Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion

“Psychologists have uncovered a number of mental shortcuts we employ in making our everyday judgments. Termed judgmental heuristics, these shortcuts […] allo[w] for simplified thinking that works well most of the time but leaves us open to occasional, costly mistakes.”

Like animals, Cialdini says, humans have developed automatic responses to help them quickly make decisions. He argues that humans need to be able to rely upon these quick judgments because of the complexity of the world. Periodically, people make wrong decisions. Cialdini has intentionally written what he calls a “popularized” book so ordinary individuals, as opposed to college professors and students, can become acquainted with the various levers of influence.

“Because there is a general distaste for those who take and make no effort to give in return, we will often go to great lengths to avoid being considered a freeloader. It is to those links that we will often be taken and, in the process, be taken by individuals who stand to gain from our indebtedness.”

In describing the rule of reciprocation, Cialdini points out the great importance most people place upon “returning a favor” for any generosity bestowed upon them. Since this is a universal human mindset, he argues, it has tremendous sway in causing people to respond generously. Compliance professionals, as well as con artists, have learned to use this lever of influence to elicit return responses that are far more generous than the initial gift.

“One way to increase the chances I will comply is first to make a larger request of me, one that I will most likely turn down. Then, after I have refused, you make the smaller request that you were really interested in all along. Provided that you structure your requests skillfully, I should view your second request as a concession to me and should feel inclined to respond with a concession of my own—compliance with your second request.”

Cialdini explains that the rejection-then-retreat technique came to his awareness when a Boy Scout lured him into buying several chocolate bars, which the author did not even like. With the help of research assistants, Cialdini came to understand how the boy swayed him into purchasing things he did not want. Cialdini felt the boy had given him something—a concession—to which he needed to respond. Thus, in purchasing the candy bars, Cialdini felt he was returning the favor the boy bestowed upon him. Wondering why he had complied, Cialdini sought help to research his own instance of Compliance as a Psychological Phenomenon.

“It’s a fool’s errand to try to overcome faith-based emotionally held beliefs with logical argumentation, as each represents a separate way of knowing […] a tactical lesson science communicators have nevertheless failed to learn. Because they prioritize thinking over all else as a way of knowing, science communicators have persisted in the assumption that facts will win over audiences.”

In this chapter on liking, Cialdini talks about the difficulty scientists have in changing the perceptions of those who are predisposed to disbelieving demonstrably accurate theories—in this case, the theory of evolution. The author chides his academic colleagues, reminding them that emotions are not subject to intellectual persuasion. He goes on to show that, instead of using logical proofs to challenge long-held beliefs, persuaders will have more success if they rely on the testimonials of those who are generally well liked.

“People feel good about themselves after a compliment and proud of whatever trait or behavior produced the praise. Accordingly, one particularly beneficial form of sincere flattery would be to praise people when they’ve done a good thing we’d like them to continue doing. That way, they would be motivated to do more of the good thing in the future in order to live up to the admirable reputation we’ve given them.”

Cialdini makes it clear that human beings are “suckers for flattery” (91), even when they know they are being praised by those with ulterior motives. Having demonstrated the power of compliments, he details the notion of praising someone’s exceptional, positive behavior with the intent of reinforcing that behavior and making it the norm. This is an example Cialdini uses to demonstrate that each of the levers of influence can be used both in negative and positive ways.

“As for the positive associations, it is compliance professionals who teach the lesson. They are incessantly trying to connect themselves or their products with the things we like. In one study, men who saw a new car ad that included a seductive female model rated the car as faster, more appealing, more expensive-looking, and better-designed than did men who viewed the same ad without the model. Yet when asked later, the men refused to believe that the presence of the young woman had influenced their judgments.”

In this chapter on likability, Cialdini reveals that when exposed to a vast variety of things they like—from other attractive people to music, politics, sports teams, and even smells—human beings become quite malleable. The reverse, he points out, is equally true: If one experiences something that is distasteful, it has a dissuasive effect. As in this passage, Cialdini points out that the allure of the likeable has an impact whether a person realizes it or not. In fact, people deny that a pleasant experience influenced their decision-making even when researchers can demonstrate unequivocally that it does.

“To discover why popularity is so effective, we need to understand the nature of yet another potent lever of influence: the principle of social proof. This principle states that we determine what is correct by finding out what other people think is correct. […] As a result, advertisers love to inform us when a product is the ‘fastest growing’ or ‘largest selling’ because they don’t have to convince us directly that their product is good; They need only show that many others think so, which often seems proof enough.”

In this description of this “jump on the bandwagon” form of conformity, Cialdini does not criticize its use or warn against the judgment of the mass of others. Rather, the author wants this judgment shortcut to remain in the average person’s repertoire of quick-decision tools. Cialdini’s criticism is reserved for those who falsely portray a product or activity as being a crowd favorite, such as the nightclub that keeps a lengthy line outside to convey the image of popularity while there is actually ample space inside.

“If we are to defend ourselves adequately against any such lever, it is vital that we know its optimal operating conditions or to recognize when we are most vulnerable to its influence. In the case of social proof, there are three main optimizing conditions: when we are unsure of what is best to do (uncertainty); when the evidence of what is best to do comes from numerous others (the many); and when that evidence comes from people like us (similarity).”

Here, Cialdini is straightforward in his depiction of the lever of social proof, directly spelling out those conditions in which the actions of a mass of people are most likely to influence a person to react in a similar way. Cialdini sometimes has some ambivalence toward the levers of influence, in that he speaks of defending against them even though he clearly does not condemn them or the use of them. The author perceives the levers as powerful decision-making tools that may be easily misused but which are not inherently harmful.

“Fatal crashes increased dramatically only in those regions where suicide has been highly publicized. Other places, existing under similar social conditions, whose newspapers have not publicized the story, show no comparable jump in such fatalities.”

Cialdini goes to great lengths to point out the clear connection between publicizing a suicide or murder and subsequent similar events. His point is that social conditions and coincidence do not explain these incidents, while media reports of them do correlate closely. His intent is both to show the power of social proof as a lever of influence and to issue a caution about how such incidents are reported, in that coverage can stimulate copy-cat deaths.

“Other studies have documented the unintended negative consequences of trying to move people away from a detrimental action by lamenting its frequency. After an education program in which several young women described their eating disorders, participants came to show increased disorder symptoms themselves […] In short, persuasive communication should avoid employing information that can normalize undesirable conduct.”

Cialdini uses numerous examples, as here, to demonstrate two pertinent ideas. First, attacking undesirable behaviors by citing their popularity actually increases the prevalence of these behaviors. Thus, the author states, one should not accidentally promote the actions one is trying to abolish. Second, it is possible to use social proof pliably in media, making it sound as if people are moving or beginning to move in a certain direction. This has the impact of causing those who hear this news to move in a desired direction.

“[C]onforming to the dictates of authority figures has always had a genuine practical advantage for us […] once we realize that obedience to authority is most rewarding, it is easy to allow ourselves the convenience of automatic obedience. The simultaneous blessing and curse of such blind obedience is its mechanical character. We don’t have to think, therefore we don’t.”

After beginning the chapter with examples of the misuse of authority and mistakes made by those in authority, Cialdini here explains why blind obedience is a useful decision-making shortcut, though fraught with the potential for error. As with other levers of influence, the author points to the innate inclination of humans to do what they are told by those in charge. Obedience to authority, beyond being an intuitive human response to enhance survival, is drilled into children by their parents from earliest childhood.

“When in a click, run mode, we are often as vulnerable to the symbols of the of authority as to its substance. Several of these symbols reliably trigger our compliance. Consequently, they are employed widely by compliance professionals who are short on substance. Con artists, for example, draped themselves with titles, clothing, and trappings of authority.”

Cialdini here discusses the use of authority as a lever of influence by pointing out that persuaders use this lever frequently without actually having any authority. Since most people attribute authority to certain classes of individuals in society—the author names professors, judges, physicians, and governmental officials—pretending to be such an authority often triggers automatic compliance. Cialdini connects this same phenomenon to the use of faux authorities in advertisements: Simply the presentation of someone who looks and acts like an authority triggers the human inclination to comply.

“[W]hen increasing scarcity—or anything else—interferes with our prior access to some item, we will react against the interference by wanting and trying to possess the item more than we did before.”

In this passage, Cialdini details the scarcity principle, which states that the less available something is, the more valuable it becomes to us. Here, the author notes that the underpinning of the scarcity principle is the fear of loss. The fear of losing something is greater than the desire to gain what one does not possess. The double-edged blade of desire for what is scarce and fear of losing what is possessed makes the scarcity principle a powerful lever of influence.

“[B]ehavioral scientists have determined that such scarcity is a primary cause of political turmoil and violence […] [I]t is not the traditionally most downtrodden people—those who have come to see their deprivation as a part of the natural order of things—who are especially likely to revolt. Instead, revolutionaries are more likely to be those who have been given at least some taste of a better life.”

Cialdini uses examples from the post-World War II Civil Rights movement and from the failed Soviet military coup of 1991 to demonstrate the validity of this principle. Once a group of people have secured a new privilege or enjoyed a new freedom, he argues, they assume it as a permanent right and will not surrender it willingly. This is one of the author’s examples of a positive use of a powerful lever of influence.

“Psychologists have long explored how the consistency principle guides human action. Indeed, prominent early theorists recognized the desire for consistency as a motivator of our behavior. But is it really strong enough to compel us to do what we ordinarily would not do? There is no question about it. The drive to be (and look) consistent constitutes a potential driving force, often causing us to act in ways contrary to our own best interest.”

Cialdini notes that the consistency principle, the need to be “as good as one’s word,” has a tremendous ability to persuade individuals to make commitments, even to decisions that may be to their own detriment. More than this, he expands on the notion that asking a person to make a series of commitments can cause that person to change perceptions completely and cleave resolutely to principles not of their choosing.

“There are certain disturbing things we simply would rather not realize. Because it is a preprogrammed and mindless method of responding, automatic consistency can supply a safe hiding place from troubling realizations. Sealed within the fortress walls of rigid consistency, we can be impervious to the sieges of reason.”

Like all the levers of influence, commitment and consistency form a mental shortcut, allowing humans to make decisions without the need for reviewing all pertinent data. To a greater extent than with the other levers, however, Cialdini points out that rote consistency is also a form of mental escape, allowing individuals to sidestep important factors that might change their decisions. Perhaps even to a greater degree than other levers, consistent commitment to one’s judgments may imperil one’s own best interests.

“[F]indings tell us to be very careful about agreeing to trivial requests because that agreement can influence our self-concepts. Such an agreement cannot only increase our compliance with the very similar, much larger requests but also make us more willing to perform a variety of larger favors that are only remotely connected to the little favor we did earlier.”

Using the example of brain-washing techniques used on captive American soldiers during the Korean conflict, Cialdini demonstrates the practical application of the consistency principle. Once individuals have demonstrated the slightest commitment to something, that commitment may be subtly, slowly reinforced with increasing degrees of compliance expected and obtained. An individual’s perspective can be completely reversed over time. Cialdini holds that this reveals the subtlety and inherent power of commitment and consistency.

“If, rather than streaming along in accordance with our prior decisions and deeds, we stop to think through the merits of each new action before performing it, we would never have time to accomplish anything significant. We need even that dangerous, mechanical brand of consistency. The only way out of the dilemma is to know when such consistency is likely to lead to a poor choice.”

Cialdini goes on the explain the two most dependable methods one can use to determine whether consistently following prior commitments is advisable: listening to one’s stomach—which may feel upset over the impending decision—and listening to one’s heart—which registers its vote prior to any rationalization of the decision.

“Automatically and incessantly, everyone divides people into those to whom the pronoun we does and does not apply. The implications for influence are great because, inside our tribes, everything influence-related is easier to achieve.”

Cialdini added “unity” as a lever of influence in the 2021 edition of the book. Unity is the attribute the author ascribes to those who are emotionally connected to an individual. He also uses descriptors like “tribe” and “family” to denote the characteristics of people who belong to others and thus, as he writes here, receive preferential treatment and affection from within the group.

“‘Blue’ lies possess core elements of the other two. They’re intended to protect as well as harm others, but those selected for protection and those selected for harm differ by ‘we’-group inclusion. They are the deliberate lies told—usually against an out-group—by members of an in-group to protect their own group’s reputation.”

The reference to “blue” lies emerges from Cialdini’s reflection on the distinction between “white” lies—intended to hurt no one—and “black” lies—intended to harm others. Blue lies are those meant to harm a specific person or group while protecting a specific in-group to which the liar emotionally belongs. In this way, the author reflects on the extreme political, racial, and social polarization prevalent in 2021, when the publisher released the updated version of Influence.

“Indeed, the archaeological and anthropological records are clear on the point: all human societies have developed ways to respond together, [with] unison or coordination […] The behavioral science record is equally clear as to why. When people act in unitary ways, they become unitized. The resultant feeling of group solidarity serves societies’ interests well, producing degrees of loyalty and self-sacrifice normally associated with much smaller family units.”

Here, Cialdini again points to the prehistoric roots of each of the levers of influence, in this case referring to unity. The author’s implication here is that inclusive tribalism became so important as a survival tool prehistorically that groups devised methods of increasing the size of their communities and bonding irrevocably. Cialdini expresses the idea that an entire tribe became an extended family unit. The vestiges of this remain in the various mechanisms used by groups to attract and initiate new members.

“[T]he distinction between System 1 and System 2 thinking [is] [t]he first is fast, associative, intuitive, and often emotional, whereas the second is slower, deliberative, analytic, and rational. Support for the separateness of the two approaches comes from evidence that activating one inhibits the other. Just as is difficult to think hard about an occurrence while experiencing it emotionally, fully experiencing the occurrence is difficult while parsing it logically.”

Simply put, Cialdini expresses the idea that one can make decisions emotionally, using System 1, or intellectually, using System 2. Following the framework Cialdini uses, System 1 thinking is a shortcut for evaluating situations and deciding how to respond to them. Resorting to System 2 thinking when evaluating circumstances removes the individual from the emotions of the experience. Thus, System 1 thinking tends to perpetuate assumptions and prejudices while System 2 thinking is more likely to enable new insights and understanding.

“[W]e can arrange to tip an election, solidify support from a company’s shareholders […] help ensure soldiers will stand and fight rather than flee and wartime, and protect the community from annihilation. Might it be possible to apply the lessons from those these settings to much larger stages, such as those involving age-old international enmities, violent religious clashes, and simmering racial antagonisms?”

Although unity, like all of the levers of influence cited by Cialdini, is an ancient human phenomenon, he perceives it as being the tool that can bring humanity together to achieve shared harmony. Cialdini has built his case for this idea by demonstrating that unity has the ability to overcome the exclusivity that seems inherent in tribalism. Here, Cialdini speaks idealistically and persuasively about how to use this level of influence to its highest potential.