Influence

Influence Plot Summary

Introduction

The restaurant was buzzing with the usual dinner crowd when I noticed something peculiar. A well-dressed man at the next table ordered his meal and then, when the server suggested a particular wine pairing, immediately agreed without looking at the price or options. Later, the same man readily accepted a dessert recommendation without hesitation. What struck me wasn't just his compliance, but the skillful way the server had guided his choices through subtle persuasion techniques. We encounter persuasion attempts daily—from advertising and sales pitches to requests from friends and colleagues. Yet few of us understand the psychological mechanisms that influence our decisions. Why do we say yes to some requests and no to others? What invisible forces shape our choices? The fascinating reality is that our compliance often follows predictable patterns based on deeply ingrained psychological principles. By understanding these principles, we gain insight not only into how others influence us but also how we might ethically influence those around us. The chapters that follow explore six fundamental principles of persuasion, each illustrated through real-world examples that reveal the subtle yet powerful ways our minds can be directed toward compliance.

Chapter 1: Reciprocity: The Power of Giving First

Professor Dennis Regan of Cornell University conducted a remarkable experiment that revealed the extraordinary power of reciprocity. In his study, participants were asked to rate artwork alongside another person who was actually the researcher's assistant, Joe. During a short break, Joe left the room and returned with two Coca-Colas, offering one to the participant, saying, "I asked him [the experimenter] if I could get myself a Coke, and he said it was okay, so I bought one for you, too." In another condition, Joe didn't offer participants anything. Later, Joe asked participants to buy raffle tickets from him, mentioning he could win a $50 prize if he sold the most tickets. The results were striking: those who had received the Coke purchased twice as many tickets as those who hadn't. Even more fascinating, when participants were asked about their personal liking for Joe, those who had received the Coke bought just as many tickets whether they liked him or not. This experiment demonstrates the powerful rule of reciprocity that exists across human cultures. When someone does something for us, we feel a strong obligation to repay them in kind. The Hare Krishna Society famously exploited this principle by giving flowers to strangers in airports before requesting donations. Even when recipients tried to return the "gift," members would refuse, insisting it was a present—thereby triggering the reciprocity rule. The reciprocity principle operates with such force that it can overcome factors like dislike for the requester. It creates a sense of indebtedness that can feel uncomfortable until discharged. This explains why free samples work so effectively in marketing—they're not just opportunities to try products but triggers for reciprocal obligation. Understanding this principle helps us recognize when others might be using it to gain our compliance, allowing us to respond based on genuine interest rather than a sense of obligation.

Chapter 2: Commitment and Consistency: The Need to Be Right

A fascinating study by Canadian psychologists revealed something peculiar about people at racetracks: immediately after placing a bet, they felt much more confident about their horse's chances of winning than they did just moments before wagering. Nothing about the horse had changed—it was the same animal on the same track—but in the bettors' minds, its prospects had significantly improved once they'd committed to it. This phenomenon illustrates our powerful desire to be consistent with what we've already done. Once we make a choice or take a stand, we encounter both internal and external pressure to behave consistently with that commitment. The racetrack bettors, having committed their money, needed to justify their decision by increasing their confidence in their choice. This principle explains why toy companies run advertisements before Christmas that prompt children to request specific toys, knowing parents will promise to buy them. When these toys become "sold out," parents must substitute other gifts. After Christmas, the companies advertise the original toys again, and children remind their parents of their promises. Parents, feeling the need to be consistent with their commitments, purchase the toys despite having already bought substitutes. The commitment and consistency principle is so powerful that marketers have developed techniques like the "foot-in-the-door" approach, where they secure a small commitment before asking for larger ones. In one study, researchers found that homeowners who had previously agreed to place a small three-inch "Be a Safe Driver" sign in their window were far more likely (76%) to later allow a large, unattractive "Drive Carefully" billboard in their yard than those who were asked without the initial commitment (17%). Our desire for consistency, while generally beneficial for decision-making efficiency, can sometimes lead us astray when exploited by compliance professionals. By recognizing when we're being maneuvered into making initial commitments, we can better evaluate whether subsequent requests align with our true interests rather than merely satisfying our need for consistency.

Chapter 3: Social Proof: Following the Crowd

Have you ever noticed the peculiar phenomenon of canned laughter on television shows? Despite nearly everyone claiming to dislike it, TV executives continue to use it extensively. The reason is simple but powerful: research shows that audiences laugh longer and more often at humorous material accompanied by laugh tracks, even rating the material as funnier—especially when the jokes are mediocre. This effect illustrates the principle of social proof: we determine what's correct by finding out what others think is correct. When uncertain about how to behave in a situation, we look to others for cues. This tendency serves us well in many circumstances—following the crowd often leads to the right decision. But it can also lead us astray, particularly when the "proof" is manufactured. The power of social proof explains why bystanders often fail to help in emergency situations. In a famous experiment by psychologists Latané and Darley, a student who appeared to be having an epileptic seizure received help 85% of the time when there was a single bystander present, but only 31% of the time with five bystanders present. Each person in the group looked to others for cues about how to respond, and seeing everyone else's inaction, concluded it wasn't an emergency—a phenomenon called "pluralistic ignorance." Perhaps the most disturbing demonstration of social proof's influence was the mass suicide at Jonestown, Guyana, where over 900 people took their own lives. While many factors contributed to this tragedy, social proof played a crucial role. As the first few members complied with Jim Jones's suicide command, their actions provided social evidence that influenced others. The uncertainty of the situation, combined with the actions of similar others, created a powerful force for compliance. Social proof works most effectively when we're uncertain and when we observe the behavior of people similar to ourselves. By understanding this principle, we can be more vigilant about distinguishing between genuine social consensus and manufactured evidence, allowing us to make decisions based on our own values rather than the apparent but potentially misleading behavior of others.

Chapter 4: Authority: The Influence of Expertise

In the early 1960s, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted one of the most revealing experiments on human behavior ever performed. Participants were instructed by a researcher in a lab coat to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to another person (actually an actor) whenever that person answered questions incorrectly. Despite hearing cries of pain and pleas to stop, approximately 65% of participants continued to the maximum 450-volt level, simply because the authority figure in the lab coat instructed them to continue. The experiment revealed our profound tendency to comply with authority figures. When the researcher and the victim switched roles, with the researcher receiving the shocks and the fellow participant giving orders, not a single subject administered additional shocks. The authority of the researcher, not sadistic tendencies, drove the compliance. This deference to authority appears in many contexts. In hospitals, nurses have been found to follow doctors' orders even when they're clearly incorrect. In one troubling study, researchers called nurses' stations pretending to be doctors and ordered unauthorized medication in dangerous doses. Despite hospital policy prohibiting such phone orders, 95% of nurses proceeded to administer the medication before being stopped by observers. Our tendency to obey authority isn't entirely irrational. Authority figures often possess special knowledge and power, making compliance adaptive in many situations. However, we frequently respond to the symbols of authority rather than actual expertise. Titles (like "Doctor"), clothing (uniforms or business suits), and trappings (expensive cars) can trigger automatic deference even when the authority is irrelevant or fabricated. The key to defending against inappropriate authority influence is to ask two questions: "Is this authority truly an expert in this particular matter?" and "How truthful can we expect this expert to be in this situation?" By focusing on relevant expertise and potential bias, we can benefit from legitimate authority while protecting ourselves from those who merely exploit its symbols.

Chapter 5: Scarcity: Valuing What's Limited

I once read a newspaper article about a special opportunity to tour the inner sanctum of a Mormon temple—an area normally restricted to faithful members only. The article explained that for just a few days following renovation, non-members could see this otherwise forbidden section. Despite having no particular interest in Mormon temples, I immediately decided I wanted to go. When I called a friend to invite him along, I realized something: I wanted to visit solely because the opportunity would soon be unavailable. This reaction illustrates the scarcity principle: opportunities seem more valuable when their availability is limited. Marketers understand this principle well. "Limited time offers," "exclusive memberships," and "while supplies last" create a sense of urgency that drives purchasing decisions. In one experiment, researchers found that people rated cookies as more desirable when they came from a jar with only two cookies rather than from a jar with ten identical cookies. The scarcity principle gains its power from two sources. First, things that are difficult to obtain are typically more valuable, so scarcity serves as a shortcut for assessing value. Second, as opportunities become less available, we lose freedom of choice—and we hate losing freedoms we already have. Psychologist Jack Brehm called this "psychological reactance," our tendency to react against threats to our established freedoms. This explains why censorship often backfires. When a speech opposing coed dorms was banned at the University of North Carolina, students became more opposed to coed housing without ever hearing the speech. The mere act of censorship made the forbidden information seem more valuable and persuasive. The most effective applications of scarcity combine limited availability with competition. When we believe others are competing with us for limited resources, desire intensifies dramatically. Car salespeople use this by telling one customer that another is interested in the same vehicle, creating a sense of rivalry that often leads to quicker purchasing decisions. Understanding the scarcity principle allows us to recognize when our decisions are being driven by the fear of missing out rather than the actual value of what's being offered. By asking whether we want something for its intrinsic worth or merely because it's becoming unavailable, we can make choices based on our genuine needs and preferences.

Summary

Throughout this exploration of influence principles, we've seen how deeply ingrained psychological mechanisms shape our responses to persuasion attempts. From the obligation created by reciprocity to our desire for consistency, from our reliance on social proof to our deference to authority, and from our attraction to scarcity to our susceptibility to liking—these principles operate largely beneath our conscious awareness, guiding our decisions through mental shortcuts that usually serve us well but can sometimes lead us astray. The power of these principles lies not in their complexity but in their invisibility. They work best when we don't recognize their operation. This doesn't mean we should attempt to eliminate these responses—they're essential for navigating our complex social environment efficiently. Instead, awareness becomes our best defense. By recognizing when these principles are being activated—especially when they're being exploited through manufactured reciprocity, trivial commitments, fake social proof, irrelevant authorities, artificial scarcity, or superficial liking—we can pause and evaluate whether compliance aligns with our true interests. The goal isn't to resist all influence but to ensure that our responses remain thoughtful rather than automatic, allowing us to harness the genuine benefits of social connection while protecting ourselves from manipulation.

About Author

Loading...

Robert B. Cialdini

Read more