More than two decades ago, Dr Robert Cialdini’s book, “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion,” was already concerned with the information boom’s effect on our decisions. In 2009, with information coming at us in unprecedented volumes and speeds, the issue is as pertinent as ever. Cialdini’s book examines some of our most vital questions: What makes us want something? How do other people influence us to want or do something? And perhaps most importantly: How can our natural and social drives be abused to make us do something we do not want to do? The answer lies in our reliance on signals we pick out of the whole, or a so-called short cut.

Good and Bad Short Cuts

To illustrate the point of what he calls a “short cut,” Cialdini gives us a vivid example: a mother turkey and her chicks. There are many factors turkeys may consider to indentify healthy chicks, but they focus on one exclusively, the baby’s “cheep.” A chick with a healthy, strong sound is nurtured; a chick without one is ignored. As Cialdini points out, we may find such narrow-mindedness characteristic of a lower animal, but it is a technique humans also use on a regular basis. Every day, we are exposed to so many things that to try to evaluate the inherent value of each product or piece of information through all of its characteristics would be impossible. So we use short cuts (like the strong “cheep”) to cut through a barrage of stimuli and quickly determine whether something is worth our time and resources. Some of these short cuts are based in biology, some in social norms—all of them are usually correct in most situations, which is why it makes perfect sense to use them. However, because they are automatic, ingrained, and very often quite unconscious, they can easily be used for manipulation.

It is easy to trick a turkey into taking an interest in something that is NOT a baby chick (another baby animal or even an object) by pairing that thing with a recording of the chick’s call. Recording the signals we have come to rely on as valuable pointers in everyday life and playing them back in false, manipulative ways is exactly what advertisers, salesmen and above all, con-men, do to influence us to act in ways we wouldn’t normally.

Social Proof

Probably one of the easiest ways for us to quickly tell if we are doing something appropriate is to see if other people are doing it. Humans are social animals and thus adjusting their behavior to the behavior of others is a natural and expected thing to do. What is called “the bystander effect” has been proven in social psychology experiments time and time again: We will act quicker in an emergency with less people around, and will be more reluctant to act when we see others not acting, because we take on their cue. If other people are not moving and acting panicked, it must not be an emergency, even if our senses perceive one. Similarly, we will be more ready to want or support something if many are doing it, because we imagine that other people know something we don’t and we want to benefit as well.
Consider how this is manipulated in everyday life: Cialdini cites something as simple as buying toothpaste. When confronted with the task, we have tens of brands competing for our attention, so how can we possibly choose which one is the best or even which one we want? Nobody will take the time to examine each box and read each claim, analyse each ingredient, and advertisers jump on our need for short cuts. Words such as “America’s Number One Brand” or “preferred to X brand two to one” quickly show us that a LOT of people use and endorse this product—which means it must be the best, or at least good enough. Some of the claims may actually be true (in which case, our use of this particular signal worked) but sometimes, the social proof short cut is abused to take us somewhere false (Cialdini describes a night-club that may use faked long lines or picky bouncers to create an air of exclusivity, when the club is actually not that full/expensive/etc.) We may be tempted to try to get into the club, because all the people standing in line waiting for it MUST be on to something good. Only when we paid the cover fee and entered a not-so-happening party do we see that our reliance on popular opinion has been abused.

Evolutionary Short Cuts

We constantly hear that beauty is only skin deep and may think we have moved beyond superficiality, but evolution is a strong force—and we all know that beautiful people still get away with more. Evolutionarily, it makes sense to be drawn to good looks. It gives us a signal that the person who has them is healthy and has good genes to pass on to our offspring, and we can make all those judgments through a short, quick glance—the ultimate biological short cut. This is manipulated though when we are made to believe that someone’s beauty can then provide us with something more. Our future children’s DNA in no way benefits from buying a car advertised by a sexy model, yet subconsciously, our mind makes the jump and transfers that plus to ourselves (we will now be able to GET women like that with such a car) or even the car itself (Cialdini points out a study in which subjects consistently rated cars paired with good-looking people as faster or just better than ones paired with something else).

Even likability, a trait most people confess favoring more readily than superficial beauty, is often used in sales tactics to get us to make purchases. Of course, we would argue that it is natural to prefer buying a car from a salesman we like than from a salesman we dislike (we are rewarding his likability, which we associate with kindness and trustworthiness.) While selling us a car, a salesman may reveal that he happens to enjoy the same sports we do, buy us coffee and donuts, and compliment us on our attire, all of which seems casual and makes us like him more. The problem is, it will now also influence whether or not we buy a car from him—and though we will subconsciously be ready to excuse more faults in the car or the deal because we like him, at the end of the day, we’ll drive off the lot with the car and the salesman we liked will stay behind!

The Habit of Giving

Once upon a time, reciprocating gifts was crucial to our survival. We may have received something from another group of people during hard times (food/clothing) and giving it back showed our thanks—and ensured that they would help us again, if we needed it in the future. Gifts could also be a way for groups to show friendship (again, establishing a connection and alliance that may be helpful later on). The habit of reciprocating is rooted in our survival and in most people more consciously as good manners. When someone gives us a gift, even if we had no intention of giving them one before (even if we did not LIKE what they gave us), most of us will feel compelled to now reciprocate something of equal or higher value. While reciprocating is the right thing to do in most situations when presented with a gift, again, this tendency is twisted in many ways and may be one of the most annoying forms of manipulation an average person has to deal with.
Drawing on our need to reciprocate is how many salesman and canvassers get our money. Depending on the person, someone may or may not have a hard time saying no to a petitioner who approaches them in the street, asking for a donation. However, almost anyone will have a harder time refusing if they are first offered a gift. It could be a book (a fairly common tactic for religious canvassers); it could be something as simple as a flower or a sticker. No matter how small the object is though, the act of receiving it triggers in most people the automatic response that says “I have received something and now I must give something back.” The shoe drops: We are pressed for a donation. The manipulation comes from the fact that the thing we will now give is often higher in value than the thing received—which was unsolicited in the first place! This tactic is also used by charities that send unsolicited mailing labels (asking for a return donation) or catalogues that offer free gifts for purchasing.

So What Do We Do?

Reading something like this, it may seem like the whole world is out to try to force our hand and even something as innocent as our choice of coffee is manipulated by suited men in shadowy board rooms. While that is true to a certain extent, Cialdini reminds us that it is important to remember that we are all driven by our wants, them and us— so perhaps the first step to combating manipulation is having a firm grasp on what YOU want. If you wanted to buy a certain car at a certain price, then separate that desire from the desire to be liked by the salesman who suddenly claims he also loves golf (because you are buying a car and not his friendship). Keep in mind that while the mood of the crowd is often a good indicator of what is happening, if you are feeling clueless, there is a high chance many other people are as well—i.e. go ahead and ask the person slumped on the ground if they want your help, even if it is potentially embarrassing to be the first to make a move. Finally, Cialdini urges us to not tolerate people or sales tactics that shamelessly play on our need for these short cuts, because they cause us a dangerous disservice. We NEED these signals to simplify our lives, we need them to be reliable and true, and with all the information streaming at us today, that warning is more relevant than ever.

If you enjoyed the article "Influence – The Psychology of Persuasion " - why don't you read more about the Whakate Way.