Influence: Science and Practice is a book published in 1984 and written by Robert B. Cialdini, a professor of psychology. Informative and descriptive, Influence is a great book for everyone to read, seeing how it discusses the science of persuasion and how people’s behaviors are impacted by the environment around them.
The book begins with an introduction in which Cialdini admits that as a relatively easygoing people-person, he has found himself being unhealthily persuaded by others, though he didn't desire that to happen: “All my life I’ve been a patsy. For as long as I can recall, I’ve been an easy mark for the pitches of peddlers, fund-raisers, and operators of one sort or another … With personally disquieting frequency, I have always found myself in possession of unwanted magazine subscriptions or tickets to the sanitation workers’ ball. Probably this long-standing status as sucker accounts for my interest in the study of compliance: Just what are the factors that cause one person to say yes to another person? And which techniques most effectively use these factors to bring about such compliance? I have wondered why it is that a request stated in a certain way will be rejected, but a request that asks for the same favor in a slightly different fashion will be successful.” (ix). Cialdini then states that he’s an experimental social psychologist, and had spent much time researching through first-hand experience how persuasion works: Cialdini spent almost three years observing people whom he deems “compliance professionals,” including “salespeople, fund-raisers, advertisers, and others.” (ix). Cialdini clarifies that although there are many methods of persuasion, most of them can be classified into six categories, each of which is “governed by a psychological principle that directs human behavior” (x). The six principles are the following: reciprocation, consistency, social proof, liking, authority, and scarcity, and they are used by a compliance professional to get people to agree to “purchases, donations, concessions, votes, or assent.” (x). Cialdini states that the methods of persuasion in the book are included due to how they quickly get people to agree to an idea without thinking, which, though irrational, does make some intuitive sense: modern technology and current trends have caused many people to experience information overload, which makes it difficult for them to pay attention to each separate detail. Hence why the book’s worth reading: the information trend is almost guaranteed to continue into the future, so one should know how persuasion actually works to guard themselves against unwanted influences. “It will be increasingly important for the society, therefore, to understand the how and why of automatic influence.” (x). Cialdini opens the content of the book by discussing a personal anecdote: a friend who ran a jewelry store tried to sell some turquoise jewelry, but no one would buy them. Desperate, she wrote that they would be half off: however, she accidentally wrote it so that people believed they were twice as expensive: not long after, all the turquoise had been sold. Cialdini provides a definition for fixed-action patterns: they are “intricate sequences of behavior, such as entire courtship or mating rituals” with certain characteristics that are virtually guaranteed to happen every single time, making certain actions seem inevitable. “It is almost as if the patterns were recorded on tapes within the animals. When a situation calls for courtship, a courtship tape gets played; when a situation calls for mothering, a maternal behavior tape gets played. Click and the appropriate tape is activated; whirr and out rolls the standard sequence of behaviors.” (3). Such patterns require triggers to activate, and triggers vary in what comprises them (one of the most common and dominant being a rival entering one’s territory, which implies one’s authority being challenged). Cialdini states that most of these fixed-action patterns occur because they work well most of the time. Furthermore, humans are not free from them at all: much of our irrational behavior can be explained through this. For instance, the word “because” creates a knee-jerk response to cooperate, seeing that the mere presence of the word implies that the request is reasonable. Furthermore, the vacationers who bought all the turquoise did so due to a cognitive fallacy: they viewed that which was more expensive as being more valuable and useful, though this is not always true when the issue is closely examined. On the contrary, goods that are inexpensive are frequently viewed as less valuable, though this, like the previous assumption, is never guaranteed to be true, as many things which are cheap (in some areas at least, ex. water) are in fact needed for elementary survival. Such assumptions are deemed judgmental heuristics: like fixed-action patterns, they may work well most of the time, but they can be occasionally costly.
Another judgmental heuristic is relying on experts: while doing so is useful most of the time, sometimes people may think that experts are always right, which isn’t true (though it must be clarified that experts are much likelier to be correct at something in their field than the regular person: people should still continue to consult their corresponding experts, like doctors). In some situations, placing blind faith in experts can actually be fatal: crew members of airplanes may not correct the mistakes by the flight captain, even if it’s obvious, as they believe that they’re more qualified than them due to their rank. “Mimics” are organisms that mimic the behavior of others in order to survive: for instance, the females of the Photuris firefly devour the males of the Photinus firefly genus by taking advantage of their courtship rituals. That is, the males of the Photinus genus blink when they’re ready to mate: the females of the Photuris genus simply copy the same behavior, luring the males to their deaths. Humans who act like mimics include those who try to make things seem as they’re not: the woman who sold all the turquoise adopted this strategy by raising the prices of the goods that are experiencing difficulties being sold, clearly demonstrating that improper methods can be used to profit. Then there’s the idea of perceptual contrast: when two things of varying extremities are placed next to each other, how one feels towards each will be greatly heightened due to their clear differences. For instance, car salesmen try to make even more money aside from selling the car by trying to get their customers to buy accessories: if they’re willing to spend a large amount of money on the car, then what’s a little more on some gadgets? In another instance, salespeople who focus on clothing frequently try to get those who had just bought an expensive suit to purchase some less expensive items. In one instance, an airplane attendant made a costly mistake: he joked that since a flight was overbooked, passengers who are willing to take a later plane would be given $10,000. After exciting a laugh, he revealed the voucher to be worth $200: no one took it due to how large the previous sum was (even if it was meant as a joke, it produced a notable effect), causing the plane attendant to have to increase the price to $500 in order to find a volunteer. Cialdini states that ethologists, “researchers who study animal behavior in the natural environment,” have indeed discovered that humans act like other animals (humans, after all, are animals themselves) (16). This is well seen in the mating rituals of humans: the general trend for things like marriage frequently involves the female boasting of her looks while the male makes it clear he is financially strong.
The first method of persuasion discussed is reciprocation: helping others can help you in turn. This is extremely prevalent and dominant in cultures, and it does make sense: altruism evolved in evolution out of selfish reasons, as those organisms which helped others and later got help when they required assistance survived more frequently than those which were solely selfish. Thus, human exchanges and even kindness can be viewed in the following way: “A widely shared and strongly held feeling of future obligation made an enormous difference in human social evolution because it meant that one person could give something (for example, food, energy, care) to another with confidence that the gift was not being lost. For the first time in evolutionary history, one individual could give away any of a variety of resources without actually giving them away.” (21). The concept of reciprocation is a key player in foreign relations, as mutual friendships and rivalries remain relevant decades or even centuries later. It has been demonstrated that reciprocation is so strong that it can even overcome dislike: one of the best cases of this is the Hare Krishna society, a religious group that needed to fund money. When they realized that straightforwardly requesting for money was ineffective (they began doing so in their religious clothing), they wore more regular clothing (ex. during Christmas, a Santa costume). Before asking for money, they would press a flower (to save money) into the hands of a random passerby and would refuse to accept them back, making those who had received the flowers feel obligated to give something in return, even though they most definitely disliked them for what may have appeared to be an intrusion on their persons. The Krishnas made so much money that they developed properties in 321 centers around the world. As expected, people quickly grew tired of them and their tactics: airports even refused to let them loiter within them due to customer complaints. Reciprocation also manifests itself in politics: in the past, politicians would reward government positions to their friends and might cater to their voters by providing them with certain services. Even today, reciprocation in politics is extremely common and prevalent: even if it’s not explicitly stated, lobbying by corporations has shaped many policies (ex. keeping the minimum wage as low as possible and denying climate change). Another way reciprocation is seen is in so-called “free samples” - while it’s true that they’re technically free, the sole purpose of food stands and restaurants offering them is to incur a feeling of indebtment. Reciprocity is also seen in life-and-death situations: in one instance, a soldier in WWI gave a German soldier some bread: the German soldier let him go unscathed. In another instance, a woman named Diane Louie refused to commit suicide in Jonestown when Jim Jones called for the citizens of the town to die in 1978: she “rejected Jones’s command and made her way out of Jonestown and into the jungle. She attributes her willingness to do so to her earlier refusal to accept special favors for him when she was in need. She turned down his offer of special food while she was ill, because ‘I knew once he gave me those privileges, he’d have me. I didn't want to owe him nothin’” (30). Going back to the Krishna society, reciprocation is also effective for gifts that are undesired (ex. something that comes to a person via the mail that informs them that it’s a gift and that it’ll be greatly appreciated if they send a contribution or fill out a questionnaire). Cialdini describes that he saw some members of the Krishna society do their work in an airport: one of them went from garbage can to garbage can to collect flowers which have been discarded: “What really impressed me about all this was the most of the discarded flowers had brought donations from the people who had cast them away. The nature of the reciprocity rule is such that a gift so unwanted that it was thrown away at the first opportunity had nonetheless been effective and exploitive.” (32). Of course, in order for an item to be seen as a favor, it should not appear as a good that’s supposed to generate profit: “There is a strong cultural pressure to reciprocate a gift, even an unwanted one; but there is no such pressure to purchase an unwanted commercial product.” (33).
An issue with the concept of reciprocation is that one may repay a small favor with a big return: this can be easily explained from an evolutionary standpoint, seeing that an individual wants to signal to the rest of the members of the same species that they are not a freeloader and that they are fully capable of repaying their debts. Also adding to the imperative of returning favors is guilt: while humans are very selfish animals, most still do possess a conscience, seeing that if they fail to return a favor, they negatively impact someone else while stripping themselves of potential aid in the future. Of course, certain relationships (ex. friendship and family) shouldn’t rely on reciprocity in order to function, as the individuals within those relationships may spend a large amount of time with each other, making reciprocity tiresome to manage and document over long periods of time. There is also the concept of reciprocal concessions: if someone asks you to do something and you refuse, and they suggest something more reasonable, it’s quite likely for you to agree to the newer version of their request: “The general rule says that a person who acts in a certain way toward us is entitled to a similar return action. We have already seen that one consequence of the rule, however, is an obligation to make a concession to someone who has made a concession to us.” (37). Additionally, there exists the rejection-then-retreat technique (otherwise known as the door-in-the face technique): this strategy involves making a large initial request that is unlikely to be granted. Once the first request is rejected, a smaller request is given, and is likely to succeed, seeing how the latter is much cheaper than the former: this also preys on a person’s sympathy, as the said person may feel bad for refusing the initial request. However, it should be noted that the first request shouldn’t be so extreme that it appears unfathomable and is easily identified as a fad, as realism is of the utmost importance. To avoid being exploited by those who utilize the reciprocation rule, it is well-advised to accept certain favors, but to pay attention to the motives of the other person. If the deed was genuinely done, one should repay the other individual in the future: however, if one recognizes that the act was done to reap a larger return in the future, they should call it out for what it is and realize that they only received a sales device, not a genuine gift. The reason refusing all favors is unadvised is due to the fact that genuine favors would be rejected and people’s feelings soured, especially if those who offer the favors are young people who may become disillusioned by repeated rejections. Cialdini comes to discuss the principles of commitment and consistency (ex. one’s emotional and material attachment to something). For instance, the Canadian psychologists Knox and Inkster have demonstrated in 1968 that people become sure that the horses they betted on will win a horse race after they place their bets: since the fate of their money now rested in the horses, they wanted them to win. The importance of consistency can be easily explained: people want their actions to coincide with their beliefs, seeing that not doing so suggests weakness. In another demonstration of consistency, a fake burglary was staged: a person would leave their radio somewhere, and a person would pretend to steal it. While few people intervened, most of them (19 out of 20) did when the owner of the radio asked them to watch it before leaving, clearly demonstrating the vast influence of consistency. Another reason why consistency is popular in one’s actions is that it helps save mental energy: people don’t have to think too much once they’re used to something. “As Sir Joshua Reynolds noted, ‘There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking.’” (55). Consistency can lead to potentially stupid behavior: if people are presented with contradictory evidence and clear examples that what they believe may be false, they may try to escape from thinking logically by acting foolishly, rejecting rationality.
A way consistency is exploited by the toy business (especially during holidays) is that certain toys would be advertised on television, thereby rendering them popular. The children, wanting them desperately, would beg their parents to buy it for them: when their parents arrive at the store, the toy companies deliberately undersupply the toys, thereby driving up demand. Moreover, parents, unwilling to disappoint their children, buy substitute toys. Sometime later, the toy chains would increase the supply of the popular toys and air the ads on television once more, thereby pressuring the parents to buy the toys, seeing how they technically still promised their children to buy the toys as soon as possible (a prime example of this was the Furby). Another instance of manipulation was how the Chinese authorities treated American POWs during the Korean War: instead of brutalizing them to earn concessions like the North Koreans, they would try to make the POWs cooperate with them by performing small requests that would only add up over time: “prisoners were frequently asked to make statements that were so mildly anti-American or pro-Communist that they seemed inconsequential (‘The United States is not perfect.’ ‘In a Communist country, unemployment is not a problem.’). Once these minor requests had been complied with, however, the men found themselves pushed to submit related, yet more substantive, requests. A man who had just agreed with his Chinese interrogator that the United States was not perfect might then be asked to indicate some of the ways in which he thought this was the case. Once he had so explained, he might be asked to make a list of these ‘problems with America’ and to sign his name to it. Later he might be asked to read his list in a discussion group with other prisoners … Still later, he might be asked to write an essay expanding on his list and discussing these problems in greater detail. The Chinese might then use his name and his essay in an anti-American radio broadcast beamed not only to the entire camp but to other POW camps in North Korea as well as to American forces in South Korea.” (64). In mundane life, consistency is done when initial small requests are made on regular people by groups (ex. those centering around volunteering and state beautification) that desire for larger requests to be made later. People are more consistent when they do something themselves with little imposition placed on them by external forces: the American POWs captured in the Korean War generally wrote their concessions of America as a country voluntarily, making them adapt to a more sympathetic role towards the Communists (especially seeing that writing can be kept as evidence, and can be shown to the prisoner to make them do future actions). Making a commitment public is a fantastic way to reinforce it: this is one of the best pieces of advice for trying to overcome bad habits (ex. smoking, unhealthy eating habits, and even addiction), seeing that one doesn’t want others to view them disfavorably. A key way to strengthen one’s bond with a group is to put the recruit through a lot of hardship and pain: gangs frequently make new members prove their aggressiveness, fraternities have “Hell Week,” Navy SEALS have their “Hell Weak” (a week full of physical exertion and mental stress), and tribes have coming-of-age ceremonies that can be quite gruesome, making the young people who participate even more loyal to their group due to how much they suffered to be a part of it. To be specific, initiation rites for those who wish to join fraternities could include beatings, exposure to the cold, thirst, eating disgusting food, physical punishment, and threats of death. Indeed, some who have tried to join fraternities have actually perished, as the situation could easily get out of control due to the freedom present in those organizations. Cialdini writes himself, “Now the harassments, the exertions, even the beatings of initiation rituals begin to make sense. The Thonga tribesman with tears in his eyes, watching his 10-year-old son tremble through a night on the cold ground of the ‘yard of mysteries,’ the college sophomore punctuating his Hell Night paddling of his fraternity ‘little brother’ with bursts of nervous laughter, these are not acts of sadism. They are acts of group survival. They function, oddly enough, to spur future society members to find the group more attractive and worthwhile. As long as it is the case that people like and believe in what they have struggled to get, these groups will continue to arrange effortful and troublesome initiation rites. The loyalty and dedication of those who emerge will increase to a great degree the chances of group cohesiveness and survival. Indeed, one study of 54 tribal cultures found that those with the most dramatic and stringent initiation ceremonies were those with the greatest group solidarity” (78-80). The same group solidarity also exists in the military, as people in the same unit would frequently be extremely close, seeing all they have gone through together in training and in combat.
A vital tactic for commitment is “low-balling,” or when someone who tries to sell something may attempt to show why doing something is good (ex. buying a good now rather than next week seeing that it’s currently cheaper), only to remove one of the advantages later on in a calculated way. For instance, a car salesperson may tell a customer that a car is $400 cheaper if they buy it then: many customers leap at the opportunity. Later, the salesperson would report to them that they had underestimated the price: it wouldn’t be as cheap as they thought it would be. Quite a few customers, after being informed that they would be paying the price they thought they would be paying, and feeling guilty at how quickly they leaped at the opportunity of getting a cheaper car at the salesperson’s response, still bought it. Overall, “No matter which variety of low-balling is used, the sequence is the same: An advantage is offered that induces a favorable purchase decision. Then, sometime after the decision has been made, but before the bargain is sealed, the original purchase advantage is deftly removed … Often these justifications provide so many strong legs for the decision to stand on that when the dealer pulls away only one leg, the original one, there is no collapse. The loss can be shrugged off by the customer who is consoled, even made happy, by the array of other good reasons favoring the choice. It never occurs to the buyer that those additional reasons might never have existed had the choice not been made in the first place.” (86). Cialdini maintains that the only defense which is effective against commitment is to pay attention to one’s behavior: consistency is frequently automatic in nature; foolish actions can be prevented by thinking about whether something should be done or not. Of course, there’s also recognizing a low-ball and escalating actions. Furthermore, Cialdini states that one’s gut response can be pretty accurate when it comes to detecting something going awry: “The first signal is easy to recognize. It occurs right in the pit of our stomachs when we realize we are trapped into complying with a request we know we don’t want to perform.” (91). Cialdini states that when one recognizes that they’re being taken advantage of, they should simply speak their minds to the other person: “I listen to my stomach these days, and I have discovered a way to handle people who try to use the consistency principle on me. I just tell them exactly what they are doing. This tactic has become the perfect counterattack for me. Whenever my stomach tells me I would be a sucker to comply with a request merely because doing so would be consistent with some prior commitment I was tricked into, I relay that message to the requester. I don’t try to deny the importance of consistency; I just point out the absurdity of foolish consistency.” (92). Aside from listening to one’s stomach, Cialdini encourages people to listen to their emotions: while emotions can indeed be inaccurate, they can be surprisingly helpful in certain situations (this is best manifest in asking oneself if they’ll repeat the past when it comes to a certain element when preparing to make a momentous decision).
Cialdini proceeds to discuss social proofs: people frequently view a behavior as fine if they see, know, or believe that others do it. This occurs due to the fact that Homo Sapiens are social animals, and are under great pressure much of the time to conform. This principle can be seen in the concept of canned laughter in TV shows, as the recorded laughter is supposed to make the audience join in, as they don’t want to feel left out. This is also seen in how many advertisements proclaim their respective products as selling very well, as well as giving statistics regarding the number of users if possible. While social proofs can encourage negative behavior, they can be used for positive ends as well: those with phobias frequently manage or even overcome their fears by watching others do what they’re afraid of. In one instance, children who were terrified of dogs watched children not suffering from the phobia play with them: “in an early study, nursery-school-age children, chosen because they were terrified of dogs, merely watched a little boy playing happily with a dog for 20 minutes a day. This exhibition produced such marked changes in the reactions of the fearful children that, after only four days, 67 percent of them were willing to climb into a playpen with a dog and remain confined there petting and scratching the dog while everyone else left the room. Moreover, when the researchers tested the children’s fear levels again, one month later, they found that the improvement had not diminished during that time; in fact, the children were more willing than ever to interact with dogs. An important practical discovery was made in a second study of children who were exceptionally afraid of dogs … it was not necessary to provide live demonstrations of another child playing with a dog; film clips had the same impact. The most effective clips were those depicting a variety of other children interacting with their dogs. Apparently, the principle of social proof works best when the proof is provided by the actions of many other people.” (102-3). Cialdini then discusses religious fanaticism and end-of-the-world prophecies: cultists who believe the world will end by a certain date are generally disinterested in recruiting new members beforehand. However, when the day arrives and nothing occurs, they’re terrified to admit that they were wrong (due to the sunk costs), leading them to find social proof by trying to indoctrinate others. As Cialdini put it, “it was not the prior certainty that drove the members to propagate the faith, it was an encroaching sense of uncertainty. It was the dawning realization that if the spaceship and flood predictions were wrong, so might be the entire belief system on which they rested … the growing possibility must have seemed hideous. The group members had gone too far, given up too much for their beliefs to see them destroyed; the shame, the economic cost, the mockery would be too great to bear. The overarching need of the cultists to cling to those beliefs seeps poignantly from their own words … This, then, explains their sudden shift from secretive conspirators to zealous missionaries … The principle of social proof says so: The greater the number of people who find any idea correct, the more a given individual will perceive the idea to be correct … Convince and ye shall be convinced.” (110-1). Cialdini states of a term known as “pluralistic ignorance”: this refers to the fact that when there are a large number of people in an area, they are individually much less likely to help someone who urgently needs assistance, as they don’t want to jeopardize themselves, as they hope that others will help the victim. This is encapsulated gruesomely in the murder of Catherine Genovese, who was stabbed to death in New York over the course of 35 minutes: 38 people had witnessed the murderer assault her and chase her around, yet they did nothing (they didn't even call the police). While some people explained this terrible atrocity by saying that New Yorkers were hardened by their environment (which was very plausible), Cialdini firmly states that it happened because the 38 bystanders expected the others to do something, as none of them wanted to be involved in a potential criminal investigation. “With several potential helpers around, the personal responsibility of each individual is reduced … So with everyone thinking that someone else will help or has helped, no one does. The second reason is the most psychologically intriguing one; it is founded on the principle of social proof and involves the pluralistic ignorance effect. Very often an emergency is not obviously an emergency. Is the man lying in the alley a heart-attack victim or a drunk sleeping one off? … 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. What is easy to forget, though, is that everybody else observing the event is likely to be looking for social evidence, too. Because we all prefer to appear poised and unflustered among others, we are likely to search for that evidence placidly, with brief, camouflaged glances at those around us. Therefore everyone is likely to see everyone else looking unruffled and failing to act. As a result, and by the principle of social proof, the event will be roundly interpreted as a nonemergency.” (114).
Cialdini supports the concept of pluralistic ignorance by using statistics to show that people are likelier to offer aid to someone needing it when they’re the only bystander: “a New York college student who appeared to be having an epileptic seizure received help 85 percent of the time when there was a single bystander present but only 31 percent of the time with five bystanders present … 75 percent of lone individuals who observed smoke seeping from under a door reported the leak; however, when similar leaks were observed by three-person groups, the smoke was reported only 38 percent of the time. The smallest number of bystanders took action, though, when the free-person groups included two individuals who had been coached to ignore the smoke; under those conditions, the leaks were reported only 10 percent of [the] time. In a similar study conducted in Toronto … single bystanders provided emergency aid 90 percent of the time, whereas such aid occurred in only 16 percent of the cases when a bystander was in the presence of two passive bystanders.” (116). Cialdini then states that cities are hotbeds for pluralistic ignorance: they are very loud and have a wide variety of events (making it possible that something which may be viewed as concerning is something fairly mundane), possess a large population (bystander effect), and are full of strangers (people don’t want to embarrass themselves in front of others, even if they don’t know them personally). To combat inaction, one should be specific when asking for help: for instance, if you’re having a stroke and is quickly experiencing a decline in your physical abilities, you would do best to point out a specific person in the crowd by mentioning their physical characteristics and informing them that you need an ambulance. Cialdini then includes an anecdote from a reader: a woman who read his book decided to help someone due to the fact that she knew pluralistic ignorance. To clarify, the person she had helped was indeed in trouble, as he was lying immobile in a ditch and would have frozen to death (this occurred in Poland: the woman stated that in the last three weeks of winter in the year of the incident, 120 people had frozen to death - the temperature that night was -21C) if she had not intervened. Social proof generally becomes more effective when one observes the behavior of people whom one perceives as similar to themselves, as they are quick to compare their own situations with theirs, given their numerous resemblances. Cialdini states that his son Chris learned to paddle by himself in pools after watching his friend do it: a graduate student who had tried all his techniques failed to do so, as he was pretty unrelatable. In a tragic demonstration of this principle, Cialdini details that suicide rates go up when suicides are publicized, seeing that those who subsequently end their lives may interpret their desires to do so as rational, seeing that others are supposedly doing it as well (ex. The Sorrows of Young Werther by Goethe was actually banned from some areas due to how copycat suicides were being done by people like the protagonist - young people). This is further reinforced in that the manners of suicide are frequently imitated: stories of people who killed themselves while alone may inspire individual suicides, while those that feature mass accidents can cause an even greater number of fatalities (even airplane crashes). This concept can also be extended to school shootings: after the Columbine Massacre, an epidemic of gun violence in schools began, as when troubled young teenagers read of previous incidents, they did the same due to feeling that it was a logical response. Cialdini comes to discuss Jim Jones, a religious leader who convinced many of the people of Jonestown (located in South America) to commit suicide (those that didn't were executed). Cialdini elaborates, “The first response was that of a young woman who calmly approached the now famous vat of strawberry-flavored poison, administered one dose to her baby, one to herself, and then sat down in a field, where she and her child died in convulsions within four minutes. Others followed steadily in turn. Although a handful of Jonestowners escaped and a few others are reported to have resisted, the survivors claim that the great majority of the 910 people who died did so in an orderly, willful fashion.” (130). The mass suicide at Jonestown can be explained that the people may have trusted Jones, as he was the undisputed leader of the area. Furthermore, all the people were in South America (in the middle of a jungle, no less), making them quite uncertain about their future, as well as cutting them off from the outside world. Adding to this is that those who committed suicide looked around for the reactions of others: seeing that people whom they closely knew were calm, they decided that they should be so too and accept their fate. Cialdini states that defending oneself against social proof consists of paying attention to what’s happening and to see things for what they truly are. To summarize this section, “First, we seem to assume that if a lot of people are doing the same thing, they must know something we don’t. Especially when we are uncertain, we are willing to place an enormous amount of trust in the collective knowledge of the crowd. Second, quite frequently the crowd is mistaken because its members are not acting on the basis of any superior information but are reacting, themselves, to the principle of social proof … An automatic pilot device, like social proof, should never be trusted fully … We need to check the machine from time to time to be sure that it hasn’t worked itself out of sync with the other sources of evidence in the situation-the objective facts, our prior experiences, our own judgments. Fortunately, this precaution requires neither much effort nor much time. A quick glance around is all that is needed. And this little precaution is well worth it.” (139).
The next topic discussed is how a person whom you may like can influence your decisions. As expected, physical attractiveness is very important (showing that humans are no more developed in certain areas than animals whom we may view with arrogance and scorn, hence the irony), as it influences even court decisions: “in a Pennsylvania study … researchers rated the physical attractiveness of 74 separate male defendants at the start of their criminal trials. When, much later, the researchers checked court records for the results of these cases, they found that the handsome men had received significantly lighter sentences. In fact, attractive defendants were twice as likely to avoid jail as unattractive defendants. In another study-this one on the damages awarded in a staged negligence trial-a defendant who was better looking than his victim was assessed an average amount of $5,623; but when the victim was more attractive of the two, the average compensation was $10,051. What’s more, both male and female jurors exhibited the attractiveness-based favoritism” (149-50). Aside from court cases, good-looking people generally have it easier in life, clearly demonstrating both humanity’s shallowness and the imperfection and utter unfairness of the world: people can’t choose what they look like when they’re born. Another way individuals get others to like them is by emphasizing their similarities: some salespeople try to learn of their customer’s opinions in order to increase the likelihood that they’ll purchase something from them. Then there’s compliments: paying flattery to someone is quite likely to be effective (Cialdini reveals that flattery works well most of the time, even when the words used are exaggerated or even blatantly false). Familiarity is a vital subject for liking: people like things that they’re used to (ex. one’s race). As Cialdini describes, “in one experiment, the faces of several individuals were flashed on a screen so quickly that, later on, the subjects who were exposed to the faces in this manner couldn’t recall having seen any of them before. Yet, the more frequently a person’s face was flashed on the screen, the more these subjects came to like that person when they met in a subsequent interaction … School desegregation is more likely to increase prejudice between blacks and whites than to decrease it … the school setting is not a melting pot where children interact readily with members of other ethnic groups as they do with their own. Years after formal school integration, there is little social integration. The students clot together ethnically, separating themselves, for the most part, from other groups … even if there were much more interethnic interaction, research shows that becoming familiar with something through repeated contact doesn’t necessarily cause greater liking … In fact, continued exposure to a person or object under unpleasant conditions such as frustration, conflict, or competition leads to less liking” (154-5). Of course, said unpleasant conditions include competitive atmospheres where some students want the teacher’s approval while others may feel envious or angry at them for acting the way they do (ex. raising the expectations of the students in the class): this frequently leads to bullying and fighting. Indeed, a study in 1961 showed that all it takes for humanity’s tribalism to rear its ugly head is dividing people into groups (ex. living spaces) and making them compete in certain activities. A fantastic way this bigotry was calmed down was by making the two groups cooperate willingly to do what needs to be done (that is impossible to complete if they are to continue acting in a toxic way). This concept of cooperation also ties to criminal cases: good cop/bad cop is an effective strategy due to the fact that the good cop is a clear perceptual contrast to the bad cop. “Good Cop/Bad Cop works as well as it does for several reasons: The fear of long incarceration is quickly instilled by Bad Cop’s threats; the perceptual contrast principle … ensures that compared to the raving, venomous Bad Cop, the interrogator playing Good Cop will seem like an especially reasonable and kind person … and because Good Cop was intervened repeatedly on the suspect’s behalf-has even spent his own money for a cup of coffee-the reciprocity rule pressures for a return favor … The main reason that the technique is effective, though, is that it gives the suspect the idea that there is someone on his side, someone with his welfare in mind, someone working together with him, for him. In most situations, such a person would be viewed very favorably, but in the deep trouble our robbery suspect finds himself, that person takes on the character of a savior. And from savior, it is but a short step to trusted father confessor.” (161).
Association is an extremely important thing to take into account. This is effectively seen in ancient history: in Persia, if a messenger would deliver good news, they would be treated with honors. However, if they delivered terrible news, they would be executed. This is a cognitive fallacy, as people are placing the blame of an event on an entirely unrelated person if the situation is to be seen from a casual standpoint (they do this because of their sense of helplessness: they want to show that they still have control over something in the world to chase the feeling away). Today the Persian messengers have been largely replaced with meteorologists: some of them have reported being harassed or even attacked by people who were so stupid and foolish that they believed that the forecasters brought the bad weather onto their heads (despite our name of Homo Sapiens, we’re not intelligent at all in many regards). On a more positive note, many companies connect their products with celebrities in order for fans of said celebrities to buy the goods. Pavlov’s dog experiments are then discussed: this clearly illustrates that humans have instinctive responses to certain stimuli, seeing that said responses can be learned relatively quickly due to association (ex. a dinner bell or an alarm going off). To defend against liking someone for inadequate reasons, one should not resist liking them: only remind oneself of the reality of the situation by utilizing reason when liking someone a little too much or being disproportionately influenced. As expected, it’s difficult to intentionally make oneself dislike others, and trying to intentionally refrain from liking anyone out of a fear of being exploited is infeasible in the long run. The next method of influence that is discussed is authority: people usually make sense when listening to experts, but there is a problem when one accepts the advice of any person who states that they’re supposedly an expert, sometimes with little qualification. Aside from listening to experts, the concept of authority can be very harmful, as people may obey immoral authoritarian figures who possess much power. The Milgram experiments have clearly demonstrated that people have an ingrained sense of complying to a figure of authority, as the participants were willing to shock a complete stranger when told to do so by a person who appeared to a scientist. Indeed, Cialdini notes that while psychologists predicted only a few sadistic and brutal individuals would follow the orders to the bitter end, ultimately 65% of the subjects (coming from a wide variety of backgrounds and occupations) shocked the victim with the maximum voltage (450 volts). Cialdini states that most people aren’t especially sadistic, and that the participants of the experiments did so out of an irrational sense of compliance, as they felt obligated to obey their superiors: “it is clear that, without the researcher’s directives to continue, the subjects would have ended the experiment quickly. They hated what they were doing and agonized over their victim’s anguish. They implored the researcher to let them stop. When he refused, they went on, but in the process they trembled, they perspired, they shook, they stammered protests and additional pleas for the victim’s release. Their fingernails dug into their own flesh; they bit their lips until they bled; they held their heads in their hands; some fell into fits of uncontrollable nervous laughter” (182). When the basic format of the experiment was followed in other areas (Holland, Germany, Spain, Italy, Australia, and Jordan), similar results occurred. It should be noted that Milgram conducted his experiment of investigating obedience to find an answer as to how millions of German civilians could sit idly by and even cooperate with the destruction of millions of people who were deemed unfit to live, and his results clearly demonstrated that the answer lay in blind obedience to authority. Cialdini concerningly details, “More telling evidence, perhaps, of a willingness to submit to authorized command within the American character comes from a national survey taken after the trial of Lieutenant William Calley, who ordered his soldiers to kill the inhabitants-infants and toddlers as well as their parents and grandparents-of My Lai, Vietnam … A majority of Americans (51 percent) responded that if so ordered, they too would shoot all the residents of a Vietnamese village.” (184). The prevalence of obedience can be easily explained due to the fact that society relies on a large amount of it in order to exist, not to mention that many of society’s tenets - politics, religion, professions - encourage obedience.
Authority can be conferred with titles (ex. “Doctor,” “Judge,” “Sir,” “Professor”), body size (taller individuals frequently receive more respect), and clothes (professional clothing like laboratory suits and uniforms). To elaborate, Cialdini reveals that when people who are dynamic in a conversation hear the name of a professor, they are likely to become quite dull and obedient. When it comes to body size, studies have shown that males putting ads that describe themselves as tall receive more attention than those that don’t; females who described themselves as so saw no more attention than those that refrained from doing so. In fact, females who described themselves as short and of low weight received a significantly larger amount of attention than the rest. The concept of clothing is extremely important, seeing how con artists frequently dress spectacularly in order to capitalize on the halo effect. A good defense mechanism against blind obedience to authority is to realize that those who claim to have authority may in fact be just as qualified as you are when it comes to the subject, as well as recognizing that many people exploit others by making themselves appear as experts who can be trusted. Cialdini qualifies his statement by saying that people should continue to obey professionals and respect the law: “We shouldn’t want to resist authority altogether or even most of the time. Generally, authority figures know what they are talking about. Physicians, judges, corporate executives, legislative leaders, and the like have typically gained their positions through superior knowledge and judgment. Then, as a rule, their directives offer excellent counsel … In most cases, it would be foolish to try to substitute our less informed judgments for those of an expert, an authority. At the same time, we have seen in settings ranging from street corners to hospitals that it would be foolish to rely on authority direction in all cases. The trick is to be able to recognize without much strain or vigilance when authority directives are best followed and when they are not.” (196). When judging an authority, focus on their credentials and potential motivations. Cialdini then discusses “sly sincerity” - this is when authoritative figures, experts, and indeed most people try to give off the feeling that they are sincere by revealing their weaknesses or seemingly arguing against their financial interests when talking to someone else. This is very effective due to it making the recipient of the conversation believe that the person they’re talking to is trustworthy, respectable, and helpful, causing them to rely on them heavily for certain decisions. Cialdini tells the story of Vincent, a waiter who made much more than the others: he did so by catering to his audience (he would note their number and age) and tried to make himself appear genuinely helpful. As Cialdini noted, after a customer orders something, “His brow furrowed, his hand hovered above his order pad, and after looking quickly over his shoulder for the manager, he leaned conspiratorially toward the table to report for all to hear ‘I’m afraid that it is not as good tonight as it normally is. Might I recommend instead the ___ or the ___?’ (At this point, Vincent suggested a pair of menu items that were slightly less expensive than the dish the patron had selected initially.) ‘They are both excellent tonight.’ … To all appearances, he was at once knowledgeable and honest, a combination that gave him great credibility. Vincent was quick to exploit the advantage of this credible image. When the party had finished giving their food orders, he would say ‘Very well, and would you like me to suggest or select wine to go with your meals?’ As I watched the scene repeated almost nightly, there was a notable consistency to the customer’s reaction-smiles, nods, and, for the most part, general assent.” (198-9). All in all, in order for an authority to be truly persuasive, they have to make themselves seem both knowledgeable and well-meaning, seeing that this is closely tied to the concept of reciprocation, as people try to give their benefactors something in return to express their gratitude for what may seem like a favor or good advice.
Another principle of influence is the idea of scarcity: when people learn that something is rare, they may hasten to acquire it when pressured by their possessive instincts. This directly ties in to Economics: the less the supply of an item, the more the average one will cost thanks to the increase in demand. This is very present in advertisements, as many companies would trumpet that a sale lasts for only a limited amount of time or that there is only a certain number of products available. Outside of advertisements, the concept of scarcity can be seen in the Romeo and Juliet effect: when young people are forbidden by their parents to be with someone else, what may be a weak connection can become an emblazoned passionate romance, as teenagers frequently want to assert their individuality and self-autonomy. “According to a study done with 140 Colorado teenage couples … although parental interference was linked to some problems in the relationship-the partners viewed one another more critically and reported a greater number of negative behaviors in the other-that interference also made the pair feel greater love for each other and desire for marriage. During the course of the study, as parental interference intensified, so did the love experience. When the interference weakened, romantic feelings actually cooled” (213). Scarcity can also explain why gun control may be ineffective: when people learn their governments are trying to restrict their ownership of guns, they may go so far as to rely on a black market to assert their freedom. This has a direct connection to censorship: when facts and ideas are restricted by the government, people frequently find out the truth, as when they know they’re being kept in the dark about something, they are only more interested to discover the truth, as the censorship heavily suggests that the truth is quite impactful. For example, a study done on undergraduates from Purdue University showed that students who were told that a book containing sexual content had an age ban were more determined to read and keep it than those who weren’t informed of such information. Even today sexual education is heavily debated: it can be argued that those who oppose it may be suffering from close-mindedness or ignorance, as past beliefs belong to the past (think of all the terrible opinions we have discarded - the sexual oppression and grooming of women, present for much of humanity’s sedentary civilization, was greatly toned down with the recent rise of feminism), not-mentioning that teenagers and young people will learn the truth sooner or later due to both rebelliousness and real-life experience. Another fantastic instance of the impossibility of censorship is the collapse of the Soviet Union: when Gorbachev allowed for glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring), those in the Soviet Union realized that not only have their choices of living been severely curtailed by the authorities, but that the Soviet Union wasn’t a paradise and that Stalin was a genocidal dictator, causing them to become so disillusioned that the Soviet Union actually collapsed. As Cialdini summarized: “In keeping with a distinct historical pattern of revolution, blacks in the United States were more rebellious when their prolonged progress was somewhat curtailed than they were before it began. This pattern offers a valuable lesson for would-be rulers: When it comes to freedoms, it is more dangerous to have given for a while than never to have given at all. The problem for a government that seeks to improve the political and economic status of a traditionally oppressed group is that, in so doing, it establishes freedoms for the group where none existed before. Should these now established freedoms become less available, there will be an especially hot variety of hell to pay … After decades of repression, Mikhail Gorbachev began granting the Soviet populace new liberties, privileges, and choices … Alarmed by the direction their nation was taking, a small group of government, military, and KGB officials staged a coup, placing Gorbachev under house arrest and announcing on August 19, 1991, that they had assumed power and were moving to reinstate the old order. Most of the world imagined that the Soviet people, known for their characteristic acquiescence to subjugation, would passively yield as they had always done … [but] the people lashed out the way a dog would if someone tried taking a fresh bone from its mouth. Within hours of the junta’s announcement, thousands were in the streets erecting barricades, confronting armed troops, surrounding tanks, and defying curfews. The uprising was so swift, so massive, so unitary in its opposition to any retreat from the gains of glasnost that after only three riotous days, the astonished officials relented, surrendering their power and pleading for mercy from Chairman Gorbachev … Freedoms once granted will not be relinquished without a fight.” (221). This also applies to parenting: indecisive parents who aren’t consistent with their rules frequently have children who have trouble following the rules due to the fact that the expectations for the rules aren’t well-enforced, not-mentioning that privileges (ex. staying up to a certain time) will be fought for.
Bidding for certain items is the embodiment of scarcity, especially when two zealous bidders began combating each other by repeatedly raising the price they’ll be willing to pay for the item. To defend against scarcity and the drive to seize and purchase something before it could be gone, Cialdini advises for foresight to be practiced: if you were to buy the item you currently want, how’ll you feel about it in the future? Do you actually want it, or do you want to simply prevent someone else from taking it from you? Cialdini talks about his brother, Richard: to make some money for college, he sold cars. To sell them, he would call for those interested to come at the same time: potential customers, upon seeing each other, became more interested in the car when they perceived there was competition, seeing that humans don’t want to be denied anything. As expected, Robert was quite successful in his job, as he exploited this tendency of human nature. Cialdini ends his book by discussing the modern age: there are so many options for so many people that they frequently have trouble making decisions, especially seeing how distractions are capable of immediately influencing people. Aside from that, there has been an information overload (mostly positive, in my opinion - the world needs much knowledge, seeing the prevalence of intolerance and ignorance) in the last few years, boggling the minds of many: “John Stuart Mill, the British economist, political thinker, and philosopher of science, died over 125 years ago. The year of his death (1873) is important because he is reputed to have been the last man to know everything there was to know in the world. Today, the notion that one of us could be aware of all known facts is laughable. After eons of slow accumulation, human knowledge has snowballed into an era of momentum-fed, multiplicative, monstrous expansion. We now live in a world where most of the information is less than 15 years old. In certain fields of science alone (physics, for example), knowledge is said to double every eight years. The scientific information explosion is not limited to such arcane arenas as molecular chemistry or quantum physics, but extends to everyday areas of knowledge where we strive to keep ourselves current-health, child development, nutrition. What’s more, this rapid growth is likely to continue, since researchers are pumping their newest findings into an estimated 400,000 scientific journals worldwide.” (236). All this data owes its existence to the recent technological boom: Cialdini quips that though the current era is known as the Information Era, it isn’t the Knowledge Era, as humans can’t possibly (as of right now - this could change in the future with the fusion of humans and machines and the rise of AI) process and comprehend all the information. Cialdini calls for the reader to follow the advice he outlined in the book, and makes it clear that using shortcuts to save mental energy and space has turned from a luxury into a necessity, seeing how quickly the world is advancing. He ends his book by saying that influencing others is fine, though exploiting them by using deception and manipulation is not. In his own words: “It is important to recognize … that their [sellers and influencers] motive for profit is not the cause for hostilities; that motivation, after all, is something we each share to an extent. The real treachery, and what we cannot tolerate, is any attempt to make their profit in a way that threatens the reliability of our shortcuts. The blitz of modern daily life demands that we have faithful shortcuts, sound rules of thumb in order to handle it all. These are no longer luxuries; they are out-and-out necessities that figure to become increasingly vital as the pulse quickens … We want that rule to be as effective as possible. To the degree that its fitness for duty is regularly undercut by the tricks of a profiteer, we naturally will use it less and will be less able to cope efficiently with the decisional burdens of our day. That we cannot allow without a fight. The stakes are far too high.” (239).
Personal thoughts:
Influence: Science and Practice by Robert B. Cialdini is an illuminating, informative, descriptive, powerful, and overall great book: Cialdini discusses the methods of persuasion and influence in an explicit manner that carries much weight due to his own extensive personal experience when it comes to the subject. Indeed, this book is a must-read for all human beings, as it casts light on interpersonal relationships and how to manage them: as stated in the book numerous times, people should steer clear of those with clear manipulative intent. This book contains many anecdotes that serve the purpose of Cialdini, seeing how they are greatly suited to each principle of the art of influence discussed. The book is accessible and to-the-point, and occasionally includes visuals, which are quite helpful to the audience’s understanding. I highly recommend Influence: Science and Practice to anyone interested in interpersonal relationships, sociology, psychology, persuasion, and anecdotes.
Get the book: