Chapter 1: Weapons of Influence
There are mechanical processes that affect people called fixed-action patterns. These patterns occur in virtually the same fashion. When situation X, outcome Y.
This process is started by something known as a trigger feature. We have trigger features that can be taken advantage of too.
One example: When asking for a favor, having a reason for why it’s necessary helps. It doesn’t really matter the reason but rather the structure worked. People assign a lot of importance to the word ‘because’.
Another example: Across human cultures, women showcase physical attractiveness while men show off wealth.
Stereotypes/Heuristics are often used in reasoning what to do. Expensive = good, because price was a trigger feature for quality. Cheap = bad is also often true.
This is because it’s often playing the odds to buy expensive. The bet is that price alone tells someone what something is worth. We don’t have time to get deep into turquoise.
Another heuristic or termed judgemental heuristic/shortcut: If expert says so, must be true. If not deferential to experts, and wanting to examine all features, controlled responding happens.
We don’t want to take a complex approach to personally important topics, and we offshore our thinking to experts to do that for us.
When someone recognizes our trigger actions, and can benefit from triggering them to their own benefit, they are referred to as a mimic.
These signals can change how people interact with the world around them. Young men exposed to airborne chemicals called copulins, which mimic vaginal scents, made women’s faces presented to them more attractive in scientific settings (and likely elsewhere).
Expensive = good allows you to sell to tourists at high, and bargain hunters at original price.
Profiteers can commission the power of rhetorical and otherwise trigger focused weapons to take advantage of others with little effort.
Another heuristic: contrast principle. When things are presented one after another, if the second item is fairly different from the first, it appears even more different.
This contrast principle can be taken advantage of by structuring more expensive purchases before less expensive ones, so things seem less expensive. Example: Car dealers and add-ons. Example: Looking at a dumpy house first, then at a much nicer house: comparison makes people happy.
Chapter 2: Reciprocation
People reciprocate automatically. Sending Christmas cards gets some in return. By virtue of reciprocity, we are obligated to pay back with favors, gifts, invitations, etc. Cultures take advantage of this to build strong bonds
This lowered the natural inhibitions against transactions that must be begun by one person’s providing personal resources to another. Obligation plays a large role in maintaining social order.
There is a general distaste for those who take and make no effort to give in return. People go to great lengths to avoid being seen as a moocher, ingrate, or freeloader.
This rule of reciprocity is it’s very effective at gaining power, and compliance. Even people who dislike the person who granted the favor, the subjects of the experiment still bought as many tickets. The benefactor before beggar strategy works super well.
Giving a gift in anticipation of things is a winning strategy. The free sample has a long and effective history. It also creates and enforces uninvited debts- When you initiate with favor, you can often solicit the form of the returning favor.
Surprise is often good at enforcing compliance, and many times people don’t even necessarily want the original favor.
This rule can also trigger unequal exchanges. A small initial favor can produce an obligation to agree to a much larger favor. People hate feeling indebted in terms of favors. So, for this reason, we may do larger favors to relieve ourselves from psychological debt.
Little things are not always little, and can link to the broader rules of life.
You can also have reciprocal concessions. Example: “Instead of buying this 5 dollar movie ticket, would you prefer chocolate instead?”
There is also an obligation to make concessions to others who have made concessions to me. This is a sneaky way to get compliance.
Applying this in practice is the door-in-face, or rejection-than-retreat technique. First, you make a large request. Then, you make a smaller request that you wanted, and it feels like a concession.
Making concessions is true up to a point. If first set of demands is seen as unreasonable, tactic backfires, because bargaining doesn’t seem to be in good faith.
This is essentially the inverse of the larger than smaller contrast principle.
There’s also a structural feature to this request sequence that works. If one starts by asking for more, you get a lot. Then, if you retreat to a more convenient offer, you also look good.
One would think the rejection than retreat would be a major disadvantage, because of its manipulative nature. However, it actually builds rapport because it creates feelings of greater responsibility and satisfaction with arrangements, resulting in better feelings.
Uncanny ability of rejection-then-retreat made its targets meet their commitments, because it make them more understandable since it seems like they felt responsible for terms of contract. Interestingly, those who gave most money through concessions were often most satisfied.
HOW TO AVOID FALLING TO THIS RULE: Rejecting a requestors initial favor or concessions can work, but may come off as callous. If recognizing initial favor as a compliance technique, you don’t need to meet it as a favor.
Chapter 3: Commitment and Consistency
It is often easier to resist at the beginning, rather than the end of a sales pitch.
Just after placing bets, they are more confident than before placing bets. We want to appear consistent with what we have already done. Once we make a choice, we encounter pressures to behave consistently.
In most circumstances, consistency is valued and adaptive. The person who’s things don’t match is seen as confused, two-faced, or mentally ill. Consistency by contrast looks personally and intellectually strong. With it appears the concept of logic, rationality, stability, and honesty.
The allure of consistency is it makes things a lot easier. We don’t need to expend mental resources on decisions, and it allows us a convenient, effortless way of dealing with daily life. The other reason why to be consistent is that there are often negative consequences to thinking straight. Automatic consistency is a safe hiding place from troubling realizations.
Sometimes countervailing evidence can actually strengthen a purchasing claim, so there’s little hesitation, allowing a sheild against thought.
Toy companies make bank by under-supplying toys that their kids want, so they continue to shop after Christmas. This creates buy-in. This can be used in a variety of ways, extracting the initial lofty commitment and turning it into your intentions can push you forward.
Making the initial commitment as easy to give as possible can help. Then, you can often build from there. This is called the foot-in-the-door campaign.
People’s true feelings and beliefs come less from words than deeds. Active versus passive commitments is a good example. Failing to not commit is not the same as actively committing. Similarly, writing down things can endear a cause or goal to you.
People think that statements reflect true attitudes, regardless of whether statement was free to do. One savvy thing people do is create a positive reputation with those you want to work with, making it easier to keep that behavior going. “I know how honest and honorable you are”.
If you want to succeed, set a goal, write it down. Get detailed about it. When you write something down, you often reach that goal.
Writing is effective because it can be made public easily, which have lasting commitments associated to appear non-duplicitous.
Those who don’t write things down are least loyal to their OG commitments. Anonymity played a partial role, but most people complied with their original idea, even when shown to be wrong.
Decisions are helped by public commitment, and showing it to other people. This works especially well for individuals with high pride and self-consciousness.
The more effort you put into commitments, the greater it can influence the attitudes of the person who made it. This is why hell-week for fraternities brings lifelong camaraderie. Doesn’t look like hazing is going away anytime soon.
A big reason for hazing working is that when someone goes through the great trouble to attain something, they value it more highly.
Commitments most effective in changing self-image are active, public, and require lots of effort. You want participants to own what you do. If you make it because of a charitable purpose, or because of a big reward, you won’t get the same effort or commitment.
We accept inner responsibility for behaviors when we have chosen to perform actions in absence of strong outside pressure.
Interesting psychological experiment: Scientist told boys that playing with toy was wrong, and threatened them if they played with it. Absent scientist, boys played with it. Instead, warning boys and leaving led to more compliance.
Applying experiment to child-rearing. You want to teach children lying is wrong. Sometimes you need different appeals based on the child. The important thing is to use a reason that works, but will allow a child to take personal responsibility. The less detectable pressure, the better.
If original reasons for doing things are taken away, there should be new reasons why someone should continue. One tactic: the low-ball. This is where a dealer offers a car below normal price. This builds commitment. Somehow, the lowering is incorrect, but it binds the person to staying interested.
The sequence: Someone is given a favorable decision. After decision is made, before decision is sealed, original purchase advantage is removed. This builds a support system of new justifications for the commitment.
It can also be used to add in undesirable elements. Instead of removing favorable element, including an undesirable element can also work.
Removing the support of the original goal can help bolster new reasons to continue behavior.
Defenses against this strategy: Being aware consistency is an advantage, but there are negative types of consistency. We must be wary of tendency to be automatically and unthinkingly consistent. There are often stomach signs, we get a pit in our stomach when we don’t want to do something. You tell someone what they are doing, and how you would be a sucker to comply with a request because it’s merely consistent with a prior commitment I was tricked into. Knowing what I know now is another example, to determine whether you are making the correct choice.
Chapter 4: Social Proof
Canned laughter is mostly uncomfortable, and most people don’t like it, yet it works.
Behavior in a given situation is seen as correct, given that others perform a similar degree. Generally, this is a good heuristic. This is also why bartenders salt tip jars with a couple bucks to begin with. Advertisers like saying product is fastest growing or largest selling because then they don’t have to directly convince us that product is good. 95% of people are imitators. 5% are initiators.
When something is false, cultists become more fanatical. The failure almost causes them to intensify.
Broad principle of social proof is: The greater the # of people who find any idea correct, the more a given individual will see the idea as correct as well.
Sometimes more observers lead to less outcomes. With more helpers around, the personal responsibility of each is reduced. To combat inaction, reduce uncertainty. “You sir, do this”.
We tend to use actions of others to decide on proper behavior, when we view others as similar, but less so when dissimilar.
The alarming climb in crash fatalities is probably from former suicides. We should see the greatest increase in suicides after suicide stories appear. People who see others commit suicide may be more likely if similar cases transpire. Other types of copycat crime also take place.
Defenses: Our best defense against disadvantages is to recognize when data is inaccurate, allowing us to grasp the controls and disengage mechanisms.
When you see things like testimonials on the street, it can set off the directive that this is bad social proof, pay attention!
Social proof can simulate compliance, is influential under uncertainty or ambiguity, or when proof is from similar people.
Isadore Johnson's Website 