Hi. I’ve just finished reading Influence: The Psychology Of Persuasion. I’m not just reading the book: I’m also writing notes and conclusions I get while reading it. If you want to read what I 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.

Rory Sutherland presented at TED in July 2009 on the power of intangible value, a kind of value that “in many ways is a very, very fine substitute for using up labor or limited resources in the creation of things.” This post highlights one of many discussion points Sutherland presents.

Sutherland references Frederick the Great’s attempt to integrate potatoes into society in order to have two crops as fallbacks in the event of a famine, the other crop being wheat.

“The only problem is: potatoes, if you think about it, look pretty disgusting. And also, 18th century Prussians ate very, very few vegetables — rather like contemporary Scottish people. So, actually, he tried making it compulsory. The Prussian peasantry said, ‘We can’t even get the dogs to eat these damn things. They are absolutely disgusting and they’re good for nothing.’

So he tried plan B. He tried the marketing solution, which is he declared the potato as a royal vegetable. And none but the royal family could consume it. And he planted it in a royal potato patch, with guards who had instructions to guard over it, night and day, but with secret instructions not to guard it very well. Now 18th-century peasants know that there is one pretty safe rule in life, which is if something is worth guarding, it’s worth stealing. Before long, there was a massive underground potato-growing operation in Germany. What he’d effectively done is he’d re-branded the potato.”

…and he had done so without any spending or noticeable marketing. Frederick the Great gave potatoes intangible value and thus made them more appealing.

Robert Cialdini, author in the subject of public opinion, wrote Influence: Science and Practice, a book that highlights several persuasion principles. One of them is scarcity, which refers to the notion that things in less abundance have higher perceived value. This is what Frederick the Great did with potatoes. By using the scarcity principle, he added intangible value to the potato.

Sutherland cites many examples like this in his presentation. His overall delivery focuses on a new way to think about advertising and marketing. In an era of extreme clutter, consumers are becoming advertisers via the groundswell, and hyperconnectivity, vocalization and conscious interpretation of value is becoming more difficult. That is why creating intangible value is a crucial with advertising’s shift toward a highly interactive era.

Teoria e pratica della persuasione è un libro che svela i modi in cui i “professionisti della persuasione” – pubblicitari, politici, venditori, ecc. – esercitano la loro influenza su di noi.

Robert B. Cialdini, un’autentica autorità nel suo settore, vi condurrà attraverso una visita guidata dei principi della persuasione, che imparerete a conoscere e approfondire grazie a numerosissimi esempi presi dalla cronaca, dalle questioni di politica internazionale, dalla vita quotidiana: scoprirete che in qualsiasi ambito, persino in quello più insospettabile, sono in azione regole precise per la costruzione del consenso.

• Che tecniche usano alcuni venditori immobiliari per spingerci ad acquistare proprio quell’appartamento?
• Come possiamo convincere nostro figlio a fare qualcosa che non gli va?
• Quali sono i trucchi di alcuni venditori porta a porta?
• Come mai certe persone, più di altre, riescono a farsi dire di sì?
• Che cosa può influenzare la nostra scelta di un prodotto?
• Per quale ragione alcuni politici non vengono reputati credibili?

Una lettura appassionante e, se così si può dire, ricca di “colpi di scena”, per trovare risposte a queste domande e ai tanti altri interrogativi che sorgono dall’analisi dei fenomeni del consenso. Un libro presto diventato un classico sull’argomento della persuasione, che dalla sua prima edizione ha venduto più di un milione di copie in tutto il mondo.

“La persuasione in sé non è né positiva né negativa: come sempre, dipende dall’uso che se ne fa. Cialdini ci insegna a capire come funziona, quali sono le sue leggi, come fare ad usarle in prima persona per scopi utili e come passare invece al “contrattacco” quando qualcuno tenta di spingerci a compiere una scelta in modo scorretto.”
Claudio Beloni, Master Trainer di PNL, condirettore della NLP ITALY Coaching School

“Quando si parla di scienza della persuasione, il professor Robert Cialdini è la voce più autorevole e apprezzata. La sua chiarezza espositiva consente di comprendere le “leve” decisionali che, alcune volte in buona fede, molte altre in malafede, i grandi persuasori utilizzano regolarmente nei nostri confronti.”
Carlo Raffaelli, Pubblicitario, Coach e Trainer di PNL

“Robert Cialdini ci fornisce una lettura illuminante sul modo in cui prendiamo decisioni, e soprattutto sul modo in cui gli altri, spesso senza che nemmeno ce ne accorgiamo, ce le fanno prendere. Teoria e pratica della persuasione ci persuade, appunto, a difenderci dalle armi del consenso, quando non sono esercitate con onestà e integrità.”
Antonella Rizzuto, Coach e Mentore della NLP ITALY Coaching School

1. Frustrare din cauza procrastinarii. Si nici n-am chef sau rabdare sa fac altceva mai interesant pana nu termin ce am de rezolvat. Aici e buba.

2. Procrastinare din cauza unui proiect pe care nu-l suport, pentru ca am sentimentul ca toata creativitatea imi este limitata si / sau cenzurata. Si n-o zic cu laudarosenie. Pur si simplu a fi creativ e atuul meu. Daca ma privezi de el la munca, imi piere tot cheful. Ar trebui sa trec treaba asta in C.V.

3. Am facut ultimul drum la administratia financiara, incheind astfel epopeea economico-administrativa inceputa aici. Finally!

4. Diseara sunt monden. Adica de la 20:30 apar pe Prima TV, intr-un rol minuscul, intr-o sceneta minuscula, in emisiunea “Mondenii”. Rol minuscul egal figuratie, in caz ca va asteptati sa vedeti un Al Pacino in devenire. Indiciu, pentru mondeno-fili: Don’t shoot the pianist!

5. Si cel mai important: mi-am dat seama ca sinceritatea si discutiile purtate direct si sarmant aduc Nspe mii de beneficii in plus si feedback-uri misto, decat disimularea, artificiile verbale, strategiile persuasive si alte balarii de genul asta. Persuasive masters si nlp practitioners, blow me!

Ależ mam radochę, gdy niespodziewanie trafia do moich rąk płyta niezbyt znanego wykonawcy, która zaskakuje mnie bardzo pozytywnie. A radocha w smętne, jesienne dni to coś niezwykle cennego. Żeby jednak nie popadać w nadmierną poetyckość napiszę, że “Blue Record” Baroness (w Polsce Rockers Publishing) to fantastyczna muzyczna podróż przez barwną krainę, pełną wielu ciekawych dźwięków. Dźwięków, które zadowolić mogą zarówno tych, którzy cenią Mastodon, Isis, Neurosis, jak i tych, którzy nie mają nic przeciwko temu, żeby do takiego grania dodawać przyprawy sprzed dziesięcioleci. Może to być coś z lekka psychodelicznego, kojącego akustyczną formą, ale może to być odrobina klasycznego heavy metalu, melodyjnego, z gitarami tnącymi ładne solówki niczym u Iron Maiden. Baroness nie rezygnuje przy tym z brzmienia, które lokuje je wśród kapel związanych z undergroundem, niezależnością, choć myślę, że taki stan rzeczy nie potrwa długo. Z pewnością nie jestem jedynym, który dostrzega potencjał tkwiący w tym zespole, jego nieposkromioną wyobraźnię i odwagę do klejenia ciekawych muzycznych kolaży. To, że w Baroness jest utalentowany malarz (w USA zapowiedziano niedawno wystawy prac Johna Bayizleya) może być cenne. Malarze, dobrzy malarze, muszą mieć rozwiniętą ponadprzeciętnie wyobraźnię i nie mogą bać się uzewnętrzniać pomysłów, które rodzą się w ich głowach. Bayiley na pewno się nie boi. Na płotnie i na  gitarze wypada przekonująco. Myślę, i mam wielką nadzieję, że “Blue Record” przeniesie Baroness na nieco wyższy poziom zauważenia i docenienia. Trasa z Mastodon byłaby dla nich idealnym rozwiązaniem. A jakież byłyby doznania fanów z podziwania takich wykonawców… Aż strach się bać.

Do Dysrhythmii wciąż nie mogę się dokopać, bo wyskakują co raz to nowe, ważne premiery. Ważne dla różnych gatunków. Immortal nie wydawał przez kilka lat, a jak już Norwegowie zdecydowali się na powrót, to nic dziwnego, że zrobił się wokół tego wielki szum i poszły nakłady na promocję. I to niemałe. Nuclear Blast po sukcesie Behemoth chyba chce wypromować maksymalnie najostrzejszych wykonawców ze swojego katalogu. Ale na płytę Dimmu Borgir, jedną z głównych dojnych krów firmy, przyjdzie jeszcze poczekać, zaś “All Shall Fall” Immortal nie ma żadnych szans w starciu z “Evangelion”. Inna liga, po prostu. Fakt, płyta brzmi bardzo dobrze, jest to black metal na poziomie. Peter Tagtgren zna się na swojej robocie i jemu trudno byłoby cokolwiek zarzucić. Tylko, że jak słuchałem tych kilku kawałków wrażenie miałem nieodparte, że zmartwychwstał Bathory i nagrał materiał w nowoczesnym studiu. Wydaje mi się, że clou całej zabawy w muzykę polega na tym, żeby znaleźć swoją ścieżkę i podążać ją aż do znalezienia własnego języka, czegoś wyjątkowego, charakterystycznego. Aby dojść do takiego momentu, w którym słuchający po najdalej minucie nie ma żadnych wątpliwości, że obcuje z płytą na przykład Immortal. To nic, że słucha się tego naprawdę dobrze, nie odrzuca od słuchawek/głośników. Słuchając “All Shall Fall” cały czas myślałem o Bathory, nie zaś o Immortal. A tak raczej być nie powinno. Dobry black metal, lecz niestety niezwykle wtórny. Jeśli są tacy, którzy z Bathory nie mieli styczności, mają szanse zakochać się w “All Shall Fall”. Starsi fani pewnie zakończą przygodę z tym albumem po kilku przesłuchaniach. Bo po co poświęcać czas na klona skoro można sięgnąć choćby po “Blood Fire Death” i szczerze się zachwycić?

Wiem, że ostatnio tylko o muzyce bazgram wirtualnie, ale oczywiście książki i filmy są u mnie cały czas obecne. Popełniłem coś, czego do tej pory starałem się unikać i zacząłem czytać trzy książki na raz. “Białą gorączkę”, bardzo umiejętnie i spokojnie dawkowaną, skończę niebawem. Podobnie będzie z biografią Ricka Rubina. Ale pewna mądra osoba poleciła mi, abym zmierzył się z “Wywieraniem wpływu na ludzi” Roberta Cialdiniego. I wielkie dzięki za to panie Marcinie. Faktycznie, z upływem stron rośnie w człowieku świadomość tego, co sprawia, że reklamy mają na nas wpływ, czemu nie obejdzie się bez reklamy z pociągającymi paniami. Mnie zaciekawił w książce wątek klakierów. Przyznam, że nie wiedziałem, że kiedyś był to bardzo poszukiwany i ceniony zawód, zwłaszcza we Włoszech. Klakierzy mieli oficjalne stawki za swoje usługi. Najtańsze były okrzyki aprobaty podczas przedstawienia, zaś najwięcej trzeba było im płacić za bisy. Oglądając różne spędy telewizyjne nie mogę wyjść z podziwu, jak to się stało, że na taką chałę przyszło tylu ludzi?! I jak to możliwe, że owa chała im się podoba?! Zastanawiam się po lekuturze ponad połowy książki Cialdiniego, czy ktoś, kto wcześniej zapoznał się z tym arcydziełem, nie wpadł na pomysł, aby uatrakcyjnić “widowisko” poprzez klakę. I jakie są teraz stawki? A może ja się nie znam, wyobraźnia mnie zawodzi, jestem zbyt prosty na pojęcie niuansów tej wysublimowanej sztuki? Mniejsza o to. Nawet jeśli oglądająca chałę widownia robi to z przekonania i jest pewna, że obcuje z ciekawą sztuką, to może niechcący podsunąłem komuś pomysł na biznes? Zawsze lepiej wyglądają w telewizorze prawdziwe oklaski i okrzyki niż puszczane “z puszki”. O czym zresztą też Cialdini pisze. Ech, czemu doba ma tylko 24 godziny… A tu jeszcze trzeba z nowym Kultem się zmierzyć. A potem z Charliem Winstonem i Yello, i Living Colour… Będzie miło i ciekawie.

Żeby zadość uczynić wszystkim tagom mego bloga, wypada wystukać kilka słów o filmie. O dwóch filmach. “Dystrykt 9″ jest miłym rozczarowaniem. Wydawało mi się, że jestem już za stary, aby “kupić” film o kosmitach, ale okazuje się, iż jednak nie. Peter Jackson produkował i na tym kończą się znane nazwiska tej produkcji. Prym wiodą aktorzy z RPA. Akcja rozgrywa się w Johanesburgu i trzyma w napięciu. Jest trochę słodu pod koniec, ale nie na tyle, aby zrobiło nam się niedobrze. Efekty specjalne imponujące i w odpowiedniej dawce. Naprawdę polecam.

“Metro strachu” z kolei to film, który można obejrzeć, gdy nie ma się pod ręką czegoś lepszego albo potrzebny jest obraz, przy którym nie trzeba za wiele myśleć. Obsada świetna – Travolta, Washington, Gandolfini, Turturro, Guzman (Pachanga z “Życia Carlita”), ale – jak to piszą krytycy filmowi – nawet największe gwiazdy nie ominą płycizn scenariusza. Akcja dzieje się dość szybko, na rozwiązanie wpada się mniej więcej w pierwszej połowie, a resztą spokojnie karmimy wzrok. Końcówka niedopracowana za bardzo, no chyba, że w kontrakcie jest mowa o części drugiej, ale byłbym zdziwiony, gdyby tak było. Travolta jako zły bohater jest do przyjęcia, choć nie zachwyca. Denzel W. na swoim normalnym, wysokim poziomie. Tony Scott robił dużo lepsze filmy w swojej karierze. James Gandolfini jako burmistrz chyba wypada najciekawiej z całej obsady. Trochę pościgów, wybuchów, huku mknącego metra i ładnych ujęć NYC.

Tyler Cowen of the Marginal Revolution blog brought to my attention:

The email edition of the British Psychological Society’s Research Digest has reached the milestone of its 150th issue….To mark the occasion, the Digest editor has invited some of the world’s leading psychologists to look inwards and share, in 150 words, one nagging thing they still don’t understand about themselves. Their responses are by turns candid, witty and thought-provoking.

I found this to be incredibly interesting, if only for the fact of seeing leading psychologists discuss what they struggle to come to terms with in their own lives and personalities. You can read he whole piece here, but I’m providing a couple of examples in this post that you may relate to:

Robert Cialdini on taking on too much:

Over the stretch of my professional years, I’d say my most nagging error has involved an inability to gauge correctly the point at which the next possible undertaking – or even golden opportunity – should be firmly rejected. Whenever I’ve allowed one-too-many responsibilities onto my plate, everything – including the new item – has suffered from the overcrowding. With that threshold crossed, I’ve no longer had the time or patience to plan, think, or toil hard enough to be proud of the resultant work. If I had a single piece of advice for young researchers, it would be to create and follow a rule for avoiding this state of affairs. The rule could involve something objective (e.g., never exceeding a specific quota of research involvements) or subjective (e.g., avoiding the feeling of rushing to, from, and through all of one’s commitments). The key is to apply the rule ruthlessly. Anything less would be another form of error.

Alison Gopnik on parenting:

I’ve had three of my own children and spent my professional life thinking about children. And yet I still find my relation to my children deeply puzzling. Our love for children is so unlike any other human emotion. I fell in love with my babies so quickly and profoundly, almost completely independently of their particular qualities. And yet 20 years later I was (more or less) happy to see them go – I had to be happy to see them go. We are totally devoted to them when they are little and yet the most we can expect in return when they grow up is that they regard us with bemused and tolerant affection. We are ambitious for them, we want them to thrive so badly. And yet we know that we have to grant them the autonomy to make their own mistakes. In no other human relation do we work so hard to accomplish such an ill-defined goal, which is precisely to create a being who will have goals that are not like ours.

What is the “one nagging thing that you still don’t understand about yourself”?

Dear friend Derrick Milligan told me about Josh Kaufman's Personal MBA.

Dear friend, fellow husband, father and hoopster, and socially-oriented entrepreneur Derrick Milligan thought that other readers would be interested in Josh Kaufman’s Personal MBA. 

I’ve not participated in the program, which, from a look at his web site, seems to be oriented toward helping people gain and apply business skills they need without quitting their jobs and taking on huge debt. 

I have looked at the site, which has a reading list that include Robert Cialdini’s Influence, one of my Top 10 Books of 2008, and Jim Schwartz and Tony Loehr’s The Power of Full Engagement, which I wrote about a couple of weeks ago. 

The site also has a blog by Josh, who recently quoted the text of a letter by Thomas Carlyle about reading that I enjoyed. 

Thanks for the tip, Derrick!  Please keep the contributions coming, everyone!

There are two practices universally frowned upon in writing:

1. Excessively long phrases, paragraphs
2. Excessively rare words that nobody knows (apart from the author)

Verbal diarrhea - ever seen people who can't seem to stop talking? Funny to watch on 2x rewind XD

There are exceptions in both cases, of course. It’s okay, for example, to have long paragraphs when you’re writing a thesis on telomerase (still not recommended). When you’re a specialist in a field, it’s necessary to use words nobody else knows about. For example, ‘panthera tigris tigris’ (Bengal tiger) doesn’t become ‘an orange mammal with orange fur and black stripes found in Bangladesh and India’. That’s redundant.

But, when we have a choice, it’s often better to keep things short and simple.

One of my teachers used to refer to this as ‘verbal diarrhea’, which makes perfect sense. It also suited me very well because I had a bad habit of typing in font sizes 10 or below, and cramming everything in one paragraph. Why? Because I thought I could save a piece of paper! (As I make more entries, you’ll see I can use VERY roundabout methods to achieve a goal, usually quite mundane… XP )

That’s never too wise a decision to make.

Then, there’s the problem with using difficult words. When writing, I think many students ask themselves this question at least once: sesquipedalian verbosity or simple English? Apparently, most associate ‘outstanding work’ with ‘the need to utilize rambunctiously complex locution to impress the professor’. According to Robert Cialdini, a professor of social psychology, author of the best-selling books ‘Influence’ and ‘Yes!’, this will backfire right back at you.

Here’s one of the examples in his book ‘Yes!’ to demonstrate the point:

‘“We’re leveraging our assets and establishing strategic alliances to create a robust knowledge center –one with a customer-ruled business structure using market-leading technologies to maximize our human systems.”

Huh? This apparently means, “We’re consultants.”’

-          Yes!

pg. 162, Lines 5-10
Robert B. Cialdini

Simon & Schuster Inc., 2008

So, the next time you see someone trying to use uncommon word, remind them of the type of reception it’d get.

Expected: Prideful glee on the author’s side
Also expected: ‘Huh?’ and a frown to readers

XD

1. Assessing the Damage (Excerpted from Captive Hearts, Captive Minds: Freedom and Recovery from Cults and Abusive Relationships) By Madeleine Tobias and Janja Lalich
2. Captive Hearts, Captive Minds: Freedom and Recovery from Cults and Abusive Relationships By Madeleine L. Tobias and Janja Lalich (Chapter one excerpts – The Cultic Relationship)
3. “It Hurts” By Jan Groenveld
4. Coercive Persuasion and Attitude Change (Encyclopedia of Sociology Volume 1, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York) By Richard J. Ofshe, Ph.D.
5. Influence By Robert B. Cialdini, Ph.D.

Its coming!

The biggest online event in the history of Internet Marketing!

Two of the biggest names in marketing, Jay Abraham and Rich Schefren are hosting a series with the most powerful and impressive collection of world-famous experts to help entrepreneurs tackle their biggest, most immediate and important business challenges, issues, problems and opportunities.

www.theleagueofextraordinarymindsblog.com

I recently took a plopped-in media expert to task for betraying ignorance of the most basic feature of perhaps the most successful government program of all, Medicare. My reason for doing so is to confront our apparently hard-wired penchant for unthinkingly going along with whatever is plopped in front of us as expertise and knowledge. I believe this  is important because we so easily become lemmings. Here’s social influence expert Robert Cialdini:

more about “Robert Cialdini Explores the Neurosci…“, posted with vodpod

Todays’ exhibit goes beyond the merely silly to the deeply creepy.

September 1st is a day that lives in infamy, along with December 7th and September 11th. But the infamy of September 1st dwarfs all others because on that day, 70 years ago, Hitler invaded Poland, setting off World War II.

Pat Buchanan, noted “expert” on things conservative for MSNBC, commemorates this solemn day with a plug for his recent book and, among other bon mots, tells us this:

…Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Miklos Horthy’s Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso’s Slovakia.

I thought conservatism met a boundary at holocaust denials. But here is a boundary beyond that pale — Nazi aggression denial! And speaking of holocaust denials, Buchanan queries:

But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet’s, or Fidel Castro’s, was out to conquer the world?

Yet Megan Carpentier points out:

Hitler, who between coming to power in 1933 and 1939 had already invaded Austria, annexed part of Czechoslovakia and invaded the rest of it before moving on to Poland, had already murdered nearly 100,000 Jews by 1939… By 1938, Hitler has already imprisoned 30,000 Jewish men in concentration camps, and the ghettoization of Poland’s Jews began shortly after the Nazi invasion.

Buchanan seems less of a holocaust denier and more of a holocaust minimizer.

This is the mind of a representative conservative? My father was a conservative — the kind of conservative who heavily underlined passages from The American Spectator, carefully cut the articles out, and placed them on my desk so that I could read them when I came home from college on breaks. He was as rocked-ribbed as they come, but he did confide in me, the day after the 1964 election, that he just had not been able to bring himself to vote for Barry Goldwater, because Goldwater was just too right-wing. Instead, Dad wrote in a vote for Secaucus pig-farmer Henry Krajewski.

Barry Goldwater was right wing, but lived within the pale. Not so MSNBC’s plop-in conservative.

I am currently reading a classic book titled Influence – The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini.

Influence The Psychology of Persuasion

When I finish it I will summarise my learnings in a future post, but I just had to share this funny excerpt that describes what happens when communication breaks down.

According to Professor Cohen, in case after case, patients, nurses, pharmacists, and other physicians do not question the prescription.

Take, for example, the strange case of the “rectal earache” reported by Cohen and Davis.

A physician ordered ear drops to be administered to the right ear of a patient suffering pain and infection there.

But instead of writing out completely the location “right ear” on the prescription, the doctor abbreviated it so that the instructions read “place in R ear.”

Upon receiving the prescription, the duty nurse promptly put the required number of ear drops into the patient’s anus.

Obviously, rectal treatment of an earache makes no sense. Yet neither the patient nor the nurse questioned it.

The important lesson of this story is that in many situations where a legitimate authority has spoken, what would otherwise make sense is irrelevant

The case of the rectal earache

What does it mean for marketers?

The excerpt above is a hilarious example of one of my favourite quotes from George Bernard Shaw in action:

The problem with communication…is the illusion that it has been accomplished

In research circles this is often referred to as branded message take-out, which I think is one of the most critical metrics for any piece of communication.

So basically, if your communications aren’t scoring high in this metric, your customers end up suffering rectal earache.

When Joni Mitchell wrote “Big Yellow Taxi” and the expressive lyric, “Don’t it always seem as though you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone?” she may have been onto something.

The last of Prof. Cialdini’s weapons of influence centers on scarcity or, as he explains it, the increase in the appeal of an opportunity when it appears that it will soon become unavailable. This lure is evident in the actions of those who put a telephone conversation on hold when another phone line rings simply because of the fear that the chance to hear information might be lost or the possibility to speak to that person if that call is not taken.

In fact, the thought of “losing” something over winning something is typically more appealing and interesting. More people insulate homes because of the “money that they could lose” rather than the money that they could save.

Consider the language of marketers who tell us that “only a limited number” are available or that you should hurry because “a sale ends Sunday.” Scarcity has a tendency to make items more valuable in our eyes. This is because we understand that those items that are difficult to possess are typically better than those that are easy to possess. This concept is more often than not a true one. The second factor that weighs in that we hate to lose “freedoms” – that is whenever free choice is limited, the need to retain our freedoms makes us desire them more.

Cialdini engages the reader in a very interesting discussion of the behaviorists’ view of Romeo and Juliet. Was this a case of young and pure love or rather was the intensity of the love heightened because of the extraordinary obstacles that the Montague and Capulet families placed in the path of these young lovers and therefore infringed on their freedoms? Or to use a biblical example, did Adam and Eve desire the apple more because it offered enlightenment and knowledge or because it was “one of a kind” and prohibited?

The Iranian election and the management of its outcome by its supreme leader may be an additional event worth studying through the prism of scarcity. Did the current leadership fan the flames of revolt by making opposition information scarce (and more believable because exclusive information is more persuasive) and by reducing freedoms while creating obstacles? And conversely, can groups pretend that information is restricted so as to align others with their perspectives? If this interpretation of Cialdini’s thinking is correct – and he does acknowledge that this concept applies to information and censorship as well – there are tremendous implications for the way governments manage conflict and companies manage information flow.

There are a number of corollaries to our scarcity weapon of influence. The first is that scarcity has greater impact when people have a taste of abundance and then have that abundance replaced with scarcity. Cialdini cites the glasnost era led by Gorbachev followed by a crackdown. The Soviet people chafed at the loss of freedoms and fought more strenuously to keep the freedoms that were already experienced during the Gorbachev regime.

The second corollary is that scarcity is made more impactful when there is competition for a good or service. Imagine for a moment, those department store sales where certain goods are only available between certain hours and the panic that ensues within the store. These sales are designed to foment both scarcity and competition and force a buying decision.

So how does one control the strong emotional pull of scarcity? First, we need to recognize the heightened sense of arousal that comes with scarcity. Then, knowing that we are now engaged at this level, we must separate the use we have for the item from the desire to acquire it. By its very nature, scarcity is about possession and not utility. Distinguishing the two will allow us to behave more rationally.

It is important to recognize that all of the weapons highlighted in “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion” will become more pervasive simple because of the overwhelming information available to and thrust upon us. We are truly information overloaded and it is imperative that we recognize when gut reactions cause our behaviors. Where Cialdini has done us a great service is by “pulling the curtain back” so that we may more effectively recognize manipulation, and combat it.

By Bakari Akil II, Ph.D.

How often do we try to consciously increase how much others like us? Not for someone to develop a Peppermint Patty type crush on us or for vindication for mistreatment in grade school, but for social and professional growth. I am sure many people have the attitude; “If they like me they like me, if they don’t, who cares?” But, for those interested in increasing their ‘likeability quotient’ there are a few psychological theories that say it is possible.

Reciprocity Theory

The rule is simple, those who like us, we tend to like in return. According to Robert Cialdini, Ph.D., if we do not reciprocate once someone has extended kindness to us then we are violating a tacit social agreement; one that civilizes us and makes continued progress possible.

Unless there is some sort of negative result expected, people usually feel an obligation to return pleasant acts. And according to Theodore Million, Ph.D., and his writings on “interpersonal reciprocity” people’s interactions with each other are limited in a foretellable fashion by one person’s actions toward the other.

Mere Exposure Theory

This theory asserts that the more times we come in contact with a  person the more we favor them. As long as no negative reactions result from the exposure  (and in some cases even if it does) then positive feelings  increase. As explained by psychologist Mike Cardwell, when we first encounter a stranger it can result in feelings of “fear or aggression.” However, repeated meetings result in an increased feeling of safety. This is followed by the feelings that this person is like you which increases the likelihood that you will accept them into your social circle.

Gain-Loss Principle

Michael Palmer, Ph.D., states that if a person increases their positive feelings for you then you are likely to do the same for them. Essentially, this means that you can turn up the volume of ‘likeability.’ Further, having someone change their mind about liking you (dislike to like) leads to an even greater increase in ’affection’ than if they always liked you. 

Either way, as seekers of success, it’s not necessary to leave whether or not we will be accepted (read liked) to chance. If we exhibit pleasant behavior toward others, maintain a presence and increase our affections as the situation dictates it can lead to pleasant experiences and gains for all concerned. We just have to tailor these theories to our individual goals and aims.

If you liked this article, you’ll love Dr. Akil’s new book SUPER YOU! 101 Ways to Maximize your Potential on Amazon or Lulu. You can also download a free chapter on your Kindle or iPhone at Amazon. I know that intro was cheesy.

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.

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.

Last time, I talked about humanity.  In this post I want to address reciprocity, the second strategic key with which you can unlock the value of current your customers.

The ethic of reciprocity is better known as the golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have then do unto you.”

We’ve all heard it.  We all know what it means.  And, I hope, we all think it’s a pretty good idea. 

The Problem

Unfortunately, it’s not a principle most people associate with banks. According to a recent Gallup poll, only 21% of customers said they had a great deal of trust in their banks.

It’s doubtful that the other 79% are simply worried about safety and security.  More likely, they’re concerned that their banks aren’t doing them right—just as they were before the financial crisis.

Here are a couple of findings from a pre-crisis (2006) IBM study:

• 49% of customers harbor and adversarial relationship with their banks
• 70% of retail customers are either disengaged or angry

This is a serious perceptual problem, and it has serious consequences for banks. According to the latest J.D. Powers and Associates’ Retail Banking Study, only 35% of bank customers say they plan to stay with their current bank in 2009.

The Solution

If you want the trust and loyalty of your customers, apply golden rule-based policies across all touchpoints:

• At the branch – you know what to do here; just do it
• On your website – focus on relevance, clarity, and usability
• In your advertising – ads should provide value, in and of themselves
• At the call center – don’t make customers feel powerless
• In your social media efforts – turn complaints into customer solutions

In his classic book, Influence: Science and Practice, social psychologist, Robert Cialdini, talks about the rule of reciprocation, which states that if you do someone a favor, they are obligated to return the favor. This is an extremely robust cultural code that is common to all societies. For example, one Japanese word for “thank you” literally means, “this will not end”. 

Isn’t that exactly what you want your customers to say?

In my next post I’ll wrap this up with remarkability, the third strategic key.

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.