Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

What Would You Do?

At the last supper the apostle Peter said to Jesus, “Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will.” Jesus told him, “I tell you the truth. This very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” Peter protested, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And the rest is history – Peter did deny the Lord three times before sunrise.
I love that story because it reveals Peter’s humanity and ultimately the forgiveness of Jesus. I also believe it tells us something about each of us as individuals – we never really know how we will act until a situation is upon us.
I believe Peter meant what he said with all of his heart. To his credit he was ready to die for the Lord when he drew his sword and cut off the Roman slave’s ear. However, he wasn’t ready when the situation changed slightly. In the early morning in the courtyard outside the temple when he was under no physical threat he denied knowing Jesus when asked directly three times.
Quite often we “think” we know what we’d do in a situation. We would never participate in the holocaust; we would have done something about Jerry Sandusky had we been at Penn State; we would not have participated in segregation in the South even if we had grown up there. Then social psychology comes along and bursts our bubble with experiments that show us otherwise. For example:
We believe we could resist the pressure to conform (consensus) if we knew we were right. That’s what people assumed going into the Asch conformity experiments in the 1950s. And yet, an amazing number gave into the crowd and went along with them even though their senses told them they were correct, not the crowd.
Most of you reading this believe you’d never harm another person just because an “authority” insists that you do so. The participants in Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiment in 1961 probably thought the same thing going into the experiment. However, two-thirds eventually gave a series of 30 shocks with the last being 450 volts!
The college students in the 1971 Stanford prison experiment probably thought they’d never behave sadistically when acting as prison guards just because of the environment. After all, the late ‘60s and early ‘70s were known for young people railing against the establishment, not conforming to it. In reality the students were so sadistic the two-week experiment was halted after just six days!
When it comes to how we’ll react in stressful situations we often overestimate our goodness and underestimate the impact of people in positions of authority, the environment we’re in, and the pressure we feel from others to conform.
Not everyone gave in during those experiments and maybe, just maybe, you’d be one of those who would have resisted. However, most people did give in so we’d be a little arrogant to just assume we’re so different than those ordinary people that we’d always do the right thing.
So what’s a person to do? Peter tried relying on his willpower and we know how that turned out. Heck, he was even told explicitly what he’d do and that wasn’t enough for him to catch himself and make a different choice.
Wouldn’t it be better to understand how people typically think and behave? If you have that understanding it can create the self-awareness you might need to make a better choice should you find yourself in a situation where you know the right thing to do but feel paralyzed by fear. That fear can be rejection from the crowd, retribution from the authority or the feeling of powerlessness in the situation.
This is where social psychology comes in handy because quite often our hunches about human behavior are incorrect. Dan Ariely wrote two books about this very subject; Predictably Irrational and The Upside of Irrationality. I encourage you to keep checking in with Influence PEOPLE each week. An investment of five minutes might be all it takes for you to catch yourself and make a better choice than Peter did and most people in the experiments I mentioned.

** To vote for Robert Cialdini, President of Influence At Work, for the Top Management Thinker of 2013

Aligning the Principles of Influence with Aristotle’s Ethos, Pathos and Logos

Aristotle is credited with the following definition of persuasion: “The art of getting someone to do something they wouldn’t ordinarily do if you didn’t ask.”
Pause and think about it for a moment. Isn’t that a great definition? If someone is already doing what you want there’s no need to communicate in order to change anything. Unfortunately, all too often others aren’t doing what you’d like and you need to communicate with them in a way that changes that.
If I could change one word in Aristotle’s definition it would be to substitute “science” for “art.” In my mind art conveys natural talents or gifts that some people might feel they lack. Science on the other hand is something that can be learned by anyone.
When it comes to the science of influence it may surprise you to know we have more than six decades of research from social psychologists and behavioral economists on the psychology of persuasion. That means we now have scientifically proven ways to communicate more effectively. In the business world we might say there are “best practices” when it comes to effectively communicating.
Aristotle taught people three criteria for effective persuasion: ethos, pathos and logos. We’ll take a look at each and see how Robert Cialdini’s principles of influence come into play.
Ethos refers to someone’s character and credibility. Two principles of influence come into play to establish ethos: liking and authority.
We know it’s easier to say “Yes” to people we know and like. That’s the principle of liking. If someone likes you the “halo effect” comes into play and they naturally give you the benefit of the doubt on many other attributes, which makes it easier to effectively communicate.
Influence Tip – A great way to get the liking principle going is to offer up genuine compliments. When you do that people feel good and associate those positive feelings with you.
We also know it’s natural for us to pay closer attention to people we view as credible – those who are wiser than we are, experts in their fields. This is the principle of authority at work.
Influence Tip – The more someone knows about your credentials and experience the easier it is to tap into ethos, so make sure they know your credentials before you speak.
Pathos is the connection the persuader makes with another when communicating. Liking and reciprocity both help build relationships so they’re what you want to try to tap into when establishing pathos.
The more someone likes you the easier it is to connect. Once you find out you have a few things in common with your audience they feel a sense of camaraderie and they’re open to what you have to say.
Influence Tip – Make sure you look for things you have in common and mention them early on. If you’re being introduced make sure a few personal items are shared before you speak. Something as simple as being married or having kids can get the ball rolling. You want your audience to know you’re just like them to make a connection.
Reciprocity tells us people feel obligated to give back to those who’ve first given to them. By doing something for others, helping them in some way, they will feel obligated to at least listen to you. Reciprocity, builds relationships because when you help others they feel good about you.
Influence Tip – Look for ways to genuinely help people before you ever ask anything of them. Once you’ve done that and need their help they’ll be much more likely to say “yes.”
Logos is the logical use of words. It’s the factual argument to be made. Consensus, consistency and scarcity come into play here.
Consensus tells us people tend to move with the crowd. When we know large numbers of people, or people just like us, are doing something we are more likely to go along with it. This is logical because historically there’s safety in numbers. As the old saying goes, “Everyone can’t be wrong.” Well, at least the majority of the time everyone isn’t wrong so it’s usually a good bet to follow the crowd.
Influence Tip – Make sure you talk about what others are doing to “invite” your audience along because it’s only logical for them to move with the crowd.
People work very hard to make sure their words and deeds match. In fact, we all feel internal psychological pressure and external social pressure to be consistent in what we say and do. This is the principle of consistency.
Influence Tip – Find out whatever you can about your audience before you speak and make sure you relate your request back to what they’ve said, done, believe, etc. After all, it only makes sense for people to stay true to themselves.
Scarcity alerts us to the reality that when something is rare or dwindling in availability it makes us want it more. Again, quite often it’s the logical thing to seize opportunities before they go away. Doing so also helps us avoid regret over lost opportunities.
Influence Tip – It should be your goal to share what makes you, your organization, or your offering unique in some way. In other words, what does somebody stand to lose by not going along with your request?
So there you have a quick summary of Aristotle’s methodology tied to Robert Cialdini’s principles of influence. Tying the concepts from these brilliant thinkers is a great one-two combination for more effective persuasion.

** To vote for Robert Cialdini, President of Influence At Work, for the Top Management Thinker of 2013

Keys to Persuading Thinker Personalities

Here comes your biggest challenge thus far; trying to persuade one of the smartest people to ever walk the planet – Albert Einstein! Talk about intimidating; he’ll see through every psychological ploy you toss at him. If you were going to ask Einstein for something, how would you persuade him to say “Yes?”
In our final week we’ll consider how best to persuade someone who is a thinker or analytical personality type. When I think of this personality type, Einstein comes to mind because he would be someone more task-oriented than relationship-focused. However, unlike Donald Trump, he doesn’t seek to control situations and other people. Instead, he would be someone more focused on self-control. The follow describes the thinker/analytical personality type:
Very task driven; can be slow to act because they like to think things through; exercise good self-control; don’t consider themselves assertive; like data to support decisions; usually take a logical, systematic approach to things; like to see track records and trends to support ideas.
Of the four personality types, the second most often identified was the thinker at 29%. The one chosen most often was the pragmatic (32%), then expressive (24%) and finally amiable (14%).
Because thinkers are task-focused like pragmatics, it will come as no surprise to find out they chose answers that engaged reciprocity and liking much less than did the amiable and expressive personality types. Those personalities are much more relationship-oriented than they are on prioritizing tasks. Some influence advice when dealing with a thinker:
Using the liking principle is okay because it’s socially acceptable but you don’t want to spend much time here because thinkers are not concerned with being your friend. Don’t take offense but most of the time their thoughts are off somewhere else.
Pulling the reciprocity lever – doing things in hopes of a return favor – won’t be an effective strategy either. Thinkers will certainly accept whatever you give them but it won’t be a high priority for them to find ways to repay the favor.
More than any other personality type, when it comes to making business decisions, helping thinkers deal with uncertainty should be your top priority.
Thinkers were more persuaded by the principle of consensus – what others were doing – than any other personality type. It’s not that they just go with the flow; rather they can be persuaded by what others who are like them happen to be doing. So tell Einstein what Tesla, Edison or other classic thinkers are doing and he’ll listen.
Sharing facts or relying on the advice of experts – the principle of authority – is more effective with this group than any other personality type! One other expert is good but many (consensus) will be your best bet when trying to persuade a thinker.
Consistency – what someone has said or done in the past –was also high for thinkers. Only pragmatics had a higher score. Pragmatics may believe they’re right in what they say and do because of their egos. Thinkers believe they’re right because they’ve put so much time and energy into their decision before they act on it or share it. Tie your request to what a thinker has said, done or professes to believe and your odds of success go up dramatically.
Scarcity was the least effective principle with this personality type. Odds are they’ve thought about your offer, perhaps researched it, so if it’s not actually rare or going away they’ll see right through it. You’ll get much more response by helping them overcome uncertainty (consensus and authority) in the business environment.
When it comes to the thinkers you know they may not be as extreme as Albert Einstein. However, you’ll still be better off focusing on certain principles because they’ll help you more than others. In order, here are the most effective principles of influence for thinkers:
AuthorityConsensusConsistencyLikingReciprocityScarcity
I hope you’ve found this series on personality types helpful. When it comes to persuading people, where you have a handle on their personality type, planaccordingly and you’ll be far more successful than if you simply wing it. Also, setting the stage – what you do before you attempt to persuade – will be extremely helpful.

** To vote for Robert Cialdini, President of Influence At Work, for the Top Management Thinker of 2013