How to persuade others

Robert Cialdini

Introduction and some context

The NPR program Freakonomics Radio Book Club broadcast an interview with social psychologist Robert Cialdini, professor emeritus of Psychology and Marketing at Arizona State University. Cialdini is a leading expert on persuasion science, i.e., what sensory inputs leads people to be susceptible to persuasion by others. He just published an updated and expanded 2021 edition of his 1984 classic book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. The 50 minute Book Club interview is here. 

The influence of Cialdini's original 1984 book is evidenced by the fact that marketers and manipulators the world over have used his book as a source of manipulation inspiration. Cialdini got interested in persuasion science after he became self-aware that he was being manipulated and controlled by all sorts of influence peddlers. He was baffled about why he was such a sucker. In the new edition of his book, Cialdini acknowledges what he unleashed as weapons for bad guys, e.g., dictators. demagogues, liars, deceivers, emotional manipulators, etc. To acknowledge what his book unleashed on all of us, he tries to deal with innate human badness and evil by adding a new chapter to the old book that focuses on the ethics of improper or immoral persuasion. 

Obviously, pointing to ethics is not going to faze demagogues, dictators, deceivers, etc. in the slightest. American commerce and politics is far past the point of meaningful ethics in this regard. The only meaningful ethics left are the rule of law and caveat emptor. Unfortunately those lines of defense are crumbling in real time before our eyes. But, at least Cialdini gives ethics (morality) the good 'ole college try. He correctly points out that all or nearly all information can be used for good, bad, frivolous, crime, altruism, truth telling, oppression, bigotry, deceit and whatever else specific information can be used for. 

Note that specific information includes social behavior. Humans are social creatures and most of us act accordingly but unconsciously on social cues most of the time. 

Based on the interview, my read on Caialdini’s current mindset and new book is that he is an astute intellectual successor who builds on a combination of (i) the 1910s-1970s master propagandist Edward Bernays (Crystallizing Public Opinion, 1923) and his contemporary and successor propagandists, and (ii) sociologist Peter Berger (Invitation to Sociology, 1963) and his social science predecessors, cohort and successors, including prominent cognitive and social science researchers of the human mind and/or politics such as Daniel Khaneman (Thinking, Fast and Slow, 2011), Philip Tetlock, (Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction, 2015) Johnathan Haidt (The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, 2012), Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels (Democracy for Realists: Why Elections do not Produce Responsive Governments, 2016) and others.

Some examples

To try to keep this fairly short (readable) but still meaningful, a couple of examples are probably best to use. According to Cialdini, the art of invoking a mostly mindless state of compliance and belief boils down to appeal to a few innate human biases, or “principles.” Marketers and political, religious, and economic propagandists routinely resort to these biases. Some readers here may recall the human bias list or codex I used to use to try to point out the messiness of how the unconscious human mind thinks.

 

For purposes of understanding influence or persuasion, ignore that list. Cialdini finds there are just seven unconscious biases or “levers of influence” that professional marketers, recruiters, propagandists and the like need to appeal to in their quest for money, power, recruits, deceit, sex and other fun goals. Without some explanation, these won't make much or any sense, but here's the list anyway: reciprocation, liking (~ the halo effect), social proof, authority, scarcity, commitment and consistency, and unity. Proper invocation of any of those seven tends to lead to a distinct, unconscious (automatic) “mindless compliance” in some or most people. People tend to just say “yes” without first thinking when any one of the seven levers of influence (psychological principles) are applied to them.

Reciprocity

Cialdini did three years of research by posing as a trainee in training programs in different industries. Within 6 months, he perceived all the levers of influence that professionals use in their training programs. He got these people to willingly tell him their secret techniques by applying the reciprocity lever. As one might imagine, professional politicians, trainers and recruiters usually don't want people to know how they get people to say yes. Marketers don’t want customers to know how they have been played into buying something they might not have bough if they weren’t manipulated. Demagogues, dictators and autocrats absolutely do not want people to know that they are being played and manipulated.

Reciprocity boils down to this: people instinctively want to give back what has been given to them in terms of behavior. Reciprocity is universal across cultures. What did Cialdini give the experts that, with 100% effectiveness, got the professional persuaders to spill their guts and knowingly tell their secrets of persuasion? He told them he was just a university professor doing research and not a real trainee. He said he came to the real experts to learn from them. Cialdini gave the professionals something, flattery in this case, and in return Cialdini freely got the information he wanted. 

Gifts from pharmaceutical company salespeople to prescribing doctors effectively induces the doctors to prescribe more of the company’s drugs. The gift can be a a free lunch to the doctor or their office staff. Research has also documented the same phenomenon with legislators. Gifts or donations to legislators induces them to give something back. A key point about reciprocity and the other six levers is that a small thing used as the lever tends to net a significantly larger return. 

Social proof

Here, social behavior is at play. If we perceive, correctly or not, that lots of other people more or less like us are doing something or believe something, the tendency is to do or believe the same. One study found the only thing that affected whether people would wear a mask in public during the COVID pandemic was whether most other people around them were wearing masks. Whether people believed the virus was a serious or not, or spread by air and masks reduce infection rate, did not matter. The only thing that mattered (made a statistically significant difference) was what other people were doing.

Research has now shown that in general, people who watch a presidential debate on TV are significantly swayed by audience applause. Whether a candidate the audience applauds is informed or not or is a crackpot or not doesn't matter. What matters is audience reaction. The human mind evolved to be responsive to the behavior of others and to fall in line with that behavior. 

Social proof is reflected in the presence of hired responders or “clacks” in theater, opera and other audiences. The responders enthusiastically act (laugh, cry, applaud, shout for an encore, etc.) to get the whole audience to respond similarly. Professional clacks are hired for their specific abilities, crying on cue or infectious laughing on cue, etc.

Social proof was a significant part of what got the German people to go along with the Nazis. We all know how that worked out. Social proof in places where people tend to refuse to get vaccinated, e.g., states that voted for T****, lead others in the state to not get vaccinated. 

Cialdini calls the social proof that the internet easily generates a “big, big problem.” Society has not caught up to the reality that they are being played in real life and in online life, in politics and most everything else. For example, the most persuasive number of stars in 5 star online produce or service reviews, e.g., Yelp, is 4.2 to 4.7. Five stars is too good for credibility. Smart businesses know how to get the average rating to the sweet spot.

Social proof for the public good sometimes backfires. Too many public service ads or news items that emphasize suicides or mass shootings tends to increase suicides and mass shootings. A notices at a national park entrance that people should not take artifacts because too many people are taking artifacts, leads some to want to take some artifacts before they are all gone. 

Question: Since social proof in pro-T**** states is a significant part of what leads people in those states to not wear a mask and not get vaccinated, is that mostly the fault of T**** and his anti-COVID propagandists, or mostly the fault of affected people because they are responsible for their own arguably stupid or bad behavior?