Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion

Cialdini describes a divorce lawyer who mediates difficult separation arrangements. She learned, rather than saying, “If you do this, we’ll have a deal,” to say, “We have a deal. All you have to do is agree to this.” She implied that her clients already had a deal—something they would not want to give up. This is “loss aversion”: People are more interested in not giving up what they have than obtaining something else that seems elusive.

In “Scarcity: Less Is Best and Loss Is Worst,” Cialdini talks about the scarcity principle: Things seem more important when they are less available. Scarcity makes things seem valuable. The possibility of losing things makes them seem even more valuable. He writes, “Even our brains seem to have evolved to protect us against loss in that it is more difficult to short circuit good decision-making strategies when considering a potential loss than it is when considering a potential gain” (248).

Compliance professionals use this principle to promote certain items. The most obvious use of this tool is to say there are “Limited Numbers” of items. A second element used to advance sales through the scarcity principle happens when a salesperson requests that the customer commit to a purchase if the item is available. Another ploy is the notion of “Limited Time.” Saying something is available for a limited time spurs interest from people who ordinarily would have no interest if it were widely available. This is referred to as the “deadline” ploy. It forces consumers to decide immediately about a purchase.

In “Psychological Reactants,” Cialdini acknowledges the scarcity principle is another decision-making shortcut. People assume that if something is scarce, it must be worth more. He says the behavioral principle behind this is “psychological reactance”: a reaction against losing what one possesses. When we lose things, we also lose the freedom of using them, meaning our liberty is diminished.

In “Young Reactants: Playthings and Heartstrings,” Cialdini describes the way this tendency emerges in children when they are around two years old. The same process is equally evident in teenagers, who will do whatever they can as they are emerging as adults to gain more control of their lives and their resources. Cialdini follows this with the section “Adult Reactants: Guns and Suds.” He gives examples of adults making decisions about which laws they would obey and which things they desire and then comments, “When something becomes less available, our freedom to have it is limited, and we experience an increased desire for it” (263).

Regarding the scarcity of information, Cialdini reflects on the topic of “Censorship.” He gives examples of those who react against censorship by favoring what has newly been censored. He says that trying to restrict interest in things that have been censored makes those things more appealing. He describes the way that jurors, when told to disregard certain testimony, tend to focus on that testimony in their deliberations.

Moving to the topic of “Reactance Reduction,” Cialdini says when people recognize information is being used to persuade them to do something, they automatically resist because this challenges their freedom to make their own decisions. Resistance to persuasive information can be reduced if the presenter offers information on both sides. This tells listeners they have the freedom to make up their own minds. In practice, this increases compliance greatly.

In “Optimal Conditions,” Cialdini describes factors that cause scarcity to be most effective. He says people attribute higher quality to scarce items. He reflects on the 1985 New Coke debacle when Coca-Cola removed old Coke from availability. Taste tests prior to the introduction of New Coke demonstrated that people preferred its flavor. However, when traditional Coke was taken out of circulation, people wanted it back, preferring its taste. Cialdini explains this simply: When New Coke was not yet available, it tasted better. Then, when old Coke became unavailable, it tasted better.

Cialdini notes in “New Scarcity: Costlier Cookies and Civil Conflict” that the presence of abundance and the subsequent removal of that abundance causes people to want that abundance more than they initially did. Universally, people protest the loss of something they possessed that suddenly seems valuable. Cialdini attributes social unrest to this principle. He lists various struggles that follow this pattern. Notably, the Civil Rights Movement took place after World War II when Black citizens experienced elevated social status, income, and opportunity. When restrictions interfered with those freedoms, Black consciousness was no longer willing to accept the persecutions and privations of the Jim Crow era.

By way of emphasizing the reality of this phenomenon, Cialdini describes the uprising in which former Soviet officials attempted a coup against Mikhail Gorbachev. This happened after he granted a series of freedoms and rights for the first time to Russian citizens. The coup rolled those freedoms back, something Russian citizens decided they would not stand for. They took to the streets facing down armed soldiers and refusing to accept dictatorship once again. The coup failed.

In “Competition for Scarce Resources: Foolish Fury,” Cialdini points out that, whenever people face not only scarcity but also competition, the value of what they desire increases. Cialdini gives examples of the near frenzy that buyers have when they are competing against other buyers for scarce items in a shopping context.

In the “Distinctiveness Distinction,” Cialdini talks about our personal desire to appear individually distinctive so that we stand out in the crowd. However, there is an ongoing inner conflict between people who want to be a part of the crowd and at the same time want to stand out distinctively. Cialdini cautions against removing the distinctiveness of those individuals and groups who have earned it, using as an example the attempt to give the black berets of US Rangers to all soldiers.

In discussing possible defense against the scarcity principle, Cialdini describes the difficulty that arises in not knowing whether there is an actual scarcity or if compliance professionals are merely feigning scarcity. The first thing he recommends is examining one’s own feelings to determine if there is a legitimate need for the item one desires. Ultimately, Cialdini points out that the most important aspect of dealing with the scarcity principle is making certain that the merits of what you want are more important than simply the desire to possess something that is scarce.