Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion

Introduction

Backed by Dr Robert Cialdini's 35 years of evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific research, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion is a comprehensive guide to effectively use these universal principles to amplify your ability to change the behaviours of others, that is getting them to say yes without thinking first (automatic, mindless compliance).

• Reciprocation
• Liking
• Social proof
• Commitment and consistency
• Authority
• Scarcity
• Unity - the newest principle for the 2021 edition.

Depending on which persuasive goals the communicator wishes to achieve with a message, certain principles are more useful than others.

• Reciprocation, liking and unity are for when relationship cultivation is the primary goal; social proof and authority are for when reducing uncertainty is foremost; and consistency and scarcity are for when motivating action is the principal objective.

Levers of Influence

In our increasingly complex world, it is impossible to recognize and analyze every detail of every person, event and situation we encounter.

• To cope, our brains create mental shortcuts, or heuristics, to quickly classify things based on a few key features.
• We then respond almost automatically when one of these features is present, much like a programmed, fixed-action pattern.

One common heuristic is the idea that expensive equals good.

• From a young age, we are taught that "you get what you pay for", and we have seen this rule hold true throughout our lives.
• This leads us to accept a simplified stereotype: a high price tag suggests high quality.
• For example, a dramatic price increase for an item like jewellery can actually boost sales among buyers who assume the higher price indicates better quality, even if the item itself has not changed.

Another example is our tendency to unquestioningly trust experts.

• We often accept their statements as absolute truth without considering potential counterarguments.
• While we might carefully consider an issue's validity if it is personally important, the fast pace of modern life often prevents us from making fully thoughtful decisions.
• Sometimes, an issue is too complicated, time is too tight, distractions are too intrusive, emotions are too strong, or mental fatigue is too deep for us to think clearly.

By recognizing these automatic, unthinking behavioural patterns, we can prevent ourselves from being vulnerable to manipulation.

• The contrast principle is a classic example of this. A salesperson might first show you a very expensive item, then follow up with a much cheaper one. This is a trick to make the second item seem more affordable by comparison.
• Similarly, upgrade options may be introduced sequentially, so that each small price seems trivial when compared to the final cost.

NOTE: The heuristics discussed here are heavily explored in Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow.

Reciprocation

Reciprocation describes the internal pull to repay what another person has provided us.

• For example, if someone sends us a birthday present, we feel compelled to remember their birthday with a gift of our own. The pull of reciprocity is even stronger when the gift is customized and personalized to the recipient’s current needs or preferences.
• In business, after receiving a "free" sample, such as an e-book chapter or a food sample, customers often feel obligated to repay the company by purchasing products or agreeing to requests they would have otherwise denied. Crucially, this sense of obligation is much stronger when the gift is given beforehand, rather than as a reward after a specific task is completed.
• Similarly, a charitable organization may receive more donations if it first sends out a small gift to potential donors.
• Despite their training to be discerning, critical and alert, scientists may publish results that are supportive of drugs from pharmaceutical companies from which they have received prior support (such as free trips, research funding, or employment).

Feeling indebted after receiving a small favour often prompts a person to return a substantially larger one, due to the principle of reciprocity.

• Also, a person who accepts favours without attempting to reciprocate, known as freeloader, is often disliked by their social group.
• Remember, there is nothing more expensive than that which comes for free - its psychological cost (the reality of internal discomfort and the possibility of external shame) far outweighs its material value.
• Subconsciously, we often avoid asking for a needed favour if we will not be in a position to repay it, or even to decline certain gifts and benefits.
• Nonetheless, the desire to repay seems to fade with time, especially for relatively small favours.

The rule of reciprocation applies to most relationships, except certain long term relationships like families or established friendships.

• In these “communal” relationships, what is exchanged reciprocally is the willingness to provide what the other needs, when it is needed.
• Under this form of reciprocity, it is not necessary to calculate who has given more or less but only whether both parties are living up to the more general rule.

Reciprocal concession is a subtle but highly effective technique for gaining compliance.

• The principle is that when someone makes a concession by moving from a larger request to a smaller one, the other person feels a social obligation to reciprocate with a concession of their own - often by agreeing to the smaller request.
• For instance, imagine someone first asks you to buy a $5 raffle ticket. After you decline, they follow up by asking if you would buy a $1 chocolate bar instead. Because they have conceded from their initial, larger request, you are much more likely to meet their concession by changing your noncompliance to a compliance for the smaller one.

The rejection-then-retreat technique, or door-in-the-face technique, is built upon the principle of reciprocal concession, which fosters a sense of mutual compromise.

• By starting with an extreme request sure to be rejected, a requester can then profitably retreat to a smaller request (the one desired all along), which is likely to be accepted, because it appears to be a concession.
• However, the tactic backfires if the initial request is so extreme as to be considered unreasonable.
• The larger-than-smaller request procedure also uses the perceptual contrast principle to make the smaller request look even smaller by comparison.
• Moreover, the requester’s concession within the rejection-then-retreat technique causes targets not only to say yes more often but also to feel more responsible and satisfied for having “dictated” the final agreement. As a result, they are more likely to honour that contract.

While you could avoid the reciprocity trap by simply rejecting every initial favour or concession, this strategy has a major downside.

• If you always assume that every offer is a trick, you will miss out on every genuine treat - the legitimate favours offered by people with no intention of exploiting you.
• Instead of a policy of blanket rejection, it is better to accept genuine offers graciously, recognizing our obligation to return them in the future. However, the moment we determine an offer is not a favour but a compliance tactic, we need only react to it accordingly to be free from its influence.

Liking

For years, science communicators have persisted in the assumption that facts will win over audiences who hold strong feelings about a topic.

• However, the truth is that people's emotionally based preferences, beliefs and values cannot be overcome with logical argumentation, as each represents a separate way of knowing.
• To change feelings, you must counteract them with other feelings, and a liking for the communicator offers a useful source of such feelings.

The feeling of liking is powerful in directing people's choices.

• We are more influenced by the people we like, including individuals we have never interacted with closely or even met.
• The liking rule is explored in direct selling, where a product reaches customers from a friend rather than an unknown salesperson. In this way, the attraction, warmth, security and obligation of friendship are brought to bear on the sales setting.
• In fact, salespeople may use an "endless chain" method to find new customers. This happens when an individual likes a product and can then be pressed for the names of friends who would also appreciate learning about it. When approached, it is difficult to turn down a salesperson armed with the name of a friend "who suggested I call on you".

Several factors reliably cause liking.

• Physical attractiveness
• A halo effect occurs when one positive characteristic of a person (e.g., physical attractiveness) dominates the way he or she is viewed in most other respects.
• We automatically assign such favourable traits as talent, kindness, honesty, trustworthiness, and intelligence to good-looking individuals.
• As a result, good-looking people enjoy an enormous social advantage in our culture, for example, they are better liked, better paid, more persuasive, and more frequently helped.
• Similarity
• We like people who are like us, sharing commonalities in opinion, personality traits, background, clothing or lifestyle.
• Bargainers are much more likely to reach an agreement after learning about similarities with their negotiation opponent.
• Compliments
• Today, online "likes" are a frequent occurrence and have a comparable effect on positive feelings.
• The knowledge that someone likes us can be a bewitchingly effective means for generating reciprocal liking and willing compliance.
• A compliment can be given publicly or behind a deserving person's back. However, a particularly beneficial form of sincere flattery is to praise people when they have done something good that you would like them to continue doing. This motivates the recipient to repeat the behaviour in the future to live up to their admirable reputation. This influence tactic is called altercasting.
• Contact and cooperation
• For the most part, we like things that are familiar to us.
• Often, we do not realize that our attitude toward something has been influenced by how many times we've been exposed to it, such as in advertising.
• In an age of "fake news", internet bots, and media-hogging politicians, it is alarming to think that people come to believe the communications they are exposed to most frequently. As the saying goes, "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth".
• However, continued exposure to a person or object under unpleasant conditions such as frustration, conflict or competition, leads to less liking.
• Working together on common goals for mutual success creates allies rather than adversaries.
• Conditioning and association
• There is a natural human tendency to dislike a person who brings us unpleasant information, even when that person did not cause the bad news.
• Advertisers are betting that we will respond to products in the same way we respond to the attractive models merely associated with them.
• Advertisers also cash in on the association principle by linking celebrities to products. This connection can be illogical, but as long as it is positive, it works.

Since liking can be increased by many means (e.g., physical attractiveness, similarity, familiarity and association) and often occurs subconsciously, our vigilance should be directed toward a feeling that we have come to like a practitioner more quickly or deeply than we would have expected.

• Once we notice this feeling, we need to be cautious and take the necessary countermeasures to consciously concentrate exclusively on the merits of the deal or decision.

Social Proof

When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate one another.

The principle of social proof states that we determine what is correct by finding out what other people think is correct.

• And the more people undertaking an action, the more we consider that action correct.
• It makes all kinds of sense because, most of the time, an action that is popular in a given situation is also functional and appropriate.
• To illustrate, a reference to large consumer demand can greatly affect consumer attitudes and actions toward a product (e.g., the iPhone).
• Advertisers love to inform us when a product is the "fastest growing", "most popular" or "largest selling" because they do not have to convince us directly that their product is good; they only need to show that many others think so, which often seems proof enough.

While social proof provides a convenient shortcut for determining the right way to behave, those who use this shortcut are vulnerable to attacks from profiteers.

• For example, product-rating websites are infected with glowing reviews that manufacturers have either faked or paid people to submit.

In the case of social proof, there are three main optimizing conditions:

• When we are unsure of what is best to do (uncertainty)
• When people lack familiarity with a situation, they are especially likely to follow the lead of others.
• Especially in an ambiguous situation, the tendency for everyone to be looking to see what everyone else is doing can lead to a fascinating phenomenon called pluralistic ignorance, or even bystander inaction. When in need of emergency help, you can reduce the uncertainties of those around you by being as precise as possible about your condition and their responsibilities. For example, say, "You, sir, in the blue jacket, I need help. Call 911 for an ambulance."
• When the evidence of what is best to do comes from numerous others (the many)
• The perceived appropriateness of an action is significantly influenced by the number of others performing it.
• In fact, following the advice or behaviours of the majority of those around us is often seen as a shortcut to good decision-making, as it validates a correct choice, makes it a feasible option, and provides social acceptance.
• When that evidence comes from people like us (similarity)
• The conduct of people similar to us gives the greatest insight into what constitutes correct behaviour for ourselves.
• Therefore, we are more inclined to follow the lead of our peers in a phenomenon we can call "peer-suasion".

Highly publicized news stories about suicide can subconsciously influence vulnerable individuals to end their lives, especially during stressful societal events like economic downturns, rising crime rates, or international tensions.

• This phenomenon is known as the "Werther effect".
• Research indicates that the Werther effect, or suicide contagion, is a real phenomenon that can be intensified by media exposure. The effect is stronger when the suicide story is more publicized, and it is not limited to traditional news but also extends to television shows, web series and even social media.
• Surprisingly, imitative suicides or copycat suicides are most often motivated in individuals who are similar to the suicide victim, particularly by age.
• Media executives should carefully consider how and how prominently to report on suicides and crime. Such stories, while often sensational and newsworthy, can also have a malignant and harmful effect on the public.

Messages meant to warn against littering, pollution or the dangers of alcohol and drug use often share a flawed approach.

• While well-intentioned, these messages can be counterproductive.
• The creators of these messages often miss a critical point: by lamenting how common these behaviours are - for example, "everyone is doing it" - they inadvertently make the problem worse through social proof.
• This psychological phenomenon causes individuals to adopt a behaviour because they believe others are doing it, reinforcing the very trend the message is trying to stop.
• Education programs designed to discourage harmful behaviour should avoid using information that could normalize undesirable conduct. Instead, they should focus on conveying the correct message: that the vast majority of people do not engage in the negative behaviour. For instance, rather than highlighting that "hundreds of people remove wood from the park", a campaign could state, "less than 3% of park visitors remove pieces of wood."

When existing social proof is absent, a communicator can use evidence of future social proof instead of relying on other principles like authority or liking.

• When a change is noticed or trending, we expect it to continue in the same direction. Examples of this include a financial investment bull market or a real estate bubble.
• Gamblers who experience a few consecutive wins might believe they are on a "hot streak" and that their next gamble will also result in a win.
• People are often reluctant to perform a desired action when they learn that only a minority of others are doing it. However, if they learn that more and more people within that minority are engaging in the action, they are more likely to jump on the bandwagon and begin enacting the behaviour themselves.

We often use social proof to navigate countless decisions, allowing us to move forward confidently without having to investigate the detailed pros and cons of each choice.

• However, we must recognize the potential problem with this "autopilot" mode: it can be guided by false information.
• For example, positive online product reviews might be fabricated by a company's employees, or a business might hire actors to give fake testimonials. This kind of deception can also occur when actors are paid to line up outside movie theatres or shops to create a false impression of widespread interest and demand.
• When social proof is deliberately faked, you should rely on your own judgment and personal investigation of the pros and cons, rather than blindly trusting the actions of others or the collective knowledge of the crowd, which could lead you to an incorrect decision.

Authority

Stanley Milgram's experiment showed that ordinary people would readily administer electric shocks to a victim under a researcher's instructions, even when it conflicted with their personal conscience. The shocks increased in 15-volt increments with each wrong answer from the learner (victim), ultimately reaching 450 volts. Although the victim - an actor - began demanding to be released due to pain, even feigning near-paralysis, the subjects continued.

• This study demonstrated that the subjects, the "ordinary men", were unable to defy the authority figure in the lab coat, the researcher.
• The researcher's urging and, when necessary, directing them to continue their duties led the subjects to cause emotional and physical distress.
• In a later variation of the Milgram experiment, the power of authority was further highlighted. When the researcher instructed the subject to stop delivering shocks, the subject refused to give any additional shocks, despite the victim's brave insistence that they continue.
• In yet another variation of the experiment, a conflict of authority was introduced: one researcher ordered the subject to stop administering shocks, while a second researcher commanded them to continue. This created a state of confusion for the subjects, who then tried frantically to determine which researcher's instructions they should follow, instinctively seeking to obey the higher-ranking authority figure.
• In summary, these findings demonstrate the sheer strength of authority - such as a government - in controlling our behaviour.

NOTE: In a variation of the Milgram experiment, the physical separation between the subject and the victim (not in the same room) significantly increased the likelihood of obedience. When the participant could not see the impact of the shocks on the victim, they were more willing to follow the researcher's orders. This concept of abstraction - being disconnected from the direct consequences of one's actions - is cited in the book Leaders Eat Last.

From birth, we are taught that obedience to proper authority is right and disobedience is wrong, through lessons from parents, stories and songs.

• From the start, authority figures, like parents, teachers and employers, knew more than we did. We found it beneficial to follow their advice, partly because of their greater wisdom and access to information, and partly because they controlled our rewards and punishments. It makes so much sense that we often obey authority when it makes no sense at all.
• Religious teachings, such as the biblical account of Adam and Eve's disobedience leading to the loss of paradise for all of humanity, also contribute to this belief.
• The correctness of an action, therefore, is judged not by its apparent senselessness, harmfulness, injustice or traditional moral standards, but by the mere command of a higher authority.
• Nonetheless, the accepted system of authority provides us with a valuable shortcut for deciding how to act in a situation and allows for the development of sophisticated structures for producing resources, trade, defense, expansion, and social control that would otherwise be impossible.

We are more likely to say "yes" to people in positions of authority - those with greater knowledge, experience or expertise.

• For example, physicians are highly respected authorities due to their knowledge and influence in health.
• This raises a worrisome possibility: when a physician makes a clear error, no one lower in the hierarchy (e.g. nurse, medical assistant) will think to question it.
• In fact, once a legitimate authority has given an order, subordinates stop thinking and start reacting.
• Worse still, the public's trust in authority is often abused by advertisers who hire actors to play the roles of doctors when promoting a product.

In advertisements, con artists use the authority principle by presenting symbols of authority rather than a genuine authority, yet our unthinking responses still react. In other words, people have a tendency to react to the mere appearance of authority rather than its substance.

• Titles
• Earning a title normally requires years of work and achievement.
• However, it is possible for someone who has put in none of the effort to adopt the mere label and receive automatic deference.
• Clothes
• It can be difficult to resist requests from figures in authority attire (e.g., security guards, doctors, or people in business suits).
• Trappings
• Finely styled, expensive clothes, high-priced jewellery and luxury cars carry an aura of economic standing and position.

A credible authority has two distinct features in the minds of an audience: expertise and trustworthiness.

• Expert - Knowledgeable on the relevant topic
• Expertise appears to create a halo effect for those who possess it; a therapist's office with multiple diplomas and professional certifications on the wall produces higher ratings not only for the therapist's proficiency but also for their kindness.
• Trustworthy - Honest in the presentation of one's knowledge
• We want to believe they are offering their expert advice in an honest and impartial fashion - that is, they are attempting to accurately depict reality rather than serve their own self-interests.
• If a communicator mentions a weakness early on, rather than describing all the most favourable features first and reserving any drawbacks until the end of the presentation, the audience is more likely to believe them.
• This is due to the perceived truthfulness already established by their honesty and willingness to point out negative aspects as well as positive ones.

Authorities are often experts, so it would be foolish to substitute our less-informed judgments for theirs in most cases. To determine when to follow an authority's directives, we should ask two questions:

• Is this authority truly an expert?
• Specifically, consider the authority’s credentials regarding the topic at hand.
• How truthful can I expect the expert to be?
• By considering how an expert might benefit from our compliance, we give ourselves another shield against undue and automatic influence.

Scarcity

The way to love anything is to realize that it might be lost.

Under conditions of risk and uncertainty, people are intensely motivated to make choices designed to avoid losing something of value, to a much greater extent than choices designed to obtain that same thing.

• The general idea of "loss aversion" is the centerpiece of Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman's prospect theory.
• In the business world, managers weigh potential losses more heavily than potential gains in their decisions.

Almost everyone is vulnerable to the scarcity principle in some form.

• As a rule, we want more of what is less available or dwindling in availability, such as antiques or double-struck coins.
• When a desirable item is rare or unavailable, people base its fair price on its scarcity, no longer on its perceived quality.
• To illustrate, we may choose to interrupt an interesting face-to-face conversation to answer a ringing phone call, as the caller may become unavailable and we may miss some valuable information.
• The "limited number" tactic - stating that a certain product is in short supply and cannot be guaranteed to last long - often stimulates purchases.
• This includes things like low-priced international and hotel bookings or unsold houses in a development project.
• The tactic increases a product's perceived value and turns shoppers into buyers.
• Rather than providing false "limited-number" information, the scarcity principle can be applied to a unique or uncommon feature of your product or service that cannot be obtained elsewhere either at the same price or at all.
• In the "deadline" tactic, an official time limit is imposed to pressure the customer to purchase immediately.
• After the deadline, the item may be available only at a higher price or not at all.

Psychological reactance describes our natural tendency to react against rules or restrictions that threaten or eliminate our freedom of choice. When an option is forbidden or limited, we often desire it more and feel a strong urge to reassert our freedom.

• The passion between Romeo and Juliet might have been nothing more than a flicker of puppy love, but it was fuelled by the extensive barriers their families put in place.
• In other words, parental interference can cause a couple's bond to strengthen, leading them to commit more firmly to the partnership and fall more deeply in love.
• Similarly, banning an item can drive people to smuggling and hoarding, as the forbidden item is suddenly perceived as more desirable and of higher quality.
• This applies to physical goods like guns or certain detergents, as well as to censored information like media violence, pornography or radical political rhetoric.
• In addition, messages are more effective if perceived as containing exclusive (scarce) information.
• When people perceive that a piece of information is part of an attempt to persuade them, they are immediately less likely to accept it because the effort feels like a threat to their freedom of choice.
• On the other hand, the recipient may feel obligated to the persuader because of a past favour (reciprocity), because the persuader is a nice person who deserves agreement (liking), or because they believe that many others have made the change (social proof), that experts recommend it (authority), or that the opportunity to take action is dwindling (scarcity).
• Alternatively, we can reduce psychological reactance by presenting the pros and cons of the suggested change and explicitly reaffirming the recipient's freedom to choose.

The scarcity principle is most likely to hold under two optimizing conditions.

• First, scarce items are heightened in value when they are newly scarce.
• That is, we value things that have recently become restricted more than we do things that were restricted all along.
• When it comes to freedoms, it is more dangerous to have given for a while than never to have given at all.
• Similarly, when parents enforce rules inconsistently, they often raise rebellious children. This is because the children are reacting against the constant threat to freedoms they thought they had established.
• Second, we are most attracted to scarce resources when we have to compete with others for them.
• Advertisers often exploit this tendency by using phrases like "popular demand" and "hurry to buy" to create a sense of urgency and competition.

Because those around us value scarce resources, we prefer to be seen as possessing unique features that make us special, such as in situations with romantic possibilities where we want to attract the interest of potential partners.

• Another context where we feel a strong need to express our uniqueness is in matters of taste.
• We normally shift our beliefs and opinions to conform to others (social proof), which we do as a way to be correct.
• When it comes to issues of taste, however in clothing, hairstyles, scents, food, music and the like, there is a countervailing motivation to distance ourselves from the crowd for reasons of distinctiveness.
• Even in matters of taste, though, group pressures can be strong.

It is difficult to steel ourselves cognitively against scarcity pressures because they have an emotion-arousing quality that makes thinking difficult.

• In defense, we might try to be alert to a rush of emotion in situations involving scarcity.
• Once alerted, we can take steps to calm ourselves and assess why we want the item.
• If the answer is that we want it primarily for the purpose of owning it, then we should use its availability to help gauge how much we would want to spend for it.
• If the answer is that we want it primarily for its function or utility value, then we must remember that scarce things do not taste, feel, or work any better because of their limited availability.

Commitment and Consistency

I am today what I established yesterday or some previous day.

Amazon's "Pay to Quit" program offers an incentive of up to $5,000 for those who choose to leave.

• The choice to stay or leave does not just identify disengaged workers; it encourages employees to take a moment and think about what they really want.
• The resulting decision to stay fosters employee commitment, which is highly related to productivity.

After a decision is finalized, a person's confidence in making the right choice often improves significantly.

• This is because we have a strong desire to be, and appear, consistent with what we have already said or done. Once we make a choice or take a stand, we face both internal and external pressures to behave consistently with that commitment. These pressures then cause us to act in ways that justify our decisions. This drive to be consistent is a powerful force, often causing us to act in ways that are contrary to our own best interest.
• To illustrate, propelled by the rule of consistency, once a person chooses to stay in a failing relationship, they may opt to remain devoted despite a more logical alternative.

While blind consistency can be disastrous, it also offers a valuable shortcut through the complexities of modern life.

• Once we make a decision, our desire for consistency provides a convenient escape from rigorous thought.
• We no longer have to expend mental energy weighing pros and cons, searching for new facts, or making any further tough decisions on the matter.
• This mental shortcut allows us to "hide from reality" by removing the need to face the potentially harsh consequences of our choice.

Within the realm of compliance, once a commitment is made, a natural tendency emerges: people feel an internal pressure to behave in ways that are stubbornly consistent with their original stand.

• To manipulate this principle, the strategy is elementary: start small and build.
• An initial commitment can be minor (e.g. signing a petition or making written statement), yet it subconsciously alters a person's self-image to be consistent with that small deed.
• This is why progressively escalating commitments can eventually induce individuals to perform much larger favours.
• Commitments are most effective when they are active, public, effortful and viewed as internally motivated (voluntary). While external pressures like a large reward or a harsh punishment can force us to perform an action, they would not make us accept inner responsibility for it.

This tactic of starting with a little request to gain eventual compliance with related, larger requests is known as the "foot-in-the-door" technique.

• It is heavily used by charitable organizations and salespeople; the moment you agree to a small initial order, your identity shifts from a "prospect" to a "customer", making you more likely to agree to bigger purchases later.

Commitment decisions, even erroneous ones, have a tendency to be self-perpetuating because they can "grow their own legs".

• People often add new reasons and justifications to support a decision they have already made.
• As a consequence, a commitment often remains in effect long after the initial conditions that spurred it have changed.
• This phenomenon explains the effectiveness of the deceptive "low-ball" technique.
• A salesperson first proposes an attractive deal to secure a customer's favourable decision.
• Then, just before the sale is finalized, they either remove the initial sweet part of the offer or add an unforeseen negative one.
• Because the customer's commitment has already grown its own legs, they often proceed with the deal anyway, justifying it with the new reasons they have developed.

Mere reminders of past commitments (e.g. signages, posters) can spur individuals to act in accord with those earlier positions, stands or actions.

Since automatic consistency is so useful most of the time, we cannot get rid of it entirely. The only way out of the dilemma is to know when that consistency is likely to lead to a poor choice.

• Stomach signs
• When we realize we are trapped into complying with a request we know we do not want to perform.
• Heart-of-heart signs
• They are best employed when it is not clear to us that an initial commitment was wrongheaded.
• Here, we should ask ourselves a crucial question: "Knowing what I now know, if I could go back in time, would I make the same commitment?"
• An informative answer may come as the first flash of feeling registered.

NOTE: Writing down goals and new commitments, or declaring them to others, is a technique advocated by many self-help books, such as Think and Grow Rich. This method can be powerfully transformative because it fundamentally alters one's thinking by leveraging the commitment and consistency principle. This psychological principle, detailed in the book Influence by Robert Cialdini, states that people have a deep-seated need to be consistent with their past decisions and public declarations. When we commit to a goal in writing or by telling others, we feel an internal pressure to align our self-image and subsequent actions with that commitment.

Unity

Automatically and incessantly, everyone divides people into those to whom the pronoun we does and does not apply.

• "We" relationships are not those that allow people to say, "Oh, that person is like us". They are the ones that allow people to say, "Oh, that person is one of us".
• Those within the boundaries of "we" get more agreement, trust, help, liking, cooperation, emotional support and forgiveness, and are even judged as being more creative, moral and humane.
• The unity rule of influence can thus be worded: People are inclined to say yes to someone they consider one of them.

The experience of unity is not about simple similarities (although those can work, too, via the liking principle).

• It is about shared identities; Tribe-like categories that individuals use to define themselves and their groups, such as race, ethnicity, nationality and family, as well as political and religious affiliations.
• Within "we" relationship groups, people often fail to distinguish correctly between their own traits and those of fellow members, which reflects a confusion of self and other.

Three constants have emerged in "we" relationship across a wide range of domains such as business, politics, sports and personal relationships.

• Members of "we"-based groups favour the outcomes and welfare of fellow members over those of nonmembers by a mile.
• To illustrate, loan officers may approve more loan applications and give more favourable terms to applicants of the same religion.
• In National Basketball Association games, officials call fewer fouls against own-race players.
• "We"-group members are highly likely to use the preferences and actions of fellow members to guide their own, which is a tendency that ensures group solidarity.
• Instructively, the closer the friendship (and the accompanying sense of unity), the stronger the influence of our friend's behaviours on our own.
• Such partisan tendencies have arisen, evolutionarily, as ways to advantage our "we"-groups and ultimately, ourselves.

The perception of belonging together with others is one fundamental factor leading to feelings of "we"-ness.

• This perception is generated by commonalities of kinship (amount of genetic overlap) as well as by commonalities of place (including one's home, locality and region).
• People are particularly willing to help genetically close relatives, especially in survival-related decisions.
• For individuals with no special genetic connection, the power of kinship can be employed through using family-related language and imagery, such as "brothers", "sisterhood", "motherland", "ancestry", "legacy" and "heritage".
• People in the home are typically family members. When people observe their parents caring for another's needs in the home, they experience a family-like feeling and become more willing to give to that other. Their sense of "we"-ness expands beyond immediate and extended relatives, making them more willing to help strangers whom they now see as part of the larger human family.
• Amazon product buyers were more likely to follow the recommendation of a reviewer who lived in the same state.

The experience of acting together in unison or coordination - through songs, marches, rituals, chants, prayers and dances - is a second fundamental factor leading to a sense of unity with others.

• Similar to kinship, acting together brings enhanced liking and greater support from others who are moving in unison with us.
• This powerful feeling of unity leads to a greater willingness to sacrifice personal gain for the group's greater good.
• When partners reciprocally disclose personal information through a series of questions, their relationship can deepen beyond expectations.
• Other ways to build unity involve shared adversity and co-creation.
• A deep bond can be forged when people overcome a difficult, shared experience. This forms the basis of corporate team-building events.
• Creating something with another person forges a special affinity for both the creation and the co-creator.

Once exploiters perceive that they are inside our “we”-groups, they seek to profit from our primal tendencies to minimize, excuse and even enable the misdeeds of fellow members.

• Regarding ethical conduct in the workplace, labor unions exhibit a significant flaw. They often protect and defend unethical individuals, even in the face of clear evidence of egregious and persistent violations, purely because the violator is a fellow member.
• In their scandalous handling of rapacious priests who preyed on children, church authorities may not only forgive the abuse but also suppress information about it.
• Similarly, in legal cases, the unified goal of winning as a "we-group" can create tension between professional responsibilities and scientific integrity.
  
• To combat corruption within a “we”-group, unethical actions must be recognized and not leniently tolerated. Ideally, a strict no-tolerance policy mandating dismissal for proven abuses should be established.

Summary

While both Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People and Robert Cialdini's Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion deal with human behaviour, they come from very different perspectives and serve distinct purposes.

• Carnegie's book focuses on helping you build genuine relationships without resorting to manipulation. It is ideal for improving interpersonal communication, leadership skills, and likeability.
• Cialdini's book explains how people are influenced, with a focus on persuasion tactics. This makes it particularly useful for sales and marketing professionals.

Upon reading Cialdini’s Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, it becomes clear that his six principles are essentially real-world applications of the heuristics discussed by Daniel Kahneman in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow.

• For example, the availability heuristic is evident in social proof, loss aversion in scarcity and the anchoring effect in the door-in-the-face technique.