Weapons of Influence
Earlier in this study Caldini indicated a sales lady in a jewelry store was experiencing selling turquoise jewelry to tourist in a Arizona. She decided to sell the items for half price surprisingly it was revealed that the other employee thought that the 12 was 2 thus all the turquoise jewelry was sold for twice the original price. It is amazing that when the price of the jewelry was increased it was easier to sell. It becomes apparent that these affluent tourists who were not cognizant of the value of turquoise jewelry used the stereotype- to guide their purchasing expensivegood. (5). ironically, the tourists had no interest in this jewelry until the price was increased. This suggests that the price had become what the author terms a trigger feature for quality therefore this was conducive to a tremendous increase in sales. If you analyze their behavior it is apparent that these individuals were raised to believe the higher the price signifies better quality. In many instances this rule had probably worked for them. There are many people who express the same sentiment. In general as the author and social psychologist concur the price of an item increases along with its worth a higher price usually reflects higher quality. The tourists who wanted high-quality turquoise jewelry did not possess a wealth of knowledge of turquoise they depended on the long-established support feature of cost to evaluate the jewelrys value (6).
In this thought provoking volume Cialdini suggests that in many instances the automatic stereotyped behavior is widespread because it is the most competent form of acting and in other situations it is actually necessary. He reminds that we are living in a very complex stimulus environment therefore we are compelled in many situations to take shortcuts. He asserts that most people do not have the time, energy or ability to be aware of and scrutinize all the aspects in each person, event, and situation we encounter in even one day (7). In many cases the author maintains that we are compelled to rely utilize stereotypes and categorize them according to a few main features and then react to them unconsciously when one or another if these trigger features is present. We learn that even the best stereotypes and trigger features are not always effective. However, we must accept their flaws because without them we would spend an excessive amount of time cataloging, appraising and calibrating (7).
Cialdini reminds us that there are numerous exploiters who mimic trigger features for their own brand of automatic responding. He asserts that dissimilar from the typically mechanically response sequences of nonhumans, our automatic tapes usually expand from the psychological values or stereotypes we have learned to accept (9). While these principles may vary in their force Cialdini reminds us that some of these principles have an incredible capacity to direct human action. In most cases, the author indicates that we may not perceive the power of these principles because we have been subjected to them so early in our lives and they have helped us function so pervasively. However, other individuals are cognizant of each principle as a weapon of automatic influence.
In this chapter Cialdini discusses some of the components shared by the vast majority of the weapons of automatic influence. Initially he discussed the nearly automatic process by which the power within these weapons can be activitated and the resulting exploitability of this power by anyone who knows how to generate them. At the concluding section of this chapter he reveals how the exploiters of these weapons of influence can be quite successful without too much exertion.
He uses the contrast principle, a principle in human perception that affects the way individuals see the difference between two things that are presented one after another. This indicates that if the second item is fairly different from the initial one we will tend to view it as more different than it actually is (12). He maintains that if some men are talking to a beautiful woman at a cocktail party and then they are joined by a less attractive one, the second woman will appear to be less attractive than she actually is. This weapon of influence is highly effective and practically untraceable according to Cialdini. In the retail world using this principle is lucrative.
Cialdini who presents research findings from sales motivation analysts asserts that it is much more gainful for salespeople to present the expensive item initially, not only because to fail to do so will lose the power of the contrast principle to fail to do so will also cause the principle to work actively against them. He maintains that presenting an inexpensive item first and following it with an expensive one will cause the expensive item to seem even pricier.
Reciprocation
Cialdini discusses the importance and the power of this weapon of influence. In this chapter the author stresses the significance of reciprocating a favor or a gift. Generally, the reciprocity rule obligates us to the future repayment of favors, gifts, invitations, and the like (18). The sociologists contend that all societies demand that we adhere to the rule of reciprocation it is a part of human culture. It is suggested that the sentiment of future obligation played a significant role in human social evolution, because it indicated that an individual could give something (for example, food energy, care) to another with confidence that it was not being lost (18). Cialdini indicates that for the first time in evolutionary history, one individual could give away a variety of resources without actually giving them away. It is believed by the author that this was conducive to the reduction of inhibitions against transactions that must be initiated by one individuals providing personal resources to another.
One of the most significant examples of how reciprocal obligations have a significant impact on the future is the story of five thousand dollars of relief aid that was sent in 1985 between Mexico and the indigent citizens of Ethiopia (19). In this volume we are reminded that in 1985 Ethiopia was suffering economic problems, famine, war and drought. Numerous inhabitants were dying from disease and starvation. It was indicated that when Ethiopia invaded by Italy in 1935 Mexico sent aid to this country (19). Although Ethiopia was suffering from a myriad of problems aid was sent to Mexico. This example teaches the readers that the need to reciprocate supersedes cultural differences, long distances, famine and self-interest.
In this chapter the overwhelming power of the rule of reciprocation is illustrated. In many cases this rule produces a yes response to a request that, except for an existing feeling of indebtness would have been refused (21). Various experiments and studies are presented to confirm the power of reciprocation. Initially, the Hare Krishna, an Eastern religious sect with centuries-old roots traceable to Indian city of Calcutta attempted to acquire funds by appearing public places with shaved heads, leg wrappings, beads and bells they also chanted and bobbed their heads in unison according to the author. This method was not very effective for obtaining funds because the average America considered the Krishnas bizarre (22). Since the majority of people disliked their appearance and conduct they refused to make contributions. It is apparent that a religious group cannot alter their appearance or behavior because these characteristics are usually associated with their religious factors. Therefore the Krishnas began a new fundraising strategy. This new method utilized the donation-request procedure it was powerful enough to overcome the factor of dislike for the requester (23). Although they were still required to appear in public places, such as airports before a donation is requested, the chosen person is given a gift a book or magazine pertaining to the Krishna society or in some instances a flower. The recipient of this flower is almost compelled to keep it since the Krishnas indicate that is their gift to him. This strategy has been very lucrative for them it has been conducive to the ownership of temples, businesses, houses and property in 321 centers in the United States. However, as people become more cognizant of the Krishnas in public places they have found ways to avoid them.
The power of reciprocation cannot be denied the Krishnas are a classic example.
Reciprocity also plays a significant in politics. The reader learns that the out-of-character vote of one of our elected representatives on a bill or measure can be comprehended as a favor returned to the bills sponsor. Lyndon Johnson was very successful in getting many of his programs through Congress during his early administration. Ironically, even members of Congress who were opposed to the proposals were voting for them (25). His secret was the numerous favors he had provided to other legislators during his several years of power in the House and the Senate. Jimmy Carter experienced encountered difficulty in getting his programs through Congress during his early administration, even with heavy Democratic majorities in both House and Senate (26). It is important to realize that Carter came to the presidency from outside the Capitol Hill establishment. The author-psychologist concurs that Carter campaigned on his outside Washington identity, maintaining that he was indebted to no one there. It is believed that his legislative difficulty upon arriving may be traced to the fact that no there was indebted to him.
In discussing the various weapons of influence Cialdini indicates how we can avoid complying to them. The rule of reciprocation is difficult to overpower once it is activated. In this volume it is suggested to prevent its activation. One should not permit the requester to commission its force against us in the first place. If one repudiates the requesters initial favor or concession he can evade the problem (32).
Commitment and Consistency
In this chapter the readers are informed that the commitment and consistency weapon of influence is based on our almost compulsive wish to be (and to appear) consistent with what we have already done (38). It is suggested that once an individual makes a commitment they are confronted with personal and interpersonal pressures to conduct themselves constantly with that commitment. It is indicated that those pressures will cause one to respond in ways that justify our earlier decision (38). The author presents various studies and experiments to confirm these concepts. One of the more interesting examples Cialdini presents pertains to a couple we have seen similar relationships in society. In many instances we have wondered why some women remain in a relationship that has no future. In this volume we are given some of the reasons. According to the author his neighbor Sara, a nutritionist met Tim an X-ray technician. They dated for a while and after Tim lost his job he moved they moved in together. This relationship was overwhelmed with problems from the beginning. It is apparent that Sara desired more stability in her life. She wanted Tim to stop his excessive drinking and marry her. Since he would not make a commitment to her wishes the relationship ended and he moved out. During this time period an old boyfriend of Saras returned to town after years away and called her. They began to date and became serious enough to plan a wedding. Unfortunately, after the date was set and the invitations were sent out Tim called. He claimed that he had repented and wanted to move back in with her. Sara told him about her wedding plans he begged her to change them. He wanted to live with her but Sara maintained that did not want to return to that lifestyle. Tim offered to marry her but she still preferred the other boyfriend. Finally he claimed that he would even stop drinking if she relented. Sara believed that he had the advantage under these conditions. Sara decided to break her engagement, cancel the wedding, retract the invitations and let Tim moved in with her.
Within a months time Tim had reverted back to his old ways. He did not think it was necessary to stop drinking and he decided that they should wait and see before getting married (58). Two years have passed and nothing has changed they still live together, Tim continues to drink and there are no wedding plans. Surprisingly, Sara is very devoted to Tim and maintains that being compelled to choose taught her Tim is really number one in her heart. Despite the fact that the requests she made were not fulfilled she is happy with him. The author presented a story about horse-race bettors which illustrated the same concept. It is suggested that horse-race bettors are not alone in their willingness to believe in the correctness of a difficult choice, once made (59). However, the author-psychologist indicates that everyone has fooled themselves from time to time in order to keep our thoughts and beliefs consistent with what we have already done or decided. Some readers will wonder what would have occurred if Sara had been more consistent in her desire to end the relationship with Tim.
The literature indicates that consistency is a very potent motivator because in most instances consistency is valued and adaptive Inconsistency is frequently considered to be an undesirable personality trait. Those individuals whose beliefs, words and deeds do not coincide are considered indecisive, confused, two-faced and even mentally ill (60). In contrast consistency is linked with personal and intellectual strength according to the author.
Social Proof Truth Are Us
The principle of social proof indicates that one means we use to determine what is correct is to find out what other people think is correct (116). This principle applies to particularly to the way we decide what constitutes correct behavior. Behavior is viewed as more correct by a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it (116). It is asserted that the actions of those around us are very significant in defining the answer of how to behave.
It is apparent we will make fewer errors by acting in accord with social evidence than contrary to it (116). Generally speaking when a large number of individuals are doing something it is the proper thing to do. The literature indicates that this characteristic of social proof is concurrently its major strength and its major weakness. Similar to the other weapons of influence, it provides a convenient shortcut for determining how to behave but, at the same time, makes one who uses the shortcut vulnerable to the attacks of profiteers who lie in wait along its path. (116).
The author-psychologist discusses how this weapon of evidence is used. It is not surprising to learn that bartenders frequently salt their tip jars with a few dollar bills at the beginning of the evening to simulate tips left by prior customers and to give the impression that tipping with folding money is proper bathroom demeanor (117). In many instances church ushers follow the same pattern for the same reasons.
Most people have noticed how advertisers enjoy informing us when a product is the fastest growing or largest selling because they do not have to convince us that the product is good they need only indicate that numerous consumers think so which appears to be sufficient. The producers of charity telethons dedicate inordinate amounts of time to the ceaseless listing of viewers who have already pledged contributions. It is obvious that this is done in order to encourage others to give. Most people assume that if a large number of other individuals doing something it must be correct.
In some instances researchers have use the principle of social proof to help individuals overcome their phobias. In one experiment they found that the most effective type of clips to reduce childrens fear of dogs were those depicting a myriad of children interacting with their dogs it is safe to assume that this principle functions better when the proof is provided by the actions of a large number of individuals (118).
In this volume we also learn that in the process of examining the reactions of other people to determine our indecision, we are likely to overlook an understated but significant fact. These people are probably examining the social evidence, also. It is asserted that particularly in an ambiguous situation, the tendency for everyone to be looking to see what everyone else is doing can be conducive to a fascinating phenomenon called pluralistic ignorance (129).
A classic example of pluralistic ignorance is the Genovese murder case. In the borough of Queens in New York City a woman in her late twenties, Catherine Genovese, was killed in a late night attack on her home street as she returned from work. (129). A.M. Rosenthal was having lunch with the city police commissioner when he heard shocking news. Catherine Genovese had not been murdered quickly. It had been a long, loud tortured public event (130). Her assailant had chased and attacked her in the street three times over a period of thirty five minutes before his knife finally silenced her cries for help (130). It is shocking to learn that thirty-eight of her neighbors watched the events of death from their apartment windows without making any effort to call the police. This story, which leads to controversy and assumption, was published in the Times within a week. Rosenthal, who was a former Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, assigned a reporter to investigate this tragedy.
Two explanations were presented to indicate why thirty-eight individuals watched the murder and did not call the police. Some psychologists speculated that a bystander to an emergency would be unlikely to help when there are numerous bystanders present (132). It is assumed that with the presence of several possible helpers around, the personal responsibility of each individual is reduced. Everyone assumes that someone else will giver call or has already called. Thus with everyone thinking that someone else will help or has helped, no one does (132).
The other explanation is considered more psychologically stimulating. It is asserted that everybody else observing an event is likely to look for social evidence, to determine if it is a real emergency. Since most people prefer to appear poised and composed among others we are likely to search for that evidence calmly, with brief, camouflaged glances at those around us (133). As result of this, everyone is likely to see everyone else looking calm and fail to act. Consequently, the event will be considered a nonemergency (133). The psychologists maintain that is the state of pluralistic ignorance in which each person decides that since no one is concerned, nothing is wrong.
Liking The Friendly Thief
Most people realize that in most cases we prefer to say yes to the requests of someone we know and like. It is somewhat surprising to learn that this basic rule is used by strangers to encourage us to comply with their requests (167). The Tupperware is presented as an example of professional exploitation in this chapter. The various weapons of influence are included in the Tupperware party reciprocity to begin with, games are played and prizes are won by partygoers anyone who doesnt win a prize gets to reach into a grab bag for hers so that everyone has received a gift before the buying begins), commitment (each participant is urged to describe publicly the uses and benefits she has found in the Tupperware she already owns), and social proof (once the buying begins each purchase builds the idea that other similar people want the product there it must be good (168).
The Tupperware party is definitely comprised of all the weapons of influence. However the primary power of this event derives from a specific arrangement that trades on the liking rule. While the entertaining and the convincing salesmanship of the Tupperware demonstrator are significant, the true request to purchase the product originates not from this stranger it comes from a friend of every woman in the room (168). Cialdini indicates that while the Tupperware representative may physically ask for each partygoers order, all right, the more psychologically compelling requester is a housewife sitting off to the side, smiling, chanting, and serving refreshments. We learn that she is the party hostess, who has called her friends together for the demonstration in her home and who, everyone knows, makes a profit from each piece sold at the party.
It has been maintained that by providing the hostess with a percentage of the take, the Tupperware Home Parties Corporation arranges for its customers to buy from and for a friend rather than an unknown salesperson (168). The consumer researchers who examined the social ties between the hostess and the partygoers in home-party sales, have affirmed the power of the companys approach, It is somewhat surprising to learn that the strength of that social bond is twice as likely to determine product purchase as is preference for the product itself. The results indicate that this approach is very lucrative. It has been estimated that Tupperware sales exceed 2.5 million a day (168)
Many charity organizations are also using the liking principle they recruit volunteers to canvas for donations close to their homes. They are aware of the fact that it is much more difficult for us to reject a charity request when it comes from a friend or neighbor. Some compliance professionals have found that the friend does not have to be present to be effective, in many instances just the name of the friend is sufficient (169). It is asserted that once a customer admits liking a product, he or she can be pressed for more names of more friends who would also be interested in learning about it. The key to success of this method is that each new prospect is visited by a salesperson who is equipped with the name of a friend who suggested I call on you (169). It is difficult to reject the salesperson under these circumstances because it is almost like repudiating the friend.
In this chapter the author also discusses other aspects of the liking principle which includes physical attractiveness, similarity and compliments. In the concluding section we are informed that it is significant to be alert to a sense of undue liking for a compliance practitioner. The recognition of that feeling can serve as our reminder to separate the dealer from the merits of the deal and make our decision based on considerations related to the later (206).
Authority Directed Deference
In this chapter we learn about the significance of the case of obedience to authority. In the case of obedience to authority, even a brief consideration of human social organization offers a significant amount of justification (216). It is not shocking to learn that a multilayered and widely accepted system authority confers a tremendous advantage upon a society. It permits the development of sophisticated structures for resource production, trade, defense, expansion, and social control that would otherwise be impossible. In contrast, anarchy, which is the other alternative is a state that is barely known for its beneficial effects on cultural groups and one that the social philosopher Thomas Hobbes maintains would render life solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short (216). It is obvious that we are taught from birth that obedience to proper authority is right and disobedience is wrong. The necessary message fills the parental lessons, the schoolhouse rhymes, stories and songs of our childhood and is carried forward in the legal, military and political systems we confront as adults (216). Religious instruction also contributes as well. The other aspects of authority discussed in this chapter include titles, clothes and trappings.
The protective tactic we can use against authority status is to remove its element of surprise (230). In many instances individuals misperceive the profound impact of authority (and its symbols) on our actions we are at the disadvantage of being insufficiently cautious about its presence in compliance situations. It is suggested that heightened awareness of authority power is a fundamental defense against this problem
Scarcity The Rule of the Few
It has been suggested that collectors of everything from baseball cards to antiques are aware of the influence of the scarcity principle in determining the worth of an item. In most cases, if it is rare or becoming rare, it is more valuable (239). The flawed items such as blurred stamp or double-struck coin are considered the most valuable.
The most straightforward use of the scarcity principle occurs in the limited-number tactic, when the customer is informed that a certain product is in short supply that cannot be guaranteed to last long. In some instances this limited number information was true and sometimes it was totally false. In each case the intent was to convince customers of an items scarcity and consequently increase its immediate value in their eyes (241).
Compliance practitioners reliance on scarcity as a weapon of influence is frequent, wide-ranging, systematic and diverse. In such cases with a weapon of influence, one can be assured that the principle involved has notable power in directing human action. In the instance of the scarcity principle, that power originates from two sources. The initial source is familiar. Similar to the other weapons of influence, the scarcity principle trades on weakness for shortcuts (244). It is asserted that the weakness is as previously an enlightened one (244). In this case because we know that the things that are difficult to possess are typically better than those that are easy to possess, we can often use an items availability to help us quickly and correctly decide on its quality (244). It is apparent that one reason for the potency of the scarcity principle is that, by following it, we are usually right according to the researchers.
As opportunities become less available, we loss freedoms and most people hate to lose the freedom they already have. This desire to preserve our established prerogatives is the centerpiece of the psychological reactance theory developed by the psychologist Jack Brehim to explain the human response to diminishing personal control (245). The theory suggests that whenever free choice is limited or threatened, the need to retain our freedom makes us desire them (as well as the goods and service associated with them) significantly more than previously (245).
It is concluded that if we find ourselves overwhelmed by scarcity pressures in a compliance situation, our best response would occur in a two-stage sequence. When we initially feel the emotional pressure that originates from scarcity influences, we should use that rise in arousal as a signal to stop short. Once we have calmed ourselves we can move to the next stage by asking ourselves why we want the item under consideration (270). If the answer is that we want it primarily for the purpose of owning it then we should use its availability to help determine how much we want to spend for it. However, if the answer is that want it primarily for the function (that is, we want something good to drive, drink, eat, etc.), then we must remember that item under consideration will function equally well whether scarce or plentiful (270). We are compelled to recall that the scarce cookies did not taste any better.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment