CM124 Unit 6 Chapter 2 Application of Cialdinis Principles of Persuasion HW I am in need of help with another assignment. It is an expository essay about a

CM124 Unit 6 Chapter 2 Application of Cialdinis Principles of Persuasion HW I am in need of help with another assignment. It is an expository essay about a scenario that is listed in the attached document.I have also attached the reading that goes along with this assignment and expository essay example. If anything else is needed could you please let me know. Persuasion Equation: The Subtle Science of Getting Your Way
by Mark Rodgers
AMACOM. (c) 2015. Copying Prohibited.
Reprinted for Personal Account, Purdue University Global
none@books24x7.com
Reprinted with permission as a subscription benefit of Skillport,
All rights reserved. Reproduction and/or distribution in whole or in part in electronic,paper or other forms
without written permission is prohibited.
Persuasion Equation: The Subtle Science of Getting Your Way
Chapter 2: Decision Making—The Surprising Reasons People Say Yes and No
Picking his way through the cramped ballroom, with people-filled padded chairs all askew, there was no clear route. Obstacles,
however, were not this man’s primary concern. On his face, you could see his mind racing—searching for what he would say
once he was in front of the crowd. Few people like public speaking, but this situation seemed even more torturous than usual.
He found his standing spot, turned, and faced the crowd.
“I have traveled three hours round-trip every day to attend this session. I’ve driven dangerous roads and in heavy traffic. You
are a talented and knowledgeable group. I have learned from you, and you have learned from me. And I sure could use the
money to help pay for gas. Please, please. Pick me!”
That scene played out in a Calgary persuasion workshop during which I asked three volunteers to vie for a single, crisp $100
bill by convincing the audience to individually award them the money. The idea: Whoever makes the most compelling case,
winning the affections of the crowd, walks away with the cash and the bragging rights.
Participants are allowed to make their case in any way they deem appropriate, with one exception: They can’t share the money
or materially benefit the crowd in any way. (I’ll buy you all drinks!) Adding to the pressure, I give them just four minutes to
develop their case and only 25 seconds to present it.
What would you say if you were in this situation?
This activity mirrors business life today in many ways. You are often in competition with others for the account, the promotion,
the project. You must think on your feet and be able to put together compelling arguments fast, and you might not have much
time to state your case. Sometimes you need to do all this—especially in peer-to-peer persuasion situations—without offering
your target some sort of material gain. Not an easy assignment, to be sure.
The most interesting aspect of this workshop activity, though, is not the people vying for the money—it’s the people deciding
who will earn the money. You may think that people are carefully analyzing participants’ arguments, weighing the pros and the
cons to rationally decide who gets their votes. That’s not what’s happening. At all. The surprising truth is that most people have
no idea why they say yes.
UNEXPECTED TRUTHS ABOUT YOUR THINKING
Nobel Prize–winning economist and author Daniel Kahneman suggests that human beings possess two “systems” for thinking:
one that processes information very quickly, and one that does so more slowly and requires significantly more effort. Here’s the
thing: Most of us don’t really like to think all that hard. As humans, we rely on what comes to mind with the least amount of
cognitive strain. We also don’t always act rationally—rarely going to the trouble of, say, doing the math or weighing the pros
and cons of a particular decision.
But don’t be too hard on yourself. We act that way to survive in a postmodern world where the amount of information we are
exposed to has grown exponentially but the basic architecture of our brains hasn’t changed since the likes of Australopithecus
africanus roamed the earth. We employ mental shortcuts to survive. Sometimes they help; sometimes they don’t.
BEING SAVVY ABOUT HEURISTICS AND BIASES
Heuristics are supportive cognitive shortcuts that help us make good decisions in times of complexity. Biases, on the other
hand, impede decision making. Sometimes, biases also are referred to as cognitive illusions because, much like an optical
illusion, they twist our thinking about reality.
So how do we distinguish between the two? It’s often difficult to parse heuristics and biases, because the same factors that
impact our thinking also impact our thinking about our thinking. Furthermore, heuristics and biases are built into our
psychological makeup and are so pervasive that we rarely even notice them working inside our heads. Plus, they feel natural,
so how could they be wrong? If you make what turns out to be a good decision, you’ve just used a heuristic. If the decision
results in a negative outcome, you succumbed to mental bias. As one psychology student so aptly put it: “Heuristics are helpful
biases. Biases are hurtful heuristics.”
Regardless of how you might categorize these mental patterns, understanding and labeling them will help you consider these
cognitive processes more easily and create strategic persuasion campaigns based on them. They also will help your targets
make better decisions. What follows are the heuristics and biases most prevalent in persuasion. Don’t worry about getting too
hung up on trying to determine whether something is a heuristic or a bias (even though I may use those terms in my
descriptions). Simply concentrate on what these mental tendencies mean to you in terms of your persuasion efforts.
Reprinted for ZPRAL/r40696546, Purdue University Global
Page 2 of 9
AMACOM, Mark Rodgers (c) 2015, Copying Prohibited
Persuasion Equation: The Subtle Science of Getting Your Way
CIALDINI’S SIX PRINCIPLES OF PERSUASION
We can’t discuss persuasion and mental patterns without first talking about Robert Cialdini and his six principles of persuasion.
His work is so important to the understanding of persuasion that I sometimes call him the “Ben Franklin of the Affirmative.”
Cialdini, now regents’ professor emeritus at Arizona State University, wrote Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion in 1984.
(It later was published as a textbook under the title Influence: Science and Practice.) The original book stemmed from Cialdini’s
literature review of almost 50 years of scientific research regarding persuasion, plus his own ethnographic studies.
Cialdini is so highly respected in the field that he was a part of a “dream team” of behavioral scientists who helped create
persuasive approaches for President Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential reelection campaign. Regardless of your political
leanings, Cialdini’s additions were subtle and brilliant. “We know you’ve voted in the past . . .” was a subtle prompt known as
“consistency” that convinced those who voted in 2008 to vote for Obama again in 2012. Cialdini also helped teach campaign
volunteers to address rumors that Obama was a Muslim by reframing them: “Obama is not a Muslim” actually repeated the
claim and reinforced it in the electorate’s collective mind. “Obama is a Christian,” on the other hand, reframed and refocused
the discussion.
Cialdini created something akin to a “Unified Field Theory of Persuasion” by categorizing almost every persuasion approach
into one of six primary principles: reciprocity, scarcity, consistency, liking, authority, and social proof. Cialdini’s principles are
great examples of heuristics, meaning that when we humans follow them, we typically have a good result. (There are always
exceptions.) The other interesting aspect of Cialdini’s principles is that they are largely social, prompted by or intensified by
human interaction. Let’s take a look at each principle in turn.
Reciprocity
As noted in Chapter 1, reciprocity involves the give-and-take of human exchange. People repay others in kind. Every culture in
the world teaches this principle in one way or another. When someone does something for you, it’s almost embedded in your
DNA to want to return that favor in kind.
Reciprocity can range from the simple and instantaneous to something much more involved and complex. Examples can be
found in day-to-day life on an individual level, such as helping a coworker prepare for a presentation after he helped you
prepare for yours. On a departmental level, the sales team might assist the marketing staff with some unusual but critical
market data, and then marketing reciprocates by providing extraordinary support for sales. Reciprocity can even occur between
competing companies: Apple and IBM announced a wideranging partnership in 2014 to develop business software together.
If you stop to think about it, reciprocity helps societies evolve. People inherently realize that when they do something for
somebody else, they are not simply giving of their time, energy, and financial resources; they eventually will receive something
in return. The best way to leverage reciprocity is to enter every situation by asking yourself, “Who here can I genuinely help?”
Scarcity
Call it the Rule of the Rare, the Fact of the Few, or the Coefficient of the Insufficient. People want more of what they perceive
to be a dwindling supply. This, too, may have derived from a survival trait.
Countless examples exist of how individuals have responded to a dwindling supply of something. One of my favorite reactions
is the panic caused when Hostess Brands, the 82-year-old maker of Twinkies and other snacks, filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy in 2012. Shoppers began stockpiling Twinkies, fearing they’d find no alternative for their sugar fixes. News outlets
reported that at least one person tried to capitalize on the scare by offering a single Twinkie on eBay for $8,000!
To truly leverage the principle of scarcity, the scarcity must truly be real. There really needs to be “Only three days left!” or
“Limited inventory!” Anything else, and lack of ethics comes into play. And if you think people are worried about what they
might be missing, they’re even more concerned about losing what they already have. That’s why “loss language” (forfeit,
surrender, forgo) is always preferable to “gain language” (acquire, obtain, secure) when playing the persuasion game.
Consistency
What do you call someone who says one thing, yet does another? Hypocrite. Liar. Flip-flopper. Politician. Teenager. Most of
these aren’t exactly glowing terms of endearment.
We like, trust, and want to interact with people who follow through on what they say. When a coworker tells you he’ll hand in a
report by the close of business, you think highly of him when he does just that. If he doesn’t, that colleague’s credibility drops a
notch. Similarly, when company management promises to make a change to a problematic tuition reimbursement policy that
Reprinted for ZPRAL/r40696546, Purdue University Global
Page 3 of 9
AMACOM, Mark Rodgers (c) 2015, Copying Prohibited
Persuasion Equation: The Subtle Science of Getting Your Way
never comes, the culture in that organization shifts to the negative.
The good news is that these occurrences aren’t likely to happen. Why? Once most people make a decision or take a position,
especially publicly, they strive to act in accordance with that publicly stated notion. This has been proven time and time again.
Liking
Another key found in Cialdini’s work is the principle of liking. We like those who like us (and state it publicly), as well as those
who are like us. Whether they have similar political views or hobbies, hail from the same part of the world, or indulge in the
identical, less-than-healthy habit of smoking cigarettes, individuals with commonalities feel an affinity for one another.
I’ve heard the argument that respecting somebody is more important than liking somebody. Fair enough, but if you actually like
that person, you’re more willing to consider her arguments more carefully, give her more time to communicate, and be more
receptive to her messages. Again, this is human nature; you just can’t help it. So what is the takeaway here? Be approachable,
seek similarities, and don’t be afraid to pay someone a compliment every once in a while.
Authority
We defer to experts. Whether you’re a scientist, a medical doctor, a Ph.D., or a professor, if you have a level of expertise—and
your target is aware of that expertise—you automatically become more persuasive. It’s that simple.
Simple Conversation Starters
Take a page from bestselling author Jim Collins: Start with the question, “May I ask, where are you from?” You’ll receive a host
of responses, upon which you can build the rest of the conversation. Individuals may respond by mentioning a locale (“I’m from
Pennsylvania.”), a company (“I work at Microsoft.”), an industry (“I work in the tech sector.”), or even a discipline (“I’m in
finance.”).
Then ask an intriguing follow-up question: “How did someone from Pennsylvania end up all the way out here in California?”
“What’s the best aspect of life at Microsoft?” “Have you ever worked in any other industry?” “What’s the most common
misconception about working in the finance world?” You’ll more than likely receive an engaged response, which is fantastic.
Because although you’re asking someone to talk about himself, your line of questioning will make you seem more interesting,
too.
If you have a title, credential, or significant certification, make it known in subtle, yet powerful, ways. Put that distinguishing
credential in your email signature or post your diploma in your office. (I know a professional who once attended a prestigious
executive education program, but rather than tell everyone he attended, he simply showed up at meetings with a coffee cup
from that university!)
Social Proof
And, finally, we come to Cialdini’s last principle: social proof. People follow the lead of similar others, and people’s tendency in
this regard intensifies whenever a situation is uncertain (Sales are down. What should we do?) or comparable (All the other
computer companies offer package deals.). The most powerful example of this is peer pressure among teenagers. Studies
show that teens with two friends who smoke tobacco products are 1,000 percent more likely to smoke; those with three or more
tobacco-toting friends are 2,400 percent more likely to smoke.
Social proof holds sway in the office, too. If you notice coworkers signing up for the United Way HomeWalk, you will be more
inclined to do so. If you see that others are working late at the office, you more than likely will start setting aside a few evenings
to stick around as well. If everyone appears to be on board with the new marketing direction, you will probably be on board, too
—even if you’re not a fan of the new marketing direction. We are social creatures.
The absolute best way to leverage social proof in a business setting is through the use of testimonials and referrals, which
demonstrate that others have benefited from knowing and working with you. And now your target will, too. In Chapter 10, “Yes
Success,” I’ll show you how to specifically make these requests. For now, just understand the power of social proof.
As they use other heuristics, people often use Cialdini’s six principles, individually or in combinations, to make decisions. Now
that you know them, so can you. Next, let’s set our sights on understanding the most prominent biases—and learning how to
navigate each of these human tendencies in turn.
Reprinted for ZPRAL/r40696546, Purdue University Global
Page 4 of 9
AMACOM, Mark Rodgers (c) 2015, Copying Prohibited
Persuasion Equation: The Subtle Science of Getting Your Way
AVAILABILITY BIAS
Perhaps the root bias of all is availability. We have a tendency to give the most credence to what we can most easily recall. If
we remember an occurrence quickly without much effort, we find it perfectly suited for whatever the question is before us. For
examples of this, look no further than your relationship with your spouse or significant other.
People in relationships often share the burden of household responsibilities. One of the main areas of contention between
couples is “fair share”—as in, “Is the other person doing his or her fair share of the chores around here?” The conflict occurs
when one person believes he is doing more than the other. What might really be happening, though, is that both individuals are
falling prey to the bias of availability. What you remember, and therefore exaggerate, is the last time you did the dishes, or you
took out the trash, or you made the bed. So in your mind, you think you always do something, and the other person never does
it. See any potential problems?
Availability Bias also can cause problems at the office, as your brain actually substitutes one question for another. Let’s say
your vice president of engineering asks you to recommend the best-qualified supplier to provide exhaust systems for your
company’s new engine. And in the instant of the conversation you say, “We should go with Wilson’s Exhausts.”
What may actually have taken place in your mind is not a careful analysis based on price, reliability, quality, and suitability for
this particular engine. Rather, you might just recommend any exhaust system provider you can remember. Your brain may have
substituted the question, “Who’s the best?” with “Who can you name?” (And now, thanks to the Principle of Public
Commitment, you’ve gone on record, and will now defend that selection!)
The Availability Bias also most impacts us when we are trying to gauge the relative size of a category or the frequency of an
occurrence. How large is the market for red laser wall levels? (Huge! I used one this weekend.) How often are Wall Street
traders arrested for illegal activity? (All the time. I just read an article about another one yesterday.)
The insufficiency of the reasoning in these examples is obvious, but it is the rare individual who would submit to the more
difficult task of finding out the actual statistics that would answer either of the above questions. Many people simply don’t want
to work that hard. We take the path of least intellectual effort. We’re human.
Positively Leveraging Availability
How can you leverage this concept of Availability Bias to ethically win the heart and mind of your target? It’s imperative to keep
the value of your “ask” in front of your target. Time dims people’s positive memories, so you must find ways to maintain your
expertise, your value, and your shared experiences. Sending a reminder email, revisiting a key point casually in conversation,
or mailing a communiqué that augments or amplifies your position all work beautifully. Remember, however, there is a
distinction between keeping your contributions top of mind and . . . well, stalking. Persuasive professionals know the difference
and rarely cross the line.
Frequency certainly impacts one’s ability for recall, but other factors leading to Availability Bias include dramatic events
(winning an important award or surviving a tragedy), intense personal experiences (receiving accolades or suffering public
embarrassment), vivid descriptions (created by using language or graphics), and a notion related to frequency called the
“Recency Effect” (in which people remember the last thing they heard on a topic). When you can summon dramatic public
events, do so. If your company is generating positive press regarding a purchase or other strategic move, that is the time to
reach out to new prospects. If someone undergoes an intense and negative experience related to your “ask” (“The trade show
was terrible! I had to set up the booth until midnight, and then I had to work the show for nine hours the next day. I was
exhausted when speaking with prospects.”), that is the time to push for agreement on your objective (“See? This is exactly
why I’m recommending we ask the board for budget dollars for either more head count…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment