the form of various titles, clothes and other attributes usually inherent in real professionals.
What can you do to protect yourself? To resist the influence of authority, the first thing to do is “remove the element of surprise,” realizing its power. It should be understood that now unscrupulous people can very easily create an image of authority for themselves.
Ask yourself a question - is this authority an expert in his field? This will help to reflect on the truth of his authority and competence, and not to react to him automatically. Likewise, you can dispel the illusion of authority on celebrities who advertise products and services that they don't really understand.
The principle of scarcity is often successful for those who apply it because it is built on a common psychological trap - "opportunities seem more valuable to us when their availability is limited." The very idea of a possible loss has a greater impact on a person than the thought of gaining something.
This vulnerability of ours is well exploited by sellers when, in an attempt to persuade us to buy, they talk about a limited supply of goods.
Robert Cialdini talks about the psychologist Jack Brehm's theory of psychological reactive resistance.
According to this theory, when something restricts our choices or makes it impossible to choose, we begin to desire goods and services that will help, we think, to preserve our freedoms. As two-year-olds, we resist prohibitions and restrictions. Moreover, we begin to believe that we need this scarce item and attribute non-existent positive qualities to it. The scarcity rule is also applicable to intangible entities, for example, to information - hard-to-find information seems more valuable to us.
In addition, we value more not what has always been scarce, but what has recently become less accessible. Therefore, it is harder to live in poverty for those who have learned the taste of a better life.
When we become aware of the competition, we begin to desire scarce goods even more. Advertisers often try to exploit this tendency, urging us to hurry up until the goods are sold out.
If we want to derive social, economic or psychological benefit from the possession of a rare thing, then everything is fine; the pressure of the scarcity principle will help us determine how much it makes sense to pay for this thing - the less available it is, the more valuable it will be to us. However, very often we need a thing not only for the sake of owning it. Then its use value is important to us; we may want to eat or drink the thing, touch it, listen to it, manipulate it, or otherwise use it. In such cases, it is very important to remember that, becoming rare in our eyes, it does not make things tastier, they do not start to sound, look, ride or work better.
Summary:
- A feature of human nature and psychology is that often when making decisions, we do not use all the relevant information available. We tend to take into account only some part of the whole, which entails a lot of mistakes.
- Our reactions are largely stereotyped and similar to those of animals, albeit much more complex and less predictable. This automatic thinking is usually helpful. It allows you to concentrate on non-primary tasks, giving the autopilot secondary ones. But the problem is that our propensity for automation can be used against us by all sorts of manipulators and other unscrupulous people.
- In order not to become a victim of manipulators and other unscrupulous people, you need to be aware of your own reactions and learn to question other people's words and authority.
