Robert Cialdini’s Principles of Influence:
Basic Concepts
• Overriding Principle
• “Click-Whirr” or Automatic Responding
• Mother Turkeys
• Jewelry at Twice the Price!
• Fixed Action Patterns at Copy Machine
• Betting the Shortcut Odds (Heuristics)
• Capitalizing on Genuine Principles
• We “should” listen to authorities
• Reciprocation is reasonable
• Problems if used inappropriately
Principle 1 - Reciprocation
• Reciprocation
• You scratched my back, I’ll scratch yours
• Get your free samples!
• Get a free Trip to Reno!
• Door-in-the-Face Technique
• Ask big, get turned down, make concession, then ask small
• That’s Not All Technique
• No chance to turn down initial request
Principle 2 – Commitment & Consistency
• Commitment & Consistency
• Cognitive Dissonance – Leon Festinger
• We like our attitudes and behavior to be consistent
• When they are inconsistent, we feel tension
• Tension is uncomfortable, and we wish to reduce it
• We can change behavior or attitude to align the two
• Foot-in-Door Technique
• Ask for a small act of compliance, then build on it
• Low-Ball Technique
• Make a low offer, then increase it once people are ‘hooked’
Principle 3 – Social Proof
Principle 3 – Social Proof
•
Social Proof
• Conformity to Norms – Asch and Sherif
• Laugh Tracks
• Best Seller Lists
• Descriptive vs. Injunctive Norms
• Descriptive Norms: What the majority of others is doing
• Injunctive Norms: What people “should” do
• Descriptive Norms and the Environment
• Littering, Petrified Wood, and Towel Reuse in Hotels
Asch
Experiment
Sherif’s Autokinetic Study
1/2 Inch
2Inches
7.5 Inches
Autokinetic
Phenomenon
1.7 Inches
3 Inches
4 Inches
Autokinetic
Phenomenon
2 Inches
2.2 Inches
3.5 Inches
Autokinetic
Phenomenon
2 Inches
2.1 Inches
2.3 Inches
Estimated Movement
(Inches)
Sherif’s Classic Study: Results
8
Group
Alone
Year Later
Person 1
7
Person 2
6
Person 3
5
4
3
Informational
Influence
2
1
0
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Time
Day 4
Year
Later
Sherif vs. Asch: Two Types of Influence
• Informational Influence
•
•
•
•
Situation is ambiguous
Information dependence
We conform to “gain information”
Sherif Autokinetic Study
• Normative Influence
•
•
•
•
Situation is clear
Outcome dependence
We conform to receive rewards or avoid punishment
Asch’s Conformity Studies
Environmental Theft:
The (Negative) Power of Descriptive Norms
•
•
Message at Petrified Forest National Park(Arizona)
• Your heritage is being vandalized every day by theft losses of
petrified wood of 14 tons a year, mostly a small piece at a time.
• Conveys the message that “everyone is taking it”
Experiment (Cialdini and colleagues; 2003)
• Marked pieces of petrified wood in park
• Injunctive Norm Condition (Sign Read):
• Please don’t remove petrified wood from the Park, in order to
preserve the natural state of the Petrified Forest.
• Descriptive Norm Condition (Sign Read):
• Many past visitors have removed petrified wood from the
Park, changing the natural state of the Petrified Forest.
• Theft Rates:
• Injunctive Norm (1.67%) vs. Descriptive Norm (7.92%)
• Conclusion?
• When the socially undesirable action is prevalent (lots of
theft), PSAs should focus on injunctive (not descriptive) norm
Littering:
More Evidence for the Power of Descriptive Norms
•
Cialdini, Reno and Kallgren (1990)
•
Subjects find a handbill on their windshield which they can litter
•
Environment is either clean or littered
•
Clean environment conveys descriptive norm that people don’t litter
•
Littered environment conveys descriptive norm that people do litter
•
Subject sees another person (confederate) litter or not
•
Observe whether people litter – Results 
Recycling Towels in Hotels:
Even More Evidence for the Power of Descriptive Norms
Below “Help Save Environment”
Control: HELP SAVE THE
ENVIRONMENT. You can show your
respect for nature and help save the
environment by reusing your towels
during your stay
Social Norm: JOIN YOUR FELLOW
GUESTS IN HELPING TO SAVE THE
ENVIRONMENT. Almost 75% of
guests who are asked to participate in
our new resource savings program do
help by using their towels more than
once. You can join your fellow guests
in this program to help save the
environment by reusing your towels
during your stay.
Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius (2008, J of Consumer Research)
Principle 4 – Liking
•
Liking
• We are more likely to comply with requests from those we like
• Liking often based on
• Attractiveness
• Familiarity
• Similarity
Similarity and Compliance
What a Coincidence!
•
•
•
•
•
•
Four Experiments on Impact of “Incidental Similarity” on Compliance
with Requests for Help
Experiment 1
– Same Birthday; DV = help with a report
Experiment 2
– Same Name; DV = donation to Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
Experiment 3:
– Same Personality (Either Common or Uncommon); DV = help with
a report
Experiment 4:
– Same Personality (but here DV = rated attraction to other person)
All studies show similarity (especially uncommon similarity) increases
compliance with requests for help
Jerry
Burger
Principle 5 – Authority
•
Authority
• We are more likely to comply with requests from authorities
• Milgram’s Classic Studies on Obedience to Authority
Stanley
Milgram
Milgram Studies – Basic Set Up
Confederate
Shock Generator
Real Participant
BBC Recreation
Principle 6 – Scarcity
•
Scarcity
• We believe that things that are scare are more valuable
• More likely to pay more for scarce resources
• Overlapping appointments for selling cars
• Excuse me while I take this call
• One day only at the Bon Marche
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4GZfvXx9Js