Transcript of a short interview (August 2019 upload) with Robert Cialdini describing his six principles of influence (reciprocity, authority, social proof/consensus, scarcity, commitment/consistency, and liking). He applies the principles to practical settings — advising a parent to use social proof to encourage a teen’s homework and recommending leaders enlist peer advocates — and emphasizes ethical use through scrupulous authenticity and honest presentation of credentials and consensus.
Six principles of influence. Could you say a little bit about those principles?
Surely they represent, in my view, the six universals, the six dimensions of the human condition that incline people to say yes. When one or another of those principles is included in a a communication or a request or an appeal, they are very quickly reciprocation. People want to say yes to those people who have already done something for them. They want to give assent to those people whom they owe. Second is the principle of reciprocity. People want to follow the lead of legitimately constituted experts, authorities in an arena. Next would be the principle of social proof, or what we call consensus. People also want to follow the lead of what many others like them have been doing or are doing in a particular situation. Next would be scarcity. People want to seize those opportunities that are rare, scarce or dwindling in availability. Next would be commitment and consistency. People want to be consistent with what they have already said or done, especially in a public way. And then finally, liking. People want to say yes to those individuals they know and like.
I have a 17 year old son who doesn't do his homework as much as I'd like. Can I use these principles to influence my son to do more homework?
I think so. And for a teenager I would suggest a particular one of these. And that is the principle of consensus or social proof, what those individuals around him or her are doing. Your job as a parent is to arrange for the milieu in which your son operates to be one in which there are kids who do their homework. If you need to, you need to drive him across town to get involved in a particular activity that has that kind of kid available. You need to put him in a surround where those individuals are there so that their norms, their values, their preferences come from the side and influence him rather than something that you try to do from the top or from the front. I think that's the same thing that goes with leaders. By the way, in an organization, very often you'll find a leader who tries to convince a group entirely on the dint of his or her own force of personality. And what the best communicators recognize is when they are not the best communicators, they would be better advised. Let's say they're trying to get a couple of old timers in the group who are resisting a new initiative that the leader thinks is very important. And the leader has sent various communications. These old timers, they're resisting, they don't want to make a change. Instead of sending yet another message from the top in A team meeting. Ask one of the other old timers who has already gotten on board with the idea why he or she thinks it's a good idea. That person's voice will have more impact on the two reluctant ones than one more thing that the leader can provide.
Do you think, however, that a leader that uses these techniques will be perceived by followers as being an effective leader?
And I think that that may actually be a benefit to the leader's reputation as someone who's not seeking to change, but just giving evidence that's compelling. What may not be recognized is that the leader is honestly, and it's very important to be honest in this, is honestly giving them the credentials of the people who are in favor of the program that he or she is advocating, is honestly telling them the degree of consensus for the wisdom of this program among other individuals for whom it has been tried, is honestly telling them what they stand to lose and how the time available to seize this opportunity may be dwindling, and so on. So that kind of context in which one places the qualities and the merits of the program can be effective. And people I don't think will recognize, oh, I'm being influenced by those things. They will recognize that they've been influenced and are likely to attribute it to the quality of the idea involved. Because, after all, they don't want to think of themselves as being swept along.
It does raise, in general, the question of ethics to have the skill and capability of influencing people without their knowledge, almost through invisible means. You yourself then, are persuasion expert. Are people nervous when they meet you? Are they wondering if you influence them? Do you tell them that on an airplane when you sit next to them, or you somehow. Do they become worried that you will manipulate them?
Yeah, I think there may be some of that, and even my colleagues, so that it's very important for me under those circumstances to be scrupulously honest in the presentation of the information and the principles of influence that I employ. So, for example, to take one of the principles we talked about, the principle of authority, that people want to follow the lead of legitimately constituted experts. It's very important for me, if I have a position, an idea, a program to try to advance, that I provide the genuine credentials of those experts who would concur with me about that. So that I've employed a principle of influence authority. But it's one that counsels correctly for recipients to want to believe. If we follow the advice of the people who have genuinely become knowledgeable and expert in an arena, then we, as recipients of that information will be more likely to make good choices. So as long as a communicator, I employ these principles with scrupulous authenticity. Then I feel that no one has been manipulated. No one has been coerced, no one has been deceived in the process.
