Hidden Brain - Persuasion: Part 2

Episode Date: January 24, 2023

Think back to the last time someone convinced you to do something you didn't want to do, or to spend money you didn't want to spend. What techniques did that person use to persuade you? This week, we continue our look at the science of influence with psychologist Robert Cialdini, and explore how these techniques can be used for both good and evil. Did you listen to the first part of our episodes on influence? Don't miss last week's episode on how to turn a "no" into a "yes." And if you enjoy the show and would like to help us make more episodes of Hidden Brain, please consider supporting our work. Thanks! 

This is Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedantam. When psychologist Robert Chaldeenie was in college, a magazine salesman knocked on his dorm room door. He was selling subscriptions to Sports Illustrated magazine. Bob was going to say no, but then the salesman said, it's the most popular subscription here in your dorm. And the experts rated as the number one sports magazine in the United States. And I found myself buying that subscription. The exchange with the sports illustrated salesman, God Bob Thinking, what exactly had the man said to overcome his resistance?

And could studying exchanges like this reveal why some people were more persuasive than others? But I don't know I had the terms to explain it, but I knew that they had worked and I knew that he had turned a note to a yes. So there was something powerful there inside what he had said. Over the course of several decades of observation and experimental research at Arizona State University, Bob eventually identified seven techniques of influence. Last week on the show, we explored three of them. We looked at the role of scarcity, the norm of reciprocity, and the effects of liking.

If you missed that episode, I would strongly recommend you go back and listen to it first. Today, we explore four more powerful ways to turn nose into yeses. And as we did last week, we will also examine how these ideas can be used for good and for evil. The patterns of persuasion this week on Hidden Brain. Researchers who study disasters have often noticed a curious pattern.

People confronting emergencies often behave like the people around them. In my book The Hidden Brain, I described how these patterns shaped decisions involving life and death on the upper floors of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Shortly after planes hijacked by terrorists struck the skyscrapers, people inside the buildings had to make a choice. Should they run for the stairs and try and climb down dozens of flights to safety, or should they shelter in place? In the confusion and panic that ensued in the moments after the attacks, they received

conflicting guidance from authorities. But at one company that was spread over two floors of the World Trade Center, I found that people made radically different decisions. Nearly everyone on one floor chose to evacuate, and nearly all survived. Nearly everyone on the other floor stayed in place, and large numbers perished when the tower collapsed. It's not quite right to say that people are sheep and follow the herd. That's unfair and simplistic. But it is the case that one of the most important sources of influence in our lives comes from the people around us. If you are on a floor where everyone is running for the stairs,

it's hard not to run yourself. If you are on a floor where everyone is running for the stairs, it's hard not to run yourself. If you are on a floor where everyone is staying put, it's hard to jump up and take off. Psychologist Bob Chaldeenie says the same principle known as social proof also works in situations with much lower stakes. Social proof reduces uncertainty in others when we show them that a lot of other people like them are doing or have been doing what we're asking this particular individual to do. We give them confirmation that this is widely accepted, widely performed. And I remember that magazine salesman who came to my dorm room and told me that the sports illustrated subscription

was the most popular one of the guys in my dorm. He was using the principle of social proof. And the idea here is that if I have the sense that people in my community, my group, my tribe are basically all doing something, it a becomes easier for me to want to do it, but it also presumably becomes harder for me not to do it, to feel like I'm actually not a member of that group. That's right, and there are three reasons. One is if everybody around me like like me, is doing it,

that it's probably the right thing to do. It's also probably the case that it's feasible for me to do. And finally, they're more likely to approve of me if I do the things that they are doing instead of being a violator of the norm. So for all those reasons, I'm driven to reduce my uncertainty about what I should do here by following the dictates of social proof. You can see countless examples of the power of social proof in daily life. The same principle is at work when you pass a collection plate at church or when volunteers from the Salvation Army ring a bell outside stores asking for donations. It helps to see that others have previously dropped money on

the collection plate or into a collection box. Even if we approve of the person ringing the bell asking us to contribute to some cause at round Christmas time, we can approve of it, but if we don't see other people doing it, it's not necessarily something that is likely to spur us to do it. I mean, I've seen instances of street musicians, Bob, who are playing for money, they'll drop some dollar bills of their own into an open guitar case to send a signal to passers-by that they should make a contribution of their own. Right. There was a lovely study done by a researcher who went door to door for charity and gave

people a list of how many of their neighbors had already given and showed them a list. The longer the list, the more likely that the resident was likely to contribute. And the larger the amount of money that each person had given in the neighborhood. The larger that the recipient of that information was to give. I understand there was a wonderful study conducted at a Beijing restaurant where a manager was trying to increase the likelihood of customers choosing particular items from the menu. Tell me about what happened at that restaurant. The researchers had the managers put little asterisks next to certain items on the menu and see what effect that would have.

What did the asterisk stand for? It didn't say this is a specialty of the house, which you often see. It didn't say this is our chef's selection for this evening. It said this is one of our most popular items. And purchase of those items increased by 13 to 20%. There's this lovely study that was done in McDonald's, in which researchers arranged for the person behind the counter after customers had finished their order to say, and would you like a dessert versus, and would you like a dessert? The McFlurry is our customer's favorite. Those customers who heard the latter bought 45% more desserts because they were informed

about what the most popular one was. They all bought McFlurry's because it was the most popular. One of my favorite examples of social proof that you described has to do with how your son learned to swim. Tell me that story, Bob. So my son, Chris, when he was about three years old, we live in Arizona, and I worry that because there are so many backyard swimming pools, he might fall in. And if he didn't know how to swim, that would be very unfortunate.

So I put him in a swimming class and didn't work. I even hired one of my research assistants who had been a lifeguard, big six foot two guy who was a very expert at swim. Chris wouldn't even get in the pool with this guy without his ring. You know, this plastic ring that he would wear. He loved the water, but only with that ring, he wouldn't go in without it. And then I had him in a day camp,

where there was a big swimming pool. Usually he didn't go near it, but I went to pick him up one day, and I saw him run down the diving board and jump into the middle of the pool without his ring on and he paddled over to the side I ran there I said Chris you're swimming and he said yes because Jimmy can swim and Jimmy's three years old like me that means I can swim. like me. That means I can swim. So that's the idea again here it's about feasibility. It's not necessarily that swimming is the right thing or the approving. It's feasible.

If the people around me like me are able to do this. You know, I'm thinking of that wonderful story for many decades ago where John Lundy and Roger Banister were trying to break the four-minute mile, and Lundy was an Australian runner and one of the best runners on the planet and widely considered to be the person most likely to break the four-minute mile, and he ran several races and got very, very, very close and was just unable to break through the barrier. And at one point he says, you know, I don't believe this barrier is so roundtable. I don't believe humans can run a mile in less than four minutes. And then Roger Bannister, of course, famously went on to break the barrier.

He ran a four-minute mile. But what's astonishing about the story is that the very next race, John Landy ran a mile in under four minutes. And what's astonishing there is that this is one of the best runners in the world has tried repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, and unable to break the barrier. Someone else does it, and it suddenly becomes possible. And I think it speaks to this idea

that you just talked about Bob, which is that one really important element of social proof is that it communicates to us that this is actually feasible. It's actually within the realm of possibility. Right. We have done some work with informing the owners about why they should reduce their energy consumption. And if we give them evidence that their neighbors are reducing, they get significantly more likely to, indeed, conserve more.

Because it's feasible, we don't just give them evidence of any neighbors, we give them evidence of comparable neighbors, those who have the same, home, the same type of air conditioning, units, and the same number of bedrooms and so on, and if those things are in place and they can do it, that means I can do it. Social proof can be used for good, but it can also be used for evil. One of the oldest tricks of fraudsters and con men is to show people that other people who are just like them have signed on to some scheme. Once financier Bernie Madoff showed his victims that other people were giving him money and

he was giving them astronomical returns, he didn't have to market his scam to new victims. The marks came to him, begging him to take their money. You're listening to Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanta. This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedantam. Psychologist Bob Chaldeeni has always thought of himself as easy to persuade. From a young age, he found himself saying yes to salespeople and pictures for charity. In time, Bob decided he wanted to understand the psychology of influence. He started out his research by infiltrating a number of groups where people made money by persuading others to say yes to them.

He spent time selling cars, hawking portrait photos, and fundraising. Over several decades of research at Arizona State University, Bob has identified seven techniques of persuasion that nearly every human being is susceptible to. In this episode, we've talked about the power of social proof. A related idea unfolds in nearly every workplace, family and community. Some people in these groups have a very obvious and powerful form of influence. They have authority. It plays a role that's not unlike social proof in that it reduces uncertainty as to what to do based on the information at hand.

If I see that a lot of my friends or colleagues, neighbors are doing something that reduces my uncertainty that I should do. And if I see evidence of authority voices speaking about a particular direction for me to take, it reduces my uncertainty that indeed this is probably the right thing to do. The magazine salesman who was trying to sell you sports illustrator didn't just tell you that it was the most popular magazine. He also said it was the highest rated sports magazine. And of course, I think all manner of sales people do this are basically saying this is the best television. This is the best kind of car. This is the highest rated product. This is the best university ratings effectively are the voice of authority speaking to us. Well, especially if those ratings are coming from

knowledgeable experts in the field, which this salesperson told me, didn't just say it was the highest rated by consumers, that would have been more of social proof. He said, and it was the highest rated by the experts in the field of sports as to which magazine is best at conveying what really goes on in that arena. I remember reading a study recently where they had people essentially walk on the street

and bark instructions at passers-by, you know, just sort of random instructions saying, you know, this parking meter seems to be empty. Why don't you put a dime in it, just sort of telling a stranger. And when the instructions were given by somebody wearing a uniform, compliance with those instructions basically went through the roof. So even if you don't know who the authority figure is, what the uniform represents, the mere fact that someone's wearing a uniform

indicates this must be a person of authority. Right. This was a security guard's uniform. It wasn't a police officer, a security guard. But somebody had the aura of authority. The one I loved best was where he told people, you're standing at a bus stop and he said, stand on the other side of the bus stop.

Go to the other side and stand there and people did. And then he left the scene, he turned the corner and he was gone and people still stayed and had on the other side of the bus stop because the authority figure had instructed them to do so. Yeah. And it is partly the case, of course, that people are deferred to authority, but as you say, it also is cognitively simpler to do it. To basically say someone who is in charge has figured out what we should do, they have thought through what the answer should be. I don't have to expand the time and energy thinking about it. Precisely right. I think that that's the shortcut.

Hmm. I don't need to do the testing now. Somebody else with greater knowledge and experience and expertise has done so. I can usually be right if I just follow. I can usually be right if I just follow. This is why electing the right leaders is so important. A president is not just someone who signs bills into laws. If a president tells us we have nothing to fear but fear itself, we feel braver. If a president tells us that a vaccine is suspect, that makes us hesitate to put our arms out for a jab. This also explains why dictators are

able to muster so much power. Yes, some of this power flows from guns and weapons, but a great deal of it is psychological. In the face of authority, dissenters often hide their views or withdraw from argument. Bob once had this experience himself, although in a context when no one was holding a gun to his head. I was sitting next to an Oxford Don, whose research area was Italian culture and Italian productivity, and I was making a comment about compared to the past when the sculpture and paintings and so on that came out of Italy were the best and they had stood the test of time that now it seemed to be more something ephemeral that it was fashioned and fooled and

these kinds of things a style. And he said to me, I must degrade your thesis. I'm a guy who was always competitive in an intellectual. He completely eliminated and he come back I would have because he was an author. He came off with authority related language and it made me recognize that he knew more than I did about this. And I should shut my mouth because I really didn't have the high ground here. You talk about another form of influence that has to do with commitment and consistency, which is that we want to feel like we are being consistent in the way we act. Talk about this idea, Bob.

How does this work? Well, one of the things that people prefer is to be seen as consistent so that they're not incongruent in terms of what they say and what they do, or they say one thing today, they say another thing the other day. We don't like those individuals. We don't like people who are all over the world. We can predict or count on. So one of the things that commitment and consistency does if if we make a commitment especially in public, we're significantly more likely to be congruent with it if we are asked to do so at a later stage in the interaction. There was a Chicago restaurant that was once having a problem with people not showing up

at the time of their reservation. Tell me what they did to try and increase compliance with when people said they were going to show up and actually showed up. Yeah, it was a police called Gordon's restaurant. And Gordon, he had a problem that was at the time not unique to his restaurant, no shows. People who called, booked a table, and then just didn't appear, didn't call ahead to cancel. And it was a big problem for him. And he went to listen to what his receptionist said when she took a reservation. She would say, thank you for calling Gordon's

restaurant. Please call if you have to change or cancel your reservation. That ended the call. He asked her to add two words and to say, will you please call if you have to change your cancel your reservation? And then he asked her to pause. So what would you say? How would you fill that pause? I would say yes, of course I would call. And that's your commitment, Sean. You have now publicly committed yourself to it, and no shows at Gordon's restaurant dropped

by 64% that they never went back up. And do you think that this is being shaped by a desire for image management, that I care what the receptionist at the restaurant thinks, and I don't want her to think less of me, or do you think it's primarily about how I think of myself. I have made a commitment to the restaurant to show up on time, and so I need to call if I'm actually going to cancel. It is both of those things. You want to see yourself as a person who lives up to his or her commitments. And it's in private that you make

a commitment. You get a significant increase. But if it's in public, you get a much larger increase in congruency of a subsequent behavior. The one that produces the biggest leap forward in terms of compliance, it's the public commitment. One of the techniques that follows from this principle is something called the foot in the door technique. What is the foot in the door technique? It's a technique that was technique. What is the foot in the door technique? It's a technique that was uncovered back in the 60s by Jonathan Friedman, in which he asked people to make a small initial step in a particular direction. And after they had done so, ask them to behave in a way that was consistent with that step.

Later, the interesting thing is that if they had made that first step, they were significantly more likely to say yes to the larger request than if they hadn't been asked to make the small step first. So the classic study was people in Palo Alto, California, Friedman was at Stanford at the time. They were asked to take a small, to put a small sign in their window of their car or their home that said, please drive safely, national driver safety. Some were asked to do so. Others of their neighbors were not asked to do that. Then a week later, somebody came to their homes and asked them to put a big sign on their lawn promoting driver safety week. Those people who put the

small sign on in their window were significantly more likely to put the large sign on their lawn because it was congruent with what they had already committed themselves. I mean, isn't it interesting? If I ask you for a small favor and you say yes to me and I come back to you and I'm asking you for a big favor, I've actually asked you for two favors now, but you become more likely to say yes to the second favor and the first favor if you said yes to the first favor, then if I only asked you about the second favor, that's kind of astonishing. It is astonishing, but the key is that the second favor has to be logically congruent with the first one. So you see yourself as being consistent now, which is a powerful motive. Because of course, if you say no to the second, then it asks you to ask yourself the question,

well, why did I put that sign up on my window in the first place? Do I not really believe in it? Am I a hypocrite? Do I not really care about driver safety? All these questions start to pop in your head. And we want to be consistent. We want to have views of ourselves as having coherent choices, positions, attitudes, and so on. You have a friend Bob who has been especially successful in job interviews. What does your friend do when he sits down in a job interview? This is an individual who had been relatively unsuccessful before in getting successful job interviews, and he decided to do a small thing that changed the profile of his successes.

Usually what he would do at the beginning of an interview with one person or sometimes it's two or three individuals who are evaluating. He would say, I'm very happy that you had me come in and I want to answer all of your questions. And then he would add, but I'm curious about something. I wonder if you could answer a question for me. Why did you invite me here? What was it about my resume, about my qualifications, about my background that caused you to invite me? And he would hear them make commitments to his traits and values and fit. And then they would continue to be consistent with those positive comments they made, and he said he's gotten three better jobs in a role by using this commitment and consistency strategy.

When Bob first published his book about influence in 1984, he stopped there. He said he had found six main techniques of influence, scarcity, reciprocity, liking, social proof, authority, and commitment and consistency. But as time went on, he noticed one more. You can see this form of influence come election time. It's something Bob calls the principle of unity. I started to see the literature in behavioral science on the effects of belonging to a particular social identity category that would cause people to feel very positively toward those to whom they could use the word we, who are we in its religious denominations, political parties, neighborhoods,

communities, all kinds of we groups exist. We the people. We never bow, we never been, we groups exist. We the people. We never bow. We never been. We never break. We can forever. And above all else, we know this. In America, we go. And if a communicator can convince me that he or she is not just like me, but one of me of us. That lends itself to influence. I am much more likely to be influenced by the suggestions, requests, proposals, recommendations of that sort of person. Very often, that's a way that people use to decide what they should do. What are the people who I am of doing in this situation?

And why don't make a distinction between simply being like someone and being of or one of that person's group? Certainly, when we're talking about political campaigns, you see this in space, which is that people are essentially making pleas to saying, if you're one of us, this is what you and you would support. If you're one of us, this is how you should vote. If you're one of us, this is the candidate that you should go out and vote for. And both work, but it's the unity principle that I think is the most powerful. One is about identity, shared identity.

It's something in which you feel that you share a wee category with those individuals. That's very powerful. We favor and we follow those individuals with whom we share identities, social or personal identities. Recently, Bob discovered an affinity for someone he shares an identity with. The rapper Lil Wayne. I grew up in Wisconsin, the National Football League and a team in Wisconsin, that I had always favored, was the Green Bay Packers, still is the Green Bay Packers, and I saw an article in the newspaper a few months ago that said what the famous celebrities were for each of the teams that supported each of the teams. And Justin Timberlake and Lil Wayne were avid Green Bay Packer fans, like me.

Shanker, I immediately felt better about their music. And this is the key for influence. I wanted them to succeed more than before. After I learned that like me, they were avid, green-bay, packer fans. They shared an identity with me, and it made me favorable to them. What do you think is actually happening here? The fact that the two of you like the same sports teams, the rationalist would say, what does that have to do with whether you like their music or not, but what's the connection?

The connection is that we share a group identity. So, and that's been the way we've evolved, that to favor those who are in our group, because typically, we were genetically related in our small groups, our bands and clans and so on. So, where we find this sense of groupiness, we want to benefit those who share our genetic makeup. I understand that you were once completing a grant application with a very short deadline

and you were trying to get the help of a colleague and that help was not forthcoming and you decided to use one of your own techniques to try and elicit some of that help. Tell me the story, what happened, Bob? So I was writing a grant proposal, it was due the next day, I was reviewing it. One last time, and I came to one section, and I realized, I really didn't have the evidence to support my contentions in that place.

What I had a colleague, let's call him Tim, wasn't his name, who had done a study the year before and had collected evidence that was indeed supportive. And I thought, well, I'm going to write to Tim and tell him the situation that I have this grant proposal. Let's do the next day. There's a weakness. You have some data in your archives. I'm going to phone you and see if we can arrange for you to get those data, send them to me so I can get into my proposal before the deadline. Now Tim was known to be a sour kind of a rassable guy, not a guy who's very agreeable or likeable. I called him and he said, Bob, I know why you're calling and the answer is no.

The answer is no. Look, you're a busy man. You have a deadline. I'm a busy man. I have deadlines. I can't help you with your poor time management skills, Bob. Before I saw all this research on group identity and unity, I would have said, come on, Tim. This is due tomorrow. I really need this. Well, he had already said,

note of that. So I said, come on Tim, I really need this. We've been members of the same psychology department now for 12 years. And shocker, I had the data that afternoon. I raised our collective identity to consciousness here. This is what we do for one another. to consciousness here. This is what we do for one another. When we come back, how these powerful techniques of influence can be used for good and for evil. You're listening to Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedantam.

In his book, Influence Bob Chaldeeni writes about the psychology of persuasion. He describes seven techniques that we can use to influence those around us. These tools can be applied in many areas of life and they can be used for good ends and for bad ones. Social proof, for example, can be used to help people cut back on energy consumption. Well, the way in which I think it can be used

in a policy-based setting, it has to do with some work that we have done with an organization called O-Power. They work with power companies, and we send to their customers information about where they stand relative to their neighbors in energy consumption. That has been remarkably successful in the 10 years in which all power has been in business. It causes people to reduce their energy consumption when they are above the norm. It has prevented 36 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from entering the environment since we've begun this strategy. Can you think of a way of using social proof in a

way that would be problematic or unethical? Yeah, rather than pointing to its existence, you inform people by lying with statistics of the amount of support for your position. That would be unethical. So another one is if I basically communicate to people, the vast number of people support this proposition or that proposition, it's a way of basically manipulating people into supporting the proposition that I want them to support, when in fact that the underlying truth of that might not be accurate. Exactly.

One of our former presidents is often recorded saying, many people say this. A lot of people said I won, and I'm very happy about that. It's always nice to hear that, but many of your cohorts have said I won this today. Most people said I won, and I think you believe that too. A lot of people are saying they had spies in my campaign. If they had spies in my campaign. Or a lot, I've heard from a lot of people

without ever documenting those numbers or the reality of those people, but that's a common approach. It's not just politics. This kind of manipulation happens all the time on social media. Take the example of click farms. From Instagram accounts with thousands of likes and followers to Facebook posts that go viral overnight. off-click farms. following accounts, liking photos, and watching videos, all the drive up fake traffic. The idea here is that more followers equals more popularity. More popularity equals proof that others should also follow them. Social proof drives virality.

You can think of similar positive and negative forms of manipulation using the influence principle of consistency. There's some good research that shows that charity agencies that simply remind people that they have been generous in the past, let's say, with the flood victims of in Bangladesh, you remind them of their history and commitment to pro-social action, then ask them to help the hurricane victims in Miami, and they're more willing to do so, just because you've reminded that you brought to consciousness their commitment to pro-sociality. I'm wondering, you know, when I think about politics, it feels like very often we

castigate politicians when they change their minds on something. When someone says, I believed X, but now I believe Y. Of course, when you think about it, which would you actually prefer? Would you prefer the politician who believes X and never changes his or her mind for the next 30 years? Or would you prefer someone who says, I believe X, but now new information has come in, and I'm going to revise my opinion to Y. And it feels as if the norm of consistency is actually something that we punish people with. And we sort of say, you know, this person is a flip flop or if they change their minds. I'm not sure that sort of necessarily it's a misuse of consistency. No one's actually manipulating us in that sense, but in some ways it's a misapplication of the principle, you know, domain where actually is not providing probably good results.

Right. I like the way you characterize someone who would move as someone who said, well, there's new information that's come into the system. With that, I prefer that politician. Provided I agree that the information is valid, that's the sort of person I want to be making judgments based on the current and valid evidence. But people who say, well, I've changed my mind now. I don't feel that way that I said I did. But they don't tell you why. That's somebody who's just flipping to attract voters. The political sphere is right for efforts to influence and manipulate. Political actors use their authority to get their way.

They use commitment and consistency to lobby their colleagues. And they use the principle of unity to appeal to potential voters. It's a wee versus they argument that people make. If the other side is saying it, then we don't want to do it. If our side is taking this position, it really almost doesn't matter what the merits of it is. It's one of us, and so we must align ourselves with those we members. Do you hear politicians doing this in their speeches

and in their messaging? All the time. All the time isn't it the case that that's what we hear them doing. Don't be like the other people who are against us and not of us, be like us. [♪ Music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing in background, music playing And are you worried? Do you worry at all that these techniques, these ideas, which of course can be used for both good and evil might end up being used for evil rather than good? I do worry about it. I claim that the one way that we can insulate ourselves from this kind of unethical approach is to only use the principles that we can point to in the situation that are naturally, inherently there.

Is there true social proof you're allowed to point to it? Is there true scarcity? Yes, bring that to consciousness. Is there true authority that's aligned with the position? Yes, make that available to people. That is informing them into a scent. It's not tricking them or deceiving them, coercing them.

It's manipulative to fake the presence of one or another of these principles in a situation. Whenever we come across an instance of one of those corporations, one of those marketers, one of those advertisers, who is using one of the principles unethically, we have to call them out. We have to go online and let them know and the people, my patronize their products or services, what we have experienced and we penalize them for it. That's the way I would, I think, make a clear distinction. I'm wondering if there's a wrap-up idea that you want to leave

people with as they think about the world of influence and persuasion because of course, it's not as if we can live our lives without being influencers and persuaders. You know, even if we're not politicians or public figures, we're always influencing and persuading other people and always being influenced and persuaded by other people. How should we think about these ideas that you spend these many decades studying, Bob? Well, we first have to know what are the major influences on the influence process. And then I'm going to revert to what I was saying about the importance of employing them only by bringing attention to them where they naturally reside in the influence

setting. If we do that, I don't know who loses under those circumstances. We're a better culture as a result. Robert Chaldeini is the author of Influence, the Psychology of Persuasion. Bob, thank you for joining me today on Hidden Brain. I enjoyed it. We're thinking of trying something new today. Many listeners email us with thoughts and questions after episodes run. We're exploring the possibility of regular follow-up conversations

in which our listeners can pose their questions to our guests. If you have questions or thoughts about our series with Bob Chaldeini and are willing to have those questions shared with a larger Hidden Brain audience, please record a voice memo on your phone and email it to us at ideasat HiddenBrain.org. 60 seconds is plenty. Please remember to include your name and a phone number where we can reach you. Again, email the question to us at ideasathydenbrain.org and use the subject line, Persuasion episodes.

Hidden Brain is produced by Hidden Brain Media. Our audio production team includes Bridget McCarthy, Annie Murphy-Paul, Kristen Wong, Laura Quarelle, Ryan Katz, Autumn Barnes, and Andrew Chadwick. Tara Boyle is our executive producer. I'm Hidden Brain's executive editor. Our Unsung Hero this week comes from our sister podcast, My Unsung Hero. In the summer of 2008, Rick Magnol was making the long commute from his home in the remote mountains of three rivers, California, to his job at a community college in the town of Viselia. At the time, he was living in a travel trailer, which was often invaded by the

abundant wildlife in the area. He would find bats in his curtains, rattlesnakes under his trailer, and bears at his window. But the one that is most problematic for me, the scorpions, and they get into everything. They get into cabinets somehow, they get into a drawer with your clothes. And the only way to stop it is to smash them. That particular day, I got up, put my clothes on, got in the car, and started driving. The drive took him down a road that was flanked on both sides by large slabs of granite rock. All of a sudden, a scorpion that had somehow gotten into his clothes crawled out and stung him on the back. When he tried to smash it, he accidentally yanked the steering wheel down and to the right.

And when I looked up, I was looking right at a sheer granite embankment. And I hit that rock wall and I still recall the sensation of my on-decivic going airborne. And I can feel it now, feeling the car flip in the air, just feeling being upside down in my seatbelt. And about that time, an old white Ford pickup going the other direction pulled over across the road from me.

And two Hispanic guys jumped out and one of them directed the other one to go up around the corner of the road to slow traffic down and directed around me because I was in the middle of the lane. And the other one came across the street. I don't remember what he said or what I said, but he didn't speak more and a couple words of English. And he put his hand on my shoulder. And I tried to tell him he could go. Rick worried that the two men were undocumented. So I thought he probably should get out of there because I'd called 911 and highway patrol would be coming and could get a question or picked up. I had no idea what would happen. So, I tried to reassure him that I was okay, but he would have none of it.

He just stood with me. And he stood there with me for maybe 20 minutes, maybe. We didn't have any conversation, but when the highway patrol showed up, I looked up and this fellow was gone. The truck was gone. they just melted away. I wish I had thanked you. I wish I had thanked you. Rick Magnum of Dexter Oregon. To share a story about your unsung hero, record a voice memo on your phone and email it to us at myunsungheroatHiddenBrain.org.

Again, that email address is myunsungheroatHiddenBrain.org. If you like this episode and would like us to produce more shows like this, please consider supporting our work. Go to support.hiddenbrain.org. Again, if you find our work to be useful in your life, do your part to help us thrive. Go to support.hiddenbrain.org. I'm Shankar Vedantam. See you soon. www.sususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususususus you