Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade

by Robert B. Cialdini

In my book Influence, I argued that there are six such concepts that empower the major principles of human social influence. They are reciprocation, liking, social proof, authority, scarcity, and consistency. These principles are highly effective general generators of acceptance because they typically counsel people correctly regarding when to say yes to influence attempts.

To take the principle of authority as an example, people recognize that in the great majority of circumstances, they are likely to be steered to a good choice if that choice fits with the views of experts on the topic.

when they encounter the presence of solid authoritative data, they can cease further deliberation and follow the lead of authorities in the matter. Therefore if a message points to authority-base...

Reciprocation

People say yes to those they owe. Not always, of course—nothing in human social interaction works like that—but often enough that behavioral scientists have labeled this tendency the rule for reciprocation. It states that those who have given benefits to us are entitled to benefits from us in return.

socially punishing names—freeloader, user, taker, parasite—to those who don’t give back after receiving.

In one study, shoppers at a candy store became 42 percent more likely to make a purchase if they’d received a gift piece of chocolate upon entry.

Requesters who hope to commission the pre-suasive force of the rule for reciprocation have to do something that appears daring: they have to take a chance and give first.

There are three main features of this sort: in order to optimize the return, what we give first should be experienced as meaningful, unexpected, and customized.

Meaningful and Unexpected. The first two of these optimizing features have been shown to affect the size of tips that food servers receive. Some diners in a New Jersey restaurant were offered a piece of chocolate at

the end of thei...

carried to the table by the waitress. Her tips went up 3.3 percent compared with those from guests who weren’t offered chocolate. However, when other diners were invited to take two chocolates from...

Plainly, meaningful is not the same as expensive, as the second chocolate cost only pennies.

Customized. When a first favor is customized to the needs, preferences, or current circumstances of the recipient, it gains leverage.

reciprocation but a more muscular version, which states that people should feel especially obligated to reciprocate a gift designed to meet their particular needs.

But by far, two specific ways to create positive feelings got the most attention. We were instructed to highlight similarities and provide compliments. There’s good reason why these two practices would be emphasized: each increases liking and assent.

Similarities. We like those who are like us.

And the affinity can be activated by seemingly trivial similarities that might nonetheless generate big effects. Parallels in language style (the types of words and verbal expressions conversation partners use) increase romantic attraction, relationship stability, and, somewhat amazingly, the likelihood that a hostage negotiation will end peacefully.

Compliments. “I can live for two months,” confessed Mark Twain, “on a good compliment.” It’s an apt metaphor, as compliments nourish and sustain us emotionally.

consider what happened in one hair salon when stylists complimented customers by saying, “Any hairstyle would look good on you.” Their tips rose by 37 percent.

The Real Number One Rule for Salespeople.

Similarities and compliments cause people to feel that you like them, and once they come to recognize that you like them, they’ll want to do business with you.

So by my lights, the number one rule for salespeople is to show customers that you genuinely like them. There’s a wise adage that fits this logic well: people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you

ca...

Social...

fact: “But I’m not the only one.” Lennon’s trust in this lone argument is a testament to the projected power of the principle of social proof. The principle asserts that people think it is appropriate for them to believe, feel, or do something to the extent that others, especially comparable others, are believing, feeling, or doing it. Two components of that perceived appropriateness—validity and feasibility—can drive change.

Validity. After receiving information that multiple, comparable others have responded in a particular way, that response seems more valid, more right to us, both morally and practically.

Fortunately, besides increasing the acceptability of what might be undesirable, the responses of others can do the same for desirable behavior.

In addition to clarifying what’s right morally, social proof reduces uncertainty about what’s right pragmatically. Not every time, but the crowd is usually correct about the wisdom of actions, making the popularity of an activity a stand-in for its soundness.

As a result, we typically follow the lead of those around us who are like us.

They have only to label the items as “most popular” dishes. When this entirely honest yet rarely employed tactic was tried in a set of restaurants in Beijing, China, each dish became 13 percent to 20 percent more popular.

Feasibility. With a set of estimable colleagues leading the way, I once did a study to see what we could best say to get people to conserve household energy.

The fourth message played the social-proof card, stating (honestly) that most of your fellow community residents do try to conserve energy at home. At the end of the month, we recorded how much energy was used and learned that the social-proof-based message had generated 3.5 times as much energy savings as any of the other messages.

When I report on this research to utility company officials, they frequently don’t trust it because of an entrenched belief that the strongest motivator of human action is economic self-interest.

It involves the second reason, besides validity, that social-proof information works so well: feasibility. If I inform home owners that by saving energy, they could also save a lot of money, it doesn’t mean they would be able to make it happen.

A great strength of social-proof information is that it destroys the problem of uncertain achievability. If people learn that many others like them are conserving energy, there is little doubt as to its feasibility.

authoritative communicator. When a legitimate expert on a topic speaks, people are usually persuaded. Indeed, sometimes information becomes persuasive only

because an authority is its source. This is especially true when the recipient is uncertain of what to do.

But when they received expert advice on any of these decisions (from a distinguished university economist), they not only followed that advice, they did so without thinking about the inherent merits of the options.

As should be plain from this illustration, the kind of authority we are concerned with here is not necessarily someone who is in authority—someone who has hierarchical status and can thereby command assent by way of recognized power—but someone who is an authority and can thereby induce assent by way of recognized

expertise.

A credible authority possesses the combination of two highly persuasive qualities: expertise and trustworthiness.

Trustworthiness.

If there is one quality we most want to see in those we interact with, it is trustworthiness.

In a persuasion-focused interaction, we want to trust that a communicator is presenting information in an honest and impartial fashion—that is, attempting to depict reality accurately rather than to serve self-interest.

It turns out to be possible to acquire instant trustworthiness by

a communicator who references a weakness early on is immediately seen as more honest. The advantage of this sequence is that, with perceived truthfulness already in place, when the major strengths of the case are advanced, the audience is more likely to believe them.

Another enhancement occurs when the speaker uses a transitional word—such as however, or but, or yet—that channels the listeners’ attention away from the weakness and onto a countervailing strength.

Notice that Elizabeth’s bridging terms, but and yet, took listeners from perceived weaknesses to counteracting strengths.

Scarcity We want more of what we can have less of. For instance, when access to a desired item is restricted in some way, people have been known to go a little crazy for it.