Psychology of Persuasion
From CS260SP09
Readings
Laws of Persuasion Chapter 3 from "The Psychology of Persuasion," Kevin Hogan, Pelican Publishing Co.
Discussions
Please post your critiques/commments on the required readings below. To do that, first login by using your user name and password, then click the "edit" tab on the top part of this page (between the "discussion" page and the "history" page), New to wikis? Read the Wiki editing guide. . Hint - Please put a whole line == ~~~~ == (literally) at the beginning of your submitted critique, so the wiki system will index, sign and date your submission automatically.
Seth Horrigan 17:44, 8 April 2009 (PDT)
These nine laws of persuasion seem extremely (if not entirely) culturally determined. Laws of reciprocity, scarcity, conformity, friends: all of these probably describe the majority of middle and upper class American society, and probably also much of Western Europe, but by no means would I assume that I should reciprocate when a Nepalese person gave me a gift. I would imagine there are many societies where this would actually be insulting, and as such no impulse would exist. Likewise, living in other countries where tipping is uncommon, I felt no compulsion or guilt at not tipping. Perhaps some, like the law of association, expectancy, or power would be found widely, but while I think it is interesting to consider principles of persuasion, I think that this paper should be read more as principles of persuasion among a very specific set of individuals.
Nicholas Kong 01:35, 12 April 2009 (PDT)
I agree with Seth's assessment of these "laws" being more similar to "principles". Even their wording ("tends to", "most people", etc.) reveal them to be much weaker than what I would term a law. However, I think that the principles are likely, to some extent, universal: the culture determines the weighting of the principles. Certainly the given examples are culturally confined (the tipping scenario, for instance). The way the principles are worded may sidestep this issue, however. For example, in the Law of Reciprocity, we only desire to reciprocate when receiving something of perceived value. So in Japan, where tipping is non-existent, the service one receives in a restaurant is not considered to have value. However, in the US, the service is perceived to have value: hence, tipping.
Beyond cultural differences, it also seems to me that the weighting of these principles can vary significantly between persons. Just from a personal standpoint, I think I am relatively uninfluenced by the Law of Contrast, at least when applied to finances, as compared to, say, the Law of Friends. None of the Contrast examples, which appeared like sleazy salesperson-speak to me, were very convincing.
Brian Tran 06:18, 12 April 2009 (PDT)
I think that most of these laws of persuasion are not anything new to anybody who has done some reading on social psychology. I found the examples humorous and enjoyable though. The laws are always very fun to point out in daily life though and I'm sure that we have all employed each one at some point in our lives. I definitely agree with Nicholas that some of the laws definitely affect people more than other ones. Some people feel stronger about giving back than others or some people try to form their own opinion and speak out more than others. It comes down to the person, but I think they all do still affect the individual.
KetrinaYim 13:33, 12 April 2009 (PDT)
Some of the Laws of Persuasion have been used so often by various marketing groups that they have lost their effectiveness. I often find myself rolling my eyes at ads that apply the Scarcity or Association laws because I can see what they're trying to do. I know full well that supplies are only limited because the seller says they are, and that the figures endorsing the product are just being paid to do so. What it seems like is that when a person can tell that some strategy is being employed to persuade/manipulate him or her, it ceases to work on that person.
But then again, sincerity has a lot to do with it. If I'm convinced that the supply really is limited (like Pixar's walking teapots at SIGGRAPH) or the endorsement is genuine (well-known teachers supporting the use of game programming in CS education), then I'm more inclined to try to get the product or accept the idea despite being able to see the ploy. Ads tend to be insincere in their claims, and thus I find them less persuasive. Persuasion is indeed a strongly trust-based ability.
Himanshu Sharma 20:30, 12 April 2009 (PDT)
Contrary to the point of view of previous comments, I think its fine to call them "laws". If we go by the strict definition of "laws" nothing in psychology is law. Here "Laws" denote very strong principles. I don't think that "nature" of our responses is very much different culturally. I disagree with the particular point mentioned above, that Law of Reciprocity would not apply in case of some cultures. The law is not all about "wrapped gifts". If someone helps you out in any way, being social beings we are expected to return the favor.
Kenrick Kin 01:17, 13 April 2009 (PDT)
I would like to add the Law of Get Out of My Face. Actually, this may just be the time is money component of the Law of Contrast.
Whether you want to call these laws or principles, I believe in them. The one I find most maddening is the Law of Scarcity. If something I want to buy is in abundance, I feel no hurry and sometimes I may even talk myself out of it. But as soon as I get a hint that that item is becoming scarce, I throw out all reason and become consumed with the goal of obtaining that item. And sometimes that leads to me having to pay a higher price than I otherwise would have had I just bought the thing right away.
Not all these laws will apply to everyone, but in general I think they're descriptive of human behavior.
Sites like Yelp that rely on user generated content leverages the Law of Association and the Law of Conformity. And then when you have expert reviewers or professional bloggers, the Law of Power kicks in.
One of my favorite scenes from the show The Big Bang Theory deals with the Law of Reciprocity. Sheldon, one of the characters, is dismayed to be receiving a Christmas gift, because now he feels compelled to return the favor by giving a gift of equal value. This is the outcome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlhHTdDqoBc
Priyanka Reddy 06:04, 13 April 2009 (PDT)
Like Brian, I really enjoyed reading the different laws and the possible scenarios. I kept thinking back to situations where I fell for any of these laws, and found that they weren't that hard to think of.
I found it really interesting when the author mentions that the Law of Reciprocity was not based on human nature but a result of nurture - this supports the idea that several people mentioned that some of these laws are not universal but largely dependent on culture.
I also thought it was interesting how we can classify these laws into 2 general categories. The first is laws which everyone is aware of and follows because of societal expectations, such as the Law of Reciprocity and Law of Consistency. The other is the laws that you know you follow subconciously but would rather be aware of them to avoid being manipulated, such as Law of Contrast, Law of Scarcity and Law of Power.
David (Tavi) Nathanson 09:33, 13 April 2009 (PDT)
I also enjoyed reading these different laws, like Priyanka and Brian, and thinking about how they've manifested in my own life. It was a fun read!
One law that stood out for me was the Law of Consistency, where individuals who take one position will strongly tend to defend it. It stood out because I feel that it also relates to maturity in general. In other words, people hold certain views about the world, and immature people tend to stick to those views no matter what. More mature people tend to realize that they are *not* always right, and this allows them to grow as people.
Another law that had me entertained was the Law of Contrast. I specifically thought about my interactions at fast food places and the "Would you like fries with that?" line, and I was amused that it really has worked on me. I've said yes to fries plenty of times, despite not really needing them at all. However, I'm not sure if that has anything to do with the guilt described in the paper; rather, at fast food places, it's often very annoying to deal with the cashier, so I may simply have been trying to speed up the process by saying "yes" without arguing!
Simon Tan 21:45, 13 April 2009 (PDT)
When it comes to advertising with persuasion, it seems that savvy consumers can easily see through the tactics (e.g. Ketrina) and marketers are always trying to come up with new ways to succumb audiences into wanting their product. Marketers succeed because they can always persuade *someone* into a sale -- those that are not as savvy and have not been subjected to these techniques before will be more vulnerable.
It is much like how it is with spam. Spammers are encouraged to continue spamming because they always do get someone who takes the bait. As long as there are novices to e-mail, there will be victims. (Nigerian bank transfer = Law of Friends, the victim unaware that the spammer does not have his best interests in mind.) Since we are all basically part of a privileged subsection of society that has e grown increasingly savvy, we are not as prone to be persuaded by the everyday spam, while those with less experience are easily swayed.
This constant back-and-forth between the persuaders and the persuaded seems to happen in other contexts, too. When it comes to attracting members of the preferred gender, 'pick-up' lines may work against naive people but are often scoffed at by those with more experience.
