Boston o New York * San Francisco

Mexico City * Montreal e Toronto * London * Madrid e Munich o Paris

Hong Kong a Singapore r Tokyo e CapeTown c Sydney

Acquisitions Editor: Michelle Limoges

Editorial Assistant Christina Manfroni
Executive Marketing Manager: Wendy Gordon
Production Supervisor: Liz Napolitano
Editorial Production Service: Modern Graphics,Inc.
Manufacturing Buyer: JoAnne Sweeney
Electronic Composition: Modern Graphics,Inc.
Interior Design: Modern Graphics,Inc.
Photo Researcher:Rachel Lucas
Cover Design: Joel Gendron
For related titles and support materials,visit our online catalog at
www.pearsonhighered.com
Copyright @ zoo9, zoor PearsonEducation,Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be
reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without
written permission from the copyright owner.
To obtain permission(s)to use material from this work, pleasesubmit a written request
to Pearson/Allynand Bacon,PermissionsDepartment, 5or Boylston Street,Suite 9oo,
Boston, MA ozrr6 or fax your requestto 6r7-67L-zzgo.
Between the time website information is gathered and then published, it is not unusual
for some sites to have closed. Also, the transcription of URLs can result in typographical
errors. The publisher would appreciate notification where these enors occur so that they
may be corrected in subsequenteditions.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Cialdini, Robert B.
Influence : scienceand practice / Robert B. Cialdini.-5th ed.
p.cm.
Includes bibliographical references(p. ) and index.
ISBN-r3: 978-o -zo5-6o9g9
-+
ISBN-:-o:o -zo5-6o999
-6
r. Influence (Psychology)z. Persuasion(Psychology)3. Compliance. I. Title.
BF774.Cyzoog
t53.8'52-dczz
zoo8ozooT8

Printed in the United Statesof America

ro 9 8 7 5 5 4 3 z r

RRD-VA

12 rr 10 o9 o8

Credits appear on page z6o, which constitutesan extension of the copyright page.

Preface

ix

lntroduction

xi

CHAPTER$

Weaponsof lnfluence
z

Click, Whirr

Betting the ShortcutOdds

The Profiteers

ro

rz
Jujitsu
t6
S ummary
S tudyQuesti ons
CHAPTERm

t6

Reciprocation:
The Old Give and Take. . . and Take

18

How the RuleWorks

22
TheR ul el s Overpow eri ng 23
P ol i ti cs z6
TheN ot-S o-Free
S ampl e z8
TheRuleEnforces
UninvitedDebts 31
TheR ul eC anTri ggerU nequal
E xchanges 33
j5
ReciprocalConcessions
Rejection-Then-Retreat 37
Reciprocal
Perceptual
andtheWatergate
Concessions,
Contrast,
Mystery
D amnedl f Y ouD o,D amnedl f Y ouD on' t 42
H ere' sMy B l ood,andD o C al A
l garn 43
The Sweet,SecretSideEffects 44
Responsibility

44

&

Satisfaction

Defense
45
R ej ecti ng
the R ul e 45
S moki ng
Outthe E nemy
S ummary
49
S tudyQuesti ons
C H A P TE R&

45

47

50

H obgobl i nsof t he M ind

C ommi tment and C onsi stency:

Whirring Along
53
TheQui ckFi x
54
TheFoolishFortress
S eekandH i de
c6

5r

54

CONTENTS

Commitment Is the Key

59
66

H e a r t sa n d M i n d s
67

The MagicAct

TheEffortExtra

7L *

ThePublicEye

73

T h e I n n e rC h o i c e

79
G r o w i n g L e g st o S t a n dO n

83
86

S t a n d i n gU p f o r t h e P u b l i cG o o d
Defense

89

S t o m a c hS i g n s

89

Heart-of-HeartsSigns

gL

S p e c i aVl u l n e r a b i l i t i e s

93

Summary
95
Study Questions
CHAPTER 4

96

Social Proof: Truths Are Us

gg

PeoplePower

Lo2

After the Deluge

ro9

Cause of Death: Uncertain(ty)

A ScientificApproach
DevictimizingYourself

1r3
rr5
tt7

Monkey Me, Monkey Do

r2o

Monkey Die

rz8

M o n k e yl s l a n d
Defense

97

gg

The Principle of Social Proof

131

Sabotage

L32
r35

L o o k i n gU p

Summary r38
StudyQuestions Bg
r4r
Liking:The FriendlyThief
MakingFriendsto InfluencePeople L44
Why Do I LikeYoul Let Me Listthe Reasons

5
CHAPTER

PhysicalAttractiveness
Similarity

:^46

r45

r48

Compliments

L4g

r5r
Contactand Cooperation
r54 3 Backto School
Off to Camp
Conditioning and Association

ry6

LSg

D o e st h e N a m e P a v l o vR i n g a B e l l ?

L63

From the News and Weatherto the Sports

fi5

CONTENTSffiW
Defense

L7o

t72
S ummary
S tudyQuesti onsCHAPTER6

L72
LT4

Authority:DirectedDeference

The Power of Authority Pressure

L76
r8o

The Allures and Dangersof Blind Obedience

184

Connotation Not Content

Titles
r84
Clothes r85
Trappings r9o
r9r
Defense
Authority
Authoritative
SlySincerity Lgz
195
S ummary
StudyQuestions
CHAPTER7

t9r

Lg6

Scarcity:The Rule of the Few

198

Lgg

LessIs Best and LossIs Worst

Li mi tedN umbers 2oo
TimeLimits
2o7

zoj
PsychologicalReactance
Love,Guns,andSuds
AdultReactance:
Censorship 2:.o

zo6

2r3
Optimal Conditions
andCivilConflict
NewScarcity:
CostlierCookies
FoolishFury
for Scarce
Resources:
Competition
Defense

zzr

zzs
S ummary
S tudyQuesti ons
CHAPTERI

2L3
2r7

zz6

InstantInfluence:PrimitiveConsentfor an AutomaticAge

Primitive Automaticity

zz8

Modern Automaticity

z1.o

ShortcutsShaiiBe Sacred
S ummary
43
S tudyQuesti ons

References 45
254
lndex
Credits z6o

44

z3r

RobertB. Cialdini is Regents'Professorof Psychology

at Arizona State University, where he has also been
named GraduateDistinguishedResearchProfessor.
He received undergraduate,graduate, and postgraduatetraining in psychologyfrom the University of
Wisconsin, the University of North Carolina, and
ColumbiaUniversity,respectively.He is pastpresident
of the Societyof Personalityand SocialPsychology.
He attributeshis long-standing interest in the intricacies of social influence to the fact that he was
raisedin an entirely Italian family, in a predominantly
Polish neighborhood, in a historically German city
(Milwaukee),in an otherwise rural state.

The initiai version of Influence

was designedfor the popular reader,and as such,an
attempt was made to write it in an engagingstyle.In the subsequentversions,that
style is retained,but in addition,I presentthe researchevidencefor my statements,
recommendations,and conclusions.Although they are dramatized and corroborated through such devicesas interviews,quotes,and systematicpersonalobservations, the conclusionsof lnJluence
are basedon controlled,psychologicalresearch.
This fact allowsthe readerto feel confident that the book is not "pop" psychology
but representswork that is scientificallygrounded.The subsequentversions aiso
provide new and updatedmaterial,chaptersummaries,and study questionsto enhance its utility.
A potentiallyattractivefeatureof the presentversion of Influencelies in its ability to seryeas an enjoyable,practical,yet scientificallydocumentedoffering.In a related vein, the book might be seen as a way to demonstrate that, properly
presented,what often seemslike dry sciencecan actuallyprove to be lively, useful,
and relevantto all readers'personallives.

Commenton the FifthEditionof lnfluence:

Screnceand Practice
It has been some time since InJluencewas last published. In the interim, some
things have happenedthat deservea placein this new edition. First,we now know
more about the influence processthan before.The study of persuasion,compliance,and changehas advanced,and the pagesthat follow have been adaptedto reflect that progress.In addition to an overall update of the material,I have devoted
specialattention to updated coverageof popular culture and new technology,as
well as to researchon cross-culturalsocial influence-how the influence process
works similarly or differently in various human cultures.I have also expandeda feature that was stimulatedby the responsesof prior readers.
This featurehighlights the experiencesof individualswho have read lnfluence,
recognizedhow one of the principles worked on (or for) them in a particular instance,and wrote to me describingthe event.Their descriptions,which appearin the
"Reader'sReports"in each chapter,illustratehow easilyand frequently we can fall
victim to the influence processin our everydaylives.There are now twice as many
firsthand accountsof how the book'sprinciplesapplyto businessand personallives.
An arrayof peopledeserveand havemy appreciationfor their aid in making InJluencepossible.Severalof my academiccolleaguesread and provided perceptive
comments on the entire manuscript in its initial draft form, greatly strengthening
the subsequentversions.They are GusLevine,Doug Kenrick,Art Beaman,and Mark
Zanna.In addition,the first draft was read by a few family members and friendsRichardand Gloria Cialdini,Bobette Gorden,and Ted Hall-who offered not only
much-neededemotional supportbut insightful substantivecommentary aswell.

PREFACE

A second,larger group provided helpful suggestionsfor selectedchaptersor

groups of chapters:Todd Anderson,SandyBraver,Catherine Chambers,Judi Cialdini, Nanry Eisenberg,Larry Eftkin,JoanneGersten,Jeff Goidstein,BetsyHans,Valerie Hans, Joe Hepworth, Holly Hunt, Ann Inskeep, Barry LeShowitz,Darwyn
Linder, Debbie Littler, John Mowen, Igor Pavlov,Janis Posner,Trish Puryear,MariIyn Rall,JohnReich,PeterReingen,Diane Ruble,Phyllis Sensenig,Roman Sherman,
and Henry Wellman.
Certainpeoplewere instrumental at the beginning stages.John Staleywas the
first publishing professional to recognize the project's potential. Jim Sherman, Al
Goethals,John Keating,Dan Wagner,DalmasTaylor,Wendy Wood, and David Watson provided early,positive reviewsthat encouragedauthor and editors alike. My
editors at Allyn and Bacon,Michelle Limoges and Liz Napolitano,were consistently
congenial, helpful, and insightful. I would like to thank the following users of the
book for their feedbackduring a telephone survey:Emory Griffin,'Wheaton College; Robert Levine, California State,Fresno;Jeffrey Lewin, Georgia StateUniversity; David Miller, Daytona Beach Community College;Lois Mohr, Georgia State
University; and Richard Rogers,Daytona Beach Community College.The past editions benefited substantially from the reviews of Assaad Azzi, Yale University;
Robert M. Brady,University of fukansas;Brian M. Cohen, University of Texasat
SanAntonio; Christian B. Crandall,University of Florida;CatherineGoodwin,University of Alaska;Robert G. Lowder, Bradley University;James W. Michael, Jr., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity; Eugene P. Sheehan,University of
Northern Colorado;JeffersonA. Singer,ConnecticutCollege;and SandiW. Smith,
Michigan StateUniversity. Thanks to the following reviewers of this new edition:
Amy M. Buddie, KennesawStateUniversity; Maria Czyzewska,TexasStateUniversity; A. CelesteFarr, North Carolina StateUniversity; Arthur Frankel, SalveRegina
University; and Brian Smith, GracelandUniversity.
Finally,throughout the project,no one was more on my side than Bobette Gorden, who lived every word with me.
I wish to thank the following individualswho-either directly or through their
course instructors-contributed the "Reader'sReports"used in past editions: Pat
Bobbs, Annie Carto, William Cooper, Alicia Friedman, William Graziano, Mark
Hastings, Endayehu Kendie, Danuta Lubnicka,James Michaels, Steven Moysey,
Paul Nail, Alan J. Resnik,Daryl Retzlaff,GeofreyRosenberger,Dan Swift, and Karla
Vasks.Specialthanks are due to those who provided new Reader'sReportsfor this
edition: Hartnut Bock, Michael Conroy,Jonathan Harries, Karen Klawer (z), Katie
Mueller, Paul Nail, Dan Norris, Sam Omar,JoannaSpychala,and Robert Stauth.
I would also like to invite new readersto contribute similar "Reports"for possible publication in a future edition. They can be sent to me at the Department of
Psychology,Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104
or robert.cialdini@
asu.edu. Finally, more influence-relevant information can be obtained at
www.Infl u enceatwork.com.
R.B.C.

I can admit it freely now.AII my life I've been a patsy.For as long as I can recall,I've
been an easymark for the pitches of peddlers,fund-raisers,and operatorsof one
sort or another.True, only some of these people have had dishonorablemotives.
The others-representativesof certain charitableagencies,for instance-have had
the best of intentions.No matter.With personallydisquieting frequency,I have alwaysfound myself in possessionof unwanted magazinesubscriptionsor tickets to
the sanitationworkers'ball. Probablythis long-standing statusas sucker accounts
for my interest in the study of compliance:Just what are the factorsthat causeone
person to say yes to another personl And which techniquesmost effectivelyuse
thesefactorsto bring about such compliance?I have wondered why it is that a request stated in a certain way will be rejected,but a requestthat asksfor the same
favor in a slightly different fashion will be successful.
So in my role as an experimentalsocialpsychologist,I began to researchthe
psychologyof compliance.At first the researchtook the form of experimentsperformed, for the most part, in my laboratoryand on college students.I wanted to
find out which psychologicalprinciples influenced the tendency to comply with a
request.Right noq psychologistsknow quite a bit about these principles-what
they are and how they work. I have characterizedsuch principles as weapons of influence and will be discussingsome of the most important of them in this book.
After a time, though, I began to realizethat the experimentalwork, while necessary,wasn't enough. It didn't allow me to judge the importance of the principles
in the world beyond the psychologybuilding and the campuswhere I was examining them. It becameclearthat if I was to understandfully the psychologyof compliance,I would need to broaden my scopeof investigation.I would need to look
to the complianceprofessionals-the peoplewho had been using the principles on
me all my life. They know what works and what doesn't; the law of survival of the
fittest assuresit. Their businessis to make us comply,and their livelihoods depend
on it. Thosewho don't know how to get peopleto sayyes soon fall away;those who
do, stay and flourish.
Of course,the complianceprofessionalsaren't the only ones who know about
and use these principles to help them get their way. We all employ them and
fall victim to them to some degree in our daily interactions with neighbors,
friends,lovers,and family. But the compliancepractitionershave much more than
the vague and amateurishunderstandingof what works than the rest of us have.
As I thought about it, I knew that they representedthe richest vein of information about compliance availableto me. For nearly three years,then, I combined
my experimentalstudieswith a decidedly more entertaining program: I systematically immersed myself in the world of complianceprofessionals-salespeople,
fund-raisers,advertisers,and others.
wffi

INTRODUCTION

My purpose was to observe,from the inside, the techniques and strategies

most commonly and effectivelyused by a broad range of compliancepractitioners.
That program of observationsometimestook the form of interviewswith the practitioners themselvesand sometimeswith the natural enemies(for example,police
bunco-squadofficers,consumeragencies)of certainof the practitioners.At other
times, it involved an intensiveexaminationof the written materialsby which compliance techniquesare passeddown from one generationto another-sales manuals and the iike.
Most frequently,though, it took the form of participant observation.Participant observationis a researchapproachin which the researcherbecomesa spy of
sorts.With disguisedidentity and intent, the investigatorinfiltrates the setting of
interestand becomesa full-fledgedparticipantin the group to be studied.So when
I wanted to learn about the compliancetacticsof encyclopedia(or vacuum cleaner,
or portrait photography,or dance lesson) sales organizations,I would answer a
newspaperad for salestraineesand havethem teach me their methods.Using similar but not identical approaches,I was able to penetrate advertising,public reiations, and fund-raisingagenciesto examinetheir techniques.Much of the evidence
presentedin this book, then, comes from my experienceposing as a compliance
professional,or aspiringprofessional,in a large variety of organizationsdedicated
to getting us to sayyes.
One aspectof what I learned in this three-yearperiod of participant observation was most instructive.Although there are thousands of different tactics that
compliancepractitionersemploy to produce yes,the majority fall within six basic
categories.Each of these categoriesis governed by a fundamental psychological principle that directs human behavior and, in so doing, gives the tactics
their power. This book is organized around these six principies.The principlesreciprocation,consistency,social proof, liking, authority, and scarcity-are each
discussedin terms of their function in the societyand in terms of how their enormous force can be commissionedby a complianceprofessionalwho deftly incorporatesthem into requestsfor purchases,donations,concessions,
votes,or assent.'
Finally,eachprinciple is examinedas to its ability to produce a distinct kind of
automatic,mindless compliancefrom people,that is, a willingnessto sayyes without thinking first. The evidencesuggeststhat the ever-accelerating
pace and informational crush of modern life will make this particular form of unthinking
compliancemore and more prevalentin the future. it will be increasinglyimportant
for the society,therefore,to understandthe how and why of automaticinfluence.
'It is worth noting that I have not included among the six principles the simple rule of material selfinterest:that people want to get the most and pay the least for their choices.This omission does not
stem from any perception on my part that the desire to maximize benefits and minimize costs is
unimportant in driving our decisions.Nor does it come from any evidence that I have that compiianceprofessionalsignore the power of this ruie. Quite the opposite:in my investigations,I frequentiy
saw practitioners use (sometimes honestly, sometimes not) the compelling "I can give you a good
deal" approach.I chosenot to treat the material self-interestrule separatelyin this book becauseI see
it as a motivational given, as a goes-without-sayingfactor that deservesacknowledgment,but not extensive description.

CHAPT ER

Weapons
of
InTr
uence
lrl

Civilizationadvancesby extendtngthe number of operatronsu/e can perform

without thinkingabout them,
-Alfred NorthWhitehead

Chapter

WE A P O N S

OF INFLUENCE

l c or
A pH oN E cA LL oN E D A y FR oM A FR TEND wHo HAD
recentlyopenedan Indian jeweiry store in Arizona.She was giddy with a curious
piece of news. Something fascinatinghad just happened,and she thought that, as
a psychologist,I might be able to explainit to her. The story involved a certain alIotment of turquoisejewelry she had been having trouble selling.It was the peak
of the tourist season,the storewas unusuallyfull of customers,the turquoisepieces
were of good quality for the pricesshe was asking;yet they had not sold. My friend
had attempted a couple of standardsalestricks to get them moving. Shetried caliing attention to them by shifting their location to a more central display area; no
Iuck. Sheeven told her salesstaffto "push"the items hard-again without success.
Finally,the night before leaving on an out-of-town buying trip, she scribbled
an exasperated
note to her head saleswoman,"Everythingin this displaycase,price
x'l,l'hoping just to be rid of the offlendingpieces,even if at a loss.When she returned a few days later, she was not surprisedto find that every article had been
sold.Shewas shocked,though,to discoverthat,becausethe employeehad readthe
"'1," in her scrawledmessageas a "2," the entire allotment had sold at twice the
original price!
That's when she called me. I thought I knew what had happenedbut told her
that, if I were to explain things properly,she would have to listen to a story of mine.
Actually, it isn't my story; it's about mother turkeys, and it belongs to the relatively
new science of ethology-the study of animals in their natural settings. Turkey
mothers are good mothers-loving, watchful, and protective.They spend much of
their time tending, warming, cleaning,and huddling their young beneath them;
but there is something odd about their method. Virtually all of this mothering is
triggered by one thing: the "cheep-cheep"sound of young turkey chicks. Other
identifying featuresof the chicks,such as their smell, touch, or appearance,seem
to play minor roles in the mothering process.If a chick makes the cheep-cheep
noise, its mother will care for it; if not, the mother will ignore or sometimes kill it.
The extreme reliance of maternal turkeys upon this one sound was dramatically illustrated by animal behavioristM. W. Fox (rgl+) in his description of an experiment involving a mother turkey and a stuffed polecat.For a mother turkey, a
polecatis a natural enemy whose approachis to be greetedwith squawking,pecking, ciawing rage. Indeed, the experimentsfound that even a stuffed model of a
polecat,when drawn by a string to a mother turkey,receivedan immediate and furious attack.When, however, the same stuffed replica carried inside it a small
recorder that played the cheep-cheepsound of baby turkeys,the mother not only
acceptedthe oncoming polecatbut gatheredit underneathher. When the machine
was turned offl the polecatmodel again drew a vicious attack.

Click,Whirr
How ridiculous a mother turkey seemsunder these circumstances:She will embrace a natural enemy just becauseit goes cheep-cheepand she will mistreat or
murder one of her chicks just becauseit does not. She acts like an automaton

CLI CK, WHIRR Fffi

whose maternal instincts are under the automatic control of that single sound.The
ethologiststell us that this sort of thing is far from unique to the turkey.They have
begun to identifii regular,blindiy mechanicalpatterns of action in a wide variety of
sPecres.
CaIIedfxed-action patterns.they can involve intricate sequencesof behavior,
such as entire courtship or mating rituals. A fundamental characteristicof these
patterns is that the behaviorscomprising them occur in virtually the same fashion
and in the same order every time. It is almost as if the patterns were recorded on
tapeswithin the animals.When a situation callsfor courtship,a courtship tape gets
played;when a situation callsfor mothering, a maternal behavior tape gets played.
Click and the appropriate tape is activated;whirr and out rolls the standard sequenceofbehaviors.
The most interesting aspectof all this is the way the tapes are activated.When
an animal actsto defend its territory for instance,it is the intrusion of another animal of the same speciesthat cues the territorial-defensetape of rigid vigilance,
threat, and, if need be, combat behaviors;however,there is a quirk in the system.
It is not the rival as a whole that is the trigger; it is, rather, some specific feature,
the triggerfealiure.
Often the trigger feature wiil be just one tiny aspectof the totality that is the approachingintruder. Sometimesa shadeof color is the trigger feature. The experimentsof ethologistshave shown, for instance,that a male robin,
acting as if a rival robin had entered its territory, will vigorously attack nothing
more than a clump of robin red breastfeathersplaced there. At the same time, it
will virtually ignore a perfect stuffed replica of a male robin ruithout red breast
feathers(Lack,1943).Similar resultshave been found in another speciesof bird, the
bluethroat, where it appearsthat the trigger for territorial defense is a specific
shadeofblue breastfeathers(Peiponen,196o).
Before we enjoy too smugly the ease with which trigger features can trick
lower animals into reacting in ways wholly inappropriate to the situation, we
should realize two things. First, the automatic,fixed-action patterns of these animals work very well most of the time. For example,becauseonly normal, healthy
turkey chicks make the peculiar sound of baby turkeys,it makes sensefor mother
turkeys to respond maternallyto that single cheep-cheepnoise. By reacting to just
that one stimulus,the averagemother turkey will nearly alwaysbehavecorrectly.It
takes a trickster like a scientistto make her tapelike responseseem silly. The second importantthing to understandis that we, too, haveour preprogrammedtapes;
and, although they usuallywork to our advantage,the trigger featuresthat activate
them can dupe us into playingthe tapesat the wrong times..
This parallel form of human automaticity is aptly demonstratedin an experiment by socialpsychologistEllen Langer and her co-workers(Langer,Biank, &

lAlthough several important similarities exist between this kind of automaticity in humans and lower
animals, there are some important differences as well. The automatic behavior patterns of humans
tend to be learned rather than inborn, more flexible than the lock-step patterns ofthe lower animals,
and responsiveto a larger number oftriggers.

Chapter

WE A P O N S

OF INFLUENCE

Chanowitz,1978).
A well-knownprincipleof human behaviorsaysthat when we ask
someoneto do us a favor we will be more successfulif we provide a reason.People simply Iike to have reasonsfor what they do (BastardiQ Shafir,zooo).Langer
demonstratedthis unsurprislng fact by asking a small favor of people waiting in
Iine to use a library copying machine: "Excuseme, I have five pages.May I use the
Xerox machine becauseI'm in a rush?" The effectivenessof this request plusreasonwas neariytotal: 94 percent ofthose askedlet her skip aheadofthem in line.
Comparethis successrate to the resultswhen she made the request only: "Excuse
me, I havefive pages.May I use the Xeroxmachinel" Under those circumstances
only 6o percent of those askedcomplied.At first glance,it appearsthat the crucial
difference between the two requestswas the additional information provided by
the words becauseI'm in a rush.However, a third type of request tried by Langer
showed that this was not the case.It seems that it was not the whole series of
words, but the first one, because,
that made the difference. Instead of including a
real reason for compliance,Langer'sthird type of request used the word because
and then, adding nothing new, merely restatedthe obvious:"Excuseme, I have five
pages.May I use the XeroxmachinebecauseI haveto make some copiesl"The result was that once againnearlyall (93percent)agreed,eventhough no real reason,
no new information was added to justify their compliance.Just as the cheep-cheep
sound of turkey chicks triggered an automatic mothering responsefrom mother
turkeys, even when it emanated from a stuffed polecat,so the word becauseIriggered an automatic compliance responsefrom Langer'ssubjects,even when they
were given no subsequentreasonto comply. Click,whirr.,
Although some of Langer'sadditional findings show that there are many situations in which human behavior doesnot work in a mechanical,tape-activatedway,
she and many other researchers
are convincedthat most of the time it does(Bargh
Wiliiams,
zoo5;
Langer,
1989).
For instance,consider the strange behavior of
Q
those jewelry store customerswho swooped down on an aliotment of turquoise
pieces only after the items had been mistakenly offered at double their original
price. I can make no senseof their behavior unlessit is viewed in click,whirr terms.
The customers, mostly well-to-do vacationers with little knowledge of
turquoise,were using a standard principle-a stereotype-to guide their buying:
expensive= good. Much researchshowsthat peoplewho are unsure of an item's
quality often use this stereotype(Croniey et al., zoo5).Thus the vacationers,who
wanted "good"jewelry,saw the turquoisepiecesas decidedlymore valuableand
desirablewhen nothing about them was enhanced but the price. Price alone had

' Pe rhapsthe common "because. . .j ust because"responseofchi l dren askedto ex pl ai nthei r behav i or
ca n be tracedto thei r shrew d recogni ti onofthe unusual amount ofpow er adultsappearto as s i gnto
the word because.

C L I CK, WHI RR

!Cluck-Whirr
I Humanmatingrituals
aren'tactuallyas rigidas
animals' Still,researchers
naveuncoveredimpressive
regularities
in courtship
pamernsacrossmany
humancultures(Kenrick&
Keefe,1992),For instance,
rn personalsads around
the world,women
describetheirphysical
attractiveness
whilemen
trumpettheirmaterial
wealth(Buss& Kenrick,
1998)
Used by permissronof Dave
Coverlyand Creators
Syndicate, lnc

qttqN,T00,
\g[N
Wl(rD\K0\g\sTUN
ORN\1UOIO6\ST,
N\DTUq
N\TNq
IS\NRAqNE
.

ffiW[ffi

Chapter '1 wEAPoNS oF INFLUENcE

READER'S

REPORT 1.1

From a Management DoctoralStudent

fi man who owns an antique jewelry store in my town telis a story of how
Iearned the expensive= good lesson of social influence. A friend of his
/an"
wanted a special birthiay pr"r.rit for his fianc6e. So,the jeweler picked out a
necklace that would have sold in his store for $5oo but that he was willing to
iet his friend have for $25o.As soon as he saw it, the friend was enthusiastic
about the piece. But when the jeweler quoted the $z5o price, the man's face
fell, and he began backing away from the deal because he wanted something
"really nice" for his intended bride.
When a day later it dawned on the jeweler what had happened, he called
his friend and askedhim to come back to the store becausehe had another
necklaceto show him. This time, he introduced the new piece at its regular
$5oo price. His friend liked it enough to buy it on the spot. But before any
money was exchanged,the jeweler told him that, as a wedding gift, he would
drop the price to $25o.The man was thrilled. Now, rather than finding the $z5o
sales price offensive, he was overjoyed-and gratefui-to have it.
jewelrybuyers,it wassomeonewho
Authorknote:Noticethat,asin the caseof the turquoise
who disdained
the low-priceditem.I'm confident
wantedto be assured
of goodmerchandise
= bad"rulethat applies
= good"rule,there'sa flip side,"inexpensive
the "expensive
thatbesides
it has
to ourthinkingaswell Afterall,in English,thewordcheapdoesn'tjust meaninexpensive;
proverbmakesthis pointeloquentlp"There'snothing
cometo meaninferior,too.A Japanese
moreexpensive
thanthatwhic-hcomesfor free."

become a trigger feature for quality,and a dramatic increasein price alone had led
to a dramatic increasein salesamong the quality-hungry buyers.I

Bettingthe ShortcutOdds
It is easyto fault the tourists for their foolish purchasedecisions,but a close look
offers a kinder view.Thesewere people who had been brought up on the rule, "You
get what you pay for" and who had seenthat rule borne out over and over in their
lives. Before long, they had translatedthe rule to mean erpensive= good. The
expensive= good stereotypehad worked quite well for thern in the past,sincenormally the price of an item increasesalong with its worth; a higher price typically
reflectshigher quality.So when they found themselvesin the position of wanting

lln marketing lore, the classiccaseof this phenomenon is that of Chivas Regal ScotchWhiskey, which
had been a struggling brand until its managers decided to raise its price to a level far above its competitors. Salesskyrocketed,even though nothing was changed in the product itself (Aaker,r99r). A recent brain-scan study helps explain why. When tasting the same wine, participants not only rated
themselves as experiencing more pleasureifthey thought it cost $45versus $5,their brain centers associated with pleasure became more activated by the experienceas well (Plassmannet al., zoo8)

BETTTNGTHE SHORTCUT ODDS wwxi

good turquoisejewelry but not having much knowledgeof turquoise,they understandablyrelied on the old standbyfeatureof costto determinethe jewelry'smerits (RaoQ Monroe,1989).
Although they probably did not realize it, by reacting solely to the price ofthe
turquoise,they were playing a shortcut version of betting the odds. Instead of
stacking all the odds in their favor by trying painstakinglyto master each feature
that indicatesthe worth of turquoisejewelry, they were counting on just one-the
one they knew to be usuallyassociatedwith the quality of any item. They were betting that price alone would tell them all they needed to know. This time, because
someone mistook a"'f ," for a "2," they bet wrong. in the long run, over all the past
and future situations of their lives,betting those shortcut odds may representthe
most rationalapproachpossible.
In fact, automatic,stereotypedbehavior is prevalent in much human action,
becausein many cases,it is the most efficient form of behaving (Gigerenzerft
(Bodenhausen,
Macrae,81
Goldstein,1996),and in other casesit is simply necessary
Sherman,1999;FiskeQ Neuberg,r99o).You and I existin an extraordinarilycomplicated environment, easilythe most rapidly moving and complex that has ever
existed on this planet. To deal with it, we needshortcuts.We can't be expectedto
recognize and analyzeall the aspectsin each person, event, and situation we encounter in even one day.We haven'tthe time, ener6ry,or capacityfor it. Instead,we
must very often use our stereotypes,our rules of thumb, to classifiithings according to a few key features and then to respond without thinking when one or another of these trigger featuresis present.
Sometimesthe behavior that unrolls will not be appropriatefor the situation,
becausenot even the best stereotypesand trigger featureswork everytime. We will
accepttheir imperfectionssince there is really no other choice.Without these features we would stand frozen-cataloging, appraising,and calibrating-as the time
for action sped by and away. From all indications, we will be relying on these
stereotypesto an even greater extent in the future. As the stimuli saturating our
Iives continue to grow more intricate and variabie,we will have to depend increasingly on our shortcutsto handle them all.+
Psychologistshave recently uncovered a number of mental shortcutsthat we
employ in making our everydayjudgments (Kahneman, Slovic, Q Tversky,r98z;
these shortcuts operatein
Todd Q Gigerenzer,zooT).Termedjudgmental heuristics,
much the samefashion as the expensivs= good rule, allowing for simplified thinking that works well most of the time but leavesus open to occasional,costly mistakes.Especiallyrelevantto this book are those heuristicsthat tell us when to
believeor do what we are told. Consider,for example,the shortcutrule that goes,
"If an expert said so, it must be true." As we will see in Chapter 6, there is an
unsettling tendency in our society to accept unthinkingly the statements and
qTake,by way of illustration, the case (Zimmatore, 1983)of the automatic, mindless consumer response to a standard trigger for buying in our society-the discount coupon. A tire company found
that mailed-out coupons which, becauseof a printing error, offered no savingsto recipients produced
just as much customer responseas did the error-free coupons that offered substantial savings.

Kffiffi

oF INFLUENoE
GhaPter 1 wEAPoNs
rather
on the topic' That is'
who appearto be authorities
freindividuars
of
directions
btt"t t"*lit-1!":,"")'we
expert's
exan
the
about
by
just
thanthinking
'lrYit"::1;
o""tlut' toie convinced
ttgutitJ"t"ndliiow
tt"
ignore
quently

.,:':T:
::ff; fi:::'::
i"J,,,.i"
*: J::1".{i'ilTliJJlI
:.T:iliifl*
i:l
!':;i;';q'::i:* ;;','l
;#i,!,:;ilI,l,Iff
information in a srtuat

formation can be rerel

into effect in the next Year

to
news made them want
issu
the
iects in the studY,
not
ih.t th. exams would

moreexpensiae?"
something
Monsieurtuouldcarefor
"Perhaps

B E TTIN G TH E S H OR TCUT O DDS

W
they had no strong need to carefuliyconsiderthe argument'svalidity.The study's
resultswere quite straightforward:Those subjectswith no personalstake in the
topic were primarily persuadedby the speaker's
expertisein the fieldof education;
they used the "If an expert said so, it must be true" ruie, paying little attention to
the strength of the speaker'sarguments.Those subjectsfor whom the issue mattered personally,on the other hand, ignored the speaker'sexpertiseand were persuadedprimarily by the qualityof the speaker's
arguments.
So,it appearsthat when it comesto the dangerousbusinessof click,whirr responding,we give ourselvesa safetynet:We resistthe seductiveIurury of registering and reactingto just a single (trigger)feature of the availableinformation when
an issue is important to us. No doubt this is often the case(LeippeQ Elkin, 1987).
Yet, I am not fully comforted.Recalithat earlierwe learned that people are likely to
respond in a controlled,thoughtful fashion only when they have both the desire
and the abilityto do so.I haverecentlybecomeimpressedby evidencesuggesting
that the form and pace of modern life is not allowing us to make fully thoughtful
decisions,even on many personallyrelevanttopics (Cohen,:'978'Milgram, r97o).
That is, sometimesthe issuesmay be so complicated,the time so tight, the distractions so intrusive, the emotional arousal so strong, or the mental fatigue so
deepthat we are in no cognitive condition to operatemindfully. Important topic or
not, we have to take the shortcut.s
Perhapsnowhere is this last point driven home more dramatically than in
the life-and-death consequencesof a phenomenon that airline industry officials
have labeled Captainitis(Foushee,1984).Accident investigatorsfrom the Federal
Aviation Administration have noted that, frequently, an obvious error made by a
flight captainwas not correctedby the other crew members and resultedin a crash.
It seemsthat, despitethe clear and strong personalimportanceof the issues,the
crew members were using the shortcut"If an expertsaysso,it must be true" rule in
failing to attend or respondto the captain'sdisastrousmistake(Harper,Kidera,Q
Cullen,r97r).
An accountby ThomasWatson,Jr.,the former chairman of IBM, offers graphic
evidenceof the phenomenon. During World War Ii, he was assignedto investigate
plane crashesin which high-ranking officers were killed or injured. One caseinvolved a famous air force generalnamed Uzal Ent whose copilot got sick before a
flight. Ent was assigneda replacementwho felt honoredto be flying alongsidethe
legendarygeneral.During takeoff,Ent begansinging to himself,nodding in time
to a song in his head.The new copiiotinterpretedthe gestureas a signalto him to
Iift the wheels.Even though they were going much too siowly to fly, he raised the

slt'sinstructive that even though we often don't take a complex approach to personally important topics,we wish our advisors-our physicians,accountants,lawyers,and brokers-to do precisely that for
us (Kahn Q Baron, 1995).When feeling overwhelmed by a complicated and consequential choice, we
still want a fully considered,point-by-point analysisof it-an analysiswe may not be able to achieve
except,ironically enough, through a shortcut: reliance on an expert

ffi

C hapter 1

w E A P oN S

oF IN FLU E N cE

landing gear,causingthe plane to drop immediatelyonto its belly.in the wreck,a

propellerbladeslicedinto Ent'sback,severinghis spine and renderinghim a paraplegic.Watson(r99o)describedthe copilot'sexplanationfor his action:
WhenI took the copilot'stestimony,I askedhim, "If you knewthe planewasn't
goingtoJly,whydidyouputthe geqrup?"
He said,"I thoughtthe generalwantedme to." He was stupid.(p. ,rl)
Stupid?In that singularset of circumstances,
yes.Understandable?
In the shortcutdemandingmaze of modern life, alsoyes.

The Profiteers
It is odd that despitetheir current widespreaduse and Iooming future importance,
most of us know very iittle about our automatic behavior patterns.Perhapsthat is
so preciselybecauseof the mechanistic,unthinking manner in which they occur.
Whatever the reason,it is vital that we clearly recognize one of their properties.
They make us terribly vulnerableto anyonewho doesknow how they work.
To understandfully the nature of our vulnerability,Iet us take another glance
at the work of the ethologists.It turns out that these animal behavioristswith their
recordedcheep-cheeps
and their clumpsofcolored breastfeathersare not the only
ones who have discoveredhow to activatethe behaviortapes of various species.
One group of organisms,often termed mimics,copy the trigger features of other
animals in an attempt to trick these animals into mistakenly playing the right behavior tapes at the wrong times. The mimics then exploit this altogether inappropriate action for their own benefit.
Take,for example,the deadlytrick played by the killer females of one genus of
firefly (Photuris)on the males of another firefly genus (Photinus).Understandably,
the Photfnusmales scrupulouslyavoid contact with the bloodthirsty Photurisfemales.However,through centuriesof natural selection,the Photurisfemale hunters
have located a weaknessin their prey-a specialblinking courtship code by which
members of the victims' speciestell one another they are ready to mate. By mimicking the flashing mating signalsof her prey,the murderessis able to feast on the
bodies of maleswhose triggered courtshiptapes causethem to fly mechanically
into death's,not love's,embrace(Lloyd,1965).6
In the struggle for survival, nearly every form of life has its mimics-right
down to some of the most primitive pathogens.By adopting certain critical features of useful hormones or nutrients,these cleverbacteriaand virusescan gain
entry into a healthy host cell.The result is that the healthy cell eagerlyand naively

6Apparently,the tendenry of males to be bamboozled by powerful mating signals extends to humans

Two University of Vienna biologists,Astrid Juette and Karl Grammer secretly exposedyoung men to
airborne chemicals (called copulins) that mimic human vaginal scents.The men then rated the attractivenessofwomen's faces.Exposureto the copulins increasedthejudged attractivenessofall the
women and masked the genuine physical attractivenessdifferences among them ("For Women,"
1999)

TH E P RO FI TEERS f f i
sweepsinto itseif the causesof such diseasesas rabies,mononucleosis,and the
common cold (Goodenough,
r99r).2It should come as no surprise,then, that there
is a strong but sad parallelin the human jungle. We too have profiteers who mimic
trigger featuresfor our own brand of automaticresponding.Unlike the mostly instinctiveresponsesequencesof nonhumans,however,our automatictapesusually
developfrom psychologicalprinciples or stereotypeswe have learned to accept.Although they vary in their force,some of theseprinciplespossessa tremendousability to direct human action. We have been subjectedto them from such an eariy
point in our iives,and they have moved us about so pervasivelysince then, that you
and I rarely perceivetheir power. In the eyesof others,though, each such principle
is a detectableand readyweapon,a weaponof automaticinfluence.
There are some people who know very well where the weapons of automatic
influence Iie and who employ them regularly and expertlyto get what they want.
They go from social encounter to social encounter, requesting others to comply
with their wishes;their frequenry of successis dazzling.The secretof their effectiveness lies in the way that they structure their requests,the way that they arm
themselveswith one or another of the weaponsof influence that existin the social
environment.To do this may take no more than one correctlychosenword that engagesa strong psychologicalprinciple and sets rolling one of our automatic behavior tapes.Trust the human profiteers to learn quickly exactly how to benefit
from our tendencyto respond mechanicallyaccordingto these principles.
Remember my friend the jewelry store owner?Although she benefited by accident the first time, it did not take her long to begin exploiting the expensive=
good stereotyperegularly and intentionally. Now during the tourist season,she
first tries to speedthe saleof an item that has been difficult to move by increasing
its price substantially.She claims that this is marvelously cost-effective.When it
works on the unsuspectingvacationers-as it frequently does-it resuits in an
enormous profit margin.
And even when it is not initially successful,she can then mark the article "Reduced" and sell it to bargain-huntersat its original price while still taking advantage oftheir expensive= good reactionto the inflatedfigure.
By no means is my friend original in this last use of the expensive= good rule
to snarethose seeking a bargain. Culturist and author Leo Rosten gives the example of the Drubeckbrothers,Sid and Harry who owned a men'stailor shop in Rosten'sneighborhoodin the r93os.W'heneverSid had a new customertrying on suits
in front of the shop'sthree-sidedmirror, he would admit to a hearingproblem and
repeatedlyrequestthat the man speakmore loudly to him. Once the customerhad

zAsexploitativeas these creaturesseem,they are topped in this respectby an insect known as the rove
beetle. By using a variety of triggers involving smell and touch, the rove beetles get two speciesof
ants to protect, groom, and feed them as larvae and to harbor them for the winter as adults. Responding mechanically to the beetles'trick trigger features,the ants treat the beetles as though they
were fellow ants.Inside the ant nests,the beetlesrespond to their hosts'hospitality by eating ant eggs
and young; yet they are never harmed (Holldobler, r97r).

Chapter

WE A P O N S

OF INFLUENCE

found a suit he liked and askedfor the price,Sid would call to his brother,the head
tailor, at the back of the room, "F{arry,how much for this suitl" Looking up from
his work-and greatly exaggeratingthe suit's true price-Harry would call back,
"For that beautiful,all wool suit, for{-two dollars."Pretendingnot to have heard
and cupping his hand to his ear, Sid would ask again. Once more Harry would
reply,"Forby-twodollars."At this point, Sid would turn to the customer and report,
"He saystwenty-two dollars."Many a man would hurry to buy the suit and scramble out of the shop with his expensive= good bargainbefore poor Sid discovered
the "mistake."

Jujitsu
A woman employing the Japanesemartial art form caliedjujitsu would use her own
strength only minimally againstan opponent. Instead,she would erploit the power
inherent in such naturally presentprinciples as gravity,Ieverage,momentum, and
inertia. If she knows how and where to engagethe action of these principles she
can easily defeat a physically stronger rival. And so it is for the exploiters of the
weapons of automatic influence that exist naturally around us. The profiteers can
commission the power of these weaponsfor use againsttheir targets while exerting Iittle personalforce.This lastfeature ofthe processgivesthe profiteers an enormous additional benefit-the ability to manipuiate without the appearanceof
manipulation. Even the victims themselvestend to seetheir compliance as a result
of the action of natural forces rather than the designs of the person who profits
from that compliance.
An exampleis in order.There is a principle in human perception,the contrast
principle, that affectsthe way we see the difference between two things that are
presentedone after another. Simply put, if the seconditem is fairly different from
the first, we will tend to seeit as moredifferent than it actuallyis. So if we lift a light
object first and then lift a heavy object, we will estimate the second object to be
heavierthan if we had lifted it without first lifting the light one. The contrastprinciple is well established
in the field of psychophysics
and appliesto all sortsof perceptions besidesweight. If we are talking to a very attractiveindividual at a party
and are then joined by an unattractiveindividual, the second wili strike us as less
attractivethan he or she actuallyis.8
Another demonstrationof perceptualcontrastis sometimesemployedin psychophysicslaboratories
to introducestudentsto the principie.Eachstudenttakesa
turn sitting in front of three pails of water-one cold, one at room temperature,
and one hot. Afterplacingone hand in the cold water and one in the hot water,the

8Some researchers warn that the unrealistically attractive people portrayed in the popular media
(actors,actresses,models) may causeus to be less satisfied with the looks ofthe genuinely available
romantic possibilities around us. For instance,one study demonstrated that exposureto the exaggerated sexual attractivenessof nude pinup bodies (in such magazines as Playboyand Playgirf causes
people to become less pleased with the sexual desirability of their current spouse or live-in mate
(Kenrick, Gutierres,Q Goldberg, r989).

J U J I T S Uf f i
studentis told to placeboth handsin the room-temperaturewater simultaneously.
The look of amusedbewildermentthat immediatelyregisterstells the story:Even
though both hands are in the samebucket,the hand that has been in the cold water
feels as if it is now in hot water,while the one that was in the hot water feels as if
it is now in cold water. The point is that the same thing-in this instance,roomtemperaturewater-can be made to seemvery different dependingon the nature
ofthe eventthat precedesit.
Be assuredthat the nice little weapon of influence provided by the contrast
principle doesnot go unexploited.The great advantageof this principle is not only
that it works but also that it is virtually undetectable(Tormala& petty, zooT).Those
who employ it can cashin on its influence without any appearanceof having structured the situationin their favor.Retail clothiersare a good example.Supposea
man enters a fashionablemen's store and saysthat he wants to buy a three-piece
suit and a sweater.If you were the salesperson,
which would you show him first to
make him likely to spendthe most moneyl Clothing storesinstruct their salespersonnel to sell the costly item first. common sensemight suggestthe reverse:If a
man has just spent a lot of money to purchasea suit, he may be reluctant to spend
much more on the purchaseof a sweater;but the clothiers know better.They behave in accordancewith what the contrast principle would suggest: sell the suit
first, becausewhen it comes time to look at sweaters,even expensiveones,their
prices wiil not seemas high in comparison.The same principle applies to a man
who wishes to buy the accessories
(shirt, shoes,belt) to go along with his new suit.
Contrary to the commonsenseview, the evidencesupports the contrast principie
prediction.
It is much more profitable for salespeopleto present the expensiveitem first;
to fail to do so will lose the influence of the contrast principle and will also cause
the principle to work activelyagainstthem. Presentingan inexpensiveproduct first
and following it with an expensiveone will make the expensiveitem seem even
more costly as a result-hardly a desirableconsequencefor most salesorganizations. So,just as it is possible to make the same bucket of water appear to be

DOGtsERT:
PROFESSIONAL
DEAREROF BAD NEOS

oArrY,YouRBO55
ASKED I'\E TO TELL
Y OU ...

f -- l, Perceptual Contrast
solutton.
I A one-percent
I

!!! ;
YOU'REFIRED
AND THEYHAVE
VIDEOS
SECRET
OFYOOSTEALING
!II
STUFF

DILBERT:@ ScottAdams Distributedby United FeatureSyndicate,tnc

I
| _.__,._-,

THIS
CAN'r
BE
TRUE,

I
I

TT5 NOT. DUT

OATCHHO1J
HAPPYYOUARE
OHEN I TELI

You A00ur
YOURONERAISE
PERCENT

- - - - - '- '-

--r
:
I
i
i

sffikGffi

chapter 1 wEAPoNS oF INFLUENoE

hotter or colder depending on the temperature of previouslypresentedwater, it is

possibleto make the price of the same item seem higher or lower dependingon
the price of a previouslypresenteditem.
Clever use of perceptual contrast is by no means confined to clothiers. (See
Figure r.r.) I came acrossa technique that engagedthe contrast principle while I

Dear Mother and Dad,

SinceI left for college I havebeen remissin writing and I am sorry for my
thoughtlessness
in not havingwritten before.I will bring you up to date now,
but beforeyou read on, pleasesit down. You are not to read any furtherunless
you are sittingdown, okay?
Well, then, I am gettingalong prettywell now.The skull fractureand the
concussi onI got w hen I j umped out the w i ndow of my dormi t or ywhen it
caughton fire shortlyaftermy arrivalhere is prettywell healednow. I only
spenttwo weeksin the hospitaland now I can seealmostnormally and only get
thosesick headachesonce a day.Fortunately,
the fire in the dormitory,and my
jump, was witnessedby an attendantat the gasstationnearthe dorm, and he
w asthe one w ho cal l edthe Fi reD eoartmentand the ambul ance.He alsovisited me in the hospitaland sinceI l'radnowhereto live becauseof the burnt-out
dormitory,he was kind enoughto invite me to sharehis apartmentwith him. lfs
reallya basementroom, but it it'skind of cute. He is a very fine boy, and we
havefallendeeply in love and are planningto get married.We haven'tsetthe
exactdateyet, but it will be beforemy pregnancybeginsto show.
Yes,Mother and Dad, I am pregnant.I know how much you are looking
forwardto being grandparents
and I know you will welcome the baby and give
it the samelove and devotionand tendercare you Baveme when I was a child.
The reasonfor the delay in our marriageis that my boyfriendhasa minor infection which preventsus from passingour premaritalblood testsand I carelessly
caughti t from hi m. I know that you w i l l w el comehi m i nto our f am ily wit h open
arms.H e i s ki nd and,al thoughnot w el l educated,he i s ambi tious.
Now that I havebrought you up to date, I want to tell you that there was
no dormitoryfire, I did not havea concussionor skull fracture,I was not in
the hospital,I am not pregnant,I am not engaged,I am not infected,and there
i s no boyfri end.H ow ever,l am getti nga" D " i n A meri canH i st or y and an"F"
i n C hemi stry,
and I w ant you to seethosemarksi n thei r properper spect ive.
Y ourl ovi ngdaughter ,

Sharort
j Figure1.1 Perceptual Contrast and the College Coed

.nli
t11"r"1y1.rt"". r",r"
r.r"^"'*r_
L
TIi:
^'j
I

__ l

J U J I T S Uf f i
was investigating,undercover,the compliancetacticsof real estatecompanies.To
"learn the ropes,"I accompanieda salesmanon a weekendof showing housesto
prospectivehome buyers.The salesman-we can call him Phil-was to give me
tips to help me through my break-inperiod. One thing I quickly noticed was that
wheneverPhil beganshowinga new setof customerspotentialbuys,he would start
with a coupleof undesirablehouses.I askedhim about it, and he laughed.They
were what he called "setup"properties.The company maintained a run-down
house or two on its lists at inflatedprices.Thesehouseswere not intended to be
sold to customersbut only to be shown to them, so that the genuinepropertiesin
the company'sinventory would benefit from the comparison.Not ail the salesstaff
made use of the setuphouses,but Phil did. He saidhe liked to watch his prospects'
"eyeslight up" when he showedthe placeshe reaily wanted to sell them after they
had seenthe rundown houses."The houseI got them spottedfor Iooksreallygreat
after they've first looked at a couple of dumps."
Automobile dealersusethe contrastprinciple by waiting until the price of a car
has been negotiatedbeforesuggestingone option after another.In the wake of a
many-thousand-dollardeal,the hundred or so dollars extra for a nicety like an upgradedCD playerseemsalmosttrivial in comparison.The samewill be true of the
addedexpenseof accessories
like tinted windows,bettertires,or specialtrim that
the dealermight suggestin sequence.
The trick is to bring up the options independentlyof one anotherso that eachsmall price will seempetty when compared

READER'S

REPORT 1.2

From a University of Chicago Buslness School Student

\ n /hile waiting to board a flight at O'Hare, I heard a desk agent announce
V V that the flight was overbooked and that, if passengerswere willing to
take a later plane, they would be compensatedwith a voucher worth $ro,ooo!
Of course,this exaggeratedamount was a joke. It was supposedto make people laugh. It did. But I noticed that when he then revealed the actual offer (a
$zoo voucher),there were no takers.In fact, he had to raise the offer twice, to
$3oo and then $5oo,before he got any voiunteers.
I was reading your book at the time, and I realized that, although he got his
laugh, according to the contrast principle, he screwed up. He'd arranged things
so that comparedto $ro,ooo,a couplehundred bucks seemedlike a pittance.
That was an expensivelaugh. It cost his airline an extra $3oo per
volunteer.
Autlor'snote Anyideason howt}redeskagentcouldhaveusedthe contrastprincipleto his advantageratherthanhis detriment?
Perhaps
he couldhavestartedwith a $5jokeofferandthen
revealed
the true(andnowmuchmoreattractive-sounding)
$zooamount.Underthosecircumstances,
I'm prettysurehewouldhavesecuredhislaughandhis volunteers.

Chapter

WE A P O N S

OF INFLUENCt

to the alreadydeterminedmuch Iargerprice.As veterancar buyerscan attest,many

a budget-sizedfinal pricefigure has balloonedout ofproportion from the addition
of:rll those seemingly little options.While the customersstand,signed contract in
hand, wondering what happenedand finding no one to blame but themseives,the
car deaier standssmiling the knowing smile of the jujitsu master.

Summary
r Ethologists,researcherswho study animal behavior in the natural environment, have noticed that among many animal speciesbehavior often occurs in
rigid and mechanicalpatterns.Called fixed-action patterns,these mechanical
behavior sequencesare noteworthy in their similarity to certain automatic
(click,whirr)responding by humans. For both humans and subhumans,the automatic behavior patterns tend to be triggered by a single feature of the relevant information in the situation. This single feature, or trigger feature, can
often prove very valuable by allowing an individual to decide on a correct
courseof action without having to analyzecarefullyand completelyeachof the
other piecesof information in the situation.
c The advantageof such shortcut responding lies in its efficiency and economy; by reacting automatically to a usually informative trigger feature, an
individual preservescrucial time, energy, and mental capacity.The disadvantage of such responding lies in its vulnerability to silly and costly mistakes;by reacting to only a piece of the availableinformation (even a normally
predictivepiece),an individual increasesthe chancesof error, especiallywhen
respondingin an automatic,mindlessfashion.The chancesof error increase
even further when other individuals seekto profit by arranging (through manipulation of trigger features)to stimulate a desired behavior at inappropriate times.
r Much of the compliance process(wherein one person is spurred to comply
with another person'srequest)can be understood in terms of a human tendency for automatic, shortcut responding. Most individuals in our culture
have developeda set of trigger features for compliance,that is, a set of specific pieces of information that normally tell us when compliance with a request is likely to be correct and beneficial. Each of these trigger features for
compliance can be used like a weapon (of influence) to stimulate people to
agree to requests.

StudyQuestions
ContentMastery
r. What arefixed-actionpatternsamonganimals?How arethey similarto sometypes
of humanfunctioningl How arethey differentl
z. What makesautomaticrespondingin humansso attractive?
So dangerous?

s ru DY Q U E S T I o N Sm m

Cr iticalThinking
r. Supposeyou were an attorneyrepresentinga woman who broke her leg in a department store and was suing the store for $roo,ooo in damages.Knowing only whai you
do about perceptual contrast,what could you do during the trial to mike the.1urysee
$roo,ooo as a reasonable,
even small,awardl
z. The charity request card in Figure r.z seems rather ordinary except for the odd sequencing of the donation request amounts. Explain why, according to the contrast
principle, placing the smallest donation figure between two larger figures is an effectivetactic to prompt more and larger donations.
3. What points do the following quotesmake about the dangersof click-whinresponding?
"Everything shouldbe made as simple as possible,but not simpler."Albert Einstern
"The greatestlessonin life is to know that evenfoolsare sometimesright."winston
Lnurcnut
4. How does the photograph that opens this chapter reflect the topic ofthe chapter?

Society for the

Prevenlionof
CRABGRASS
Unsightlycrabgrass
can be conquered-butonly with the help of concerned
citizensIike you, Your generouscontributionmakesresearchpossibleto reach
our goal of a crabgrass-free
world Pleasejoin us and make your donation
payableto the Societyfor the Preventionof CrabgrassA retum envelopehas
beenprovidedfor your convenience!
Yes, I want to further the Society'sefforts for a crabgrass-free
world
Enclosedis my contributionin thc amountof:

Iszs tr sr o Is.s !sr s !s_

Name

Address
City

State -

Societyfor the Preventionof Crabgrass

P,O. Box 5-CG
Lawn City, USA t2345

j- Figure1.2 Charity

rc

.HAPTER

Reciprocation
The Old Giveand
Take, , , andTake
Pay every debt, as if God wrote the bill.
-Raloh WaldoEmerson

RECIPROCAT|oN Km
r^

oR
AGo,A uNr vERsr rpRoFESS
Devennl vEARS
y
T R r ED
A Lr r r LE
experiment.He sent Christmascardsto a sample of perfect strangers.Although he
expectedsome reaction,the responsehe receivedwas amazing-holiday cards addressedto him came pouring back from peoplewho had never met nor heard of
him. The great majority of those who returned cards never inquired into the identity of the unknown professor.They receivedhis holiday greeting card, click,and
whirr, they automaticallysent cards in return (Kunz Q uToolcott,1976).
While small in scope,this study showsthe action of one of the most potent of
the weaponsof influence around us-the rule of reciprocation,The rule saysthat
we should try to repay,in kind, what another person has provided us. If a woman
does us a favor,we should do her one in return; if a man sendsus a birthday present, we should remember his birthday with a gift of our own; if a couple invites
us to a party, we should be sure to invite them to one of ours. By virtue of the
reciprocity rule, then, we are obligatedto the future repayment of favors,gifts, invitations, and the like. So typical is it for indebtednessto accompanythe receipt of
such things that a phrase like "much obliged" has become a synonym for "thank
you," not only in the English languagebut in others as well (such as with the Portugueseterm "obrigado").The future reach of the obligation is nicely connoted in
a Japaneseword for thank you, "sumimasen,"which means "this will not end" in its
Iiteral form.
The impressive aspectof reciprocationwith its accompanyingsenseof obligation is its pervasivenessin human culture. It is so widespreadthat, after intensive study, Alvin Gouldner (196o),along with other sociologists,report that all
human societiessubscribeto the rule.' Within eachsocietyit seemspervasivealso;
it permeatesexchangesof every kind. Indeed, it may well be that a developedsystem of indebtednessflowing from the rule of reciprocationis a unique property of
human culture. The noted archaeologistRichard Leakey ascribesthe essenceof
what makes us human to the reciprocitysystem.He claims that we are human because our ancestorsiearned to share food and skills "in an honored network of
obligation" (LeakeyQ Lewin, 1978).Cultural anthropologistsview this "web of indebtedness"as a unique adaptivemechanism of human beings,allowing for the division of labor, the exchangeof diverseforms of goods and different services,and

'Certain societieshave formalized the rule into ritual Consider for example the Vartan Bhanji, an institutionalized custom of gift exchangecommon to parts of Pakistanand India. In commenting upon
the Vartan Bhanji, Gouldner (r96o) remarks:
It is . . . notable that the systempainstakinglyprnents the total elimination of outstanding obligafions. Thus, on the occasionof a mariage, departing guestsare given gifis of sweets.In weighing
"Thesefve are yours,"meaning"Theseare a repaymentforwhatyou
them out, the hostessmal sa1.,
formerly gave me," and then she addsan extra measure,saying,"Theseare mine." On the next occas[on,shewill receivethesebackalong with an additional measurewhich shelater retums,and so on.
(P-175)

Chapter2

RECIPROCATION

the creationof interdependencies

that bind individualstogether into highly efficient units (Ridley,1997;Tiger Q Fox,1989).
It is a senseof future obligation that is critical to produce social advancesof
the sort describedby Tiger and Fox.A widely shared and strongly held feeling of
future obligationmade an enormousdifferencein human sotial evoiutionbecause
it meant that one person could give something (for example,food, energy,care)to
another with confidencethat the gift was not being lost. For the first time in evolutionary history one individual could give awayany of a variety of resourceswithout actually giving them away. The result was the lowering of the natural
inhibitions againsttransactionsthat must be begunby one person'sproviding personal resourcesto another. Sophisticatedand coordinatedsystemsof aid, gift
giving, defense,and trade becamepossible,bringing immense benefits to the societies that possessedthem. With such clearly adaptive consequencesfor the culture, it is not surprising that the rule for reciprocationis so deeply implanted in us
by the processof socializationwe all undergo.
Although obligations extend into the future, their span is not unlimited. Especiaily for relativelysmall favors,the desireto repay seemsto fade with time (Burger
et al., 1997;Flynn, zooz). But, when gifts are of the truly notable and memorable
sort, they can be remarkablylong-lived. I know of no better illustration of the way
reciprocal obligations can reach Iong and powerfully into the future than the perpiexing story of $5,ooo of relief aid that was exchanged between Mexico and
Ethiopia. In 1985,Ethiopia could justly lay claim to the greatestsuffering and privation in the world. Its economy was in ruin. Its food supply had been ravaged by
years of drought and internal war. Its inhabitants were dying by the thousands
from diseaseand starvation.Under these circumstances,I would not have been
surprised to learn of a $5,ooo relief donation from Mexico to that wrenchingly
needy country.I remember my feeling of amazement,though, when a brief newspaper item I was reading insisted that the aid had gone in the opposite direction.
Native officials of the Ethiopian Red Crosshad decided to send the money to help
the victims of that year'searthquakesin Mexico City.
It is both a personalbane and a professionalblessingthat whenever I am
confused by some aspectof human behavior,I feel driven to investigate further.
In this instance,I was able to track down a fuller account of the story. Fortunately, a journalist who had been as bewildered as I by the Ethiopians' actions
had asked for an expianation.The answer he received offered eloquent validation of the reciprocityrule: Despitethe enormous needs prevailing in Ethiopia,
the money was being sent to Mexico because,in 1935,Mexico had sent aid to
Ethiopiawhen it was invadedby Italy ("EthiopianRed Cross,"1985).So informed,
I remained awed,but I was no longer puzzled.The need to reciprocatehad transcendedgreat cultural differences,long distances,acutefamine, many years,and
immediate self-interest. Quite simply, a half-century later, against all countervailing forces, obligation triumphed.
If a half-century-long obligation appearsto be a one of a kind sort of thing,
explainedby some unique feature of Ethiopianculture,considerthe solution to

R E C TPRO CATTO N

another initially baf{ling case. On May z7, zoo7, a Washington, DC-based government official named christiaan Kroner spoke to a news reporter with unconcealedpride in the governmental action tbat had followed the Hurrlcane Katrina
disaster,detailing how "pumps, ships,helicopters,engineers,and humanitarian
reiief" had been sent both rapidly and adeptlyto the flooded city of New OrIeans and to many other sites of the calamity (Hunter, zooT).Say what? In the
face of widespreadrecognitionof the Federalgovernment'sscandalously
delayed
and monstrouslyinept reactionto the tragedy,how could he possiblymake such
a statementl For example, at the time of his claim, the government's vaunted
Road Home program designedto aid Louisianahomeownersstill hadn't delivered funds to 8o percentof those requestingassistance,
eventhough nearly eighteen months had past. Could it be that Mr. Kroner is even more shamelessthan
most politicians are reputed to bel It turns out not. In fact, he was wholiy justified in feeling gratified by his government'sefforts becausehe was not an official of the United States;instead,he was the Dutch ambassadorto the United
States, and he was speaking of the remarkable assistancerendered to the
Katrina-rackedAmerican Gulf Coast by the Netherlands.
But, with that matter resolved,an equally puzzling question arises:Why the
Netherlands?Other countries had offered aid in the aftermath of the storm. But
none had come closeto matching the immediate and ongoing commitment of the
Dutch to the region. Indeed, Mr. Kroner went on to assurethe flood victims that
his governmentwould be with them for the long term, stating that "everything we
can do and everything Louisianawants us to do, we are ready to do." Mr. Kroner
also suggestedone telling reason for this extraordinarywillingness to help: The
Netherlandsowed it to New Orleans-for more than half a century.On January3r,
195Jan unrelenting gale pushed fierce North Seawaters acrossa quarter-million
acres of his country, Ieveling dikes,Ievees,and thousands of homes while kiliing
z,ooo residents.Soon thereafter,Dutch officialsrequestedand receivedaid and
technical assistancefrom their counterpartsin New Orleans,which resulted in the
construction of a new system of water pumps that have since protected the country from similarly destructivefloods. one wonders why it seemsthat the same levels of supportfor New orleans provided by officials of a foreign government never
came from the city's own national government. Perhapsthe officials of that government didn't think they owed New Orleans enough.
If so,those officials would be safeto expectthat the residentsof New orleans
now think they owe iittle to government-as voters,volunteers,contributors,and,
most regrettably,
evenaslaw abidingcitizens.As the poetW. H. Audenput it, "I and
the world know/what every schoolboylearns./Thoseto whom evil is done/do evil
in return." Perhapsit is not so surprisingthen that in zoo7,despiteconstantpatrols
by the National Guard, state police officers,and the graduatesof two new classes
of city policerecruits,New orleans'homicideratejumped 30 percent,breakingall
records and making it the bloodiest city in the country. More generally,it can be
said that the rule for reciprocationassuresthat, whether the fruit of our actions is
sweetor bitter, we reap what we sow.

Iffryffi

Chapter 2 REctPRocATtoN

How the RuleWorks

Make no mistake, human societiesderive a truly significant competitive advantage from the reciprocity rule and, consequently,they ma-kesure their members
are trained to comply with and believe in it. Each of us has been taught to live
up to the rule, and each of us knows the social sanctions and derision applied
to anyone who violates it. Becausethere is a general distastefor those who take
and make no effort to give in return, we wiil often go to great lengths to avoid
being considereda moocher, ingrate, or freeloader.It is to those lengths that we
will often be taken and, in the process,be "taken" by individuals who stand to
gain from our indebtedness.
To understand how the rule of reciprocationcan be exploited by one who recognizes it as the weapon of influence it certainly is, we might closely examine an
experiment conductedby psychologistDennis Regan(r97r).A subject who participated in the study rated, along with another subject,the quality of some paintings
as part of an experiment on "art appreciation."The other rater-we can call him
Joe-was only posing as a fellow subjectand was actuallyDr. Regan'sassistant.For
our purposes,the experiment took place under two different conditions. In some
cases,Joedid a small, unsolicitedfavor for the true subject.During a short rest period, Joe left the room for a couple of minutes and returned with two botties of
Coca-Cola,one for the subjectand one for himsel{, saying"I askedhim [the experimenter] if I could get myself a Coke,and he said it was OK, so I bought one for
you, too." In other cases,Joe did not provide the subjectwith a favor; he simply returned from the two-minute break empty-handed.In all other respects,however,
Joe behavedidentically.
Later on, after the paintings had all been rated and the experimenter had momentarily Ieft the room, Joe askedthe subjectto do him a favor. He indicated that

CATHY:O 7993CathyGuisewite,Reprintedwith permissionof UNIVERSALPRESS

SYNDICATE.All rlghts reserved.

H OW TH E R U LE WO RKS
W
he was seiling raffle tickets for a new car and that if he soid the most tickets,he
would win a $5oprize.Joe'srequestwas for the subjectto buy some raffle tickets at
z5 cents apiece:'Any would help,the more the better."The major finding of the
study concernsthe number of tickets subjectspurchasedfrom Joe under the two
conditions.Without question,Joewas more successfulin selling his raffie ticketsto
the subjectswho had receivedhis earlier favor. Apparentlyfeeling that they owed
him something, these subjectsbought twice as many tickets as the subjectswho
had not been given the prior favor. Although the Regan study representsa fairly
simple demonstrationof the workings of the rule of reciprocation,it illustratesseveral important characteristicsof the rule that, upon further consideration,help us
to understandhow it may be profitably used.

The Rulels Overpowering

One of the reasonsreciprocationcan be used so effectivelyas a device for gaining
awesomestrength,often proanother'scomplianceis its power.The rule possesses
ducing a yes responseto a requestthat, exceptfor an existing feeling of indebtedness,would have sureiy been refused. Some evidenceof how the rule's force can
overpowerthe influence of other factorsthat normally determine compliancewith
a requestcan be seen in a secondresult ofthe Reganstudy.Besideshis interest in
the impact of the reciprocityrule on compliance,Reganwas also investigatinghow
liking for a person affectsthe tendency to comply with that person'srequest.To
measurehow liking toward Joe affectedthe subjects'decisionsto buy his raffle tickets, Regan had them fill out severalrating scalesindicating how much they had
liked Joe.He then comparedtheir Iiking responseswith the number of tickets they
had purchasedfrom Joe.There was a significant tendencyfor subjectsto buy more
raffie ticketsfrom Joe the more they liked him. This alone is hardly a startling finding, sincemost of us would haveguessedthat peopieare more wiliing to do a favor
for someonethey like.
The interesting finding of the Regan experiment,however, was that the reIationship between liking and compliance was completely wiped out in the condition under which subjectshad been given a Coke by Joe. For those who owed
him a favor, it made no difference whether they liked him or not; they felt a
senseof obligationto repayhim, and they did. The subjectswho indicatedthat
they disliked Joe bought just as many of his tickets as did those who indicated
that they liked him. The rule for reciprocity was so strong that it simpiy overwhelmed the influence of a factor-liking for the requester-that normaliy affects the decision to comply.
Think of the impiications.Peopiewe might ordinarily dislike-unsavory or unwelcomesalesoperators,disagreeable
acquaintances,
representatives
of strangeor
unpopular organizations-can greatly increasethe chance that we will do what
they wish merely by providing us with a small favor prior to their requests.Let's
take a recent historical example.The Hare iGishna Societyis an Easternreligious
sect with centuries-oldroots traceableto the Indian city of Calcutta.Its spectacular
modern-day story occurredin the r97oswhen it experienceda remarkablegrowth,

ffi

chapter 2

REclPRocATtoN

READER'S

REPORT 2.1

From a New York Stafe Busrnesswoman

NY,I usually
work
Secretary
at a business
in Rochester,
7\ s the Corporate
/1days; but one evening I had stayed late to finish some important work.
While pulling out of my parking spot, my car slid on some ice and ended up
stuck down a small ravine. It was late, cold, and dark; and everyone from my
ofiice had left. But, an employee from another department came by and
towed me clear.
About two weeks later, becauseI worked on personnel matters, I became
aware that this same employee was being "written up" for a serious violation
of company policy. Not really knowing this man's morals, I still took it upon
myself to go to the company president on his behalf. To this day, although
more people have come to question the man's character,I feel indebted to
him and willing to stand up for him.
Author'snote:Asin the Reganexperiment,
it appears
thatthe mant personalcharacteristicswerelessrelevantto the reader's
decisionto helphim thanthe simplefactthathe had
helpedher.

not only in followers, but also in wealth and property.The economic growth was
funded through a variety of activities,the principal and most visible of which was
societymembers'requestsfor donationsfrom passersbyin public places.During
the early history of the group in this country,the solicitation for contributions was
attempted in a fashion memorablefor anyonewho saw it. Groups of Krishna devotees-often with shavedheads,and wearing ill-fitting robes,Ieg wrappings,beads,
and bells-would canvassa city street,chanting and bobbing in unison while begging for funds.
Although highly effective as an attention-getting technique, this practice did
not work especiallywell for fund-raising. The averageAmerican considered the
Krishnas weird, to say the least, and was reluctant to provide money to support
them. It quickly became clear to the societythat it had a considerablepublicrelations problem. The people being askedfor contributions did not like the way
the members looked,dressed,or acted.Had the societybeen an ordinary commerciaiorganization,the solutionwould havebeen simple-change the things the
public does not like. The Krishnasare a religiousorganization,however,and the
way members look, dress,and act is partialiy tied to religious factors.Sincereligious
factorsare typicallyresistantto changebecauseof worldly considerations,
the Krishna leadershipwas faced with a real dilemma. On the one hand were beliefs,
modes of dress,and hairstylesthat had religious significance.On the other, and
threatening the organization'sfinancial welfare, were the less-than-positivefeelings of the Americanpublic toward thesethings.What'sa sectto do?

H OW TH E R U L E WO RKS

ffi

The Krishnas'resolutionwas briliiant.They switchedto a fund-raisrngtactic

that made it unnecessary
for their targetsto havepositivefeelingstowardthe fundraisers.They beganto employa donation-request
procedurethat engagedthe rule
for reciprocation,which, as demonstratedby the Reganstudy,was strong enough
to overcomedislikefor the requester.The new strategystill involvedthe solicitation of contributionsin publicplaceswith much pedestriantraffrc(airponswere a
favorite),but, before a donation was requested,the target person was glven a
"gift"-a book (usuallythe BhagavadGifa),the Backto Godheadmagazine of the sociery or, in the most cost-effective
version,a flower.The unsuspectingpassersby
who suddenlyfound flowers pressedinto their hands or pinned to their jackets
were under no circumstances
allowedto give them back,evenif they assertedthat
they did not want them. "No, it is our gift to you," said the solicitor,refusing to take
it back.oniy afterthe Krishnamember had thus brought the force of the reciprocationrule to bear on the situationwas the target askedto provide a contribution
to the society.This benefactor-before-beggar
strategywas wildly successfulfor the
Hare Krishnasociety,producinglarge-scale
economicgainsand funding,the ownership of temples,businesses,
houses,and properfy in 3zr centersin the United
Statesand abroad.

Kriss Krishna
Takingdisguiseto its limits
but stillemploying
the
reciprocityruieas an a11y,
theseKrishnamembers
were arrestedfor soliciting
withouta licensewhen
they pressedcandy canes
on Christmasshoppers
and then made requests

ffi

C hapter

R E ctP R ocA TtoN

As an aside,it is instructive that the reciprocationrule has outlived its usefulnessfor the Krishnas,not becausethe rule itself has become any lesspotent societally,but becausewe havefound waysto preventthe Krishnasfrom using it on us.
After oncefalling victim to their tactic,many travelersbecamealertto the presence
of robed lGishna Societysolicitors in airports and train stations, ad.lustingtheir
paths to avoid an encounterand preparing beforehandto ward off a solicitor's
"gift." As a result, the IGishnas experienceda severefinancial reversal.In North
America,nearly3o percentof their templeshavebeen closedfor economlcreasons,
and the number of devoteesstaffing the remaining temples has plummeted from
^ L:-L
^r ),vvv
- ^^^ to an esti mated8oo.
d
rrrE,tr vr
Other typesof organizationshavealsolearnedto employthe power of a small
gift to spur actions that wouid have been otherwise withheld. Surveyresearchers
havediscoveredthat sendinga monetarygift (a silverdollar or a $5check)in an envelopewith a maiied questionnairegreatlyincreasessurveycompletion rates,compared to offering the same monetary amount as an after-the-factreward (Singer,
Van Holwyk Q Maher, zooo; Warriner, Goyder, Gjertsen,Horner, Q McSpurren,
1995).Indeed,one studyshowedthat mailing a $5"gift" checkalong with an insurance survey was twice as effective as offering a $5o payment for sending back a
completedsurvey(JamesQ Bolstein,r99z).Similarly,food seryershave learnedthat
simply giving customers a candy or mint along with their bill significantly increasestips (Strohmetz,Rind, Fisher,Q Lynn, zooz).In general,businessoperators
have found that, after acceptinga gift, customersare willing to purchaseproducts
and servicesthey would have otherwise declined (Gruner,1996).
it appearsthat the give-and-takeofsocial interactionis recognizedwell before
adulthood.One fifth-grade languageteacherwrote to me about a test she gives her
studentson the properuse ofthe past,present,and future tenses.To the question,
The future of "I give" is -?,
one enterprising young man wrote, "I take." He
may have gotten that particular grammatical rule wrong, but he got a larger societal rule preciselyright.

Politics
Politics is another arena in which the power of the reciprocity rule shows itself.
Reciprocation
tacticsappearat everylevel:
n At the top, electedofficialsengagein "logrolling" and the exchangeof favors
that makes politics the place of strange bedfellows,indeed. The out-ofcharactervote of one of our electedrepresentatives
on a bill or measurecan
often be understoodas a favor returnedto the bill's sponsor.Politicalanalysts
were amazedat LyndonJohnson'ssuccessln getting so many of his programs
through Congressduring his earlyadministration.Evenmembersof Congress
who were thought to be strongly opposedto the proposalswere voting for
them. Close examination by political scientistshas found the causeto be not
so muchJohnson'spoliticalsawy as the largescoreof favorshe had been able
to provide to other legislatorsduring his many yearsof power in the House

H OW TH E R U LE WO RKS M
and Senate.As president,he was ableto produce a truly remarkableamount of
Iegislation in a short time by calling in those favors.It is interesting that this
same processmay account for the problems Jimmy Carter had in getting his
programs through Congressduring his early administration,despite heavy
Democraticmajoritiesin both the House and Senate.Cartercameto the presidency from outsidethe Capitol Hill establishment.He campaignedon his
outside-Washingtonidentity, saying that he was indebted to no one. Much of
his legislativedifficulty upon arriving may be traced to the fact that no one
there was indebted to him. Much the same may be said about the first-term
legislation record of Washington outsider Bili Clinton.
x At another level,we can seethe recognizedstrength of the reciprocity rule in
the desireofcorporationsand individualsto providejudicialand legislativeofficials with gifts and favors and in the seriesof legal restrictions against such
gifts and favors.Even with legitimate political contributions,the stockpiling of
obligations often underlies the statedpurpose of supporting a favorite candidate.One look at the lists of companiesand organizationsthat contribute to the
campaignsof bothmajor candidatesin important electionsgives evidenceof
such motives.A skeptic,requiring direct evidenceofthe quid pro quo expected
by political contributors,might Iook to the remarkablybald-facedadmissionby
businessmanRogerTamrazat congressionalhearingson campaignfinance reform. When askedif he felt he receiveda good return on his contribution of
$3oo,ooo,he smiled and replied,"I think nexttime, I'll give $6oo,ooo."
Honesty of this sort is rare in politics. For the most part, the givers and takers
join voices to dismiss the idea that campaign contributions, free trips, and Super
Bowl tickets would bias the opinions of "sober, conscientious"government ofilcials.As the head of one Iobbyingorganizationinsisted,there is no causefor concern because"These [government officials] are smart, mature, sophisticatedmen
and women at the top of their professions,disposedby training to be discerning,
critical,and alert"(Barker,1998).And, of course,the politicians concur.Regulariy,we
hear them proclaiming total independencefrom the feelings of obligation that influence everyoneelse.One of my own state representativesleft no room for doubt
when describinghis accountabilityto gift-givers,"It gets them exactlywhat it gets
everybodyelse:nothing" (Foster,r99r).
Excuseme if I, as a scientist,Iaugh. Sober,conscientiousscientistsknow better.
One reason they know better is that these "smart, mature, sophisticatedmen and
women at the top of their [scientific]professions"have found themselvesto be as
susceptibleas anyoneelseto the process.Takethe caseof the medical controversy
surroundingthe safetyof calcium-channelblockers,a classof drugs for heart disease.One study discoveredthat roo percent ofthe scientistswho found and pubIishedresuitssupportiveofthe drugs had receivedprior support(free trips, research
funding, or employment) from the pharmaceuticalcompanies; but only i7 percent of those critical of the drugs had received any such prior support (Stelfox,
"disposedby training to be discerning,
If scientists,
Chua,O'Rourke,Q Detsky,1998).

Chapter

RECIPROCATION

The Not-So-FreeSamPle

H OW TH E R ULE WoRKS

iW

I manufacturers
no longer
r waituntilthe customers
: are rn the storeto provide
them wlth free samples

$ffidTt
tt,{ltriii
ir,,{1 ;.

LffNsf|t,os

contentsof evenone of the productcontainersin sucha shorttime, the salesperson

may then takethe remainingproductportionsin the BUG to the nextpotentialcustomer down the line or acrossthe streetand startthe processagain.Many Amway
representatives
haveseveralBUGScirculatingin their districtsat one time.

productis movingat an unbeliwunbelievable!we've

neverseensuchexcitement.
ablerate,and we'veonlyjust begun . . . Loca|distributorstook the BIJGS,and

ffim

chapter 2

REctPRocATIoN

weve had an unbelievable

increasein salesffrom lllinois distributorl.Themost
retail
idea
we've
ever
had! . . . On the average,customerspurchased
about
fantastic
half the total amountof theBUGwhenit is pickedup.. . . In oneword,tremendous!Wevenwer seena response
within our entireorganizationlike this ftom
Massachusetts distibutorl.
The Amway distributors appearto be bewildered-happily so, but nonethelessbewildered-by the startling power of the BUG. Of course,by now you and i should
not be.
The reciprocity rule governs many situations of a purely interpersonal nature
where neither money nor commercial exchangeis at issue.Perhapsmy favorite ilIustration of the enormous force availablefrom the reciprocationweapon of influence comes from such a situation. The European scientist Eibl-Eibesfeldt(i975)
providesthe accountof a German soldier during VTorldWar I whosejob was to capture enemy soldiersfor interrogation. Becauseof the nature of the trench warfare
at that time, it was extremely difficult for armies to cross the no-man's-land between opposing front lines, but it was not so difficult for a single soldier to crawl
acrossand slip into an enemy trench position. The armies of the GreatWar had experts who regularly did so to capture enemy soldiers,who would then be brought
back for questioning.The German expert had often successfullycompleted such
missions in the past and was sent on another. Once again,he skillfully negotiated
the areabetweenfronts and surpriseda lone enemy soldier in his trench. The unsuspecting soldier, who had been eating at the time, was easily disarmed. The
frightened captive,with only a piece of bread in his hand, then performed what
may have been the most important act of his life. He gave his enemy some of the
bread. So affectedwas the German by this gift that he could not complete his mission. He turned from his benefactor and recrossed the no-man's-land emptyhanded to facethe wrath of his superiors.More bizarre still is the more recent case
of an armed robber who crasheda Washington, DC, dinner parby-waving a gun
and demanding money-but who changedhis mind, apologized,and left upon
being offered some of the remaining wine and cheese(Guesswho's coming to dinner, zooT).
An equallycompelling point regarding the power of reciprocity comesfrom an
accountof a woman who savedher own life, not by giving a gift as did the captured
soldier,but by relusinga gift and the powerful obligationsthat went with it. In November 1978ReverendJim Jones,the leader of Jonestown,Guyana,called for the
masssuicideof all residents,most of whom compliantlydrank and died from a vat
of poison-lacedKool-Aid.Diane Louie,a resident,however,rejectedJones'scommand and made herwayout of Jonestownand into the jungle. She attributesher
willingness to do so to her earlier refusal to acceptspecialfavors from him when
she was in need. She turned down his offer of speciaifood while she was ill, because"I knew once he gave me those privileges,he'd have me. I didn't want to owe
him nothin"'(AndersonQ Zimbardo,1984).
PerhapsReverendJones'mistakewas in
teaching the Scripturestoo well to Ms. Louie, especiallyExodus z3:8-'And thou

H OW TH E R U LE WO RKS W
shait take no gift; for a gift blindeth them that have sight and perverteth the words
of the righteous."

The RuleEnforces
Debts
Uninvited
Earlier we suggestedthat the power of the reciprocity rule is such that, by first
doing us a favor, strange,disliked, or unwelcome others can enhance the chance
that we will compiy with one of their requests.However,there is another aspectof
the rule, in addition to its power, that allows this phenomenon to occur.A person
can trigger a feeling of indebtednessby doing us an uninvited favor (PaeseQ Gilin,
zooo). Recailthat the rule statesoniy that we shouid provide to others the kind of
actionsthey haveprovided us; it doesnot require us to have askedfor what we have
received in order to feel obligated to repay.For instance,the American Disabled
Veteransorganization reports that its simple mail appealfor donations producesa
responserate of about r8 percent.But when the mailing also includesan unsoIicitedgift (gummed,individualizedaddresslabels),the successrate nearlydoubles
to 35percent.This is not to saythat we might not feel a stronger senseof obligation to return a favor we have requested,but such a requestis not necessaryto produce our feeling of indebtedness.
If we reflect for a moment about the socialpurpose of the reciprocity rule, we
can seewhy this is the case.The rule was establishedto promote the development
of reciprocal relationshipsbetween individuals so that one person could initiate
such a relationshipwithout the fear of loss.If the rule is to servethat purpose,then
an uninvited first favor must have the ability to create an obligation. Recall,also,
that reciprocalrelationshipsconfer an extraordinaryadvantageupon cultures that
foster them and that, consequently,there wili be strong pressuresto ensurethat the
rule does serveits purpose.Little wonder, then, that influential French anthropologist Marcel Mauss(1954),
in describingthe socialpressuressurroundingthe giftgiving process in human culture, says that there is an obligation to give, an
obligation to receive,and an obligation to repay.
Although an obligation to repay constitutesthe essenceofthe reciprocity rule,
it is the obligation to receivethat makesthe rule so easyto exploit.An obligation
to receivereducesour abilityto choosethoseto whom we wish to be indebtedand
puts the power in the hands of others.Let'sreexaminea pair of earlier examplesto
seehow the processworks. First,in the Reganstudy,we find that the favor causing
subjectsto double the number of raffle ticketspurchasedfromJoe was not one they
had requested.Joe had voluntarily Ieft the room and returned with one Coke for
himself and one for the subject.There was not a single subject who refused the
Coke. It is easyto see why it would have been awkward to turn down Joe'sfavor:
Joe had alreadyspent his money; a soft drink was an appropriatefavor in the situation, especiallysinceJoe had one himself; it wouid have been consideredimpolite
to rejectJoe'sthoughtful action.Nevertheless,receipt of that Coke produced a feeling of indebtedness
that becameclearwhen Joe announcedhis desireto sell some
raffle tickets.Notice the important asymmetryhere-all the genuinely free choices

ffi

chapter 2

REctPRocATloN

wereJoe's.He chosethe form of the initial favor,and he chosethe form of the return favor. Of course,one could saythat the subjecthad the choice of refusing both
of Joe'soffers,but thosewould havebeen tough choices.To have sardno at either
point would have required the subjectto go againstthe natural cultural forces favoring reciprocation.
The ability of uninvited gifts to producefeelings of obligation is recognizedby
a variety of organizations.How many times has each of us received small gifts
through the mail-personalized addresslabels,greeting cards,key rings-from
charitable agenciesthat ask for funds in an accompanyingnote? I have received
five in just the past year,two from disabledveterans'groups and the others from
missionaryschoolsand hospitals.In eachcase,there was a common thread in the
The goodsthat were enclosedwere to be considereda gift
accompanyingmessage.
from the organization;and money I wishedto send shouldnot be regardedaspayment but rather as a return offering. As the letter from one of the missionary programs stated,the packetof greetingcardsI had been sent was not to be directly
paid for but was designed"to encourageyour [my] kindness."If we look past the

READER'S

REPORT 2.2

From a Male College Student

for Thanksgiving break, I felt the pull of recipro I ast year, on my way home
l-cation firsthand when I blew a tire. A driver in a nurse'suniform stopped
and volunteered to take me home. I told her severaltimes that my house was
still z5 miles away and in the opposite direction that she was heading; but she
insisted on heiping me anyway and wouldn't take any money for it. Her refusal
to let me pay her createdthe uneasy uncomfortable feeling you discussin
InJluence.
The days following the incident also causedanxiety for my parents.The
rule of reciprocation and the discomfort associatedwith the unreturned favor
causeda mild neurosis in my house.We kept trying to find her identity in
order to send her flowers or a gift, all to no avail. If we had found her, I beheve
we would have given the woman aimost anything she asked for. Finding no
other way to relieve the obligation, my mother finally resorted to the only
route left to her. In her prayers at our Thanksgiving dinner table, she asked the
lord to compensatethe woman from heaven.
Author'snote:Besides
showingthatunsolicited
assistance
canengagethe reciprocity
rule,this
the rule.
accountpointsup somethingelseworthknowingaboutthe obligations
that accompany
Theyarenot }imitedto the individualsinitiallyinvolvedin givingandreceiungaid Theyapply,
aswell,to membersof the groupsto whichtheindividualsbelong.Not onlywasthe familyof
the collegestudentmadeto feelindebtedby the helphe received,
newresearch
indicatesthathadtheybeenable-they couldhaveretlredthe debtby helpinga memberof the nurse'sfamily
(Goldstein
et al.,zooT).

HOW THE RULE WORKS ffi

obvious tax advantage,we can see why it would be beneficialfor the organization
to havethe cardsviewedas a gift insteadof merchandise:
There is a strong cultural
to reciprocatea gift, evenan unwantedone; but there is no such pressure
-pressure
to purchasean unwantedcommercialproduct.

The RuleCan TriggerUnequalExchanges

There is yet another feature of the reciprocity rule that allows it to be exploitedfor
profit. Paradoxically,
althoughthe rule developedto promote equaiexchangesbetweenpartners,it can be usedto bring aboutdecidedlyunequalresults.The rule demandsthat one sort of actionbe reciprocated
with a similarsort of action.A favoris
to be met with another favor; it is not to be met with neglect and certainly not with
attack;however,considerableflexibility is allowed.A small initial favor can produce
a senseof obligationto agreeto a substantiallylarger return favor. Since,aswe have
alreadyseen,the rule ailows one personto choosethe nature of the indebting first
favor and the nature of the debt-cancelingreturn favor,we could easilybe manipuIated into an unfair exchangeby those who might wish to exploitthe rule.
Once again,we turn to the Reganexperiment for evidence.Remember in that
study,Joegave one group of subjectsa bottle of Coca-Colaas an initiating gift and
Iater askedali subjectsto buy some of his raffie tickets at z5 cents apiece.What I
haveso far neglectedto mention is that the studywas done in the late r96os,when
the price of a Cokewas a dime. On the average,subjectswho had been given a rocent drink bought two of Joe's raffle tickets, aithough some bought as many as
seven.Even if we look just at the average,though, we can tell that Joe made quite
a deai.A 5oo percentreturn on investmentis respectabie
indeed!
In Joe'scase,though,evena 5oopercentreturn amountedto only 5o cents.Can
the reciprocity rule produce meaningfully large differencesin the sizes of the exchangedfavorsl Under the right circumstances,it certainly can.Take,for instance,
the accountof a student of mine concerning a day she remembers ruefully.
About oneyear ago,I couldn'tstartmy car.As I wassitting there,a guy in the
parkinglot cameoverand eventually
jump-startedthe car.I said thanks,and he
saidyou'rewelcome;
as he wasleaving,Isaid that if he everneeded
afavor to stop
by.About a month later,the guy knockedon my door and askedto bonow mJ car
in the shop.Ifelt somewhatobligatedbut uncertain,since
for two hoursas his r.r.'as
the car waspretlynewand he lookedvetyyoung.Later,I found out that he was
underageand had no insurance.
Anyway,I lent him the car.He totaledit.
How could it happenthat an intelligent young woman would agreeto turn
overher new carto a virtualstranger(and a youngsterat that)becausehe had done
her a small favor a month earlierl Or, more generally,why should it be that small
first favors often stimulate larger return favors?One important reason concerns
the clearlyunpleasantcharacterof the feeling of indebtedness.
Most of us find it
highly disagreeableto be in a state of obligation.It weighs heavily on us and

chapter

R E cl P R ocA Tl oN

demandsto be removed.It is not difficult to trace the sourceof this feeling.Becausereciprocalarrangementsare so vital in human socialsystems,we havebeen
conditionedto feel uncomfortablewhen beholden.If we were to ignore the need
to return another'sinitial favor,we would stop dne reciprocal sequencedead and
make it less likely that our benefactorwould do such favors in the future. Neither
event is in the best interests of society.Consequently,we are trained from childhood to chafe,emotionally,under the saddleof obligation.For this reasonalone,
then,we may be wiiling to agreeto perform a largerfavorthan the one we received,
merelyto relieveourselvesof the psychologicalburden of debt.
There is anotherreasonas well. A personwho violatesthe reciprocityrule by
acceptingwithout attempting to return the good actsof others is disliked by the social group. The exception,of course,occurs when a person is prevented from repaymentby reasonsof circumstanceor ability.For the most part, however,there is
a genuine distastefor an individual who fails to conform to the dictates of the reciprocity rule (Wedekind & Miiinski, zooo)., Moocher and ingrate are unsavory
labelsto be scrupulouslyshunned.So undesirableare they that peoplewill sometimes agreeto an unequalexchangein order to dodgethem.
In combination,the reality of internal discomfort and the possibility of erternai shame can produce a heavypsychologicalcost.When seen in the light of this
cost, it is not so puzzling that, in the name of reciprocity,we will often give back
more than we have received.Neither is it so odd that we will often avoid askingfor
a neededfavor if we will not be in a position to repayit (De Paulo,Nadler, Q Fisher,
1983;GreenbergQ Shapiro,rgTL;Riley Q Eckenrode,1985).The psychologicalcost
may simply outweigh the material loss.
The risk of still other kinds of Iossesmay alsopersuadepeopleto declinecertain gifts and benefits.Women frequently comment on the uncomfortable senseof
obiigation they can feel to return the favors of a man who has given them an expensive present or paid for a costly evening out. Even something as small as the
price of a drink can producea feeiing of debt.A studentin one of my ciassesexpressedit quite plainiy in a paper she wrote: 'After learning the hard way, I no
Ionger let a guy I meet in a ciub buy me a drink becauseI don't want either of us
to feel that I am obligated sexually."Researchsuggeststhat there is a basis for her
concern. If, instead of paying for them herself, a woman allows a man to buy her
drinks,sheis immediatelyjudgedpy both men and women) asmore sexuallyavailableto him (George,Gournic,Q McAfee,1988).
The rule for reciprocityappliesto most relationships;however,in its purest
form reciprocityis unnecessary
and undesirablein certainlong-term relationships
such as famiiies or establishedfriendships.In these "communal" relationships

,Interestingly enough, a cross-culturalstudy has shown that those who break the reciprocity rule in
the reversedirection-by giving without allowing the recipient an opportunity to repay-are also disIiked for it This resuit was found to hold for each of the three nationalities investigated-Americans,
Swedes,and Japanese(Gergen,Ellsworth, Maslach, Q Seipel,1975)

R E C TP R OC A L C O NCESSToNS

off thc mark

Eventhe stingiest
peoplefeel the pull of the
reciprocityrule But, the
rulecan also be used by
restaurantseryersto
increasetheirtips One
studyfound that servers
who gavedinersa piece
of candywhen presenting
the bill increasedtheirtips
by 3.3 percent,tf they
providedtwo piecesof
candyto each guest,the
tip went up by 14 percent
(Skohmetzet at ,2002).

ffi

by MarkParisi

TIPPERANDA.'D
I'T1 A LOUSY
5O
WAITRE5S
LIKEYOI)RRUDEsT
1 woN,TFEELGUttrlABoUTaT..

Cartoon@MarkParisi
Permission
requiredfor use
Visitoffthemark.com.

(clark Q Mills, 1979;Mills-e Clark,r98z),what is

exchangedreciprocallyis the wiilingnessto provide what the other needs,when it is
neeled (clark, Miils, g1corco_
ran, 1989).under this form of reciprocity,it is
not necessaryto calculatewho has
given more or lessbut only whether both parties
are living up to the more generai
rule (Clark,1984;Clark e Waddell,1985;Clark,Mills,
e eow"eli,rgAO;.
i'tt, it appears
that persistentinequities can readto Jissatisiaarons,
even in friendships.

ReciprocalConcessions
There is a secondway to employ the reciprocityrule
to get someoneto comply with
a request.It is more subtle than the direct route
of pioviding that person with a
favor and then asking for one in return, yet in some
ways it is much more effective.
A personalexperienceI had a fewyears rgo g.u. me
firithand evidenceofjust how
well this compliancetechnique works.
I was walking down the street when I was approached
by an 11-or rz-year-old
.
boy. He introduced himself and said he was selling
ticketsto the annuarBoy Scouts

ffi

Chapter 2

REclPRocATtoN

READER'S

REPORT 2.3

From a Stafe of Oregon Employee

-l-he

person who used to have my job toid me during my training that I

I would like working for my boss becausehe is a very nice and generous
person. She said that he always gave her flowers and other gifts on different
occasions.She decided to stop working becauseshe was going to have a child
and wanted to stay home; otherwise I am sure she would have stayed on at
this job for many more years.
I have been working for this same boss for six years now, and I have experrenced the same thing. He gives me and my son gifts for Christmas and gives
me presents on my birthday. It has been over two years since I have reached
the top of my classificationfor a salary increase.There is no promotion for the
type of job I have and my only choice is to take a test with the state system
and reapply to move to another department or maybe find another job in a
private company. But I find myself resisting trfing to find another job or move
to another department. My boss is reaching retiriment age and I am thinking
maybe I will be able to move out after he retires becausefor now I feei obligated tg stay since he has been so nice to me.
her cunentemplol'rnent
opAuthor'snote:I am stru& bythis reader's
lairgudge
in describing
tions,sayingthatshe"will be able"to moveto anotherjob onlyafterherbossretires.It seems
havenurtureda bindingsenseof obligationthat hasmadeher unable
thathis smallkindnesses
wrshingto instill
to seeka betterpayingposition.Thereis an obviousIessonherefor managers
loyaltyin employees.
Butthereis a largeriessonfor all ofus,aswell:Littlethingsarenot always
Iittle-not whentheylink to the big rulesof life,likereciprocity.

Circusto be held on the upcoming Saturdaynight. He askedif I wished to buy any

ticketsat $5apiece.Sinceone ofthe lastplacesI wantedto spendSaturdayevening
was with the Boy Scouts,I deciined. "W'ell,"he said, if you don't want to buy any
tickets, how about buying some of our chocoiate barsl They're only $r each." I
bought a couple and, right away,realizedthat something noteworthy had happened.I knew that to be the casebecause(a) I do not like chocolatebars;(b) I do
like dollars;(c)I was standingthere with two of his chocolatebars;and (d) he was
walking awaywith two of my doilars.
To try to understandpreciselywhat had happened,I went to my office and
calleda meeting of my researchassistants.
In discussingthe situation,we beganto
seehow the reciprocityrule was implicatedin my compliancewith the requestto
buy the candy bars.The general rule saysthat a person who acts in a certain way
toward us is entitled to a similar return action.We have alreadyseen that one consequenceof the rule is an obligationto repayfavorswe havereceived.Another consequenceof the rule, however,is an obligationto make a concessionto someone
who has made a concessionto us.As my researchgroup thought about it, we real-

R E JE C TTON -TH E N- RETREAT

ffi

ized that was exactlythe positionthe Boy Scouthad put me in. His requestthat I
purchasesome $r chocolatebarshad been put in the form of a concessionon his
part; it was presentedas a retreatfrom his requestthat I buy some $5 tickets.If I
were to live up to the dictatesof the reciprocationrule, there had to be a concession on my part. As we have seen,there was such a concession:I changedfrom
noncompliant to compliant when he moved from a larger to a smaller request,
even though I was not really interestedin eifherof the things he offered.
It was a classicexampleof the way a weapon of influence can infuse a compliancerequestwith its power.I had been moved to buy something,not becauseof
any favorablefeelingstoward the item, but becausethe purchaserequesthad been
presentedin a way that drew force from the reciprocity rule. It had not mattered
that I do not Iike chocolatebars;the Boy Scouthad made a concessionto me, click,
and uhirr, I respondedwith a concessionof my own. Of course,the tendencyto
reciprocatewith a concessionis not so strong that it will work in all instanceson
all people;none of the weaponsof influenceconsideredin this book is that strong.
However, in my exchangewith the Boy Scout,the tendency had been sufficiently
powerful to leaveme in mystified possessionof a pair of unwanted and overpriced
candy bars.
Why should I feel obligedto reciprocatea concessionlThe answerrestsonce
again in the benefit of such a tendency to the society.It is in the interest of any
human group to have its members working together toward the achievement of
common goals.However, in many social interactions the participants begin with
requirementsand demandsthat are unacceptableto one another.Thus, the society
must arrangeto havetheseinitial, incompatible desiresset asidefor the sakeof socially beneficialcooperation.This is accomplishedthrough proceduresthat promote compromise.Mutual concessionis one important such procedure.
The reciprocationruie brings about mutual concessionin two ways.The first
is obvious; it pressuresthe recipient of an already-madeconcessionto respond in
kind. The second,while not so obvious,is pivotally important. Becauseof a recipient'sobligationto reciprocate,
peopleare freedto make the initial concessionand,
thereby,to begin the beneficialprocessof exchange.
After all, if there were no social obligationto reciprocatea concession,
who would want to make the first sacrificel To do so would be to risk giving up something and getting nothing back.
However, with the rule in effect,we can feel safe making the first sacrificeto our
partner,who is obligatedto offer a return sacrifice.

Rejection-Then- Retreat
Becausethe rule for reciprocationgovernsthe compromiseprocess,it is possible
to use an initial concessionas part of a highly effective compliancetechnique.The
technique is a simple one that we will call the rejection-then-retreattechnique,although it is alsoknown asthe door-in-the-facetechnique. Supposeyou want me to
agreeto a certainrequest.One way to increasethe chancesthat I will comply is first
to make a Iargerrequestof me, one that I will most likely turn down.Then, after I

chapter

R E crP R ocA TtoN

have refused,you make the smallerrequestthat you were really interested in all
along. Providedthat you structuredyour requestsskillfully, i should view your second requestas a concessionto me and shouldfeel inclined to respondwith a concessionof my own-compliance with your secondrequest.
Wasthat the way the Boy Scoutgot me to buy his candybarsl Was his retreat
from the $5 request to the $r request an artificial one that was intentionally designed to selI candybarsl As one who has still refusedto discardeven his first Scout
merit badge,I genuinelyhope not. Whether or not the large-request-then-smallrequestsequencewas planned,its effectwasthe same.It worked!Becauseit works,
by certain peotechniquecan and will be usedpurposely
the rejection-then-retreat
ple to get their way.First let's examinehow this tactic can be used as a reliable compliance device.Later we will seehow it is alreadybeing used.Finally we can turn to
a pair of little-known featuresof the technique that make it one of the most influential compliancetactics available.
Rememberthat aftermy encounterwith the Boy Scout,I calledmy researchassistantstogetherto try to understandwhat had happenedto me-and, as it turned
out, to eat the evidence.Actually,we did more than that. We designed an experiment to test the effectivenessof the procedureof moving to a desiredrequest after
a larger preliminary requesthad been refused.We had two purposesin conducting
the experiment.First,we wantedto seewhetherthis procedureworked on people
besidesme. (It certainly seemedthat the tactic had been effectiveon me earlier in
the day,but then I have a history of falling for compliancetricks of all sorts.)So the
question remained, "Does the rejection-then-retreattechnique work on enough
people to make it a useful procedurefor gaining compliancel" If so,it would definitely be something to be awareof in the future. Our secondreason for doing the
study was to determine how powerful a compliance device the technique was.
Could it bring about compliancewith a genuinelysizablerequestl In other words,
did the smallerrequestto which the requesterretreatedhave to be a small requestl
if our thinking about what causedthe techniqueto be effectivewas correct,the second requestdid not actuallyhaveto be small; it only had to be smaller than the initial one. It was our suspicionthat the criticalaspectof a requester'sretreatfrom a
as a concession.So the secondrequest
largerto a smallerfavor was its appearance
could be an objectivelyiarge one-as long as it was smaller than the first requestand the techniquewould still work.
After a bit of thought, we decidedto try the technique on a requestthat we felt
of the "CountyYouth
few peoplewould agreeto perform.Posingas representatives
CounselingProgram,"we approachedcollege studentswalking on campus and
askedif they would be willing to chaperona group ofjuvenile delinquentson a day
trip to the zoo.This idea of being responsiblefor a group of juvenile delinquents
of unspecified age for hours in a public place without pay was hardly an inviting
one for these students.As we erpected,the great majority (83percent) refused.Yet
we obtained very different results from a similar sample of college students who
were askedthe verv same question with one difference.Before we invited them to