Lecture 11 Flashcards
Cialdini’s principles of influence
- people are motivated by self-interest
- fixed-action pattern
- automatic (less-controlled) responses
- mindless use of script
Langer et al., 1978
even if people don’t have a good excuse, people comply
- copy machine example
Cialdini’s principle of influence
- reciprocity
- commitment and consistency
- social proof
- liking
- authority
- scarcity
reciprocity
we should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided us
- consequences:
- uninvited debts
- unfair exchange
- reciprocal concessions (rejection-then-retreat; door-in-the-face technique)
commitment and consistency
we have a desire to appear consistent with what we have already done
- foot-in-the-door
- low ball
social proof
to determine what is correct, estimate what other people think is correct
- ‘most used in your country’
more influential when:
- uncertainty
- similarity with reference group
liking
say ‘yes’ to request of someone we know and like
- tupperware parties
- ‘endless chain’ method
- celebrity endorsements
source of liking
- attractiveness
- similarity and familiarity
- compliments, good news, cooperation
authority
obey commands of authorities
- vulnerable to symbols of authority (titles, clothes, accessories)
- marketing: experts are authorities
scarcity
scarce things are valuable
- opportunities seem more valuable when their availability is limited
- reflects economics
- limited editions
the principle of confusion
disrupt-then-reframe technique
- meta-analysis: average r = .28, but larger effect in nonprofit context than in sales
- disrupting allows for reframing
- reduces ability to counter-argue, reframe gives cognitive closure
mindlessness revisited: limited-resource account
- self-control varies, but it does not run out when you use it
- limited-resource account not supported
principles which resemble tricks
- reciprocity
- commitment/consistency
- liking
- confusion
principles used with true information
- social proof
- authority
- scarcity
door in the face technique
a compliance strategy where a large request is first made (and rejected), followed by a smaller, more reasonable request, increasing the likelihood of compliance
why door in the face technique works
works due to the norm of reciprocity, where people feel obligated to return a favor when a concession is made
difference between door in the face and foot in the door technique
DITF starts with a large request then moderates, while FITD starts with a small request and escalates to a larger one
real world scenarios for DITF
negotiations, sales, fundraising, and social influence strategies
factors increasing effectiveness of DITF
- same person makes both requests
- a clear contrast between the large and small request
- face-to-face interaction
