The Science of Persuasion
Using Persuasion Principles & Techniques in
Food Security, Child Survival and other
Community Development Programs
PART 1: Commitment & Consistency
This media product is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of
Food for the Hungry and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States
Government.
Tom Davis, MPH
TOPS Senior Specialist for Social & Behavioral Change
FH Chief Program Officer
April 6, 2011
Starting Point: Our Niche

We (PVOs/NGOs) will not develop the next
great vaccine or medicine.

We may (and should) develop and discover the
best community mobilization and behavior
change approaches.

We can innovate and test them.

Need to know the literature, “what works in the
lab”

Some replication of these studies in developing
countries
The Science of Persuasion

Principles from decades of social psychology
research

Used by community organizers, advertisers,
social marketers, politicians, and those
promoting health behavior change.

Influence: the Psychology of Persuasion, The
Human Connection, and Fostering
Sustainable Behavior

Data from careful observation and
experimentation

A relatively young discipline
The Science of Persuasion
 Persuasion
about:
literature answers questions
• kinds of messages that are most memorable and persuasive
• what techniques / actions make people more likely to
respond positively to a request
• how we are influenced / how we influence others
• how we decide “who we are” (identity) and what we should
do
• how and when we look to others to know what to do
• the effectiveness of incentives

Some applicable to our work
When do we persuade?
What are the things that we try to persuade
people to do in our programs?

Household-level and on-farm behavior
change

Community-level mobilization and change

Service (e.g., health, financial) utilization

Making “sub-commitments” like agreeing to
attend a meeting.
What doesn’t work well in
behavior change…

See Change or Die (Alan Deutschman)

What doesn’t work very well in terms of
achieving behavior change:
› Facts
› Fear
› Force
Info Only
 What
works in promoting behavior
change:
› Developing a relationship with
someone you trust who gives you hope
for change.
› Learning and practicing skills
› Changing our worldview or “reframing.”
› Focusing on determinants of the
behavior.
Care Group Performance: Perc. Reduction in Child Death Rate (0-59m)
in Thirteen CSHGP Care Group Projects in Eight Countries
(Green line = average of USAID child survival programs)
AR
C/
Ca
m
bo
W di a
R/
V
W ur
R/
I
V
FH W
u
/M R/V r II
oz
ur
(
W Be IV
R/
l
Ca l agi
m o)
W bod
R/
ia
W Ma
R/
la
w
M
W ala i
R/
w
Rw i II
Cu
a
ra nd
a
m
.
/
G
P
SA la n ua
W /K t
SO en
/Z ya
am
Av
M
b
g.
Ca TI/L i a
re i be
ri a
G
r
Av p P
g
CS roj .
Pr
oj
.
% Red. U5MR
60%
48%
50%
41% 42%
34%
40%
33%
33%
32%
30%
29%
28%
26%
30% 23%
14%
14%
20%
12%
10%
0%
CSHGP Project
Series1
The
effectiveness
of “block
leaders”
Nine Care Groups vs. Average of 58 CSHGP Projects,
RapidCATCH Indic. Gap Closure
100%
85%
77%
80%
68%
58%
53%
46%
40%
42%
33%
27%
25%
20%
20%
11%
12%
0%
-8%
Un
d
Bi erw
rt h
t
Sp
ac
SB
A
TT
2
Co EB
F
m
pF
ee
Al d
lV
a
M cs
ea
sle
s
Da
ng ITN
er
Si
gn
In
cF s
AI luid
DS
s
Kn
ow
HW
W
Al S
lR
ap
id
% better
60%
-20%
RapidCATCH Indicator
RapidCatch
Indicator
So persuasion is a part of behavior
change...

Before you can maintain a behavior, you
have to:
› Be persuaded to come hear about it
› Be persuaded to try it out once
› Be persuaded to give it a chance or
try something a bit more intensive.
Seven Principles of Persuasion
The principle of…
1.
Commitment & Consistency
2.
Social Proof
3.
Reciprocation
4.
Contrast
5.
Liking
6.
Authority
7.
Scarcity.

We will focus on the first one.

Note: All can be used for both good and evil!
Application Across Cultures

Cialdini: Human Universals, but strength will
vary across cultures.

In collectivistic cultures/people: Relationallybased principles (e.g., Social Proof, Liking) are
sometimes stronger than individually-based
principles (e.g.., commitment/ consistency,
authority). But all still apply.
Principle #1: Commitment &
Consistency

Prominent Theorists: Festinger, Hieder, Newcomb

Once we have made a choice, taken a stand, or
made a verbal commitment, we are more likely
to do things to be consistent with that choice.

Personal (internal) and interpersonal (external)
pressure to behave consistently

“…[O]ur nearly obsessive desire to be (and to
appear) consistent with what we have already
done.” (Cialdini)
Principle #1: Commitment &
Consistency

We have solid “hardwiring” for living consistently

“Our best evidence of WHO WE ARE comes less
from our thoughts about ourselves, but from what
we “see ourselves doing” … and also what we
“hear ourselves saying.”
Commitment & Consistency:
Some of the evidence







Thomas Moriarty study: Staged “thefts”
on NYC beach: How many people
intervene to stop the theft?
20%
Same set up, but accomplice asks person
to “watch my things” during their walk.
How many people intervene?
95%
Why would they do this? Why take the
risk?
We highly value Consistency
Moriarty, T. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol
31(2), Feb 1975, 370-376.
Commitment & Consistency: The
evidence

Steven J. Sherman’s study on door-to-door donation
collections. (Call it “self-prediction then request”)

Group #1: Telephoned residents for survey: Predict what you
would say if asked to spend three hours collecting money for
the ACS. Then ACS representative calls and asks them to
spend three hours collecting money for the ACS.

Group #2: Just call them once and ask them to volunteer
three hours.

What difference would you expect in volunteer rate?

Seven times more people volunteered in Group #1.

Why? We value Consistency.

Repeated many times in different settings and with different
issues.

Sherman, SJ. On the self-erasing nature of errors of prediction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 39 (1980): 211-21.
Commitment & Consistency: The
evidence: A darker example…

Chinese efforts to convert American POWs to
communist point of view.

How? “Start small and build”

POWs first asked to make mildly anti-American
statements.

Then asked for more substantive requests: “List ways that
US is not perfect”

Next week: “Read your list in a group”

Next week: “Write an essay and discuss these in greater
detail”

Next week: The essay is broadcasted on the radio.
Commitment & Consistency: The
evidence

“Suddenly, the person finds
himself as a “collaborator”
… and knowing that he
wrote and said what he
did without any strong
threats or coercion, many
a man changed his image
of himself to be consistent
with the deed, often
resulting in even more
extensive acts of
collaboration.”
Commitment & Energy Conservation

Michael Pallak (1980): “Low-balling”: Giving someone an
initial inducement to do something then removing the
incentive once the person discovers other reasons to do it.
1.
Start of Iowa winter, residents who used
natural gas contacted.
2.
Sample #1: Given energy-conservation
tips and ask them to conserve fuel in
the future.
3.
All agree to try – but no savings seen
(from utility bills) as compared to
control neighbors.
4.
Good intentions + info = No change.
Commitment & Energy Conservation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Sample #2: Given energy-conservation tips
and asked to conserve.
Told that those who agree to save would have
their names publicized in the paper as publicspirited, fuel-conserving citizens.
Result: Savings of 422 cubic feet of natural gas
as compared to controls (about 12.2% savings,
~$6.58/HH in DC).
Next they send a letter: Sorry, can’t publish your
names in the paper.
Result: Families conserved even more fuel than
they had earlier (15.5%, ss).
Commitment & Energy Conservation
1.
2.


Possible Reasons: New energy habits,
began feeling good about their publicspirited efforts, began appreciating lower
bill, proud of their capacity for self-denial,
began viewing themselves as
“conservation minded.”
Why pulling the incentive worked: By
pulling the newspaper incentive, people
had to “fully own” their commitment to
conservation.
Replicable: Repeated study in summer
w/AC. W/promise of newspaper publicity,
28% decrease in electricity (as compared
to controls). After removing newspaper
offer, energy savings increased to 42%.
Ethical?? Probably need to say it is a
possible but not certain benefit. Or only
use incentive once…
Commitment & Consistency: The
evidence

Proctor and Gamble’s Testimonial
contests (1940): “Why I like ivory
soap…” in 50 words or less. Win a
CAR.

Result #1: Tremendous number of
people writing out why they like the
product …

Result #2: Hundreds of thousands
more people liking the product
more (“watching what you’re
doing”)
“The Next Ivory Family”
Commitment & Consistency:
The Evidence

“Foot in the door” technique
(Freedman & Fraser)

EX: Group #1, Researcher asks
homeowners if they can put a big,
ugly public-service billboard on their
lawn … a “big ask”. Only 17%
agreed.

Group 2: Volunteer comes to the
door and asks them to display a 3”
square sign that says BE A SAFE
DRIVER (“small ask”). (Almost all
agreed.) Several weeks later, they
are asked to post the big, ugly sign
(the “Big Ask”)
Not this bad … but close…
Commitment & Consistency:
The Evidence

Result you would predict?

76% agree to it!

Another example: Researchers ask people
to sign a petition to “keep California
beautiful”. Nearly all agreed. Then asked
people to post big ugly sign about driver
safety (different issue):

Almost half agreed to it (vs. 17%)!

Why?

Self-image changes.
Another foot-in-the-door study..

Small request: Researcher calls and asks about household
product use. If they agree, they answer 8 questions about
soap use.

Big request was for 5-6 men to come and inventory all the
household products in your house.

Researcher makes a single contact with the big request:
22.2% compliance

Researcher just familiarizes the person with the subject on
first call and then makes the bigger request on the second
call:
27.8% compliance

Researcher makes the small request (but doesn't ask the
person to do it) and then calls back with a bigger request:
33.3% compliance

Researchers makes a small request which was done then
makes a bigger request:
53% compliance

Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C., Compliance Without
Pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique, JPSP, 1966, 4, 196202
Other examples & tips

American Heart Association donations study: “You are a
generous person” (“positive labeling”) vs. Thanking

What do you predict? Who gives more? How much?

Generously-labeled people gave 75% more.

Asking people to ask others to make a commitment
after they themselves make a commitment  increases
total commitments and sustainability of the behavior.

“Those who were asked to speak to their neighbors (to
“grass cycle”) increased their own grass cycling, but also
that of their neighbors… findings were still observable
twelve months later (cf: Care Groups). (McKenzie-Mohr)
Other examples & tips

Just ending a blood drive call with, “We’ll count on
seeing you then, okay?” increased attendance from 62%
to 81%. (Lipsitz et al, 1989). [Looking for a verbal
commitment.]

Individuals asked to wear a lapel pin (“identifier”)
publicizing Canadian Cancer Society twice as likely to
donate subsequently. (Pliner et al, 1974)
Tips:

Group commitments can be effective when there is
good group cohesion.

Commitment can be increased by actively involving the
person in an activity/action.

Consider asking for commitments when a service or
product is provided

Only ask for a commitment when the person shows an
interest in the behavior/activity.
Quick review of persuasion
methods mentioned:

Self-prediction then request technique

Start small and build

Low-balling

Testimonial/essay

Foot-in-the-door

Positive labeling

“Give a commitment, get a commitment”

Identifiers
Summary of techniques related to
Commitment & Consistency principle…

Essays and speech contests

“Start small and build” idea.

Asking for small, verbal or written commitments.

Asking people what they would do before asking them to do it – use
local surveys

Local petitions.

Posting/wearing identifiers of support/commitments.

“Foot in the door” technique (small ask then large ask).

Low-balling (offering incentives to get someone to try something and
then removing the incentive).

Self-prediction then request technique

Positive labeling (“you’re generous”)

“Give a commitment, get a commitment”
Commitment & Consistency:
Some ideas on how to use it

Use essay and speech contests, with widespread
participation. Essays and speeches do not have
to be completely “on message.”

Use “start small and build.” Ask those who are
ambivalent to list one thing that they do like
about a behavior (e.g., planting in rows) or what
they don’t like about their current behavior.
(What are these questions called in the MI
literature??) Then ask them to list them. Etc…

Related: Use more simulations where people
rehearse behaviors (e.g., talking to your husband
about planting a home garden).
Commitment & Consistency:
Some ideas on how to use it

Ask for small, verbal or written commitments, but
without any pressure.

Ask people what they would do before asking
them to do it – use local surveys about future
action. (“How likely would you be to participate
in a community campaign to…”).

Use local petitions. (“Do you agree that our
community needs to …? If so, please sign here.)

Use “foot in the door”: Ask for small commitments
before asking for big commitments. Stage your
curricula and interventions accordingly.
More Resources: Application
Examples
You can download a table with a summary of this
principle, the techniques associated with it, and ideas
on how to use them by using this link (there are
underscores _ between each word in the title):
www.caregroupinfo.org/docs/Application_
of_Persuasion_Principles.doc
Further Reading

Influence: Science and Practice (4th ed.) or Influence: The
Psychology of Persuasion (Robert Cialdini). Translated into
Spanish, French, Portuguese, Thai, Indonesian, Arabic, and 20
other languages. (See Amazon for language group)

Fostering Sustainable Behavior (C-b social marketing, Doug
McKenzie-Mohr and William Smith)

Switch & Made to Stick (Chip & Dan Heath)

Change or Die (BC in general, Alan Deutschman)

How We Decide (Jonah Lehrer)

The Human Connection (get from Tom, tdavis@fh.org)

Marketing Social Change (Alan Andreasen)

Persuasion: Theory & research (2nd Ed.). O‘Keefe, Daniel J.
(2002). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.