Dr. Robert B. Cialdini , President of Influence at Work ( IAW), and Arizona State University Regents’ Professor Emer

1. Dr. Robert B. Cialdini, President of Influence at Work (IAW), and Arizona State University Regents’ Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Marketing Video

2. Social Influence Compliance/Persuasion (Cialdini & Griskevicius(2010) Type of research used: • Non-experimental • Systematic, naturalistic observation (e.g., professionals in advertising, sales, negotiators) • Quasi-experimental designs (e.g., field experiments)

3. Six Universal Influence Principles Reciprocity– the need to return a favor, gift, or service Consistency – with a prior commitment Social Validation (Consensus) – the behavior/opinions of similar others 4) Liking– the impact of those who express liking for “targets” Authority– the role of legitimate authority figures, expertise 6) Scarcity– the value/desire for things that are rare, less available

4. ~ Reciprocity ~ Premise: People ought to comply with a request from others who have earlier provided a favor or some type of concession Evolutionary Value: Goal directed, adaptive for survival, promotes affiliation Seen across cultures, species

5. Reciprocity Research Findings • Restaurant servers: Give 2 candies to customers = 14.1% increase in tips • DAV: Survey with gift included (address labels) = 35% rise in donations vs. 18% control • Hand written Post-it note with survey = 2x more likely to respond; returned survey quicker and gave more information on survey • Check with questionnaire (Rand Corp. doctor sample) – • 78% response vs. 66% (if check promised later) • 95% of doctors who complied cashed checks, but 26% who did not comply did so! • Reusetowels (Hotels): Money already given to charity = 26% reuse • Concessions: Blood donation example – Long-term plan (No); then ... how about once • Door-in-the Face and That’s Not All Techniques discussed next class

6. ~ Social Validation (Consensus) ~ Premise: People are more likely to comply if the behavior asked for is congruent with what others are doing or thinking • Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory (1954) • Need to evaluate ourselves (e.g., abilities, opinions, feelings) • Objective cues preferred when available • If no objective cues are present – look for social comparison information (others) • Similar others primarily used for social comparison

7. Social Comparison Examples Application of the “list technique” Reuse towels in hotels: Note that states the majority of customers reuse towels at least once = increase in compliance by 28%

8. ~ Consistency/Commitment ~ Premise: After committing to a position, people will be willing to comply with requests that are consistent with their prior commitment Affects one’s self perception/concept; One reason underlying mailing lists, web browsing data (identify types of people who are likely to respond well given their previous behaviors) Foot-in-the-Door Technique discussed next class Asked to wear charity pin – later asked to donate – more likely to do so (Piner et al. 1974) Call registered voters and ask if they’re going to vote; if “yes” = more likely to vote Bait and Switch Technique – go to store to buy a certain advertised product; product is of low quality or “sold out” = still willing to buy something (an alternative) Low Ball Technique - Get a commitment at a given price (low); item then costs more that that agreed upon (car sales example) = more likely to still buy item • Low Ball Technique is most effective when: • Employed by a single requester • Public commitment obtained • Commitment is freely made

9. ~ Consistency/Commitment ~ Labeling Technique – Making people aware of their existing commitments House insurance example (Bought expensive house = must buy expensive insurance) Legitimization of Paltry Favors approach -- Charity donation (Just a penny would help; just 25 cents/day) Assuming you consider yourself as a helpful person = hard to not give anything. Usually, the amount given is equal to the average donation not just a miniscule sum How Are You Feeling Technique: Answer (Fine, okay ...); = More difficult to deny others some money/time when you just admitted how well you are doing (will appear cheap) Phone call to have cookie salesperson come to house to raise $ for Hunger Relief Committee (Howard, 1990) Control: 18% versus 32% who were asked how they felt that evening. 89% who agree to the visit bought cookies!

10. ~ Liking~ Premise: People are more willing to comply with requests by friends or liked others Tupperware party example: Use of both friends and “love bombing” • Other Factors: • Physical Attractiveness • Similarity (Mirror-and-match behavioral approach; dressed alike) • Compliments (e.g., praise, even if not accurate) • Cooperation (us against them) Also -- Role of Positive Mood (e.g., pleasant environment, ads with dancing, dogs, laughing ...)

11. Scarcity (Perceived or Real) Premise: People desire to secure opportunities for things that are scarce or dwindling Why Effective? Rare = perception of value/worth Psychological Reactance Theory (personal freedom is threatened; need to gain control) Examples: Miami ban on phosphate detergents = perception of better quality and effectiveness of phosphate =based detergents (justifies our desire to buy limited availability items) Information from “exclusive” source = more valued and persuasive

12. Scarcity (Perceived or Real) Limited number or items left or limited time limit (last item; one time only offer; 30 minutes left) Role of perceived loss: Potential $$ lost due to poor insulation more effective than “here’s how much you could save”

13. ~ Authority/Expertise ~ Premise: People are more willing to comply with a legitimate authority figure “Babies are our business, our only business” “Sports Authority” CNN: “The Worldwide Leader in News” ESPN – The Total Sports Network (1979–1985) The Number One Sports Network (1985–1991) All Sports, All the Time (1991–1994) America's No. 1 Sports Network (1994–1998) The Worldwide Leader in Sports (1998–present) Role of titles, expert status/experience, attire (e.g., suits)

14. Use of Fear Appeals to Induce Compliance • Premise: • Lots of fear must be created • Most effective if options/information given to deal with the fear Examples: Drunk driving, Drug Use, Seat Belt Use, Skin Cancer, Condom Use Obstacles? • Oddsof negative outcome (low) • Time frame may be long between behavior and negative outcome • Ability to control behavior (e.g., habit, addiction) – Theory of Planned Behavior • Lack of perceived relevance (ELM Model)