CATEGORY: #PERSUASION
The next tier down in the hashtag stack, after #Needs, when using the Propaganda Watchdog protocol to forensically identify potential coercion in the form of propaganda, is to examine which ‘Weapons of Influence’ may be present in the communication by examining increasing complexity of functionality denoted as hashtags descend.
#PERSUASION CONTENTS:
You need to look at the item in question and ask yourself if you can spot any of the following ‘Weapons of Influence’ being used, you can be pretty sure that there will be at least one.
Fixed Action Pattern Propaganda is an intermediate level of understanding. Most people will grasp this pretty well.
These are propaganda exploits; these loopholes in consciousness exist at our animalistic, biological level of…
“Fixed Action Patterns [may elicit] an automatic compliance response”…and thus, Cialdini’s, ‘Principles of Persuasion’, innate human tendencies, become ‘Weapons of Influence’. Cialdini: “Each of these categories is governed by a fundamental psychological principle that directs human behavior and, in so doing, gives the tactics their power. … The principles – consistency, reciprocation, social proof, authority, liking, and scarcity – are each discussed in terms of their function in the society and in terms of how their enormous force can be commissioned by a compliance professional who deftly incorporates them into requests for purchases, donations, concessions, votes, assent, etc. This is when the ‘Principles of Persuasion’ become the Weapons of influence.”
Citation Source Lost/Stolen in PC Hack and seemingly now scrubbed from the Web at the date and time of Propaganda Watchdog’s originally posting
One example described in full-Reciprocation:
1. The Old Give and Take…and Take – #Reciprocity
“In Robert Cialdini’s Influence: Science and Practice (2009), he describes the powerful rule of reciprocity in the second chapter of his book. As one of the most influential dynamics of human behavior, the reciprocation rule essentially states that if someone gives something to us, we feel obligated to repay that debt. There are several characteristics of this rule, which make it phenomenally compelling – the rules’ historical and cultural universality, the impact on individuals, groups, politics and culture, the potential for exploitation and compliance, and disparities of indebtedness and concessions with the rule.
The rule of reciprocity was fundamental in human evolution. Cialdini notes the work of anthropologist Richard Leakey, who considers the rule of reciprocity as a defining factor of what it means to be human, “We are human because our ancestors learned to share their food and their skills in an honored network of obligation” (2009, p. 19).
By obligating the recipient to an act of future repayment, the rule of reciprocation allows one person to give something to another with the confidence that it is not being lost. The mutually beneficial exchanges of our ancestors evolved into a sound interdependence among humans. As a result, people were (and are) trained from an early age to comply with the rule of reciprocity.
Interestingly, the rule of reciprocation not only has longstanding roots in the human psyche, its’ universality applies cross culturally. According to Cialdini, anthropologists report that the rule of reciprocity is apparent in all human societies (p. 19). Although different cultures may employ the rule in various ways, it still exists. For those who “fail to conform” to the reciprocity rule, public disapproval is likely to follow. Researcher found in one cross-cultural study that breaking the reciprocity rule in the other direction, giving something and refusing payment or gifts in return, is disliked, as well (p. 34).
How many of us have been told that when borrowing something, we should return it to the owner in better condition than when we first received it? In effect, this shows the rule of reciprocity. But what about gifts or exchanges we don’t want? Do we still feel indebted? Absolutely. Cialdini cites a number of examples in which the receiver never requested the gift, good or service but felt inclined to repay whatever token received (for more, see the experiment with Joe and the Coke, p. 21 & p. 31). Furthermore, the repaid debt is often of more value than the initial gift, which has incredible implications to the influencing effect of the rule.
Cialdini notes Marcel Mauss’ study of gift giving, “There is an obligation to give, an obligation to receive, and an obligation to repay. Although the obligation to repay constitutes the essence of the reciprocity rule, it is the obligation to receive that makes the rule so easy to exploit” (p. 31). The rule can trigger unparalleled cognitive dissonance, which often leads to unequal exchanges. When the discomfort over the indebtedness combines with the fear of external shame and judgment we will often give back more than we receive to ensure that we are not subject to these combined psychological costs (Soules, 2012).
Another way in which the rule of reciprocity is so powerful is how we are compelled to overcome our feelings of dislike or suspicion for the person who gives us a gift. Cialdini discusses Hare Krishna followers as an example (pushing the “gift” of the flower in one’s hand and soliciting donations in return). Gavin deBecker cites this phenomenon in his book, The Gift of Fear (1999) in which people ignore their own discomfort in order to “repay” another’s act of kindness (again, even if unsolicited). As both authors note, exploitation can occur with this process. There are numerous examples of the rule within the political sphere- contributions, “logrolling” and political patronage.
Cialdini writes about his experience of effective solicitation from a Boy Scout. On this occasion, the Boy Scout requested that Cialdini purchase a ticket to a Boy Scout event for $5. The author declined but made a concession when the Boy Scout offered a chocolate bar for $1 a piece. Despite not liking chocolate bars, Cialdini illustrates the concept of reciprocal concession; he changed from noncompliant to compliant when he was moved from a larger request to a smaller request (p. 37). The art of negotiation encompasses this phenomenon – something excessive is initially thrown out so that a fairer agreement can finally be settled upon. It is the classic concept of compromise, with the rule of reciprocity providing the framework as to why we are often compelled to concede. Cialdini continues his narration on reciprocal concession by noting the human value of such a process.
Cialdini describes several experiments, which reveal the rejection-then-retreat strategy of concession. Think of a classic negotiations situation in which incredibly stringent demands are placed yet slowly whittled away. The initial demander never expected their requests to be met, but produced them with the explicit purpose of getting their original idea approved. In rejection-then-retreat, a feeling of responsibility results when the person accepting the offer has helped craft the agreement through the negotiation process. What is most fascinating is that the conceding person is more likely to follow through with the agreement, and even make future concessions. The person accepting the lesser offer feels satisfied because the process has worked favorably (even though victims of this strategy often end up conceding more than they would if the tactic had not been employed; Cialdini, 2009, p. 51; Soules, 2012).
Are we powerless to the strength of the rule of reciprocity? Despite the rule’s influence, we have the ability to effectively discern, adjust, or simply say “no” to reciprocation. “It is essential to recognize that the requester who invokes the reciprocation rule (or any other weapon of influence) to gain our compliance is not the real opponent. The real opponent is the rule” (Cialdini, 2009, p. 47). We don’t need to reject the services, favors, or kindnesses of others, but we do want to evaluate intention, as well as our return concessions. If we feel that we are being tricked, then Cialdini recommends that we redefine the initial favor so that we no longer feel a need to respond with a favor or concession (p. 49). By knowingly engaging in the exchange of reciprocity, we can minimize the potential effects of exploitation.
References
Cialdini, R.B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
deBecker, G. (1999). The gift of fear: Survival signals that protect us from violence. New York: Random House.
Soules, M. (2012). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Media Studies. Retrieved from http://www.media-studies.ca/index.htm.”
All six and one extra (Pre-Suasion) from his later work, are:
2. Commitment and Consistency: Hobgoblins of the Mind – #Consistency
Hobgoblins of the Mind
“It’s easier to resist at the beginning than at the end.”
Leonardo Da Vinci
“Another deep and powerful social influence that we exhibit is consistency to a commitment made. We have a desire to be, or appear to be, consistent with what we have already done.
“Once we have made a choice or taken a stand, we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment” (Cialdini, 2009, p 52). The example that Cialdini cites is the confidence bettors portray once they have placed a bet on a particular horse. Once the ticket is purchased, the prospects for that horse winning improve significantly in the mind of the bettor.Automatic Consistency
Consistency is a powerful principle in guiding human action. Festinger (1957), Heider (1946), and Newcomb (1953) viewed the desire for consistency as a central motivator of behavior (p 53). A research example shows that if someone asks us to watch their belongings, we’re more likely to try to capture a thief who tries to steal them than if we had not been asked. Consistency is a powerful motivator for action because it is generally valued as a character trait, and is the basis of logic, rationality, stability, and honesty. An inconsistent person, commonly though to be an undesirable trait, is often seen as confused, difficult, erratic or undisciplined.
Automatic consistency offers a shortcut through the complexities of life’s many decisions, but it can lead to unintended consequences and behaviors not in our best interest. Automatic consistency can be a defense against unwanted dilemmas, or disturbing emotional reactions such as guilt and shame, and safeguards against deeper thought.
Cialdini’s example of Transcendental Meditation (TM): interested people signed up for TM courses after the recruiters’ pitch was challenged for its logic. Cialdini argues that they needed to make a decision rapidly before the logic presented shattered their hope of finding a solution to their problems (2009, p 54-56).
Professionals exploit our need to be consistent to their benefit, preferring our tendency to respond without thinking. Toy manufacturers use this to drive sales. Historically the peak season is Christmas with a slump in the following months. The manufactures and marketers created a strategy where they undersupply new toys during the Christmas season which parents have promised children they will give them for Christmas. This had caused big problems for parents, stores, and kids – the Cabbage Patch Kids dolls incidents in the 1980s is a good example of this though there are many. Parents would flock to stores to buy hard-to-find dolls, even breaking into fights to secure the limited commodity. When the toys become available in the months after the holiday season, the parents, even though they have already purchased other toys to make up for the one that wasn’t available, are compelled to purchase the product for their kids.
Commitment is the Key
According to social psychologists, commitment is the key element that reinforces the behavior of consistency. Once a stand is taken, there is a natural tendency to behave in ways that are stubbornly consistent with the stand. In an auto sales interaction, one strategy is to begin to write onto either paper or sales agreement, the details such as color, style, add-ons etc. This creates an easier path for the interested party to turn into a contract-signing customer. Selling up is another good example. Once a salesperson has an agreement for a small purchase, they will often attempt to increase the purchase based on the previous commitment.Making commitments visible have power. Cialdini argues that commitments made publicly tend to be lasting commitments. Propaganda is often structured in this way. Cialdini offers an example of prisoners in Korea. The Chinese made visible pro-Communist statements made by their captors. There is a tendency to remain consistent to a stand that is made visible publically. Once an active commitment is made, then, self-image is squeezed from both sides by consistency pressures. Rituals and declarations are a powerful force for ensuring consistency and commitment, and are important elements of our culture. Marriage, baptism, bar mitzvahs, and initiations all involve public declaration of intent.
Defense
According to Cialdini, the only effective defense is awareness and although consistency is generally good, even vital, there is a foolish, rigid variety to be avoided. The task to become consciously aware rests with each individual. Automatic consistency has its use and place. The way out is to recognize the personal signs that can lead the way out of poor choices. Cialdini offers three signals: stomach signs, heart-of-heart signs and special vulnerabilities.Stomach signs occur with uneasiness in the pit of the stomach that we are about to behave or comply in ways that we might later regret.
Heart-of-hearts signs occur less so obviously than the “pit in the stomach” but rather a feeling or sense that often precedes thought or action. While subtler, it’s the heart of the truth in each individual, and can become a rich source of information.
Special vulnerabilities include age and individual strong cultural and personal factors.”
https://sites.google.com/site/724ecialdiniwiki/home/commitment-and-consistency
References
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson Edu
3. Social Proof – #SocialProof
“Social Proof, in [Cialdini’s] book Influence (2009) he explores the basic concept of monkey see, monkey do – or don’t do. That is, unless they are told otherwise. He calls this ‘social proof’; when we look to those around us for social cues on how to act. […]people’s actions become predictable depending on the social dynamics that they are engaged in. Those within a cult will easily accept the instructions and explanations of their leaders as long as it is a consensus within the group. Where there is little dissension, there is little resistance. This becomes particularly powerful when the people within the cult are removed entirely from the familiarity and comfort of their homes, as was the case with the Jonestown, Guyana mass suicide of 1978. When there is an emergency, bystanders will typically provide support if there is no one else to dictate social cues or if they are in a group and are specifically asked for help. Otherwise, they will assume someone else is helping, […] We also look to social proof when looking for what to buy or how to react. If there is an average person demographically similar to us, we will take cues from them. A friend can also illicit a similar response. This has the capacity to cause a ripple effect which unfortunately can have highly devastating consequences. For example, highly publicised school shootings tend to cause a ripple effect of similar incidences shortly thereafter. Copycats see a way out by people that they can relate to and seize the opportunity while the trend appears popular. (Cialdini, 2009)
Cialdini suggests a number of reasons for the social phenomenon of ‘social proof’. Primarily, he claims that uncertainty is the cause. When we don’t know what to do we look to others for social cues for both action and inaction. (Cialdini, 2009)
Where he sees need for concern is when social proof is purposely manipulated [#Hegel] to cause a particular influence. Here, the social evidence is incorrect. Cialdini cautions us to question the proof that is presented to us in commercials; particularly when that proof is done in the form of testimonials. An advertiser is obviously only going to show the positive reactions as opposed to the negative ones. Sometimes they skip this step altogether and falsify testimonials by hiring actors to portray the average citizen who is just like you and endorses a particular product. Cialdini states that, “we are faced with a classic problem: how to make use of a piece of equipment that simultaneously benefits and imperils our welfare.” (2009) The proof that we look for in social experiences can be used to increase positive experiences or, in the case of the cult scenario, to manipulate and enslave. What we can learn from this is to be aware of how we are influenced and take note of situations where such influence can be elicited. As always, knowledge is power.
Cialdini, R. (2009). Influence: Science and practice. (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.”
https://sites.google.com/site/724ecialdiniwiki/home/chapter-4-social-proof
4. Liking: The Friendly Thief – #Liking
“Short Cuts / Judgmental Heuristics
Psychologists assert that we use mental shortcuts, also termed judgmental heuristics, to simplify our thinking (Cialdini, 2009). It’s a way of maximizing our mental efficiency. Bombarded by increasing information – messages, images, disorganized stimuli – presented at accelerating speeds, our minds have formed constructs meant to optimize our responses.
These short cuts are meant to diminish over processing where a quick conclusion can be drawn, to offer processing power where it’s needed. It works well most of the time, but it means we respond in programmed, automatic ways. Cialdini (2009) calls these mechanical responses click, whirr.
Whereas reactions which make use of a thorough and conscious analysis of the information is called controlled responding.When time is tight, situations are complex, and sensory distractions continue to overwhelm fatigued minds, people are inclined to rely more heavily on shortcuts. We are just not cognitively equipped to do otherwise (Cialdini, 2009).
Liking is Powerful
One shortcut is liking. Because it’s powerful, influencers –or, compliance professionals – work to maximize its effect on our thinking (Cialdini, 2009). “People prefer to say yes to individuals they know and like” (Chapter 5, Summary, pg. 1). Examples of this are the Tupperware party strategy, localized and personal fundraising for large organizations, and friends/family plans aimed at getting customers to become referral agents.
Factors that build liking include:
Physical attractiveness – which appears to extend a halo effect of favorable impressions suggesting features such as talent, kindness, or intelligence.
Similarity -of opinions, lifestyle, personality traits, background, clothing/taste, interests/hobbies, even mood or speech patterns.
Praise – flattery, even when obvious, works to draw our favor of those who provide it.
Familiarity – repeated contact in positive circumstances, especially circumstances of mutual and successful cooperation. However, in one experiment faces were flashed on a screen, but so fast that subjects could not consciously recognize the faces.
Yet, the more frequently a person’s face was flashed on the screen, the more the subjects found those people likeable in subsequent interactions.
Positive association – includes sexy models in a car ad, commercials that proliferate during the Olympics, the moon landing, other large scale trends, even smells – Essentially any good feeling can be exploited for Pavlovian-like responses in association mapping.
Perhaps, most compellingly, though: People are shown to be influenced by any and all of these features, but are unconscious of the influence upon them (Cialdini, 2009).
Defense
How do we defend against this largely unconscious influencer? Cialdini suggests we check in with our own sense of liking. If we discover ourselves liking someone too easily, too quickly, we should perhaps be skeptical of those feelings. “The time to call out the defense is when we feel ourselves liking the practitioner more than we should under the circumstances” (Cialdini, 2009, Chapter 5, Defense, pg. 2).
It’s then, we should suspect, maybe we’ve taken a shortcut. It’s time to step back, and use the analysis skills of a more controlled response.Reference
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.) [Kindle Edition]. Retrieved from Amazon.com.”
https://sites.google.com/site/724ecialdiniwiki/home/liking-the-friendly-thief
5. Authority: Directed Deference – #Authority
“Robert Cialdini (2009) in his book Influence: Science and Practice has this to say about the benefits of our complex relationship with authority, “A multilayered and widely accepted system of authority confers an immense advantage upon a society. It allows the development of sophisticated structures for production of resources, trade, defense, expansion, and social control that would otherwise be impossible” (p.180) Cialdini goes on to say that because there is so much to be gained, our society systematically socializes its members to comply with authority. Additionally, because people in positions of power often have access to information that the average person does not, it becomes a convenient shortcut to rely on those in authority to provide guidance for action. While all this complicity has many benefits, it can become equally destructive when citizens follow those in power without engaging critical thinking skills.
One of the most famous studies to demonstrate these destructive effects was conducted by Stanley Milgram in 1974. Research subjects were told they were participating in an experiment examining the influence of negative reinforcement on memory retention. Participants in the role of “teacher” were instructed to administer a range of electric shocks to another participant in the role of “learner” if the learner incorrectly remembered a list of words. If the “learner’s” memory worsened, the shocks increased in voltage. While no actual shock was administered since the “learner” was an actor, the “teacher” was unaware of this and believed his actions resulted in the “learner’s” increasing pain. Milgram wanted to see how far participants would go in inflicting suffering on an innocent person for no other reason but that they had been instructed to do so. It turns out we’re willing to go pretty far. Approximately two thirds of the subjects administered shocks to dangerous levels leaving the “learner” screeching, screaming in agony, kicking and begging for the experiment to end. Even though the decision by participants to continue to administer shocks caused them extreme anxiety, their deep sense of obligation to authority overruled any other response.The danger of such blind allegiance plays out in some disturbing ways in society. In their book Medication Errors: Causes and Prevention, Temple University professors of pharmacy Michael Cohen and Neil Davis identify case after case where nurses, pharmacists and patients followed the instructions of an attending physician even when the instructions should have been questioned for their accuracy. It is equally disturbing that our unthinking willingness to follow finds us trusting celebrities in areas solidly outside their depth. Audiences accepted Robert Young’s advice about caffeine in the 1970s Sanka commercials with no medical credential to his credit but his role as a doctor on Marcus Welby, MD.
According to Cialdini, in determining the worthiness of any authority, we tend to rely on three external symbols – titles, clothes, and trappings. Not to pick on nurses again, but one of Cialdini’s most compelling examples to support the influential power of titles was illustrated in a 1966 study (Hofling, Brotzman, Dalrymple, Graves, & Pierce) by researchers who wanted to see whether nurses would willingly administer a dangerously excessive dosage of an unauthorized drug to a patient because they had been instructed to do so via a phonecall from someone they did not know, but who identified himself as a “doctor”. The answer – an astonishing 95%. The nurses were interrupted by a secret observer who explained the experiment before they could actually administer the drug. Nevertheless, their willingness to do so reveals how persuasive a title can be.Cialdini’s second authority-triggering symbol of clothes extends not only to police uniforms and priest collars, but also to that of a security guard. Leonard Bickman’s 1974 study asked pedestrians walking down a street to comply with an odd request such as an instruction to give a dime to a stranger for their meter. If the requester was dressed in street clothes, more than half of the pedestrians ignored the instruction. But if the requester was dressed in a security guard uniform, nearly all pedestrians complied even if the requester walked away before the task was complete. Other studies demonstrated similar responses to the presence of a business suit (Lefkowitz, Blake, & Mouton, 1955).
The last of Caildini’s symbols, trappings, is most tellingly revealed by Americans’ respect for a luxury automobile. Doob & Gross’ 1968 study discovered that 50% of motorists stuck behind a luxury car that failed to respond to a green traffic light refrained from honking. Instead they waited respectfully. However, when placed behind an economy car, nearly all the motorists honked and two even rammed the rear bumper.Perhaps most disturbing of all is that throughout the various studies examining our responses to authority Cialdini points out that
“people were unable to predict how they or others would react to authority influence. In each instance, the effect of such influence was grossly underestimated. This property of authority status may account for much of its success as a compliance device. Not only does it work forcefully on us, but it does so unexpectedly” (pg. 190-191)
Cialdini concludes his chapter by suggesting an antidote for this alarming predilection. To avoid the pitfalls of blind compliance, he encourages his readers to ask two questions when confronted with what appears to be an authority figure’s influence. The first question is “Is this authority truly an expert?” (pg. 191) and “How truthful can we expect this expert to be?” (pg. 192). Together these questions examine the credentials of the authority, the pertinence of those credentials, and the motives of the authority. By seeking the answers we create a strategy that will mitigate the detrimental effects of mindless complicity.
Reference
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice. Boston: Pearson Education.”
https://sites.google.com/site/724ecialdiniwiki/chapter-6-authority—directed-deference-1
6. Scarcity: The Ride of the Few – #Scarcity
“Chapter 7 in Robert B. Cialdini’s book Influence (science and practice) covers a specific area or tactic that is used in influencing an individual or a group, Scarcity. The book is quite revealing, as it is effective in outlining the various tactics used to affect people through influence and persuasion. Scarcity plays a major role in persuasion.
The scarcity tactic or principal operates on the worth people attached to things. Scarcity suggests that are more valuable when they are less available. The scarcity tactic discusses two important factors or techniques. One is the limited-number” technique and the other are the “deadline technique”. The “deadline technique” works because it puts an official time limit on the product availability. The “limited –number” tactic works because it creates added value to a product by reducing the availability of the product.Nike is a great example of company, which sells many Jordan sneakers because when the new sneaker is introduced to the market the claim is made “you have to get them now, this is the limited edition of a Jordan sneaker”. This tactic creates lines outside of doors for products or camping outside of business in order to get that limited edition product.
Both of these techniques directly affect or create an emotional experience that gets in the way of cognition or creates a psychological reactance. Scarcity is a tactic that is used in a common and indirect way that affects us all at some point or another.
This image of a vintage pair of Jordan’s represents the value of few or rare. The rarer the sneaker the higher the price for a pair of vintage sneakers.
When there is a “going out of business sell” sign or the sign that says for “limited time only” affects human emotions.
Scarcity creates an unstable situation in the brain that causes us not think strait or as strait as we would like. Therefore we spend or purchase products not because we need it but because advertising stimulates us to feel like we need it.
Cialdini (2009) says, “The scarcity principal trades on our weakness for shortcuts”. Humans also are challenged emotionally when freedoms are threatened. Cialdini continues to suggest, that individuals have a difficult time emotional and cognitively with the idea of losing freedoms.”
6. Pre-Suasion: Attuned to our message – #PreSuasion