Getting back big, by giving small first.
Extracted from: Robert Cialdini – Influence. The psychology of Persuasion.
In the 1970’s Ellen Langer, a Harvard social psychologist carried out an experiment that highlighted a fundamental human truth. When we ask someone a favour we are more likely to be successful if we provide a reason.
The experiment was carried out near the library copying machine of the library where people were waiting in line to make copies. She got her student to try to jump the queue by asking: “Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I’m in a rush?” This resulted in a nearly 95% success rate for the asking student. Then on another occasion, she got the student to ask of those waiting: “Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?” On these occasions, she was only 60% successful in jumping the queue.
It seemed, at first glance, that the reason the first question was more successful was that it gave a reason “because I’m in a rush”. But a third question showed that this was not the case. It seemed that it wasn’t the whole sentence; “because I’m in a rush” but the simple word, “because”. To prove this, she had the student ask the question: “Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies”. The result was 93% compliance. The word because acted as a trigger to an automatic compliance response, even when there was no subsequent reason given.
It is amazing how often these sorts of automatically triggered behaviours affect our lives and this is one of the many fundamental behaviours that, when recognised are used to manipulate how we behave.
Over the next few weeks, I will be writing about the 6 different triggers identified by Robert B Cialdini in his book Influence, the psychology of persuasion.
Anyone involved in any form of sales or negotiation (that’s absolutely everyone) should be aware of these 6 fundamental human traits, they can be powerful tools.
Our minds have a desire to make life simple and easy for us. To save mental energy and time. We don’t want to re-think, calculate and re-evaluate every possible situation we encounter, again and again, it takes too long, so we create shortcuts and stereotypes. We need shortcuts for efficiency, so we create rules that we apply again and again to similar situations.
“Civilization advances by extending the number of operations we can perform without thinking about them” Alfred North Whitehead.
We use simple stereotypes, or rules-of-thumb, to guide our purchases. Expensive = Good! You get what you pay for! Most wine purchases are guided by price, most of us equate more expensive wine to its quality, and would you want to buy a Lamborghini with a discount coupon? Expensive = good or higher status, or, dare I say it, more desirable (we’ll get to scarcity in a later blog). These and many others are what Cialdini refers to as “weapons of automatic influence”.
This can be shown by a simple experiment. Prepare 3 buckets of water, the first with very cold water, the second with lukewarm water and the third with very hot water. Ask a person to place one hand in the hot water and the other in the cold water for a few seconds. Then ask them to place both hands in the lukewarm water. Now the hand that was in the cold water feels warmer and the hand that was in the hot water feels colder. So this experiment shows that things can be made to seem very different depending on the event that precedes it.
For instance, sales personnel will often try to sell you an expensive item first, let’s say an expensive suit because they know that you will then be more susceptible to purchasing smaller less expensive accessories. By comparison, the contrast principle, the accessories will seem much more affordable. We often spend much more than we would have done otherwise if we had purchased the accessories first.
An estate agent will often show you a house or apartment that is less desirable and below your expectations first, before they show you the house that may be right for you (or so they think). You will be more inclined to buy because of the comparison priming. Car sales will often do the same thing. Sell the car first and then add in the accessories. Once you’ve overcome the major hurdle of the cost of the car, every other expense will seem small by comparison.
Reciprocation.
One of the most powerful and fundamental rules is the rule of reciprocation which states: You should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided. All societies and cultures across the world have this rule embedded. It is fundamental to how we cooperate and how we grow our communities. It creates a network of obligation and a web of indebtedness by setting up a future obligation. In fact, this is how money has meaning. In the UK every banknote has written on it; “I promise to pay the bearer…” This rule enables trade to happen and is deeply rooted in trust by setting a future obligation that we cannot violate. “We are human because our ancestors learned to share their food and their skills in an honoured network of obligation” (Lionel Tiger & Robin Fox).
When we give something there is an implicit expectation that this will produce an equivalent and balancing return. It is an obligation. We store favours for the future.
There is a story of relief aid between Mexico and Ethiopia. In 1985 Ethiopia was suffering from the ravages of war and drought, the economy had collapsed, its population were suffering from disease and mass death and it could be said that it was one of the most impoverished countries in the world. Yet despite this Ethiopia sent Mexico, who had just suffered an earthquake five-thousand dollars relief donation. Why? Why would one of the poorest countries in the world send another country financial aid? They sent the money because Mexico had sent aid to Ethiopia aid in 1935 when it was invaded by Italy. The need for reciprocation had trumped their own self-interest. We all live with the rule of reciprocation or we suffer social sanctions and exclusion.
Another experiment was carried out by Dennis Regan of Cornell University highlights this compulsion we have for reciprocation.
Students were invited to take part in an “art appreciation” experiment. A student would be invited to view and rate a piece of art in a gallery and would be joined by another student (Cialdini calls him Joe), who, unbeknown to the first student, was part of the experiment. Joe would then briefly leave the room to get a drink. In one scenario Joe would return after his drink empty-handed. In a second scenario, he would return with a drink for the invited student. In both scenarios, Joe would then ask a favour of the student to purchase some raffle tickets. Joe was overwhelming more successful in selling raffle tickets if he had offered the free drink to the student earlier.
This rule applies to everything from receiving a free pen from a charity to doing “favour” for a fellow politician. The rule of reciprocation stores a future obligation. In politics, this is called “log-rolling”.
One of the most clicked-on words on the internet is the word “FREE”. Amway exploited this principle (as do millions of others) when they introduced their “BUG” principle. A free box of products would be left for a household to try, for free. When the representatives followed up they would discuss with the user which products they liked or worked best. Then orders would be placed for the preferred products. Then the remaining products would be replenished and moved to the next household. The customers were trapped by the reciprocation rule. They felt an obligation to buy, even though the products were “free”.
Uninvited Debts.
This places the proposer in a unique position of being able to determine what will be sufficient to cancel the obligation debt. There is an asymmetry which sets up an obligation to give, an obligation to receive, and an obligation to repay.
The rule is easy to exploit because we feel an obligation to receive and consequently we reduce our ability to decide to whom we are indebted, therefore putting the power into the hands of others. If we return to the Art Experiment with Joe returning with the drink for the student; it would have been impolite to refuse the act of “generosity”. Hence the asymmetry. There is a strong cultural pressure to accept and to reciprocate, even if the gift is unwanted.
Unfair Exchanges.
As we can see, the rule of reciprocation can be used to create unequal results. A small initial favour can produce a sense of obligation for a much larger return. This indebtedness may well make the receiver uncomfortable until the obligation is removed. We do not like to feel beholden to someone, which happens when the obligation is heavily weighted in favour of the giver. This then may lead to overcompensating the return to relieve the psychological burden.
In our societies, there is a genuine dislike of people who do not reciprocate according to the rule. It is often the case that the psychological burden outweighs the material burden and so we overcompensate.
Reciprocal concessions.
Generally, we understand that a person who acts in a certain way towards us is entitled to a similar return action. Yet we also feel the need to make a concession in return for a concession that has been made to us in the spirit of working towards mutually beneficial goals. Procedures that promote compromise engender compromise on both sides. This also ensures that we do not feel exploited.
Imagine that you are in a middle-eastern market and you see a carpet you would love to buy. You ask how much the seller wants. He says an outrageously high price, to which you feign shock and counter with a ridiculously low price. Likewise, the seller feigns shock and absolutely refuses to sell at that price, but he will “do you a favour” and reduce the price so that you will be happy. But you’re not quite happy yet, but since he has compromised you match his compromise by raising your price. And so on until a mutually satisfactory price is arrived at (at least until your friend tells you that you have overpaid anyway).
We see reciprocal concessions all the time in political negotiations. Unions, for instance, may start with a ridiculously high demand and a government on a ridiculously low demand, booth knowing that they will have to give something if the other gives something. This then sets up the contrast principle I mentioned earlier. Start very high, then the desired result will seem so much more acceptable. It is often the case that a very high demand will be established at the beginning of negotiations with a “middle ground” as the anticipated, acceptable result. However, if the high demand is accepted then you have gained more than you hoped. If the middle ground is where you arrive, then you are also happy. But it will follow (after gesturing and posturing) that if one side compromises, the other is expected to also give a little.
This is why you will often be shown the most expensive version first, with the intention that you will buy the middle, intended, version. The Contrast principle.
Cialdini quotes the example of students at UCLA who were asked to face a “negotiation opponent” and they would be allocated a sum of money which they had to divide between themselves, towards a mutual agreement. If no agreement was reached after a short period, the sum of money would be withdrawn. The “negotiator” was, of course, part of the experimenting team and had 3 different positions. 1) made an extreme demand first with almost all the money assigned to him and stubbornly stuck to his position. 2) Began with a demand that was moderately favourable to him and stubbornly stuck to his position. 3) Began with an extreme demand and then gradually retreat to the more moderate one during the bargaining.
There were 3 main findings:
A) the strategy f starting extreme and then retreating produced more money for the person using it (not surprising).
B) Responsibility. Those people who had been part of the extreme then retreat felt most responsible for the final outcome. It appeared to them that they had forced the negotiator to change his position and that they had produced this result.
C) Satisfaction. The extreme then retreat strategy had left the student with the most satisfaction with the final result. Agreements forged through concessions are more satisfying.
Concessions produce compliance and result in more satisfaction and more likelihood of agreeing to further similar arrangements.
Saying No.
So why don’t we just say no! Why do we feel compelled to comply? Aren’t there genuinely generous people who give without expecting a return. Well, it all depends on how you understand the return. Generosity and even altruism may have much broader consequences and results such that the reciprocation is an (expected) obligation on society and how we behave to each other.
The rule is so ingrained in the makeup of our thinking that avoidance isn’t an option, but knowledge of how it works may help to identify it. So long as we do not feel exploited, the rule of reciprocation is a time-honoured necessity for us to cooperate and build communities.
We can, and sometimes do, avoid these sorts of obligations by a simple act of mentally redefining the offer not as a gift (with obligations) but as a sales tool and therefore feel freer to decline or accept without the impulse to reciprocate.
6 Weapons of Influence: Reciprocation, Commitment and Consistency, Social Proof, Liking, Authority & Scarcity