The Six Principles of Interpersonal Influence
(Adapted from “Influence: Science & Practice” by Robert B. Cialdini, Ph.D.)
Introduction
Robert Cialdini is a Professor of Psychology at
Arizona State University and has spent many years
devoted to the scientific investigation and research
of persuasion techniques. His book "Influence" has
become a classic. Within his book Cialdini lists six
basic social and psychological principles that form
the foundation for successful strategies used to
achieve influence.
Those six principles are:
1) Rule of Reciprocity
According to sociologists and anthropologists, one
of the most widespread and basic norms of human
culture is embodied in the rule of reciprocity. This
rule requires that one person try to repay what
another person has provided. By obligating the
recipient to an act of repayment in the future--the
rule for reciprocation allows one individual to give
something to another with the confidence that it is
not being lost.
This sense of future obligation according to the
rule makes possible the development of various
kinds of continuing relationships, transactions, and
exchanges that are beneficial to society.
Consequently, virtually all members of society are
trained from childhood to abide by this rule or
suffer serious social disapproval.
The decision to comply with someone's request is
frequently based upon the Rule of Reciprocity.
Again, a possible and profitable tactic to gain
probable compliance would be to give something
to someone before asking for a favor in return.
The opportunity to exploit this tactic is due to three
characteristics of the Rule of Reciprocity:
1. The rule is extremely powerful, often
overwhelming the influence of other
factors that normally determine
compliance with a request.
2. The rule applies even to uninvited first
favors, which reduces our ability to decide
whom we wish to owe and putting the
choice in the hands of others
3. The rule can spur unequal exchanges. That
is--to be rid of the uncomfortable feeling
of indebtedness, an individual will often
agree to a request for a substantially larger
favor, than the one he or she first received.
Another way in which the Rule of Reciprocity can
increase compliance involves a simple variation on
the basic theme: instead of providing a favor first
that stimulates a returned favor, an individual can
make instead an initial concession--that stimulates
a return concession.
One compliance procedure, called the "rejection-
then-retreat technique", or door-in-the-face
technique, relies heavily on the pressure to
reciprocate concessions. By starting with an
extreme request that is sure to be rejected, the
requester can then profitably retreat to a smaller
request--the one that was desired all along. This
request is likely to now be accepted because it
appears to be a concession. Research indicates, that
aside from increasing the likelihood that a person
will say yes to a request--the rejection-then-retreat
technique also increases the likelihood that the
person will carry out the request a will agree to
future requests.
The best defense against manipulation by the use
of the Rule of Reciprocity to gain compliance is
not the total rejection of initial offers by others.
But rather, accepting initial favors or concessions
in good faith, while also remaining prepared to see
through them as tricks--should they later be proven
so. Once they are seen in this way, there is no
longer a need to feel the necessity to respond with
a favor or concession.
2) Commitment and Consistency
People have a desire to look consistent through
their words, beliefs, attitudes and deeds and this
tendency is supported or fed from three sources:
1. Good personal consistency is highly
valued by society.
2. Consistent conduct provides a beneficial
approach to daily life.
3. A consistent orientation affords a valuable
shortcut through the complexity of modern
existence. That is-- by being consistent
with earlier decisions we can reduce the
need to process all the relevant information
1
 in future similar situations. Instead, one
merely needs to recall the earlier decision
and respond consistently.
The key to using the principles of Commitment
and Consistency to manipulate people is held
within the initial commitment. That is--after
making a commitment, taking a stand or position,
people are more willing to agree to requests that
are consistent with their prior commitment. Many
compliance professionals will try to induce others
to take an initial position that is consistent with a
behavior they will later request.
Commitments are most effective when they are
active, public, effortful, and viewed as internally
motivated and not coerced. Once a stand is taken,
there is a natural tendency to behave in ways that
are stubbornly consistent with the stand. The drive
to be and look consistent constitutes a highly
potent tool of social influence, often causing
people to act in ways that are clearly contrary to
their own best interests.
Commitment decisions, even erroneous ones, have
a tendency to be self-perpetuating--they often
"grow their own legs." That is--those involved may
add new reasons and justifications to support the
wisdom of commitments they have already made.
As a consequence, some commitments remain in
effect long after the conditions that spurred them
have changed. This phenomenon explains the
effectiveness of certain deceptive compliance
practices.
To recognize and resist the undue influence of
consistency pressures upon our compliance
decisions--we can listen for signals coming from
two places within us--our stomach or "gut
reaction" and our heart.
A bad feeling in the pit of the stomach may appear
when we realize that we are being pushed by
commitment and consistency pressures to agree to
requests we know we don't want to perform.
Our heart may bother us when it is not clear that an
initial commitment was right.
At such points it is meaningful to ask a crucial
question, "Knowing what I know now, if I could
go back, would I have made the same
commitment?"
3) Social Proof
One means used to determine what is correct is to
find out what others believe is correct. People
often view a behavior as more correct in a given
situation--to the degree that we see others
performing it.
This principle of Social Proof can be used to
stimulate a person's compliance with a request by
informing him or her that many other individuals,
perhaps some that are role models, are or have
observed this behavior. This tool of influence
provides a shortcut for determining how to behave.
But at the same time it can make those involved
with using this social shortcut--vulnerable to the
manipulations of others who seek to exploit such
influence through such things as seminars, group
introduction dinners, retreats etc. Group members
may then provide the models for the behavior that
each group plans to produce in its potential new
members.
Social proof is most influential under two
conditions:
Uncertainty--when people are unsure and the
situation is ambiguous they are more likely to
observe the behavior of others and to accept that
behavior as correct
Similarity--people are more inclined to follow the
lead of others who are similar.
Some recommendations on how to reduce
susceptibility to contrived social proofs would
include a greater sensitivity to clearly counterfeit
evidence. That is--what others are doing and their
behavior should not form a sole basis for decision-
making.
4) Liking
People prefer to say yes to individuals they know
and like. This simple rule helps to understand how
Liking can create influence and how compliance
professionals may emphasize certain factors and/or
attributes to increase their overall attractiveness
and subsequent effectiveness. Compliance
practitioners may regularly use several factors.
Physical attractiveness--is one feature of a person
that often may help to create some influence.
Although it has long been suspected that physical
beauty provides an advantage in social interaction,
research indicates that this advantage may be
greater than once supposed. Physical attractiveness
seems to engender a "halo" effect that extends to
favorable impressions of other traits such as talent,
kindness, and intelligence. As a result, attractive
people are more persuasive both in terms of getting
what they request and in changing others' attitudes.
2
Similarity--is a second factor that influences both
Liking and compliance. That is--we like people
who are like us and are more willing to say yes to
their requests, often without much critical
consideration.
Praise--is another factor that produces Liking,
though this can sometimes backfire when they are
crudely transparent. But generally compliments
most often enhance liking and can be used as a
means to gain compliance.
Increased familiarity--through repeated contact
with a person or thing is yet another factor that
normally facilitates Liking. But this holds true
principally when that contact takes place under
positive rather than negative circumstances. One
positive circumstance that may works well is
mutual and successful cooperation.
A final factor linked to Liking is often association.
By associating with products or positive things--
those who seek influence frequently share in a halo
effect by association. Other individuals as well
appear to recognize the positive effect of simply
associating themselves with favorable events and
distancing themselves from unfavorable ones.
A potentially effective response that reduces
vulnerability to the undue influence of Liking upon
decision-making requires a recognition of how
Liking and its attending factors may impact our
impression of someone making requests and
soliciting important decisions. That is--
recognizing how someone making requests may do
inordinately well under certain circumstances--
should cause us to step back from some social
interaction and objectively separate the requester
from his or her offer or request. We should make
decisions, commitments and offer compliance
based upon the actual merits of the offer or request.
5) Authority
In the seminal studies and research conducted by
Milgram regarding obedience there is evidence of
the strong pressure within our society for
compliance when requested by an authority figure.
The strength of this tendency to obey legitimate
authorities is derived from the systematic
socialization practices designed to instill in society
the perception that such obedience constitutes
correct conduct. Additionally, it is also frequently
adaptive to obey the dictates of genuine authorities
because such individuals usually possess high
levels of knowledge, wisdom, and power. For these
reasons, deference to authorities can occur in a
mindless fashion as a kind of decision-making
shortcut. When reacting to authority in an
automatic fashion there is a tendency to often do so
in response to the mere symbols of authority rather
than to its substance.
Three types of symbols have been demonstrated
through research as effective in this regard:
1. Titles
2. Clothing
3. Automobiles.
In separate studies investigating the influence of
these symbols--individuals that possessed one or
another of these symbols, even without other
legitimizing credentials, were accorded more
deference or obedience by those they encountered.
Moreover, in each instance, those individuals who
deferred and/or obeyed these individuals
underestimated the effect of authority pressures
upon their behavior.
Asking two questions can attain a meaningful
defense against the detrimental effects of undue
influence gained through authority.
Is this authority truly an expert?
How truthful can we expect this expert to be?
The first question directs our attention away from
symbols and toward actual evidence for authority
status. The second advises us to consider not just
the expert's knowledge in the situation, but also his
or her trustworthiness. With regard to this second
consideration, we should be alert to the trust-
enhancing tactic in which a communicator may
first provide some mildly negative information
about himself or herself. This can be seen as a
strategy to create the perception of honesty--
making subsequent information seem more
credible to those listening.
6) Scarcity
According to the Principle of Scarcity--people
assign more value to opportunities when they are
less available. The use of this principle for profit
can be seen in such high-pressure sales techniques
as only a "limited number" now available and a
"deadline" set for an offer. Such tactics attempt to
persuade people that number and/or time restrict
access to what is offered. The scarcity principle
holds true for two reasons:
Things difficult to attain are typically more
valuable. And the availability of an item or
3
experience can serve as a shortcut clue or cue to its
quality.
When something becomes less accessible, the
freedom to have it may be lost.
According to psychological reactance theory,
people respond to the loss of freedom by wanting
to have it more. This includes the freedom to have
certain goods and services. As a motivator,
psychological reactance is present throughout the
great majority of a person's life span. However, it
is especially evident at a pair of ages: "the terrible
twos" and the teenage years. Both of these periods
are characterized by an emerging sense of
individuality, which brings to prominence such
issues as control, individual rights, and freedoms.
People at these ages are especially sensitive to
restrictions.
In addition to its effect on the valuation of
commodities, the Principle of Scarcity also applies
to the way that information is evaluated. Research
indicates that the act of limiting access to a
message may cause individuals to want it more and
to become increasingly favorable to it. The latter of
these findings, that limited information is more
persuasive--seems the most interesting. In the case
This note is based upon the summary notes within the book--Influence. By Robert B. Cialdini, Ph.D.
(Quill, NY, 1984 (Revised 1993)). Retrieved from
http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing20.html on April 27, 2007
of censorship, this effect occurs even when the
message has not been received. When a message
has been received, it is more effective if it is
perceived to consist of some type of exclusive
information.
The scarcity principle is more likely to hold true
under two optimizing conditions
Scarce items are heightened in value when they are
newly scarce. That is things have higher value
when they have become recently restricted--more
than those than those things that were restricted all
along have.
People are most attracted to scarce resources when
they compete with others for them.
It is difficult to prepare ourselves cognitively
against scarcity pressures because they have an
emotional quality that makes thinking difficult. In
defense, we might attempt to be alert regarding the
sudden rush of emotions in situations involving
scarcity. Perhaps this awareness may allow us to
remain calm and take steps to assess the merits of
an opportunity in terms of why we really want and
objectively need.