Methods of Persuasion: How to Use Psychology to Influence Human Behavior (10 page)

• You just started a new diet, yet you’re eating a piece of cake. You might justify your inconsistent behavior by reminding yourself that it’s your friend’s birthday and that it would be “rude” if you didn’t eat the cake.
  
• You believe that people shouldn’t steal, yet you illegally download music. You might justify your inconsistent behavior by claiming that “everyone else is doing it.”
  
• You consider yourself a studious college student, yet you’re choosing to hang out with friends rather than study for an exam. You might justify your inconsistent behavior by reassuring yourself that it’s your senior year so you need to enjoy it.
  

Next time you perform an action that’s inconsistent with one of your attitudes, pay attention to the little voice inside your head that tries to justify your behavior. That little voice is your attempt to resolve cognitive dissonance.

WHY IS (IN)CONSISTENCY SO POWERFUL?

The important takeaway from the previous section is that whenever our attitudes and behavior are inconsistent, we become motivated to resolve that inconsistency. This section will explain why that occurs and why behavior, in addition to body language, can trigger congruent attitudes to resolve that inconsistency.

Now, why on earth did those cult members experience such tremendous pressure to maintain their belief about the end of the world? You can start to see the underlying reason when you look at how they acted before the flying saucer failed to arrive. Upon their initial discovery that the world would supposedly end, many cult member displayed behavior consistent with a belief in the end of the world (e.g., many had quit their jobs, sold their possessions, etc.).

On December 21, when cult members realized that the flying saucer didn’t arrive as predicted, their belief was challenged. However, to accept the idea that the world wasn’t ending would be profoundly inconsistent with their original behavior. In order to overcome that dissonance and discomfort, they needed to do something. And because they couldn’t alter their past behavior, they changed the one thing that they
could
change: their attitude. Upon discovering that the flying saucer didn’t arrive, most cult members developed stronger beliefs in the end of the world so that they could justify their original behavior.

When the undercover researchers witnessed that surprising outcome, they tested that principle by conducting the experiment described in the beginning of the chapter (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). In their experiment, they paid people who just completed a boring experiment either $1 or $20 to lie to new participants and claim that it was fun. Thus, people were asked to perform a behavior that was inconsistent with their inner attitude.

The researchers wanted to examine how that inconsistency would influence their actual attitude toward the experiment, and the results revolutionized beliefs about human behavior. During that era, psychologists believed that greater rewards always led to greater attitude changes, but Festinger and Carlsmith’s study disputed that claim by demonstrating how a smaller reward can sometimes lead to a greater attitude change.

Now that you’re more aware about cognitive dissonance, you can probably start to guess why people developed a more positive attitude toward the experiment when they were paid $1 to lie to the new participants. When people were asked to lie by claiming that the experiment was fun, they performed a behavior that was inconsistent with their attitude, and thus they experienced dissonance and became motivated to resolve that discomfort. How did they resolve it? Much like the cult members, people in the experiment couldn’t change their behavior (i.e., their participation in the experiment), so they changed the only thing that they could change: their attitude toward the experiment.

People who were paid $1 regained consistency and resolved their dissonance by genuinely developing a more positive attitude toward the experiment. If they held a positive attitude toward it, then their behavior of telling the new participant that the experiment was “fun” would be consistent with that attitude.

But wait! What about the $20 group? In that study, people who were paid $20 to lie to new participants didn’t develop
any
positive attitudes toward the experiment. What gives! Why did the $1 group find the experiment enjoyable, while the $20 group still thought the experiment was painfully boring?

That difference occurred because people who were paid $20 could more easily justify why their behavior was inconsistent. When people were paid $20, there was a specific reason for their inconsistency (i.e., a large reward), and so they didn’t experience as much discomfort because they could easily attribute their inconsistent behavior to the large compensation. However, when people were only paid $1 to lie to the new participant, this small compensation wasn’t substantial enough to justify their inconsistent behavior, and so they experienced stronger discomfort and a stronger need to resolve that discomfort.

Here’s the main takeaway. Whenever an attitude is inconsistent with our behavior, we feel a state of discomfort known as cognitive dissonance, and we become motivated to resolve it. Further, our motivation to resolve that discomfort becomes stronger when the reason for our inconsistency is weak (e.g., a small reward). If we have a valid reason for holding an inconsistent attitude (e.g., a large reward), we won’t feel as much pressure to change our attitude to match our behavior because we can easily justify our inconsistency.

This concept stems beyond just rewards; punishments and threats to display certain behavior also won’t influence people to develop a congruent attitude. In another classic experiment, Aronson and Carlsmith (1963) told children that they couldn’t play with a desirable toy. The researchers told some children that there would be a severe punishment if they played with the toy (e.g., “I will be very angry, and I will have to pack my toys and go home”), but other children were told that there would only be a mild punishment (e.g., “I will be annoyed”). Although the children in each condition followed the researcher’s request by not playing with the toy, what do you think happened when those children encountered that same toy at a later occasion when there was no punishment for playing with it?

You guessed it. Children who received only a mild threat continued to refrain from playing with the toy. Why? The original mild threat was too weak to justify their inconsistent attitude and behavior (i.e., there was a desirable toy in front of them, but they weren’t playing with it). Instead, the children resolved their inconsistent behavior by developing a congruent attitude that they simply didn’t like the toy. Therefore, when presented with that same toy again, they didn’t want to play with it because they genuinely believed that they disliked it. On the other hand, children who received the severe threat could easily attribute their inconsistent behavior (i.e., not playing with the toy) to that large threat. From their perspective, they weren’t playing with the toy because of the severe threat, not because they disliked the toy. Therefore, when those children encountered that same toy again, they were more likely to play with it because they never developed a congruent attitude of disliking the toy.

Researchers often refer to that phenomenon as “insufficient justification” (Shultz & Lepper, 1996). In order for people to develop a congruent attitude—whether it’s from their body language or behavior—they must believe that they are freely choosing their behavior, rather than being guided by some large external reward or threat. Too much justification won’t lead to cognitive dissonance because people could easily attribute their inconsistent attitude and behavior to that justification. Remember this concept because it’ll come back into play when we discuss incentives in Chapter 12.

PERSUASION STRATEGY: CREATE BEHAVIORAL CONSISTENCY

The main persuasion strategy is very simple (yet extremely powerful). If you want to persuade people to develop a certain attitude, you should get them to display behavior that’s consistent with the attitude that you’re trying to elicit. When they display that particular behavior, they’re more likely to develop an attitude that’s congruent with their behavior. This section will explain a few strategies that apply that concept.

Foot-in-the-Door Technique.
Popularized by Robert Cialdini (2001), the
foot-in-the-door technique
can be a powerful persuasion tactic. When you need to persuade people to comply with a somewhat large request, you can put the odds in your favor by first asking them to comply with a smaller request.

Because you’re more likely to gain their compliance with a smaller request, that initial compliance will cause them to develop a congruent attitude that suggests they are the type of person who would help you. When you later ask them to perform the larger request, they’ll be more likely to comply with it because they’ll feel pressure to remain consistent with their congruent attitude. Not complying with the larger request would be inconsistent with their new attitude, and so many people avoid that discomfort by maintaining consistency and complying with the larger request.

The classic study that initially examined this principle can shed some more light (Freedman & Fraser, 1966). Under the guise of volunteer workers, two researchers tried to influence households to comply with a fairly large request: to install a large and ugly sign declaring “Drive Carefully” in their front yard. When they presented the request alone, the researchers were only able to influence 17 percent of people to comply. Since most people immediately rejected that type of odd and inconvenient request, how did the researchers manage to influence 76 percent of people in another group to comply?

A few weeks before asking those people to install the large sign, the researchers asked them to instead comply with a smaller request: to install a small 3-inch sign that declared “Be a safe driver.” Nearly everyone who was asked to install that small sign complied because it was such a minor request. But despite that seemingly insignificant favor, households that complied with this small request became much more likely to install the larger sign when the researchers presented that request a few weeks later. Complying with the small request caused those people to develop a congruent attitude that reflected a person who cares about safe driving. Therefore, when presented with the request to install the large sign a few weeks later, those people felt pressure to install the large sign to maintain consistency.

Was “caring about safe driving” the only attitude that people developed by complying with the smaller request? What if the researchers had presented an initial small request that was unrelated to safe driving? It turns out that small requests, even if they’re unrelated, can still lead to future compliance. For some households in the previous study, the researchers asked them to either sign a petition about the environment or to install a small sign that declared “Keep California Beautiful.” Although the researchers gained the highest degree of compliance (76 percent) when they presented a similar request and topic (i.e., a small sign about safe driving and then a larger sign about safe driving), they still managed to garner roughly 50 percent compliance when the topic was completely different (i.e., a petition or small sign about keeping California beautiful and then a large sign about safe driving). The topic about keeping California beautiful may not have elicited an attitude about safe driving, but it succeeded in eliciting congruent attitudes that reflected a person who takes pride in her community or who simply does kind favors for strangers.

Lowball Procedure.
In addition to using a small request to secure compliance with a separate larger request, you could also start with a small request, and once you gain the initial compliance, you can increase the size of that same request.

This
lowball procedure
is a frequent tactic used by salespeople to influence their customers (Cialdini, 2001). In fact, you may have fallen prey to this tactic by a salesperson at a car dealership where this tactic is often used. You just negotiated a great deal with a car salesperson, and as he goes into the back office to write up the paperwork, you rejoice at having secured a fantastic bargain for your new car. In reality, however, the salesperson is probably twiddling his thumbs in the back room, waiting for time to pass so that you have a few moments to fantasize about your new car.

After a few minutes pass, the salesperson returns with some unfortunate news: the manager didn’t approve the sale, and the fantastic “bargain” just increased by $500. However, by that point, the salesperson already sparked your momentum by gaining your initial compliance, and as a result, you will feel inertia pushing you toward continued compliance with that enlarged request. You’ve already fantasized about your new car, and you’ve already engaged in behavior that suggested you want that car. Much like a puppeteer pulling the string of a marionette, that salesman just pulled the string of cognitive dissonance to pull you toward accepting that enlarged request.

Suggest an Attitude.
Rather than try to get your target to display certain behavior in order to trigger a congruent attitude, you can accomplish the same goal by subtly influencing your target to commit to holding a particular attitude. Getting him to outwardly claim that he’s in a pleasant mood, for example, can elicit behavior that’s consistent with a pleasant mood.

How can you elicit that type of claim? It’s easier than you might think. Whenever we run into somebody, the first thing that we usually say is “How are you?”, and 99 times out of 100, this standard question is usually met with a “good” or “fine.” That’s just the social norm to which we’ve become accustomed. Someone could literally be having the worst day of his life, yet he would still probably make one of those standard responses.