Steve's Primer of Practical Persuasion and Influence (Chapters 1-4) PDF

Adapted From Steve's Primer of Practical Persuasion and Influence Table of Contents 1. Introduction to the Science of Influence and Persuasion 2. Attitude Drives Behavior 3. Dual Process Persuasion 4. The...

Adapted From Steve's Primer of Practical Persuasion and Influence Table of Contents 1. Introduction to the Science of Influence and Persuasion 2. Attitude Drives Behavior 3. Dual Process Persuasion 4. The Cues of Life 5. Stages of Change 6. Attribution Theory 7. Consistency 8. Inoculation Theory 9. Social Judgement Theory 10. Reactance 11. Sequential Requests 12. Message Characteristics 13. Classical Conditioning 14. Reinforcement 15. Modeling…Monkey See, Monkey Do 1  1. Introduction to Influence and Persausion (The Difference) Influence is our umbrella term. Any time a source deliberately attempts to change a receiver's thoughts, feelings, or behaviors, influence has occurred. Persuasion is under the umbrella as a special case of influence. When a source deliberately uses communication to try and change a receiver's attitude, then persuasion has occurred. Both influence and persuasion concern deliberate change, but diverge because persuasion requires communication (verbal and nonverbal messages) and persuasion seeks attitude change. By contrast influence can procede without communication and may achieve behavior (external) change without gaining attitude (internal) change. One final key word: Attitude. Attitude is a person's evaluation of an object of thought. A person holds up an evaluative (good to bad) yardstick and judges objects against that scale. McDonald’s Restaurant : Good or Bad? Twenty five page library papers: Good or Bad? Repetitive Examples: Good or Bad? Persuasion, not influence, seeks to change attitudes because... 2. Attitudes Drive Behavior Okay, quick review. First, influence occurs when a source deliberately tries to change a receiver. Second, persuasion occurs when a source deliberately uses communication to change a receiver's attitude. Third, an attitude is a person's evaluation of an object of thought. What's the big deal with "attitudes?" I mean, why even define the thing and study it? The answer as we'll develop is simple as ABC. AN ANSWER OR TWO There are two reasons why we should sometimes focus on changing attitudes. First, sometimes we can't directly influence behavior and we have to find a proxy or indirect agent. Second, attitudes play a major role in determining behavior. Let's consider each of these ideas. Free Will or You Can't Make Me. The most direct way to change somebody is influence. Change behavior, right? Behavior is the real deal, the main point, the focus, so why diddle around with things like attitude. Well, a lot of the time, you don't have control over other people's actual behavior. People do have free choice and pretty much do as they please. And we can't make them do what we want by merely stomping our foot or asking pretty please with sugar on top. Furthermore, there might be times when we do have very direct control over someone's behavior ("I’m watching you!"), but the influence lasts only as long as we maintain that control. As soon as we exit the scene, our controlled receivers will revert to prior form and do pretty much as they please. Therefore, if you cannot directly control another person's behavior, then you have to find a better way for getting that behavior. Attitudes Drive Behavior or Maybe I Can Make You. 2 Believe it or not one of the best ways to change other people's behavior is to change their attitudes about the object in question. As we'll develop in this primer and in class, attitudes often drive behavior. If we can change attitudes then we are in position to influence other people's behavior. This is truly fascinating. We can still obtain the behavior we want from others but if that behavior is now driven by attitude rather than control, our lives are much easier. Most obviously, we don't have to be in the room "Watching" the receivers to make sure they produced the desired behavior. They'll do that themselves because their attitude is favorable toward that behavior. Great, we've discovered a secret: Attitudes drive behavior. So, all we must do is figure out how to change attitudes and we're off to the races, sitting there at the track with all those other cool change agents like the folks who invented the Thigh Master (and made over ten million bucks on a big plastic clothespin that has about as much impact on your fitness and appearance as wishful thinking does). But wait, think a moment. There are times when people do not behave consistently with their attitudes. The best (or worst) example of this concerns risky behaviors. Everyone at some point in their lives has performed some stupid, dangerous, or malicious behavior even they knew at the time that the action was stupid, dangerous, or malicious. Just think about peer group pressure. Simply because your buddies were doing "it" or urging you to try "it," not because you had a positive attitude toward the action, you did the risky behavior. So we got a two part problem here. First, we gotta figure out how to change the atttitude. Second, we gotta figure out how to make people use that attitude. This is important. You must see the two steps or else you'll probably fail at persuasion. First get the attitude change. Second, get the attitude to drive behavior. Making Attitudes Drive Behavior Now, most of this primer and the course will help with the first problem. There are a lot of different ways to get attitude change. The rest of this chapter will focus on the second problem. How do you get attitudes to drive behavior? I've got the answer. The Conceptual Model of Attitude-Behavior Consistency: The ABCs. To create a conceptual model, we’re going to integrate the thinking of two different researchers. Russ Fazio and Mark Snyder have made a strong case that certain conditions improve the likelihood that people will show attitude-behavior consistency. And, if these conditions are not met, then Fazio and Snyder predict attitudes will not drive behavior. Here's the thinking. The conceptual model of the ABCs says that two factors make attitude drive behaviors: Attitude availability and attitude relevance. These factors are straightforward and obvious. If a given attitude is available (or accessible or active or operative or vigorous or supply your own synonym here), then it is more likely to drive behavior. If a given attitude is relevant (or useful or applicable or pertinent), then it is more likely to drive behavior. Let's dig on availability and relevance. An attitude is available when you can think of it, when you know that you've got an attitude on this topic, and when that attitude is "turned on." The best illustration of this concerns the "priming" paradigm. Priming is essentially a setup activity where you do something that gets a person fired up or poised to think about something. Consider this example. 3 If I want you to have a bad attitude about your dating partner's attractiveness, I will prime you by having you look at pictures of very sexy models first. If I want you to have a good attitude toward your partner's attractiveness, I'll prime you by having you look at pictures of relatively ugly models first. The priming task (viewing pictures of models) activates your attitudes about "attractiveness." Then when I ask you to make a judgment about your partner, those primed attitudes will be available to guide your behavior (and drive how you rate your partner). See the implication? To produce the correct ABCs (attitude-behavior consistency), make sure the attitude is available. Now what was the second factor? Yeah, right. Relevance. An attitude is relevant when it applies to the situation at hand. When you're watching a big football match at the stadium and the crowd is cheering for the home team, your attitudes about this persuasion course will have no impact on whether you join in with the cheer. That attitude and that situation is not relevant. However, when you're in class and you observe other people joining in the class discussion, your attitudes toward the class should determine your communication behavior. (And you'll join right in, huh?) Another obvious implication. Attitudes will drive behavior when the attitude is relevant in the situation. Availability and relevance seem so obvious and simple that no one should even have to say this out loud. Of course attitudes will not drive behavior when you aren't aware of your attitude (not available) or you're aware, but the attitude isn't useful (not relevant). Duh. Well, they are obvious now that we've thought about it, but most people in the real world overlook this simple conceptual model. Most people most of the time think all they have to do is produce the attitude change and then forever onward the receiver will show the desired, attitude-driven behavior. It just ain't so. The real world is littered with instances where people do not show the ABCs. Okay, on a fairly abstract and general level we have a solution to our two part problem. To insure that the attitude change we created actually drives behavior we must also insure that the attitude is available and relevant when we want the behavior. An Application Let's construct a real world application of the ABC Model. We've already done some heavy lifting and created attitude change in a receiver. Now we want to make sure that our hard won attitude change actually leads to behavior change. What do we do? Consider this example. Melanie used to like a high fat diet, but I worked on her with a bunch of powerful persuasion tactics that now produce in her a negative attitude about a high fat diet. How can I make sure her new attitude shows in a new behavior? As we get out of the car in the parking lot at the grocery store I ask her if she saw that story on CNN about the new low fat substitute that the government has just approved. I make it sound natural and conversational so it's no big deal. I get her to talk about the story. If she saw it, great. If not, I can tell her a little about it. Either way, I've activated the attitude and it is now available. And since I'm having this conversation as we're enter the grocery store, the attitude is clearly relevant because she's getting ready to buy food. 4 And if the ABC Model is correct, then all I have to do from here on out is keep my mouth shut and let her attitude guide her behavior. And when she moves through the store, she will automatically be thinking about the fat content of the food she's buying. An Implication This discussion of the ABCs has one very practical implication. Mere attitude change is not sufficient to guarantee the behavior change we desire. We must take an additional step in the real world to obtain the attitude-behavior consistency we seek. We must make sure that the attitude is both available and relevant in a given situation. When these two conditions apply, we'll get our ABCs quite nicely. RECOMMENDED READINGS AND REFERENCES Fazio, R., (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In M. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol 23, (pp. 75-109). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Snyder, M. (1982). When believing means doing: Creating links between attitudes and behavior. In M. Zanna, E. Higgins, & C. Herman (Eds.) Consistency in Social Behavior: The Ontario Symposium, vol 2 (pp. 105-130). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 5  3. DUAL PROCESS PERSUASION How do you get others to change? Since antiquity, people have tried to answer that question. It is occupied the time and efforts of some of the best minds civilization has produced. Frankly, no one has yet discovered the ultimate and final answer to the question. We truly cannot explain all the causes and consequences of influence. As a result, if you take the time to read widely in this area, you will be struck by the diversity and range of answers that social scientists have given to our question. If you have even taken a moment to scan the chapters of this book, you were probably surprised at the number of different approaches. How can we organize all these different ideas? In this chapter you will find the current answer to this question. The main point of this new approach is aptly suggested by what could be the subtitle of this chapter, "Hmmmm, I'm thinking, maybe." The dual process approach claims that a person's mode of thinking determines influence. We are going to use the Dual Process as our major blueprint in this book, so pay close attention to this chapter. You may want to read it carefully a couple of times to make sure you've got it. ASSUMPTIONS OF THE DUAL PROCESS APPROACH The dual process approach is quite simple and based on four assumptions about people and influence. In this section, we will explain and give examples of the four assumptions. Later, we will put it all together. Assumption 1: There are two relatively distinct modes of thinking that a person may employ. One mode is called the "systematic" mode and the other is called the "heuristic" mode. The systematic mode refers to a person who is carefully and effortfully thinking. The thought process is active, creative, and alert. The heuristic mode, by contrast, is at the other extreme of thinking. Here the person is not really thinking very carefully and instead is skimming along the surface of ideas. They are thinking enough to be aware of the situation, but they are not thinking carefully enough to catch flaws, errors, and inconsistencies in the situation. Assumption 2: Situational and personality variables affect which mode of thinking a person will employ. People are flexible in their thinking and can move back and forth between the two modes. Sometimes we are systematic and other times we are heuristic. The mode we use depends on situational and personality factors. For example, if the situation has strong personal relevance for us (imagine you see a newspaper editorial entitled, "Requiring Senior Comprehensive Exams for ESCEM Students"), chances are we will use the systematic mode of thinking. Now, if the situation has little relevance to us (you see an editorial entitled, "Competency Testing for Lawyers"), chances are you will use the heuristic mode of thinking as you read the editorial. People also have strong individual preferences for particular modes of thinking. Some people have a high need for cognition and typically think carefully about things most of the time. By contrast some people have a low need for cognition and typically think as little as possible about a situation. In between are most people who are more sensitive to situational factors. 6 Thus, our mode of thought can be driven by the situation or our personality predispositions. Note that even people who prefer to be heuristic thinkers can still shift into the systematic mode when the situation calls for it. Assumption 3: Persuasion variables will have different effects depending upon the mode of thinking employed. When people are in the systematic mode, certain things will be very important and influential to them. While reading that editorial on Senior Comprehensives, the systematic thinker will be looking for facts, evidence, examples, reasoning, and logic. We will call these things, "arguments." By contrast, when people are in the heuristic mode, other things will be important. Since arguments (facts, evidence, reasoning, etc.) require a lot of cognitive effort and energy, the heuristic thinker won't use them very much. Instead, easier to process information will be employed. Things like the attractiveness, friendliness, or expertise of the source will be more influential for the heuristic thinker. We will call these things, "cues." This assumption is very important, because it suggests that there is no single factor (or list of factors) that is a surefire path to success. Depending upon the receiver's mode of thinking, some variables will work and others won't. Assumption 4: Influence achieved through the systematic mode is more persistent over time, more resistant to change, and more predictive of behavior than influence from the heuristic mode. When people are thinking systematically, if they are influenced, it is more likely to stick precisely because they thought about it more carefully, fully, and deeply. For heuristic thinkers, however, any influence is likely to be rather short lived, simply because they did not really think that much. Now, here's a real interesting point. This assumptions says nothing about magnitude differences. There is no claim made that the systematic path leads to more attitude change or influence compared the heuristic path or vice versa. This means that regardless of path, we can get the same amount of change in a receiver. Thus, in the immediate, short term situation, whether the receiver is systematic or heuristic, whether we provide arguments or cues, we can still get the same magnitude or amount of influence. This is very important to remember. Both paths lead to the same amount of influence. Persistence, resistance, and prediction, however, favor the systematic path. A VISUAL DISPLAY Let's take the assumptions and arrange them in a visual display. Central Route Peripheral Route Thinking Mode systematic heuristic Influence Tool arguments cues Magnitude equal equal Persistence longer shorter 7  Resistance stronger weaker Prediction higher lower ARE THERE REALLY ONLY TWO MODES? The assumptions of the dual process approach make it sound like there is this little mental switch inside us that moves us from one track to another. Are there really only two modes of thinking? Is there nothing in between? These are interesting questions and most current research seems to say that there are only two modes with nothing in between. This approach certainly simplifies the theory and, believe it or not, there is some pretty good evidence to suggest that people really do have only two modes of thought. This leaves open another interesting possibility. Maybe there are only two modes of thought, but is it possible to use both modes at the sametime? That is maybe people use both systematic and heuristic thinking with arguments and cues. The answer to the question appears to depend upon the time frame we're looking at. Over a long period of time (like during an advertising campaign that runs several weeks) it is obvious that people would engage in both systematic and heuristic thinking, but at different time periods. Thus, the first time a person sees an ad, it might be processed heuristically. But, then later, when that person is in the market to buy the advertised product, the processing mode might shift to systematic. However, when you shorten the time period of the experiment, the research record is mixed. Some researchers have found limited evidence of "dual processing" where people use both arguments and cues. For our purposes, we will stick with the basic assumption: Two modes, systematic or heuristic, one at a time. HOW DO YOU SHIFT MODES? This is a $64,000 question. We realize that systematic thinkers want arguments and heuristic thinkers want cues. We also know that systematic thinkers, if they are influenced, will show changes that are more persistent, resistant, and predictive. How do we get people to be systematic thinkers? First of all, a lot of research and simple common sense indicates that most people most of the time are in the heuristic mode. They are sometimes called, "cognitive misers." Less politely, it means that people are lazy thinkers who do not want to expend the energy needed to think carefully and effortfully about something. If you don't believe me and think that people are instead usually systematic thinkers, I have a task for you. Put down this book right now and go over to the TV. Turn it on and watch only the commercials for awhile. For the overwhelming majority of ads, how much thinking do you have to do? That's right, not much. Now, if people were usually in that systematic mode, advertisers would not show the kind of commercials we see. Ads are long on cues and short on arguments. 8 People think enough to meet the minimum demands of the situation. That is the status quo and it means we spend most of our time as heuristic thinkers. But as teachers, we have a different agenda. We want our students to change and we want that change to last. That means systematic thinking, which returns us to the $64,000 question. Quite surprisingly, there are many ways to get systematic thinking. I will describe two. They are relevance and comprehension. Perhaps the most important factor in causing systematic processing is the relevance of the issue to the receiver. When people believe the situation is personally important to them, they are much more likely to systematically think about it. If the situation holds little relevance, they will stay in the heuristic mode. Thus, you must demonstrate how the issue is meaningful and relevant to your students if you want them to by systematic thinkers. In other words, your students must be motivated to think. The second factor is comprehension. This is such an obvious consideration that it seems silly to mention it. But the fact is many influence efforts fail simply because receivers could not comprehend the appeal. When a source presents information that is complex, dense, abstruse, recondite, esoteric (I'm running out of entries in my thesaurus!), in other words when receivers have to work too hard to understand, they will not systematically process the information. Instead they will drop back into a heuristic mode. In essence, you must make sure that your students have the ability to think about the issue. Throughout this book we will encounter ways that teachers can affect the processing mode by changing motivation and ability to think. Keep an eye out for these factors. WHAT'S THE LIST OF ARGUMENTS AND CUES? Once we have established the mode, we have to provide the correct influence agent. If we get the right match between mode and agent, we are successful. If we get the wrong match, we have a problem. The Argument List. Systematic thinkers want arguments. It should be easy to produce lists of arguments and away we go. But, hold on a minute and think about this hypothetical. A young kid needs a new pair of sneakers. So the kid and dad hop in the Vanagan and hit the local mall. Let's assume that both the kid and the dad are systematic thinkers as they try to decide which sneakers to buy. Okay, they're both systematic thinkers, so that means they both want arguments. From the dad's point of view, what are the arguments for choosing between the various sneakers? 1. How much do they cost? 2. How long will they last? 3. Is the store nearby? 4. Will they take a personal check? Now, consider the list of arguments from the kid's perspective. 1. Does Michael Jordan endorse them? 2. Do all the other guys wear them? 3. Would that great looking girl go out with me if I had 'em? 9 You see the problem. Arguments depend upon the receiver. Thus, to develop a list of arguments for any given persuasion situation requires some careful thought on the part of the persuasion source. In essence a persuasion source asks this question: What is of central importance to the receiver? If you can figure out the answers to this question and the receiver is in the systematic mode, then you will be effective as a persuader. You will also generate persistent, resistant, and predictive attitude change. This is an important point and I want to give you an example to illustrate the "relative" meaning of arguments. The example concerns teenagers and smoking. In the past, persuasion sources (parents, teachers, the federal government) have tried to prevent teenage smoking with arguments based on health ("smoking causes cancer"). And despite the best efforts of all concerned, teens continue to smoke. Why? The health argument lacks central importance to a teenager. Teenagers still embrace the myth of immortality and they know they will live forever, maybe even to forty. Threats about cancer and death are empty. New approaches use different arguments and have shown better results. The new arguments are based on social factors ("you smell bad if you smoke," "no one wants to kiss somebody with cigarette breath"). Peer acceptance and approval are of central importance to teens. These arguments appear to be more powerful to teenagers and hence produce the kind of change we prefer. The main point is this: There is no cookbook list of arguments because argument quality depends upon the receiver. To produce good arguments, you must understand your receivers and be able to think the way they do. The Cue List. Now, let's focus attention on cues. A cue is something that can influence a receiver, but requires minimal thinking. Is it really possible to influence someone this way? Watch the beer commercials on TV for the answer. Young, attractive women wearing skimpy bikinis are among the dominant images on these ads. No reasonable person would ever claim that these young women are arguments for the beer. (Unless the receiver really believes that the girl comes with the case.) Well, then maybe those girls are simply used to get the receiver's attention and make them systematic thinkers about the beer ad. If you believe that, I've got a bridge you might be interested in. Half naked women do not encourage systematic thinking about beer. The only thing we are left with is a cue. People (usually men) watch the beer ad and see the attractive girls. The men like this in a way that requires little thinking on their part. And they simply associate that good feeling with the beer and viola, influence without thought. But does it work? Bet the ranch on it. The effects of attractiveness on the heuristic thinker are very powerful. Here are more quick examples. Ever been to a Tupperware party and ended up buying something you don't really need or want simply because you see you other friends buying things? 10 Have you ever had a good kid in class do something really stupid just because the peer group expects it? There are many other cues. Somebody like Michael Jordan sells sneakers with his expertise. Somebody like Bill Cosby sells Jello with his trustworthiness. There are a lot of persuasion cues and we will discuss them throughout the rest of this book. In fact, cues are so important I offer this rule: What to do? Use a Cue. IMPLICATIONS The dual process model has three important implications for persuasion. While the model sounds abstract, it does apply to our everyday life in practical ways. Consider these ideas. 1. Monitor and control the mental state. This is a major point. People who are adept at "reading" their receivers are more likely to be effective persuaders. If you can figure out the mental state, you've taken a giant step toward success. But how can you judge another person's mental state? There are two primary areas to look at. First, observe nonverbal behaviors. Generally speaking, if you observe behaviors that indicate attentiveness, alertness, and thoughtfulness, you can begin to assume your receiver is in the systematic mode. As you see behaviors that demonstrate distraction, boredom, or laziness, you can assume that your receiver is in the heuristic mode. Second, simply ask questions. Get your receiver to respond. Then judge the quality of the responses. Do they sound thoughtful and reasonable? Or instead, does your receiver ask you to repeat the question or give answers that are off the wall? When people are in that systematic mode they look and act differently than when they are in the heuristic mode. Learn to get a sense of this by observing the nonverbal behavior of your receivers. It will make you a better friend, too. 2. Match the right influence tool (arguments or cues) with the correct mental state (systematic or heuristic). You don't need an umbrella on a sunny day and heuristic thinkers will not heed arguments. You have to identify correctly what the receivers mental state is, then provide either arguments or cues. This is probably the biggest mistake people make in their persuasion attempts. It can be extremely frustrating to develop great arguments or cues, but then see them fail because you used them at the "wrong" time. The dual process approach explains that at minimum, two elements must be present and coordinated: Mental state and influence tool. 3. When in doubt, take the peripheral route. 11 In most situations, most people are in the heuristic mode. Yet when most of us try to persuade others, we are in a systematic mode. And we often make the unfortunate error of assuming that everyone else is thinking the say way. So what do we do? We go off with all the great arguments about why somebody should change. And how does our target respond: "Like cool, dude. Could you pass the salsa, dude?" They weren't willing and able to think systematically and all our hard work is down the tubes. I think we'd be better off if we used cues more often. Particularly when the teacher goes off about keeping the room neat or turning assignments in on time or, well, select your favorite problem, students seldom listen to the good arguments that teachers like to use. The reason is they are not willing and able to think about those good arguments. Teachers would be much better off if they stopped relying on the arguments and tried cues. That would provide the match between mode of thinking and influence agent. This is not to say that teachers should not use arguments. As we have already developed, when people systematically think about persuasion arguments, the influence will last longer, be more resistant to change, and motivate behavior. We want that kind of change. But first you must make sure that your kids are willing and able to do the needed thinking. If you cannot assure yourself that your receivers are in such a frame of mind, it is useless and frustrating to try and influence with arguments. 4. Develop arguments from the point of view of the receiver. During the mid-1980s, Burger King spent millions of dollars on a major advertising campaign. The purpose of this campaign was not merely to sell a few more burgers, but to challenge McDonald's for leadership in the very competitive fast food market. Burger King did a lot of careful planning, a lot of quiet pretesting, and then unleashed its ad attack. The campaign was built around a character named Herb. Herb was a balding, thin fellow, who wore glasses, black pants that were too short, and white socks. Herb was supposed to be a whimsical sort of Everyman that we could all identify with. It didn't work. No one identified with Herb and in fact there were a lot of Herb jokes. The ad campaign totally backfired on Burger King and actually had the effect of selling fewer burgers. The campaign, which was to run for over a year, was killed in a month. Somehow, Burger King had terribly misunderstood the market and had produced messages that no one found to be compelling or influential or even enjoyable. We can do the same thing if we are not careful. Usually the worst arguments are precisely the ones we prefer. (Like the young boy who bought a special birthday gift for his mom: A catcher's mitt.) We offer arguments that are compelling and powerful to us. And, we tend to assume that other people will respond the same way. That's a bad assumption. The best way to develop good arguments is to observe carefully your target. Really listen to them. Ask them about the music they like and the movies they watch. Pay attention to the clothes they wear and the language they use. People who tune into others will develop an intuitive sense of what makes a good argument and what makes a bad argument. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS 12 Booth-Butterfield, S., et al. (1994). Simultaneous versus exclusive processing of persuasion arguments and cues. Communication Quarterly, 42, 21-45. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. Zanna, J. Olson, & C. Herman (Eds.) Social influence: The Ontario symposium, Volume 5 (pp. 3-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. Uleman & J. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought, (pp.212-252). New York: Guilford. Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). Communication and persuasion: The central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer-Verlag: New York. 13  4. THE CUES OF LIFE This chapter is based on the work of a researcher who is vitally concerned with persuasion in real life. His name is Robert Cialdini and his ideas are extremely interesting to teachers and anyone else who uses influence for a living. As Cialdini describes in his very readable book, he learned about real life persuasion by living with professionals. He took part-time jobs with sales groups that pushed vacuum cleaners or aluminum siding or dance lessons. He hung out with cops who worked the bunco squad. He worked with fund- raising groups and advertisers. And he did this as a trainee, not as a scientist, so that the people felt comfortable with him. From his experiences, he derived six general Cues of influence. These Cues appear to transcend occupation, region, personality, and education. In other words, they work in many different situations. These six Cuess also share another important similarity: They operate as mental short cuts. That is, a person can use each rule with very little thought. This is the heuristic mode as we learned in the Dual Process Models. This is a critical point about the Cues. They work best when the receiver is not carefully, deeply, and systematically thinking. The Cues apply only when the receiver is being the lazy thinker, the cognitive miser who uses mental shortcuts to save time and effort. As soon as the receiver changes the mode of thinking from heuristic to systematic, the Cue evaporates. For each Cue, I will give you a one word label, then a statement of the Cue. By the way... can you figure out what CLARCCS is? THE CLARCCS CUES Comparison. When Others Are Doing It, You Should, Too. Few can resist this. You are walking down the street and you notice ahead of you three or four people just standing there on the street looking straight up in the air. As you move closer to them, what do you do? You look straight up in the air. Is it a bird, is it a plane? No, it's the Comparison Rule. When others are doing it, you should, too. When we are not thinking very carefully, we use the behavior of other people as a guide to what we should think or do. We essentially compare our behavior against the standard of what everybody else is doing. If there is a discrepancy between our actions and what we observe in others, we change. Here are more examples of the Comparison Rule. TV producers will add a laugh track to even the most witless situation comedy as a way of inducing our laughter. And it works. If there are two audiences watching the same comedy, but one comedy has a laugh track added to it and the other doesn't, guess which audience will laugh more? Right. The one with the laugh track. I suspect TV producers learned this trick from the theater. In the past (and it may still go on today) theatrical producers hired professional audience members. These highly skilled people would show 14 up to a new play or musical or opera and provide the "proper" response at the right time. They would start applauding when the star entered or begin crying when the heroine died or erupt into gales of laughter when the clowns walked on. This would elicit the desired response from the audience who would automatically start clapping or sobbing or giggling on this cue. And even religious groups are aware of and use the Comparison Rule. There is a practice known as "salting the collection plate." Before the collection plates are handed out to the faithful, ushers will throw several different bills or checks onto the plate. Thus, no one ever gets an empty plate. This makes a considerable difference in contributions. People are slow to fill up an empty collection plate and a little salt gets things going. Also, the heavier the salt, the stronger the contribution. That is, you get more contributions if you salt the plate with tens and twenties than if you salt it with ones and fives. Liking. When You Like the Source, Do What Is Requested. Joe Gerard sells cars and trucks. He sells a lot of them as a matter of fact. Some consider him to be the Greatest Car Salesman in the World. What is his secret? Every month Joe Gerard sends a hand written card to every customer he has ever had and signs it, "I like you, Joe Gerard." That's all. "I like you, Joe Gerard." Now, he does send out a lot of cards every month (13,000 he estimates), but he swears by the tactic. Is such a simple thing as, "I like you," sufficient for influence? Another example. What happens at a Tupperware party? A group of people who know each other come over to the house of a mutual friend. Everybody eats a little. Everybody chats a bit. Everybody has a little fun. Then the mutual friend steps up and introduces a new person. And the new person breaks out the product, Tupperware. Gee, isn't that new person friendly? Isn't that Tupperware grand? Everybody smiles, everybody laughs, everybody buys something. Of course, Tupperware is not the only product sold in this way. Mary Kay Cosmetics has pushed a lot of powder with these kind of parties. The important point is this: The basis of the sale is liking. The receiver likes somebody involved in the transaction. Maybe you like the sales person. Maybe you like the friend throwing the party. Exactly who you like is less relevant than the fact that you like somebody. (I'll also bet some Comparison is operating here, too. You see other people buying things, so you buy too.) Last example... physically attractive people are very influential in our society, but the primary reason appears to be that we like attractive people. (If you do an experiment where you have one source who is attractive and likable, and another source who is attractive and dislikable, only the likable source will be influential. So, it appears that attractiveness operates through liking. Now, back to the example.) A researcher trained courtroom employees to rate the attractiveness (and, indirectly, the likability) of people accused of crimes as they came before a judge for the first time. The people were accused of a wide variety of misdemeanor charges. The meeting with the judge was to determine the amount of fines for the misdemeanors. The courtroom employees were not involved in the arrest and were only escorting the person. 15 What happened? Less attractive people received fines two to three times larger than more attractive people. (Sometimes it is better to look good than to be good, right?) Authority. When the Source Is An Authority, You Can Believe It. I am old enough to remember the TV series, "Marcus Welby, M.D." The actor, Robert Young, portrayed a friendly, wise, and incredibly available physician who never lost a patient except when it would increase the show's Nielsen ratings. Most interesting was the fact that Robert Young parlayed his fame as Dr. Marcus Welby into a very productive sideline. He sold aspirin on TV ads. And he sold aspirin, not as Robert Young, the actor, but as Dr. Marcus Welby. There were enough lazy thinkers out there that they did not realize that the guy on the ad selling aspirin was merely an actor and not the real thing. It didn't matter. Robert Young looked and acted like an authority. And sales of his brand of aspirin increased. Eventually the federal authorities got wise to this gimmick and cracked down on it. It is now illegal to use an actor in this way. So what have advertisers done? Their response and its impact is so amazing to me that it stands as the best example of how lazy we can be. Here's the new trick. The advertisers will still use a popular actor to sell their aspirin and stay legal with their ads. Here's what happens. The famous TV doctor looks at the camera and says, "I'm no doctor, but I play one on TV and here's the aspirin I recommend." And sales of that aspirin increase. The Authority Rule is quite powerful and useful. We will look at it again in this book in other chapters. Reciprocity. When Someone Gives You Something, You Should Give Something Back. You're walking down the street, minding your own business as a stranger approaches in your direction. The stranger makes eye contact with you, then smiles. If you are like most people, you will automatically and thoughtlessly respond with a smile of your own as you continue down the street. The stranger give us something and we give back something in return. A nice rule for meeting people, but what has it got to do with influence? Ever get free gifts in the mail along with a request for a magazine subscription. "Here, keep this valuable prize," the letter goes, "as a token of our esteem. And by the way, if you like magazines, how about this one!" Time magazine used to send out a free pencil with their subscription offers. The pencils were very small, very thin, and very red. And you got to keep it even if you didn't subscribe to the magazine, but what the heck, Time is a pretty good magazine... and before you know it, bang, you've got a year's subscription. The rule is very simple. First, the source gives you something. Once you accept it, you are now obligated to give something back. Note that you are not given a reward, because rewards are given for something that you have already done or will do. That first something given by the source is yours without you doing anything in the past or the future to earn it. Reciprocity operates in many social relationships, especially with visits and dinners. For example, a new couple moves into the neighborhood. You invite them over for dinner. Now, the new couple is 16 obligated to give you a dinner in return even though you said nothing about it. And if the new couple fails to reciprocate (they don't invite you over) or fails to reciprocate in kind (you serve steak, they serve hot dogs), you are angry. I know some people who will refuse that first invitation because they do not want to get trapped into the spiral of reciprocity. Commitment/Consistency. When You Take A Stand, You Should Be Consistent. Earnest Salesperson: "Excuse me, but do you think that a good education is important for your kids?" You: "Yes, of course." ES: "And do you think that kids who do their homework will get better grades." You: "Yes, I'm sure of that." ES: "And reference books would help kids do better on their homework, don't you think?" You: "I'd have to say yes to that." ES: "Well, I sell reference books. May I come in and help improve your child's educations?" You: "Ahhh, wait a minute..." This is the famous "Four Walls" sales technique. The salesperson asks four questions that in essence wall in the receiver, literally forcing the conclusion that those reference books must be purchased. The logical force comes from the Commitment/Consistency Rule. When you take a stand on something, you must be consistent with it. This can be a very powerful tactic and the business world is filled with variations on it. I will show you another one. It is called, "bait and switch," and it is illegal in most states. It works in two steps. First, some attractive offer is presented as bait. The customer rises to the bait, demonstrating their interest in the product. Second, the bait is taken away and a new product (of lower value or higher cost) is presented. Many people will ruefully take the second offer. For example, you need a new stove and you notice an ad for a really high quality stove at a very good price. I mean a very good price, not impossibly low, but very good. You think to yourself, "Self, I'm gonna buy a new stove." So you pack up the kids and zoom over to the mall. And when you get there, a friendly salesperson greets you with a smile. "Ahh, you saw the ad... I guess you really want a new stove don't you? Let's see if I can help you get what you need. I'll go back and check on it for you." You, of course, are out of your mind at the prospect of getting this great stove at a great price. You even let the kids act wilder than usual you are so excited yourself. But wait. The salesperson returns with some bad news and some good news. The bad news is that they just ran out of those advertised specials. The good news is that they just happen to have a similar stove right here that's yours for the taking and it only costs $100 more. Not surprisingly, many people will buy the more expensive product, never seeing the game. 17 The driving force is consistency. In these business games, the customer commits to some initial position ("I want to spend money in this store."), and the salesperson simply forces the customer to maintain consistency with that initial position. This is an extremely powerful and popular persuasion tactic and we will see its application in other chapters. Scarcity. When It Is Rare, It Is Good. I admit it. I am a closet fan of the Home Shopper Networks. If you have never seen these stations it could be that you do not have cable TV. All the station does is sell retail merchandise over television. They will feature some product for ten or fifteen minutes. If you like it, you call their 800 number and place an order which is mailed to you the same day. There are several different Home Shopper stations and they are extremely successful. The reason for that is that these guys really understand the principles of influence and use them well. In particular they use the Rule of Scarcity. They know that rare things are highly valued in our society. What are some of their scarcity tricks? They always have a little clock running in the upper corner of the screen. You only have ten minutes to buy this precious beauty and the clock lets you know how little time you have to make the buy of a lifetime. They make time the scarce resource. They often have a counter on the screen, too. Sometimes the counter runs down with every sale. "We only have a limited number of these fabulous quilted party skirts and when they're all gone, we will never sell them again." So that counter started with 100 and every time somebody calls, the counter decreases, 99, 98, gee whiz look at that, 92, wow, 85. They make the product scarce. Scarcity is a time honored tactic. Limited Time Only. The Weekend Special. Sale Ends at Midnight. Here's a great one from Olan Mills, the photographers. They will take 10 different pictures of your child. They then send you one copy of each photo and ask you to choose the shots you like and the number of copies you want. Then (here's the scarcity trick) they tell you had better order plenty of pictures because they will destroy all the negatives after a certain date. How many fathers and mothers can face the prospect of losing forever all those darling shots... WHY THE RULES WORK I want to review why the Cues work. As noted at the beginning of this chapter, these Cues are used as mental shortcuts by lazy thinkers. Receivers can easily apply these Cues to guide their thinking or action with a minimum of mental effort and activity. (And a lot of the time the Cues really are helpful and correct.) As soon as the receivers change modes of thinking from heuristic to systematic, these Cues typically become useless. Thus, if you want to apply any of the Cues in your own situation, you must learn to use them with heuristic thinkers. To the extent that people are systematically thinking in the situation, these Cues will not work and indeed can make the user look rather foolish. FINALLY 18 Some pretty neat ideas here. There is a lot of practical and scientific evidence that demonstrates the usefulness of the CLARCCS Rules. Just start thinking like a salesperson. Create your own applications. Oh, did you figure out what CLARCCS is? Sure, it is an acronym. Take the first letter of each Cue, and it spells CLARCCS. Should make them a little easier to remember. And use. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS Cialdini, R. (1980). Influence: Science and practice, (2nd Ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, & Company. Down, A.C., & Lyons, P. (1991). Natural observations of the links between attractiveness and initial legal judgements. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 541-547. Hinsz, V., & Tomhave, J. (1991). Smile and (half) the world smiles with you, frown and you frown alone. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 586-592. 19