Hi. I’ve been out for a while reading Influence: The Psychology Of Persuasion and that is why I’m not posting recently. I’m not just reading the book. I’m also writing notes and conclusions I get while reading it. It’s not still complete, but if you want to read what I already have, you can get to the document by clicking here.

With these notes you can increase your copywriting skills drastically because it talks about human nature. It’s about using mechanisms inside the human brain to get a person to say “yes”. These mechanisms are wired up with our brains and, as far as I know, we cannot get rid of them (and we should not because they help us most of the time). Mechamisms such as reciprocity and social proof are two examples.

The book contains almost 280 pages. The notes document probably will have, at most, 30% of that and, in my opinion, it explains the same things with a reasonable amount of case-studies and examples.

Recently, Carsonified posted this video of a Kevin Rose (Digg) speech at the Future of Web Apps conference in London.  The talk, titled “Taking your Site from One to One Million Users”, covers a range of methods for growing web traffic and engaging users.

Although many of his examples are interesting in themselves, it is worth noting that a number draw upon core psychological principles first put together 25 years ago by Robert Cialdini in a book titled Influence.  Cialdini studied how social norms and ingrained behaviours have a massive influence on our responses to the various stimuli we are presented with on a daily basis.  He grouped them into six general categories:

You can read a little more about each of these here, but it really is worth taking the time to read the book (most libraries will have it).  It presents both the underlying motivators along with specific examples of their expression in practice, so it is more useful than hearing only the examples themselves, which don’t necessarily lend themselves to application in a range of different domains.

Cialdini also recently co-authored a book titled Yes!, which presents summaries for over 50 scientific studies relating more-or-less to the six categories above.  It is a fascinating read.  Here are a couple of the findings:

• Tips increase by up to 23% when waiters give mints to their customers directly, rather than letting them pick the mints up from a bowl at the counter.  [an example of reciprocity]
• A hotel increased guest towel reuse rates (an environmentally friendly action) by 33% simply by changing the wording of the call-to-action message on a sign in the bathroom.  The most successful message suggested that others who had stayed in the same room recently had reused their towels. [an example of social proof, and also liking - we are influenced more by those who share attributes with us]
• Asking people to predict whether or not they will go out and vote actually increases the chance they will go out and vote (by about 25% points in the study cited).  [an example of social desirability bias combined with commitment and consistency]

There are many other examples in Yes! that translate the six general principles into practice, so you are bound to find some inspiration for mixing it up and applying the principles yourself.

_____

ShortURL for this post: http://wp.me/pnqr9-2R

Tiens, c’est marrant…

… en dépit du « nouveau contrat social » annoncé par son président, France Télécom ne parvient pas à endiguer la vague de suicides qui frappe ses salariés. Si les médias s’attardent sur les motifs des passages à l’acte – le « management par la peur » – peu abordent les véritables raisons du phénomène de contagion. Et pour cause : ils en sont les principaux responsables !

Les recherches en psychologie sociale nous révèlent « qu’immédiatement après une histoire de suicide sensationnelle, le taux de suicide augmente très nettement dans les zones où la nouvelle a été largement diffusée » (Phillips). On parle alors d’effet Werther, en référence au célèbre roman de Goethe (Les souffrances du jeune Werther), où le héros met fin à ses jours et dont le retentissement fut à l’origine d’une vague de suicides à travers l’Europe, au XIXème siècle. Pourquoi ? En raison du pouvoir de la preuve sociale : face à une situation où nous ne savons pas quoi faire, « nous décidons du comportement à adopter en nous fondant sur les actes des autres, surtout lorsque ces autres nous paraissent semblables à nous-mêmes » (Cialdini). Pour des personnes désemparées, l’annonce du suicide d’un de leurs pairs résonne comme un acte approprié qu’ils finissent par mettre à exécution. Les lettres des dernières victimes semblent d’ailleurs corroborer cette thèse en inscrivant explicitement le passage à l’acte dans la vague de suicides (lexpress.fr).

A ce titre, l’effet Werther est pris très au sérieux par l’Organisation Mondiale de la Santé. Son département de santé mentale et toxicomanies publiait ainsi en 2002 des recommandations très précises à destination des médias : ne pas consacrer leur première page à un suicide, de ne pas publier la lettre laissée par une personne suicidée, ne pas le réduire à une seule cause, ne pas parler d’épidémie de suicides, ne pas présenter le suicide comme une méthode employée pour trouver une solution à ses problèmes personnels, ne pas rapporter un comportement suicidaire comme une réponse compréhensible aux changements sociaux, culturels ou à une récession et ne pas présenter les suicidés comme des martyres (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/626.pdf).

Robert Cialdini geldt als een autoriteit op het gebied van beïnvloeding en verkooptechnieken. Zijn boek ‘Invloed’ is praktisch en bevat hulpmiddelen om uw verkoopvaardigheden (zowel in het zakenleven als in de privésfeer) effectiever te maken. Deze korte video is prima opfrisser, waarin Cialdini zes vragen stelt.

Een andere bruikbare video is van Tom Hopkins. Volgens zijn eigen website kweekt hij ’sales kampioenen’. In hoeverre u het met hem eens bent, kunt u beoordelen na het kijken van deze nuttige video. Het betreft een instructie over de verkoopcyclus en is daarom essentieel voor elke verkoper. Al is het wellicht meer een geheugensteuntje.

With the Fall season upon us, we’re well into start-up conference season, with the big ones like DEMO and TechCrunch50 behind us, and the Web 2.0 Summit coming up this month. There is a lot of hype out there about the next big ideas, products, and companies…some of the organizers are even starting to believe their own hype as influencers of future success.

Well, I’ve got to admit, I’m downright fatigued from looking at the same kinds of ideas, over and over again, and the lazy approach to marketing and promotion from so many. For instance how many more companies do we need to see with no vowels in their names that have home pages that just display a pretty picture and the word “sign up”. I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU DO OR WHY I NEED IT, SO I’M NOT GOING TO SIGN UP.

Too harsh? Maybe. Tough love? Yes. As a previous attendee at these conferences, I still think that they are great venues, but with a little careful planning you can cut through the clutter out there, by understanding the most tired, played out tactics and what you can do to stand out to build something of real value.

The challenge: competing for attention, when attention is scarce

The first thing you need to understand is that you are competing in a landscape where your customers are suffering from a deficit of attention. So, to spend time on your application, I have to give something else up. If it saves me time from something else I’m already doing great, but you have to convince me of that before I invest my time, because I’m always looking for ways to save seconds and minutes in my day. Moreover, there are many more companies and apps out there, that didn’t exist one or two years ago – here’s good analysis of that effect.

Applying “design thinking” to focus your product development and marketing

Design Thinking Venn Diagram from IDEO (www.ideo.com)

The field of Design Thinking gives us a framework to think about how bet to represent your product and convey value to your prospective customer.

While I acknowledge that Design Thinking is not really limited marketing, I believe that this similar thought process can be applied to customer perception in this context as well.

1. Desirability: Why I have to have it

You’ve got to give me a reason to care. Why should I sign up? What is it you do? Show me what you do immediately – writing copy is ok, case studies are better, but data is even better. Making me watch a five minute demo of your product is not. The more you can let your applications speak for itself the better. So, show me what I can do that I’ve never done before, how will this change my life and the way I interact with people or my job.

The goal here is to awaken an eager want for your product. When thinking about creating desirability for your product, what’s going to make people think leap with delight and crave your product at an emotional level.

2. Feasibility: Why it’s easy for me to use and live with

Product desirability personified

Ok, so now I want your product, but that’s not enough, I’ve got to be able to attain it. I would love to have a car like this, but I could never justify the purchase for a number of reasons. So, feasibility is all about making your product easy to consume, and live with going forward.

These are usually issues like price, setup, time investment, and maintenance but you will have your own considerations for your product. All in all the basic idea is to make me feel like I can actually own your product and not suffer from buyers remorse afterward. These notions must be well communicated upfront…and signing up costs me time and my data to you, it’s by no means “free”.

3. Viability: Why I need to trust you

Why does trust matter? Who remembers sea monkeys?

To me, this is the biggest barrier for most companies — after you’ve intrigued me and got my attention, now I have to believe you that all you claims are correct. This is the hardest part of the equation – anyone remember being pitched to buy sea monkeys for under $2??

To do so, I’d recommend finding ways to establish trust and credibility for your company product, and claims. While attending one of these conferences connotes some level of “filter”, that your company is somewhat better than others that applied, certainly helps. Adding testimonials, a series of killer management bios, customer lists, or other points of validation help me believe you.

If you don’t have any of those things you can try something straight of our Cialdini’s playbook to build reciprocity with your customer — i.e. give something to get something. So, let me get something immediate and valuable from going to your website without having to sign up.These could be videos, newsletters, blog posts, free tools or anything that I can get truly for free.

[Shameless plug: For instance at Visible Measures we showcase our syndicated Top 10 Charts for free without sign-up, as well as provide tools to navigate our historical charts]

Marketing does matter

I know it’s tough out there, and you’re working with little sleep to build something “insanely great”. So go the extra mile to make the visitors to your site want your product, can see themselves using it, and trust you enough to give up their time and usernames. If you spend the time and apply a these principles to your “sign up” process, I guarantee you that you’ll get more “sign-ups” and can capitalize on the traffic that these conferences give you.

So, I have been probed about the ethics of schmoozing, and whether or not it is manipulative or sincere outreach.  I believe that schmoozing, be it networking or maintaining relationships, is a healthy expression of the nature of the social human being.  It can be misused, however, just as Darth Vader used the force for the dark side.  Cialdini’s six “weapons of influence” brings this to mind.

I hope to cover all six “weapons”, but for now, just to focus on what I would consider the basic, AK-47 of the schmooze weapons: liking.

While I hate to use Wikipedia, but its summary of this principle will have to do for now:

People are easily persuaded by other people that they like. Cialdini cites the marketing of Tupperware in what might now be called viral marketing. People were more likely to buy if they liked the person selling it to them. Some of the many biases favoring more attractive people are discussed.

The “dark side” example of this is the well known Ponzi scheme of Bernie Madoff, using his close connections and “likability” to scam his close friends and contacts.  On a broader level, this is why there is “TV ugly” or “TV pretty”, the idea that those on the TV must be a certain level of attractiveness or viewers won’t like them as much and won’t watch the show.

If you want to get someone to like you, the best way is to:

1. Get to know them as much you want them to know you.  This can be of varying degrees depending on what you are looking for in the relationship.  If I want to make friends, I ask about hobbies and passions, as I hope the individual will be interested in learning those things about me.  If I am looking for a business connection, I ask about their work and vision for their future (or how they got to where they are now) and hopefully they will be interested in the same about me.  People love to talk about themselves, and if you give them a stage with a willing audience, it will not only give you interesting conversation but also indicate that you care about what other people have to say.

2. Be yourself.  Which “yourself” you choose is based on the relationship you want to develop.  When meeting friends, I share my knowledge of Nintendo Wii and affinity for long walks in forest preserves.  For prospective business associates, I share my work experiences and goals.  Either way, NEVER LIE. I know this seems trite, but resist even the smallest impulse to “white lie” about your credentials, or pretend to be interested in something your not.  If you do “fudge the truth” a bit, you will have to maintain that burden for the entire relationship or confess–and that is not a healthy beginning to any relationship.  Lies will catch up with you, if not with this relationship, with some other common contact you both may have.

Tip:  Getting someone to like to is more about you getting to like them.  Affection and friendship is best when reciprocated.  Also, avoid turning to the Dark Side and using their trust of you for wrong purposes.

There is a children’s book called “Fox Tale Soup“. This is the old story of Stone Soup retold with Fox and farm animals. If you have not read the original I recommend reading this version.

The clever Fox is a great influencer. He starts out by asking for food but was denied any help by the farm animals. After being rejected for his initial request the fox starts with a trivial request,

“just some water please, after all I got the stone to make stone soup”

One of the animals yield and bring water. Of course, if only there was some seasoning, some potato, some rutabaga, …

The fox slowly builds on his seemingly trivial request for water to get to all the ingredients for the soup. The farm animals one after the other ends up bringing salt, potato, rutabaga etc. There are multiple influence principles at play here.

The fox started with an outrageous request, asking for food. Since he was a total stranger the animals so the animals were right in rejecting his request.

Then he followed up with a trivial request, water, which is available in plenty. This is  anchoring.

Once the animal agreed and brought water, there eas no turning back. They ended up giving the rest of the ingredients because of the power of commitment and the inherent need in us to act consistent to our past actions (consistency principle).

There was also consensus effect. Since other animals were helping the fox, any animal that had any misgivings about not helping the fox were nudged by the actions of others and were convinced to help.

That is the power of persuasion.

If you want the psychology behind this you should also read, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini.

Other book I recommend is Nudge by Sunstein and Thaler.

George Carlin once said, “I have just as much authority as the Pope; I just don’t have as many people who believe it.”

One of the most pervasive weapons of influence is the use of authority. Being told to, and indeed, “following orders” is such a powerful concept that it has been used in times of war and even the Holocaust of the 1940’s as a justification for committing horrific atrocities. Yet, when used for positive and appropriate purposes, it allows for order and the development of social and political structures that enables each of us the opportunity to live safely and productively in society and avoid a frightening state of lawless and dangerous anarchy. Talk about a double-edged sword!

Cialdini asserts that this is why we are literally trained from birth “that obedience to proper authority is right.” We learn this concept at home, in school and in our houses of worship. The Bible early on teaches us that the consequences of disobedience are pretty severe (Eating a forbidden fruit gets Adam and Eve – us? – tossed out of paradise or Abraham being tested and asked to sacrifice his beloved son because a Higher Authority tells him to do so).

The interesting thing is that once we have learned the importance of obedience, we pretty much follow it without giving it too much thought. We do this because we understand quickly that others know more than us or have greater access to information and there are true benefits to listening and following instructions from those who are “in the know.”

The challenge though is to know when to stop and think for oneself and avoid blind obedience. Cialdini cites a great example of this and one that most of us have experience with — healthcare. HCFA (The Healthcare Financing Administration) did a study and found that there was a 12% daily error rate in patient medication dispensing. A decade later, in the 1990’s, a Harvard University stated that 10% of all cardiac arrests were attributable to medication errors and while these errors can occur for a variety of reasons, at least one book attributes this situation to the “mindless deference” to the person in charge of the patient’s case – the attending physician.

The two professors who wrote this book, Medication Errors: Causes and Prevention, humorously tell the story of a patient who was prescribed ear drops with this note “place in R ear” and how the duty nurse place the drops in the patient’s butt instead of in the patient’s right ear. While tragically funny, more than likely, many of us have personal experiences that have taught us to ask questions when dealing with the medical establishment.

For purposes of our discussion, this example dramatizes how easily we submit to authority. More than that, we also submit to the symbols of authority. Seeing someone in a certain uniform (makes you realize the importance of understanding clothing as costumes), with a certain title, with a certain type of office or car, or with a certain level of authoritative expertise creates an automatic response to be influenced. One could make a case that Bernard Madoff leverage his positions on boards and trappings to such a great extent that he was able to create the greatest scam of all time.

Caildini notes how people become more deferential in conversation when they learn someone has a title. In fact, in one of the studies that he cites, he noted a correlation between perceived height and title. The greater the title, the greater the perceived physical stature.

So how does someone control this powerful form of influence? Cialdini believes that being aware of the powers of authority and its trappings is the first step to managing the inappropriate influence of authority. There are two questions that he feels needs to be asked – (1) Is the authority truly an expert? and (2) How truthful can we believe the expert to be to us?

Answering the first question enables us to decide if the authority is worth following and if that particular expertise is relevant to the situation. The second question is a little more complex in that if the authority has a vested interest in the outcome, the way that the information is presented in worth questioning.  Sometimes a practitioner of authoritative influence will use a tactic to show us that he or she is really on our side. They tell us something negative about the product so that when something positive is presented, we find their claim more believable. (L’Oreal – a bit more expensive but worth it) Still, this prescription for deciding whether to follow authority seems very practical.

Our next post will focus on Cialdini’s last weapon of influence – scarcity.

Influence guru Robert Cialdini and several fellow researchers this month published an article on “Evolution, Emotion and Persuasion” (Journal of Marketing Research) in which they discussed the interplay of evolutionary shaping, fear & romantic arousal and the widely used persuasion heuristic scarcity. Here, very briefly, is what their discussion led to:

• FEAR – Fear contexts and fear-heavy content can cause normally persuasive scarcity appeals to backfire
• ROMANCE – Romantic contexts and romance-heavy content can cause scarcity appeals to more effectively persuade

Why does fear cause scarcity appeals to backfire? Because, from an evolutionary perspective, people facing fear have survived by sticking together — not by being conspicuously visible, off doing their own thing and seeking out limited editions. 

And what of the power of romance in increasing the effectiveness of scarcity appeals? Simply, mate attraction equals reproduction, which is a very basic human need — and we become more attractive when we are differentiated from the larger group. That is, it’s good to own a limited edition as that scarce item is one more thing that separates you from the crowd and makes you more attractive to a potential mate.

Moving from Cavemen to Conversions

What can we as online marketers do with Cialdini’s insights into the popular persuasion heuristic that is scarcity? Let’s consider visual design. First, an example of a site that creates fear context — and the banner ads that attempt to persuade users in those spaces. 

According to Cialdini’s research, ComCast may not achieve the results they might otherwise have simply by virtue of the fear arousal that users felt prior to clicking the banner ad and landing on ComCast’s offer page / lead gen form. That’s because scarcity appeals and fear do not mix well. 

Fear’s not very fun… but romance is! So let’s go there next. Remember, romantic arousal — including photos of attractive people or even stories about romantic desire — can cause a person to think less about their decisions and be more readily persuaded by the widely used persuasion technique that is scarcity. 

Missed Opportunities? Swimsuit, Lingerie and Other Women’s Apparel Sites

Given that attractive members of the opposite sex have been shown to make scarcity messages more persuasive, it’s surprising that sites targeted to women shoppers are so filled with photos of women. …And beautiful (which is not necessarily likeable) women at that! From a persuasion perspective, it seems safer to assume that women shoppers would be more effectively influenced with images of men-and-women…. So why do sites for women — like JuicyCouture.com & BlueFly.com (a scarcity-heavy site) — feature images of women only? Simply because women wear the clothes? Really? 

And why does VictoriasSecret.com not have a single man on their entire website? Is it because, after all, the site really is for men? Surprising. 

~joanna

The fourth weapon of influence is one Cialdini attributes as “liking.” The classic example of this weapon in action is the Tupperware party. The Tupperware party actually employs several weapons at once (attendees win prizes – putting reciprocity in play), and each participant has to speak to the value that they receive from using Tupperware (public commitment and consistency) and, of course, social proof as each purchase reinforces the belief that other similar people want to buy the product.

Make no mistake, though, the foundation for success is predicated on the belief that you will be going to a friend’s house and she will be “asking” you to buy Tupperware products. While the Tupperware person may do the “ask,” the hostess sitting off to the side is the reason that you are even there.

The key success factor in many of these types of sales presentations is the referral from a friend.  Turning the salesperson away in these circumstances is like turning a friend away and that is exceptionally difficult for most people to do.

Cialdini, however, uses a very broad definition of the term “liking.” For example, physical attractiveness encourages people to like a person. In fact, we frequently attribute talent, honesty, kindness and intelligence to those people who look good. (Can someone say Billy Crystal’s impression of Fernando Lamas saying “It is more important to look good than to feel good.”) This is such an important element that for beer or car ads, “beautiful people” are frequently the spokespeople. And Cialdini cites studies that physical attractiveness impacts court settlements and sentences.

Sometimes those same car and beer manufacturers employ a different flavor of “liking,” one that Cialdini calls “similarity.” We like people who are similar to us. People, who dress, think, look and talk like us are ones that we relate to. Some sales people use this to great advantage by citing similar backgrounds (“You’re kidding — I grew up near Montana, too!”) so that we may relate to them more closely. Studies have also shown that people respond extraordinarily well to compliments…even if they are not entirely true.

The final component in his liking section is one devoted to contact and cooperation. This section is perhaps the most important element he discusses, because of its implications for tolerance among races and countries. Cialdini points out that where there is more contact between groups, familiarity breeds friendship – with one notable distinction.

When people are placed in competitive environments where rewards are perceived as zero sum games (only one or limited winners), enmity actually increases. This is an astounding perception because it crystallizes why school desegregation doesn’t usually create greater understanding among races and why longstanding political conflicts continue. Cialdini cites studies that suggest that if people share a critical (important because it encourages cooperation) goals and work together toward achieving it, friendship and respect are created.

As he does with all his sections, Cialdini concludes his discussion with how best to mange this weapon of influence. He recommends that we cognitively separate the message / offer from the messenger so that we may weigh the offer on its own merits.

I had expected that when I read about Professor Cialdini’s third weapon of influence, social proof, I would not discover anything terribly intriguing. Boy, was I wrong!

Social proof is predicated on this theorem: Since the vast majority of people are imitators, people are persuaded by the actions of others than by any other proof that is offered. We see this rule put into play quite often. Canned laughter, TV and print endorsements by “people on the street,” bartenders loading a jar with tips before people arrive, are all examples of creating a social proof that it is appropriate for us to take an action simply because there is an appearance that others just like us are taking that action.

The applications of this rule are significant. Studies have shown that children and adults can overcome fears by observing people doing what they are personally afraid to do. If they see someone else doing it, it feels safe to them.

The interesting application of this idea is the concept of similarity. It may not be sufficient to see someone else do something but, rather, it often has to be someone like us. In other words, a child will respond to seeing another child doing something as opposed to an adult doing the same thing. (Overcoming an irrational fear is easier for a child if another child demonstrates no fear when doing that particular thing.)

This, however, leads us to another cultural phenomenon.

Many years ago, Kitty Genovese was murdered in New York City. I first learned of the unusual circumstances surrounding her death when I heard the Phil Ochs’ song, “Outside of a Small Circle of Friends.” Her murder was particularly remarkable because 38 people observed the murder taking place over a period of more than a hal hour from adjacent apartment buildings. Yet, none called the police.

Ochs attributed her death to widespread apathy and said it was indicative of how unfeeling we had become. Cialdini, though attributes it to something he calls “pluralistic ignorance.”

Pluralistic ignorance assumes that when multiple people are present, people will (a) assume others will take actions and (b) look to others to see what actions should be taken because, to some degree, (c) they are uncertain. (It also may explain why when an e-mail is sent to multiple people requesting an action be taken, no one takes the action.) The interesting point about all of this is that if nobody takes an action, the assumption becomes that no action should be taken (Otherwise someone would have taken it, right?)

To test this theory, Cialdini cites a study, where an emergency was staged – sometimes in front of multiple bystanders and sometimes in front of a single individual. Help was provided nearly three times more often when staged in front of the individual than =when staged in front of the bystander groups.

The way to mitigate the likelihood of inaction is to do three things (1) Indicate that help is required – this eliminates the situational uncertainty, (2) designate an individual to help – this eliminates the perspective that “if I don’t help, someone else will” and (3) request a specific action – this removes any remaining uncertainty about what should be done. (“Hey you in the green coat – I’m hurt – stop, call an ambulance now!)

So how do you combat this form of influence? One needs to recognize the manipulation going on in social proof situation and, as the author suggests, recognize that bad social proof is being demonstrated and the our own behavior can be controlled.

Cialdini’s second weapon of influence is commitment and consistency. The rule here is that we feel required to be consistent with what we have already said or done. As Cialdini explains, “once we have made a choice or taken a stand, we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that decision.”

Here are some examples of how this type of behavior manifests itself. Someone takes a public position and then must explain it afterward. Or one of the more interesting studies that the author cites is one where staged thefts of a radio were performed on a beach. Onlookers attempted to stop the thief four in twenty times. However, when onlookers were asked by the individual beforehand to watch the radio before leaving the scene, an astounding19 out of 20 times an onlooker attempted to stop the thief! The power of commitment and consistency was so strong that people were actually willing to put themselves in harm’s way.

Much like reciprocity, consistency is a desirable personality trait. People who are inconsistent are thought to be two-faced or confused while those who are consistent are thought to be balanced and decisive.

In fact, my mentor Carl, shared with me a business aphorism long ago. It simply stated that “management should always be consistent but never predictable.” Until reading this book, I had always believed that aphorism meant that employees needed to have common and fair rules. Cialdini adds dimensions that speaks to the management portion of the equation, such as trustworthiness and stability.

Most of us relish consistency as it allows us to apply rules and patterns to our thinking. “If this is true then that must also be true.” Applying these types of rules enables us to accelerate our thinking and decision making process. In fact, once the rule is applied, we may never revisit the circumstance again. This explains why automatic consistency is a state that we relish.

However, like any rule, we appreciate its value most of the time but are discomfited when it is used against us. Cialdini discusses how toy stores use consistency and commitment to get us into their stores in January – after the holiday rush and massive toy shopping has just finished.

It’s really quite simple. A toy gets heavily advertised. Your child is excited by it and approaches you about buying it for the holidays. After some consideration, you agree and make the commitment to buy it. When you get to the store, you discover the toy is out of stock. You may check out other stores and then discover that it simply is not available.

What should you do?

You buy other toy(s) to compensate and apologize to your child.

Miraculously, in January, a fresh shipment of these toys arrive. Your child or you notices – and then consistency kicks in. Off you go to buy the toy… The toy stores have thereby leveraged your commitment to yourself and your child as well as your need for consistency to get you back to shopping. (Think beanie babies, cabbage patch kids or more recently, the Wii)

The key element in all of this is that commitment precedes consistency. If your commitment is on the record, the consistency trait kicks in and you will almost certainly respond in a way that supports the commitment. Knowing this, if you want to raise funds for a charity, the first step might be to get your target market to sign a petition that states that the cause is worthy. Commitment precedes consistency.

Cialdini emphasizes that commitment can come in stages. Supporting one campaign well set the stage for supporting extended versions of that campaign. So starting with a little request, such as a petition, creates the foundation and sets the stage for larger requests, such as a donation.

So how does one fight this overwhelming need to be consistent? Cialdini believes that while consistency is required in our day-to-day lives, we do know when it would be wise to forgo consistency in favor of what we know to be right. That feeling that we have in our stomachs when we are not comfortable with a decision is our mind and body’s way to tell us that we should rethink our position – or our actions, and we should learn to recognize and “follow our gut.”

At its core, a “weapon of influence” is a trigger. It stimulates a response that is truly compelling and one that we have difficulty ignoring.

The first “weapon of influence” is one that Cialdini refers to as reciprocation. You can see the concept of reciprocation being put into play every single day. Those address labels that accompany the letter requesting that you donate to a worthy cause… reciprocation, in this case, in the form of an uninvited debt. Gifts to politicians with the intention of receiving support later on…reciprocation. Even the free sample given by manufacturers with the intention of exposing someone to a product is still another form of – you guessed it – reciprocation. And it is core to the way we raise our children (i.e. the golden rule and if you want him to be nice to you, you have to treat him nicely)

The rule of reciprocation states that “we should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided to us.” The need to reciprocate is a self-imposed obligation that we place on ourselves. You can even see it in our language as “much obliged” has become synonymous with “thank you.” In fact, this sense of obligation is pervasive in all human society.

In reading Cialdini’s work, I was frankly ambivalent. On the one hand, I was concerned that I was becoming wise to ways that I was being manipulated (or, dare I say, in fact, manipulating others). However, as I reflected more and more on the book, I realized that these influence factors are truly an engine for advancement and care.

Some sociologists note that this sense of future obligation has made a significant difference in our ability to evolve because it meant that what we shared, gave, or even taught, would not be lost. Reciprocation is the basis of trade, mutual defense and perhaps even friendship. Those who do not live by the rule of reciprocation are ultimately scorned (i.e moocher or ingrate). Reciprocation does indeed create a positive cultural norm.

The rule is also overpowering that it can even overcome dislike for the requester. Cialdini cites the Hare Krishna as truly understanding the rule. When they would solicit passerbys, they would not only offer a flower, but they would insist that the flower be accepted. They referred to it as “gift” and would not accept no for an answer. Fundraising was so successful that two important phenomena should be noted.

The first is that the passerbys often discarded the flower at the first available trash can. The Krishnas were thus able to recycle the gifts. There is also now a common practice in many airports to restrict solicitations to certain discrete areas simply because the power of obligation to accept a gift and to repay it is so overwhelming.

The reciprocation rule can also trigger unfair exchanges. Cialdini cites a woman whose car wouldn’t start. She was helped by a young man. About a month later, the young man asked to borrow the car, and while the woman hesitated, she felt compelled to lend him her car, even though she had misgivings about his age. Needless to say the young man totaled the car. The lesson though is that indebtedness and the need to reciprocate is an itch that we must scratch.

There are exceptions and they typically fall into the category of circumstance or ability. If circumstances or ability prevent us from reciprocating, we allow ourselves that latitude

The area that was particularly enlightening to me was the concept of reciprocal concession. This is a common tactic in negotiations where one party asks for something that would be deemed inappropriate simple so that the offer can be withdrawn and replaced by a less outrageous offer. The other party often feels a need to reciprocate to the concession and agrees to the new request.

To make this point, Cialdini draws on the testimony of Nixon associate Jeb Stuart Magruder, upon hearing that the Watergate burglars had been caught, responded by asking, “How could we have been so stupid?”

As the story goes, it seems that G. Gordon Liddy, who was in charge of the intelligence gathering for the Nixon campaign, had initially asked for $1,000,000 in cash for a wide range of activities. Magruder and Campaign Director John Mitchell kept declining the offer. Liddy kept scaling back the request until finally the rule of reciprocal concession kicked in and his request for $250,000 in cash for the break-in was approved.

As to more mundane examples, think of the salesman who shows you the top of the line product so that he can scale you back to sell you a more “affordable” item in the product line

Is there a way to say no? Cialdini suggests that one can say no if one adopts a mindset that recognizes the tactic for what is. This requires us to cognitively understand that reciprocation is a tactic and be present so that the tactic can be effectively managed.

About a week ago, I had dinner with one of my favorite friends. Andy’s mind is always racing. He had served as CEO of a very successful company in Buffalo, NY that was recognized as being a model for one of the most outstanding places to work in that region. Andy is also a serial entrepreneur and his quick and agile mind has enabled him to create, build and overcome almost any challenge.

I enjoy our dinners for so many reasons. It is a chance to catch up with a friend whom I admire and at the same time, I always discover that I have learned something insightful and valuable after we have spent time together. After four hours of dining and conversation with Andy, I found myself mentally exhausted but intellectually stimulated.

A significant portion of our evening’s discussion focused on the work of Dr. Robert Caldini. He’s the Ph.D. referenced in one of my earlier posts. I had bought his seminal work, Influence, The Psychology of Persuasion, about the same time as I had read the Time Magazine article. It was on my list of must-reads – I just hadn’t created the space to get through it.

Andy had met with Cialdini and was very favorably influenced by his thinking. This was the impetus that I needed to pick up Cialdini’s book.

Cialdini’s book is a mix of theoretical study and empirical research. He cites the works of others but frequently intertwines their research with his own experiences and investigations into how our minds assist others in moving us to certain decisions – often without us even realizing it.

His work is important. While it teaches us how our minds work, it also teaches us how to move people to appropriate directions. I don’t view his book as a study in manipulation. In fact, I believe it to be just the opposite. If you subscribe to the strategy of pre-eminence, that is, that as leaders and business consultants we have an obligation to help people past their fears while addressing their concerns, Caldini gives us methods to consider. Like everything in the world, it can be used appropriately or not.

With that as introduction, let us look at the six factors that he refers to as “weapons of influence.” These six are:

1. Reciprocation
2. Commitment and Consistency
3. Social Proof
4. Liking
5. Authority
6. Scarcity

Effectively employing these six factors allows one to perform a mental ju-jitsu on the other party. In his terms, it allows one to leverage the natural beliefs and inclinations of the buyer to create a preferred outcome for the seller.

To illustrate these weapons of influence / ju-jitsu perspectives, he poses the question about whether a salesperson would be more effective selling a high priced item before selling a low priced item or the other way around. In other words, which approach is more likely to result in both items being sold?

One’s initial thought might be to sell the low priced item and establish a “foot in the door.” However, marketers have discovered, particularly with higher priced items, that the exact opposite is true.

Think about it.

After you have bought the tailored suite or the fashionable dress, it is only then that the salesperson suggests that you might want to look at shirts, ties, socks, or accessories and shoes. There is a simple reason for this approach and it is the concept of “contrast.”

After spending a significant amount of money, the cost of the additional item does not seem all that much. By contrast, buying a sweater to complete a look is an insignificant purchase.

In our next post, we’ll look at the first of these weapons that Cialdini outlines – reciprocation.

The Time Magazine article was extremely instructive in helping us to understand the behavioral science oriented steps being taken by the Obama administration. In this post we’ll focus on a number of them. Specifically, they are:

1. Supplying knowledge
2. Making it easy
3. Creating social norms
4. Legislating the activity

According to the Time Magazine article, studies suggest that better information can help us make better choices. This information can be disseminated in the forms of public service announcements (PSA’s) or appeals from well respected figures (remember our discussion about the use of Hubs in building communities) and even serial dramas.

What this means is that aggressive rules for disclosure and clarity will likely result in people making more informed and better choices. Documenting best practices will also produce meaningful results.

The second way to influence behavior is to make it easy for those who wish to make the choice that you wish them to make. This is why default options – opt-out instead of opt-in – are very successful. The push to create an electronic health record (EHR) is one step along the path of making generic drugs our default prescription of choice.

The creation of social norms is yet another way to influence what we choose. An appeal to conformity is very effective as we are a herdlike species. If our peers are obese, we are more comfortable choosing to be that way. What works is creating a sense that choosing not to participate in an effort sets us apart from social norms and therefore, we will take steps to be in sync with our peers. This is a technique that has been used successfully even in forwarding goals that are inappropriate or morally wrong (think McCarthyism).

The last factor that the Time Magazine article addresses is what happens when a nudge is insufficient. At that point, a strategy of making something mandatory is very useful. That’s why there is interest in taxing undesirable behaviors such as cigarettes, alcohol and even trans-fats consumption and subsidizing desirable behaviors such as weatherizing a home or the purchase of fuel efficient cars.

Now, when we hear a new initiative being proposed by the Obama Administration, our awareness to the work of the behavioral scientists will be present. Let’s hope that these efforts though are used to move us in the right directions.

In the ensuing posts, we’ll look at like some of the other models and variants that allow us to influence others.

I have always been a big believer that the universe has a tendency to bring ideas, concepts and even people to you when you need them to be in front of you. When that occurs in my life, after I finally recognize that it is happening – and yes, sometimes it takes me a while to notice — I begin to immerse myself in the idea or get to know that person better.

Lately, a new concept has been showing up and so over the next few posts, I’m going to write about it. I’m also going to read about it and share what I learn along the way.

In the April 13^th, 2009 edition of Time Magazine, there was an article by Michael Grunwald called “How Obama is Using the Science of Change.” The article cited the work of behavioral scientist Robert Cialdini who found that that the most powerful motivator was that “people want to do what they think others will do.” Cialdini is the author of the best seller “Influence.” (For what its worth, Cialdini is the name that keeps popping up…more on that in the next few posts)

According to Time, Obama leans heavily on the work of the behavioral scientists to understand what makes people tick and then, using this knowledge, he intends to spur behavioral change throughout the country. He’s leveraging what he learned about people to move forward his agenda on the economy, healthcare and energy.

The power of these nudges is huge. For example, is there a difference in the number of people who participate in a 401 K plan if they have to sign up or would that number change if they were signed up already and had to opt out? Well, a 2001 study showed that only 36% of women joined a 401K plan when they had to sign up for it…but when they had to opt out, 86% participated.

The implications of using behavioral science in our business and personal lives are huge. This notion affects sales, marketing, management, leadership and even how we lead our communities or exist within our families.

So how is the Obama Administration using what they have learned? Consider the way Americans received the $116 billion in payroll tax cuts from the stimulus package. Obama chose NOT to send one lump sum check even if that would have put the money in the hands of Americans faster. His administration was concerned that a lump sum check might be viewed as a windfall and deposited in a bank account instead of being spent to rev up the economy. Instead, the money is being released through decreased payroll withholding. Smaller amounts spread over time are more likely to be spent. The idea is to subtly nudge us to spend the extra cash.

Make no mistake – this is a radical departure from the way that we have let the free market dictate how things work. Some might call this “manipulation,” but to change our ingrained behaviors, this might be necessary. And we may discover that behavioral science is compatible with free market thinking as it may prove to be an accelerator in how we interact with the free markets.

The Time magazine article goes on to highlight several elements that help us to change behavior. And that will be the subject of the next post.