Dr. Robert B. Cialdini, President of Influence at Work
(IAW), and Arizona State University Regents’ Professor
Emeritus of Psychology and Marketing
Video
Social Influence
Compliance/Persuasion
(Cialdini & Griskevicius (2010)
Type of research used:
Non-experimental
•
•
Systematic, naturalistic observation (e.g., professionals in
advertising, sales, negotiators)
Quasi-experimental designs (e.g., field experiments)
Six Universal Influence Principles
1) Reciprocity – the need to return a favor, gift, or service
2) Consistency – with a prior commitment
3) Social Validation (Consensus) – the behavior/opinions of similar others
4) Liking – the impact of those who express liking for “targets”
5) Authority – the role of legitimate authority figures, expertise
6) Scarcity – the value/desire for things that are rare, less available
~ Reciprocity ~
Premise: People ought to comply with a request from others who have
earlier provided a favor or some type of concession
Evolutionary Value:
Goal directed, adaptive for survival, promotes affiliation
Seen across cultures, species
Reciprocity
Research Findings
• Restaurant servers: Give 2 candies to customers = 14.1% increase in tips
• DAV: Survey with gift included (address labels) = 35% rise in donations vs. 18% control
• Hand written Post-it note with survey = 2x more likely to respond; returned survey
quicker and gave more information on survey
• Check with questionnaire (Rand Corp. doctor sample) –
78% response vs. 66% (if check promised later)
95% of doctors who complied cashed checks, but 26% who did not comply did so!
Reuse towels (Hotels): Money already given to charity = 26% reuse
Concessions: Blood donation example – Long-term plan (No); then ... how about once
Door-in-the Face and That’s Not All Techniques discussed next class
~ Social Validation (Consensus) ~
Premise: People are more likely to comply if the behavior asked for
is congruent with what others are doing or thinking
Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory (1954)
• Need to evaluate ourselves (e.g., abilities, opinions, feelings)
• Objective cues preferred when available
• If no objective cues are present – look for social comparison information (others)
• Similar others primarily used for social comparison
Social Comparison Examples
Application of the “list technique”
Reuse towels in hotels: Note that states the majority of customers reuse towels at least
once = increase in compliance by 28%
~ Consistency/Commitment ~
Premise: After committing to a position, people will be willing to comply
with requests that are consistent with their prior commitment
Affects one’s self perception/concept; One reason underlying mailing lists, web browsing
data (identify types of people who are likely to respond well given their previous behaviors)
Foot-in-the-Door Technique discussed next class
Asked to wear charity pin – later asked to donate – more likely to do so (Piner et al. 1974)
Call registered voters and ask if they’re going to vote; if “yes” = more likely to vote
Bait and Switch Technique – go to store to buy a certain advertised product; product is of
low quality or “sold out” = still willing to buy something (an alternative)
Low Ball Technique - Get a commitment at a given price (low); item then costs more that
that agreed upon (car sales example) = more likely to still buy item
Low Ball Technique is most effective when:
• Employed by a single requester
• Public commitment obtained
• Commitment is freely made
~ Consistency/Commitment ~
Labeling Technique – Making people aware of their existing commitments
House insurance example (Bought expensive house = must buy expensive
insurance)
Legitimization of Paltry Favors approach -- Charity donation (Just a penny
would help; just 25 cents/day) Assuming you consider yourself as a helpful
person = hard to not give anything. Usually, the amount given is equal to the
average donation not just a miniscule sum
How Are You Feeling Technique: Answer (Fine, okay ...); = More difficult to deny
others some money/time when you just admitted how well you are doing (will appear
cheap)
Phone call to have cookie salesperson come to house to raise $ for Hunger Relief
Committee (Howard, 1990)
Control: 18% versus 32% who were asked how they felt that evening. 89% who agree to
the visit bought cookies!
~ Liking~
Premise: People are more willing to comply with requests by
friends or liked others
Tupperware party example: Use of both friends and “love bombing”
Other Factors:
• Physical Attractiveness
• Similarity (Mirror-and-match behavioral approach; dressed alike)
• Compliments (e.g., praise, even if not accurate)
• Cooperation (us against them)
Also -- Role of Positive Mood (e.g., pleasant environment, ads with dancing,
dogs, laughing ...)
Scarcity (Perceived or Real)
Premise: People desire to secure opportunities for things that are scarce or dwindling
Why Effective?
1) Rare = perception of value/worth
2) Psychological Reactance Theory (personal freedom is threatened; need to gain
control)
Examples:
Miami ban on phosphate detergents = perception of better quality and
effectiveness of phosphate =based detergents (justifies our desire to buy limited
availability items)
Information from “exclusive” source = more valued and persuasive
Scarcity (Perceived or Real)
Limited number or items left or limited time limit (last item;
one time only offer; 30 minutes left)
Role of perceived loss: Potential $$ lost due to poor insulation
more effective than “here’s how much you could save”
~ Authority/Expertise ~
Premise: People are more willing to comply with a
legitimate authority figure
“Babies are our business, our only business”
“Sports Authority”
CNN: “The Worldwide Leader in News”
ESPN –
The Total Sports Network (1979–1985)
The Number One Sports Network (1985–1991)
All Sports, All the Time (1991–1994)
America's No. 1 Sports Network (1994–1998)
The Worldwide Leader in Sports (1998–present)
Role of titles, expert status/experience, attire (e.g., suits)
Use of Fear Appeals to Induce Compliance
Premise:
• Lots of fear must be created
• Most effective if options/information given to deal with the fear
Examples: Drunk driving, Drug Use, Seat Belt Use, Skin Cancer, Condom Use
Obstacles?
• Odds of negative outcome (low)
• Time frame may be long between behavior and negative outcome
• Ability to control behavior (e.g., habit, addiction) – Theory of Planned Behavior
• Lack of perceived relevance (ELM Model)