Learn the six universal principles of influence and how to use them to improve your marketing efforts.

Part 7 of this seven-part series of articles, which are based on Dr. Robert Cialdini’s book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, explains the sixth principle of influence – Scarcity.

The Sixth Principle of Influence: Scarcity

G. K. Chesterton indicated that he understood a universal aspect regarding human nature when he wrote, “The way to love anything is to realize that it might be lost.”

He was referring to the scarcity principle, which states that things and opportunities seem more valuable to us when their availability is limited. This principle influences many of our decisions and actions in unexpected ways.

For example, let's say that you were engaged in a lively face-to-face conversation with a friend and suddenly your friend's phone rings. Instead of disregarding the intrusion and allowing technology to handle the call, your friend stops talking in the middle of a sentence and answers the phone. And you ponder why on earth your friend decided to break the spell of your stimulating discussion.

If you are like most people, you probably have interrupted something important you were doing by answering a phone call, even one that might involve a caller trying to sell you something. Have you ever wondered why you and other people behave this way?

One way to understand this rather perplexing behavior is to take a close look at what is happening behind the scenes. The person sitting in front of you is available and is likely to be available until the conversation is over. The person calling you is potentially unavailable if you don't answer the call.

It doesn't matter that you are having a good time with your friend and that you are immersed in conversation. What does matter, however, is the potential loss of the telephone interaction with someone you may or may not know!

Motivated by Loss

The research clearly indicates that human beings are more motivated by the idea of losing something than by the idea of gaining something of equal value.

One research study found that homeowners are more likely to insulate their homes if they are informed that they could lose money if they did not have adequate insulation, compared to being told that they could save money by adding insulation. Another study showed that women are more likely to conduct self-examinations to check for breast cancer if they are told what they stand to lose by not performing the self-examinations.

The Scarcity Principle in Action

Compliance professionals (e.g., advertisers, salespeople, recruiters, fundraisers) often use tactics that rely on people's tendency to feel that something is more valuable if it is scarce or might become scarce. The primary intent behind each of these tactics is to increase the worth of something by claiming that it is scarce.

The “limited-number” tactic involves telling customers that a particular product is in short supply and may not be available in the near future. Often used to sell cars and appliances, this tactic is highly successful in convincing people to buy products that seem more desirable simply because their availability is limited.

The “deadline” tactic entails informing customers that a product or service is available only for a limited time. Using a variant of this technique, certain face-to-face, high-pressure sellers tell customers that they need to buy “right now” if they want to take advantage of the deal being offered; if they don't make an immediate decision to purchase the product or service, the deal is off.

Psychological Reactance

Why do compliance practitioners rely so frequently on the scarcity principle to influence us? And why is this principle so powerful in directing human action?

First, like other principles of influence, the scarcity principle brings into play our weakness for taking shortcuts in our hectic, decision-filled lives. In most situations, the shortcut benefits us because we can use an item's availability to help us efficiently (and often correctly) determine its quality.

Second, there is something even more powerful at work. The evidence suggests that we have a particular response (called “psychological reactance”) to situations in which our personal control is diminished.

Whenever opportunities become less available, either limiting or threatening our free choice, our need to maintain our freedoms makes us desire these freedoms significantly more than we previously did. This increased desire also applies to the goods and services associated with these freedoms.

Therefore, if something interferes with our access to certain things in our lives (i.e., a person, an item, or an opportunity becomes or may potentially become “scarce”), we tend to react against this interference by attempting to possess it more than before. In other words, much of our behavior can be explained by our response to restrictions of our freedoms to possess things we desire.

“The Terrible Twos”

Psychological reactance can more easily be understood if we examine when we first begin to fight against restrictions to our freedoms.

Studies repeatedly have shown that our resistance to outside pressure typically starts around the time we turn two years old. Most parents have experienced the contrariness of their children during this period commonly referred to as “the terrible twos.”

The classic response of outright defiance to a limitation of freedom is illustrated in a study involving two-year-old boys who were offered equally attractive toys. For the first group of boys, one toy was placed next to a transparent Plexiglas barrier and the other toy was placed behind the barrier. Since the barrier was only one foot high, the boys could easily reach over over the top to get to the toy.

For the second group of boys, the toys were placed similarly, but the Plexiglas barrier was two feet high, restricting access to the toy unless the boys went around the barrier.

The boys in the group having easy access to the toy behind the barrier showed no special preference for that toy; they touched the toy next to the barrier as quickly as the one behind it. The boys in the group challenged by the two-foot-high barrier, however, touched the toy behind the barrier three times faster than the toy next to the barrier.

These findings, along with the results of other studies, plainly demonstrate that psychological reactance emerges around the age of two. But why at that age?

Social scientists have theorized that around this time toddlers begin to recognize themselves as individuals. With this newfound sense of independence and autonomy comes a certain amount of freedom to choose. It is no wonder, then, that most two-year-olds begin to question volition, control, and entitlements within their own little minds.

Psychological reactance doesn't evaporate after we emerge from childhood. We continue to struggle throughout life (especially during our teens) to test the limits of our freedoms as a means to discover when we are likely to be controlled or to be in control. And we never, never grow out of our tendency to react against restrictions to our freedoms.

Distance Makes the Heart Grow Fonder

There is plenty of evidence provided by our own daily experiences that, when something is limited and less available, we tend to desire it more. What is odd about this tendency is that we usually are not aware of psychological reactance at work; all we know is that we want that “something” more than before.

Studies have found that we typically begin to assign positive qualities to things in limited supply to explain why we desire these things so much. It makes sense to believe that the items of our desires have merit if we feel drawn to them.

If something is banned (e.g., government prohibiting use of certain items, parents restricting interaction with certain individuals), we presume that it is more valuable and we automatically want access to it. This tendency to want what we cannot have also applies to restrictions on information.

Scarce Information

Research results indicate that not only do we have a greater desire to receive banned information (like media violence, pornography, or radical political rhetoric), but that we also develop a more favorable attitude regarding the censored information, even if we never receive this information.

For example, one study found that university students became more opposed to the idea of coed dorms after a speech denouncing coed dorms was banned. Students actually became more sympathetic to the arguments against coed dorms without ever hearing the speech.

It appears, therefore, that individuals who hold an unpopular position can influence us to concur with that point of view by restricting access to the details of the message itself. Political groups, for example, may most effectively advance their cause by arranging for censorship of their views and then publicizing the censorship.

Scarcity and Exclusivity

Information doesn't have to be censored to make us value it more; it only needs to be inaccessible or scarce. And according to the scarcity principle, it turns out that information is more persuasive if we believe it is exclusive and cannot be found anywhere else.

One study particularly illustrated how scarcity and exclusivity work together to deliver a powerful punch. Three groups of buyers for retail food outlets received three different communications from a wholesaler of imported beef.

One group was given the standard sales presentation. The second group heard the standard sales presentation plus information that the supply of imported beef would probably be limited in the upcoming months. The third group received the same information as the second group but was also told that the news about the possible scarcity of the imported beef was not generally available information but had been provided by an exclusive contact.

The second group of customers that received information about the future scarcity of the beef bought twice as much as customers in the first group. But customers in the third group, which was given the “exclusive” news, bought six times more beef than customers in the first group.

The moral of this story is that information about the scarcity of an item is highly persuasive if the information itself is perceived as being exclusive (i.e., scarce).

Timing Is Everything

Social psychologists have been wondering when scarcity has the biggest effect on us in terms of influencing our behavior. Multiple experiments were devised to answer this question.

In one of the studies, a group of participants were given a cookie from a jar of two cookies and asked to taste and rate its quality. A second group of participants were shown a jar of ten cookies, but before they were given a cookie and asked to rate it, the jar was replaced by another jar containing only two cookies.

The question being posed by the experiment was as follows: Do we place greater value on things that have recently become scarce to us (demonstrated by withdrawing the jar of ten cookies and being asked to take a cookie from a jar of two cookies), or do we see greater value in things that have always been scarce?

The results were clear-cut. Compared to individuals in the first group, participants in the second group (whose jar of ten cookies was replaced by a two-cookie jar) rated the cookies as more desirable, more attractive, and more costly (but not more delicious!). Apparently, going from abundance to scarcity has a significantly greater effect on people's responses.

This finding is useful for explaining why recently experienced scarcity causes so much violence and political turmoil. Historical evidence appears to support the hypothesis that revolutions are more likely to occur when a period of improving social and economic conditions is followed by a sharp reversal in those conditions.

In other words, people are more inclined to revolt if they are given at least a little taste of a better life. When individuals experience improved social and economic conditions in their lives, and they suddenly are deprived of these improvements, they desire them more than ever and take aggressive action to secure them.

Scarcity, when it is unexpectedly thrust upon people accustomed to abundance, puts the wheels of psychological reactance in motion, sometimes creating violent revolutions. It appears, then, that the scarcity principle is activated automatically whenever freedoms are taken away.

Competition and Scarcity Pressures

We have learned from the “cookie experiments” mentioned above that scarce cookies were rated higher than abundant cookies and that that recently scarce cookies were rated higher than cookies that have always been scarce. But the researchers found that one particular type of cookie was given the highest rating.

In one experiment, both groups of participants were given a jar of ten cookies, which was immediately replaced by a two-cookie jar. The first group was told that some of their cookies needed to be given to other participants in order to supply the demand for the cookies. The second group was given the explanation that the researcher made a mistake by initially giving them the ten-cookie jar. The results clearly showed that cookies that became scarce through “social demand” were rated significantly higher than cookies that became scarce by mistake.

This finding supports the conclusion that we desire scarce items most when there is competition for the item. This tendency appears to apply to various situations, including purchasing commodities in high demand, establishing intimate relationships with sought-after individuals, and attending sold-out recreational events.

Ethical Marketing

How many times have you bought something impulsively simply because you felt it wouldn't be available later due to consumer demand? Not only does the principle of social proof tell us that a product is good because other people think it is, but we are also in a hurry to buy this product because we are in direct competition with others.

Advertisers consistently and slyly attempt to exploit our natural tendency to want scarce products and services in high demand. Realtors may tell an indecisive prospect interested in a house that there is another potential buyer. Appliance retailers advertising close-out sales events make it painfully clear that merchandise is limited and that large crowds are expected. And grocery and department stores are notorious for generating a competitive fury by advertising great deals on certain items.

It is a good idea to be on your guard any time you feel the pressure to buy anything that appears to be scarce, especially when you are given the impression that the item is in high demand. Realtors may not always be telling the truth when it comes to claiming another buyer is competing for a house you like. Appliance retailers having a close-out sale may have an unlimited supply of merchandise, whose price tags are not significantly better than the competitions'. And grocery and department stores may severely limit the supply of “loss leaders” simply to get you into their stores.

Organizations that provide false or misleading information about the scarcity and demand for their products and services are hoping that consumers feel automatically pressured to buy. These organizations know that people's common reaction to the combination of scarcity and competition hinders an individual's ability to think straight. They are banking on cognitive processes being suppressed by emotional responses.

If you ever find yourself being pressured by scarcity in a sales situation, use your emotional “hurry-to-buy” reaction as a warning that scarcity tactics may be in full force.

Once you have regained a calm, rational perspective, ask yourself if you really want to experience the item or merely want to possess it. If you desire something for its utilitarian value (i.e., because you want to use it), then remember that scarce items do not necessarily look, sound, taste, feel, or work any better simply because they are scarce. But if you desire something primarily for the purpose of owning it (i.e., because you gain social, psychological, or economic benefits), then you can use its availability to determine how much you want to pay for it.

Learn the six universal principles of influence and how to use them to improve your marketing efforts.

Part 6 of this seven-part series of articles, which are based on Dr. Robert Cialdini’s book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, explains the fifth principle of influence – Authority.

The Fifth Principle of Influence: Authority

In the 1960's a series of now-famous experiments were conducted to determine the extent to which people responded to authority. These experiments involved three individuals: a Researcher, a Teacher, and a Learner.

The Researcher (who was the “authority figure” because he wore a lab coat and used a clipboard) told the person playing the role of the Teacher that the experiment was being conducted to find out how punishment affects learning and memory.

The Learner was expected to learn a list of pairs of words and to recall each pair correctly. The Teacher was told to test the Learner's memory and to deliver an increasingly stronger electric shock (i.e.,  a shock that increases by 15 volts) for each mistake made. Both the Researcher and Teacher left the Learner and went to another room to conduct the memory test through an intercom system.

In actuality, no shocks were delivered during this experiment, but people playing the role of Teacher believed that the Learner was being shocked for wrong answers. The Learner was an actor who was only pretending to be shocked. The real purpose of the experiment, therefore, was to see how much pain individuals are willing to inflict on an innocent person in response to orders given by someone in authority.

About two-thirds of the subjects (i.e., Teachers) used the highest voltage available (a dangerous level of 450 volts!) to shock the Learners. Instead of yielding to the pleadings of the Learners to stop the experiment and to end the painful shocks, two out of three subjects obeyed the Researcher, who gave instructions to continue the experiment until the maximum punishment of 450 volts was delivered.

The results of this experiment surprised everyone. Why would so many ordinary people agree to inflict so much suffering simply because they were being told to do so? Many experiments were conducted to rule out certain explanations – that males (used in the original experiment) are naturally aggressive, that subjects did not understand how dangerous the electric shocks were, that the sample did not represent the population.

After the series of experiments was completed, the only plausible explanation for the results was this: people are unable to defy the wishes of authority because there is a deep-seated sense of authority within all of us.

Obedience to Authority

What do these research results mean in the workaday world? Our willingness to respond so effortlessly to the demands and wishes of authority have rather sobering implications. All forms of authority – government agencies, churches, educational institutions, scientists, physicians, and even our parents – are able to extract alarming levels of obedience from us simply by telling us what they want us to do.

Why, then, are we so eager to obey in response to authority's commands? Social scientists have pondered this question for decades. The evidence suggests that a system of authority has several advantages for a society. Without this system, and with anarchy taking its place, it would be impossible to develop sophisticated structures needed for production, trade, defense, and social control.

Consequently, it's no wonder that we are taught from birth that obedience to authority is “good” and that disobedience is “bad.” All of our social systems – including the parental, educational, legal, military, political, and religious – place high value on loyalty and submission to the proper authority.

Like other principles of influence, the rule of authority offers a valuable shortcut regarding decisions we make in our daily lives. In most situations it benefits us to defer to authority.

But what often is a blessing can easily become a misfortune, especially when mindless obedience results in inappropriate action. At times we can do ourselves a great disservice if we simply react to the pressures of authority by allowing blind obedience to direct our behavior.

The Appearance of Authority

Our automatic, yielding response to authority figures makes us vulnerable to the symbols of authority, which may have no genuine substance. The mere appearance of authority may produce compliance.

For example, Robert Young once played the role of a physician (Marcus Welby) in a television series. He also became a spokesperson for Sanka and tauted the benefits of drinking their coffee. Although Young was not a real medical authority, many people watching the commercials bought the product because they believed that he was the “real McCoy.”

There are plenty of other symbols that consistently trigger our automatic response to authority when no real substance exists. These symbols are often used by compliance professionals to persuade us to take action that may not benefit us.

First Symbol of Authority: Titles

We all have experienced how we behave toward others based on what titles they hold. Individuals typically respond differently to doctors, lawyers, and CEOs than they do to janitors, garbage collectors, and factory workers.

Various studies have empirically shown the connection between size and status. For example, the results of one experiment indicated that the perceived status of people affects estimates of how tall they are. Individuals with prestigious titles tend to be seen as taller in height. It appears it's the importance of a thing (whether it is an object or a person) that makes it seem bigger to us.

The relationship between size and status also applies to certain animals. For some species, size is an important factor in determining the dominance and status of males in the group. Size-enhancing tricks (e.g., arching backs, bristling coats, extending fins, unfurling and fluttering wings) are often used in contests between two males to communicate dominance and to avoid conflict.

What does all of this mean in the realm of humankind? First, it is clear that the association between size and status can be used profitably by people who want to give us the appearance of authority simply by faking their height. It is not uncommon for con men to wear lifts in their shoes.

Second, a prestigious title can easily be counterfeited by exploitative individuals to convey power and authority. The ease by which this can be achieved was illustrated by Frank Abagnale Jr. (portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in the movie, “Catch Me if You Can”), who successfully swindled organizations out of millions of dollars by posing as a pilot, doctor, and attorney over a period of years.

Second Symbol of Authority: Clothes

There is a lot of truth in the saying, “clothes make the man.” Many studies have repeatedly shown that people typically cannot resist responding to requests from or following the lead of individuals dressed in uniforms and business suits.

For example, in one experiment 92% of individuals gave a stranger some money for a parking meter after being told by someone wearing a security guard uniform to do so, compared to only a 42% compliance when the same person was dressed in regular clothes. In another experiment, people were found to be three and half times more likely to follow a jaywalker (crossing a street) attired in a business suit than someone who was wearing regular street clothes.

And it's not unusual for con artists to dress for their parts as “authority figures” when they attempt to get individuals to comply with their nefarious requests. Frank Abagnale Jr. would not have duped so many people had he not worn the right clothes for the roles he was playing.

Third Symbol of Authority: Expensive Extensions

Certain status symbols, like expensive cars, watches, and jewelry, influence most individuals in unexpected ways. Like prestigious titles and distinctive clothes, expensive extensions of ourselves help to mesmerize people into compliance with “authority.”

For instance, one study found that motorists waited significantly longer before honking their horns at the driver in a luxury car stopped in front of a green traffic light than at a driver in an old, economy car. In addition, while most motorists used their horns to get the attention of the economy car driver, half of the motorists behind the luxury car never even used their horns.

Ethical Marketing

The research clearly indicates that most of us are not aware of the degree to which our perceptions regarding authority affect our decisions and behavior. This is exactly what unscrupulous compliance professionals are counting on as they attempt to influence us with titles, clothes, and other trappings of authority.

The best defense against being hoodwinked in compliance situations in which the symbols of authority are being used to manipulate us is to increase one's level of awareness regarding the power of authority.

This is not as easy as it sounds. The trick is to realize when the requests from so-called authority figures should be heeded and when they should be disregarded.

Ethical marketing and sales practices involve using an authority that is truly an expert in the appropriate field. Unethical tactics come into play when organizations use fake authority symbols to get us to respond to their requests with automatic obedience.

For example, Robert Young was not a real physician promoting the health benefits of Sanka coffee in the television commercials. Although viewers may have thought of him as Marcus Welby, M.D., he did not have the proper credentials in real life to claim that Sanka coffee was healthy.

If a company does use the “authority card” in its advertising, not only should the authority figure be genuine and relevant, but the information being conveyed should be truthful. Authorities, even if they are authentic, don't always present information honestly.

Therefore, what should be called into question is not only the credentials of the messenger but also the verity of the message.

Learn the six universal principles of influence and how to use them to improve your marketing efforts.

Part 5 of this seven-part series of articles, which are based on Dr. Robert Cialdini’s book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, explains the fourth principle of influence – Liking.

The Fourth Principle of Influence: Liking

Your own experience illustrates your preference to say “yes” to the requests of someone you know and like. It stands to reason that you are more likely to do a favor for a friend, neighbor, or family member you get along with.

What you might not realize, however, is that the “principle of liking” is used by total strangers to get us to do things we typically would do only for our friends and relatives.

The best example of commercial exploitation of the liking principle is the Tupperware party. The first three principles of influence (reciprocity, consistency, and social proof) are set in motion during the gathering, but the fourth principle (liking) is the icing on the cake that really compels individuals to purchase products they may not even want.

In fact, research has shown that the strength of the social bond between the hostess/host and the partygoers is twice as likely to determine product purchase than interest in the product itself. Keep in mind that the actual request to make a purchase does not come from the Tupperware salesperson, but indirectly from the hostess/host. And you are likely to buy Tupperware products from a complete stranger if you like the hostess/host, even though you are you fully aware of the friendship pressures involved.

The Power of Physical Attraction

The liking principle is so powerful that “compliance professionals” (i.e., sales representatives, charitable organizations, political activists, etc.) use it as part of their strategy to persuade us to respond to their requests: before they do anything, they try to get us to like them!

But what are the factors that cause us to like someone? Why do we like some people but not others?

It is well known that physically attractive individuals have a definite advantage over their less comely counterparts when it comes to social interaction. We tend to gravitate naturally toward the “beautiful people.” What you may not know, however, is why we automatically respond more positively to good-looking people.

Decades of research show that we typically assign many favorable traits – such as intelligence, honesty, and kindness – to physically attractive individuals. We do this automatically, without being aware of it, because of a human tendency called “halo effect.” A halo effect occurs when one positive or favorable characteristic (like beauty) of a person influences how the individual is viewed in other areas. If you are good-looking, then we assume that you must have many other positive traits.

It is clear that we have underestimated the extent to which physical attractiveness affects our decisions. The evidence indicates that attractive individuals are more likely to get our votes, to receive better treatment in the legal system, to get help when they need it, and to be more persuasive in changing people’s opinions.

There is no doubt that we like attractive people, even if we don’t know anything else about them. And according to the liking principle, we tend to be more compliant with individuals we like. It’s no wonder, then, that con men usually are handsome and con women are beautiful.

I Like You Because We’re Alike

In addition to liking attractive people, we also tend to like individuals who are similar to us. Similarity can come in different forms – background, education, lifestyle, points of view, personality, and many other things.

Consequently, people can get us to comply with their requests if they simply appear to be like us in a variety of ways. For example, studies have shown that we are more likely to help people who dress like us. Other research has found that people are more likely to buy insurance from a salesperson who is similar to them in terms of age, politics, and even cigarette-smoking habits.

The evidence points to small similarities having a significant effect on our willingness to comply to people’s requests. If you feel that someone is “just like you,” then you will probably like that person and will be more likely to say “yes” to him/her in interpersonal, social, and business situations.

I Like You Because You Praise Me

Most of the time we believe it when someone compliments or praises us, even when the flattery is clearly false. And except for circumstances when our gullibility is being taxed and when we are absolutely certain that the sycophant is trying to manipulate us, we like the person who is handing out the compliments.

One study involved men who were told certain things by someone who needed a favor. Some men got only positive comments, some got only negative comments, and others got a mixture of positive and negative comments. The person providing only praise was liked best by the men, even though they knew that they were being manipulated and even though the positive comments were not accurate. It’s clear that praise, even manipulative praise, works in getting us to like the flatterer.

Familiarity Engenders Liking . . . Sometimes

The evidence indicates that we like the things we are most familiar with. As a rule, we are more favorable toward things we have had contact with. For example, studies have shown that voters often choose a candidate simply because his/her name is familiar to us. Apparently, when we are making decisions we aren’t aware that our attitude toward something has been affected by how much we have been exposed to it.

Familiarity produced by contact doesn’t always lead to greater liking, as illustrated by the effects of school desegregation on race relations. We often see a worsening of hostilities when children of different racial groups are thrown together to compete in classrooms.

But when team-oriented learning is used, studies show that contact plus cooperation increases the chances that children of different racial groups will begin to like each other. As it turns out, if people are given the opportunity to view each other as allies instead of opponents (i.e., in situations involving teamwork to meet group objectives), the “liking process” is activated.

It’s no wonder, then, that compliance professionals often try to give us the impression that they are our teammates who are working with us to achieve the same goals. You are probably familiar with car salespeople who go to battle with his/her boss to get you the best deal. And the “good cop / bad cop” ploy of police interrogators is another good example of staging cooperation to get compliance, in this case from a suspected criminal.

Innocent or Guilty by Association

Have you ever felt angry or hostile toward someone giving you some unpleasant news? Imperial messengers of old Persia were killed if they relayed news of military disaster. Today we understand this phenomenon. Studies have repeatedly shown that we have a natural tendency to dislike anyone who brings bad news, even if they did not cause it.

Sometimes people blame the weatherman for reporting bad weather, but weathermen are also patted on the back when the weather is sunny and pleasant. This principle of association governs both negative and positive connections: if we are connected to something seen as “good,” people will tend to like us, but if we are connected to something perceived as “bad,” we will probably be disliked.

Compliance practitioners understand this principle of association and do everything possible to connect themselves or their products with things we like. Unbelievable as it may seem, good-looking female models actually help to sell cars. Products are not only tied to attractive people, but also to cultural rages (e.g., U.S. space program, Olympics), celebrities, and athletes. The connection doesn't even have to be logical one to work effectively.

Studies have shown that individuals become fonder of people, products, and ideas while they are eating. That is why food is commonly served at political and charitable fundraising events. Through a process of raw association, pleasant feelings can be artificially attached to anything (e.g., political statements, causes, products) closely associated with good food.

Sports and the Association Principle

Most people naturally understand the association principle, even though they aren't always aware of how it operates in daily life. Take, for example, how individuals connect themselves to home sports teams. The feelings fans have for their teams are often intense and personal.

Isaac Asimov explained why sports fans tend to be so passionate by stating, “All things being equal, you root for your own sex, your own culture, your own locality . . . and what you want to prove is that you are better than the other person. Whomever you root for represents you; and when he wins, you win.”

According to the association principle, a winning sports team proves our own superiority. By linking ourselves to success in an artificial way (i.e., simply by living in a particular city or attending a particular school), we feel that we look good to others. In fact, studies have indicated that we purposefully manipulate the visibility of our connections with winners. People are more likely to wear t-shirts and sweatshirts displaying the name of their football team following a game in which the team won. On the other hand, we try to distance ourselves from teams on a losing streak.

We use the principle of association in all aspects of our lives to make ourselves look better in the eyes of others. And we do this simply because we want people to like us more.

Ethical Marketing

Companies can use many avenues to our hearts in their attempts to employ the liking rule and cash in on its benefits. Often there is a fine line between ethical employment of the principle of liking and exploitation of our natural tendency to like things that are physically attractive, familiar, and connected to our lives.

Organizations that use marketing and sales tactics aimed primarily at getting you to like them instead of focusing on the benefits and advantages of their products may be trying to manipulate you to buy unwanted or inferior merchandise.

For example, if you are at a car dealership, and you find that you are liking the salesperson a lot more than you would have expected, you might ask yourself if you have been influenced by her physical attractiveness, her references to similarities between you and her, the many compliments she gave you, her eagerness to go up against the sales manager to get you a better deal, and the tasty doughnut and coffee you were offered.

Companies that don't want you to concentrate on the merits of their products and services may go out their way to engage the liking principle in their marketing and advertising campaigns. Their approach to making sales involves blurring the distinction between the requester and the request. If you realize that your liking for a compliance professional is unwarranted, you might want to step back from the situation and ask yourself if you are being manipulated into making a decision about buying something you really don't need or want.

Learn the six universal principles of influence and how to use them to improve your marketing efforts.

Part 4 of this seven-part series of articles, which are based on Dr. Robert Cialdini’s book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, explains the third principle of influence – Social Proof.

The Third Principle of Influence: Social Proof

Did you ever wonder why certain television shows use canned laughter, even though most people really don’t like it? To get an answer to this question, you need to understand the “principle of social proof,” which states that we determine whether our behavior is “correct” based on what other people think is correct.

Much of our behavior is influenced to some extent by what other people are doing. Although we would never admit it, we often engage in “monkey-see-monkey-do” activities simply because we usually conclude that an action is more appropriate when others are performing it.

Like other principles of influence, the principle of social proof provides a convenient shortcut for figuring out what to do in various situations, without having to spend a lot of time and mental energy. Although we typically get what we need if we act in accord with social evidence, using this shortcut can also get us into trouble from time to time.

So why are laugh tracks used, to the dismay of millions of viewers? Because TV executives know that we tend to take other people’s reactions to humor as evidence of what deserves laughter. And they know that most of us will react automatically even to patently fraudulent laughter. As strange as it may sound, we respond to social evidence in such a mindless, mechanical manner that we can be fooled by fake evidence.

Using Social Evidence for Profit

Our tendency to believe that an action is more appropriate if others are doing it is exploited in various situations. Bartenders have been known to “salt” their tip jars to stimulate tipping. Evangelical preachers have hired “ringers” to give witness at rehearsed times. Charity telethons spend an enormous amount of time reminding viewers how many people have already contributed. And advertisers are prone to tell us when their products are “fastest-growing” or “largest-selling” to give the impression that these products must be good.

All of these tactics are designed to elicit the following response: If other people are taking action, then it must be the correct and proper thing to do! Primed with that seemingly harmless thought, we then follow suit and repeat the behavior we have observed. There is no escape from the widespread assumption that the greater number of people who believe something is correct, the “more correct” it is.

Uncertainty Breeds Pluralistic Ignorance

The principle of social proof has the greatest effect on us when we find ourselves in unclear, uncertain, or ambiguous situations. If we lack confidence in ourselves, we are most likely to look for evidence of the correct action to take in the behavior of other people.

We attempt to resolve our uncertainty by examining and accepting the actions of others. But we forget that the very same people we are turning to for guidance are also examining the social evidence and are probably as uncertain about the situation as we are.

This phenomenon – of looking at and accepting what others are doing, especially in ambiguous situations – is called “pluralistic ignorance.” It’s as if we all nonverbally agree to the idea of “the blind leading the blind.”

Pluralistic ignorance is widespread in our society and it often rears its ugly head in our social, financial, commercial, and political systems. This phenomenon is best demonstrated in the rather common occurrence of individuals being attacked and even murdered in public while bystanders make no effort to intervene.

Bystanders’ nonaction while viewing public violence can easily be explained by the phenomenon of social proof. We typically prefer to appear poised and unflustered in public. During a display of public violence, we search for evidence of how everyone else is acting. Since other people appear to be placid and unruffled, we conclude that the violence we are witnessing is a nonemergency, and therefore take no action. We become mesmerized by our pluralistic ignorance and erroneously assume that nothing is wrong because nobody seems concerned.

Numerous research studies have confirmed what is happening behind the scenes in situations involving bystanders witnessing emergencies in public. The findings reveal that the principle of social proof and the effect of pluralistic ignorance are strongest when an emergency is witnessed by several bystanders who are strangers. Apparently, since we want to look poised in public and are unlikely to correctly interpret the reactions of strangers, a real emergency is often viewed as a nonemergency and no one takes action to help the victim.

Similarity Fosters Imitation

It is clear that the principle of social proof is a powerful factor in situations involving uncertainty. But this principle also has been shown to operate most effectively when we observe the behavior of people we consider similar to ourselves. Thus, we are much more likely to follow the lead of people who are similar to us than who are dissimilar. That is why advertisers use “average-person-on-the-street” testimonials to sell products; if “ordinary” people like and use a product, then ordinary viewers will probably like and use it too.

Scientific research provides compelling confirmation regarding the importance of similarity in determining whether or not we will imitate other people’s behavior. In one study, researchers planted “lost” wallets in various locations in Manhattan. In addition to containing money and the name and address of the “owner,” the wallets contained a letter from a man who supposedly had found the wallet earlier and evidently had lost the wallet again before returning it to its rightful owner.

The letter in some wallets was written in standard English by an “average American,” while other wallets contained a letter written in broken English. The wallets containing the broken English letter was returned only 33% of the time, compared to a return rate of 70% for the wallets containing the standard English letter.

These findings highlight an important qualification of the principle of social proof: we are more likely to use the actions of other people as a basis for our own behavior when we view these people as similar to ourselves.

The Might of Social Proof

A phenomenon referred to as the “Werther effect” further emphasizes the influence of social proof in our society. Research studies have consistently shown that, immediately after a suicide has been publicized, the suicide rate increases significantly in geographical areas where the story was run. The more publicized the story is and the wider the publicity, the greater the increase in the suicide rate.

This propensity for suicides to beget suicides illustrates the potency of the principle of social proof. It appears that troubled individuals, who read about a suicide, are more likely to commit suicide based on how the presumably troubled person acted.

Our tendency to rely on and imitate other people’s behavior, especially when we are confused and uncertain, and especially when we view the other person as similar to us, even applies when it comes to acting on suicidal tendencies. In effect, the very idea of suicide becomes more acceptable or legitimate if we hear of other people committing suicide.

Social proof is a pervasive influence and touches all aspects of our lives. It’s not surprising that we use social evidence (i.e., what others are doing) practically everyday to help us navigate through countless daily decisions. It comes in very handy, and most of the time the information that social proof provides is both valid and valuable.

But what happens when this “automatic-pilot device” is not working properly, when the information we get from social evidence is wrong (as in the case of bystanders witnessing public violence)? Should we try to turn the mechanism off because it fails us from time to time? Or do we just live with the consequences of making unwise decisions based on incorrect data?

Ethical Marketing

Unscrupulous, dishonest organizations hope that we never find a way out of our dilemma and that we allow our social-proof automatic pilot to remain fully engaged at all times. Such organizations want people to navigate blindly and mindlessly because they profit from providing social evidence that has been purposely falsified.

Let’s take a closer look at the average-person-on-the-street commercials in which so-called ordinary people sing the praises of a product. Even though the unreadable fine print states otherwise, sometimes you are led to believe that these testimonials are unrehearsed and are coming from “average” people who are not being paid for their services. More often than not, however, these testimonials are not genuine and are actually scripted lines delivered by actors.

There is nothing unethical about organizations using social proof in their marketing and advertising campaigns to convey the message that their products or services are popular and widely used, as long as the information being provided is valid and does not intentionally obfuscate serious problems with the products or services (e.g., defective products, shoddy workmanship, unreliable service).

We need to be on guard when it comes to phony advertisements that deceptively present a product or service to manipulate us into buying it. This is really our only defense against the auto-pilot device that gets activated every time the social proof principle is operating. In addition, companies that deliberately use the principle of social proof through false or exaggerated claims do not deserve our business.

Learn the six universal principles of influence and how to use them to improve your marketing efforts.

Part 3 of this seven-part series of articles, which are based on Dr. Robert Cialdini’s book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, explains the second principle of influence – Consistency.

The Second Principle of Influence: Consistency

Did you ever wonder why most of us tend to stick to our guns once we’ve made up our minds about something?

There is a good explanation for this phenomenon. After we have made a choice or taken a particular stand, we will undoubtedly behave consistently with the commitment. Certain pressures influence us behind the scenes to respond in ways that justify our choices.

The “principle of consistency” states that we desire to be (or at least to appear) consistent in terms of our beliefs, opinions, actions, and decisions.

This principle applies to all aspects of our lives – psychological, interpersonal, social, financial, religious – and comes into play whenever we make a decision or take action. Essentially, we make every effort, whether we know it or not, to keep our actions and thoughts consistent with what we have already done or decided.

To Be or Not to Be . . . Consistent

The consistency principle is a big motivator of our behavior, so much so that the tendency to be consistent compels us to do things that we might not ordinarily want to do, even if these decisions and actions are contrary to our own best interests.

For example, consider an experiment to determine if onlookers would risk personal harm to stop a crime.  The study involved a research accomplice putting a beach blanket and radio down about five feet away from a randomly selected subject. After a few minutes, the accomplice left to take a walk on the beach. A few minutes later, a second accomplice pretending to be a thief, grabbed the radio and ran off. Only four people out of 20 made any attempt to stop the staged theft.

The same procedure was repeated another 20 times, but with a slight twist. Before taking his stroll on the beach, the accomplice asked the experimental subject to keep an eye on his things. This simple request had dramatic effect on the results, with 19 out of 20 people making rather valiant attempts to pursue the thief and retrieve the stolen radio.

This experiment demonstrates that our need to be consistent is a very powerful motive in the way we behave. It is not difficult to understand why this is so. In most situations, consistency is highly valued and typically is associated with intellectual strength, logic, rationality, stability, and honesty. On the other hand, inconsistency is often associated with the opposite traits.

The Drawbacks of Consistency

Certainly there is a very good reason to be consistent in our daily lives; without consistency, our lives would be erratic, disjointed, and downright difficult.

But automatic consistency does not always yield positive results. Although the habit of behaving consistently may relieve us from the mental energy and hardship of having to weigh the pros and cons every time we take action or make a decision, this shortcut might get us into trouble if we blindly go into default mode.

In addition to using mechanical consistency to deal with complexities in a rather effortless and efficient manner, we rely on consistency to avoid the harsh consequences of cognitive work. When we really think about matters and put in the time to sort through delicate issues, we often happen upon some rather disturbing things about ourselves.

So we end up employing a preprogrammed and mindless approach to resolving our problems as a means to circumvent troubling realizations about who we are and what we do. In other words, relying totally on rigid consistency and refraining from listening to the voice of reason can  protect us from the inconvenient consequences of thought.

Therein lies the biggest shortcoming to automatic consistency. If mechanical consistency shields us against thought (and the “truth”), it’s really not surprising that this human tendency can be easily exploited by people and organizations who want us to respond mindlessly to their requests for compliance. They merely need to structure their interactions with us in such a way that will activate our own need to be consistent.

Commitment: The Key to Consistency

What mobilizes us to be consistent? Research indicates that if we make a commitment (e.g., take a stand, make a promise, choose something) we automatically tend to behave in ways that are congruent with that commitment.

In our daily lives “compliance professionals” bombard us with their commitment strategies. These strategies, which make use of the connection between commitment and consistency, involve first getting us to take some action or to agree to make an assertion (i.e., getting our commitment) and then using pressure later to comply with a particular request (i.e., engaging the principle of consistency).

Studies consistently show that agreeing to a seemingly trivial request makes it much easier to agree to a significantly larger related request. For example, in one study only 17% of homeowners agreed to having a large public-service billboard (reading “Drive Carefully”) installed on their front lawn. A second group of homeowners was asked to display a three-inch square sign (reading “Be a Safe Driver”). Most of these individuals agreed to this small request, and two weeks later 76% of this group agreed to display the much larger billboard on their front lawn.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Research indicates that our actions really do speak louder than our words. We determine what others truly think, believe, and feel by what they do, but not always by what they say. These research findings are not surprising.

What is surprising, however, is this: the same behavioral evidence that people use to figure out who you are is the same information that you use to develop your “self-image,” that picture of yourself that incorporates your values, beliefs, and attitudes.

One particular type of behavior has special importance – writing down what you think, believe, and feel. When you express your values, beliefs, and attitudes in written form, you are essentially making commitments. And when these commitments are made public, they tend to be lasting commitments.

So why do people typically go to great lengths to live up to what they have written down? The answer is a bit more complicated than what you might think.

Let’s go back to the concept of self-image. Once you have gone public with written statements, the principle of consistency shapes your self-image in two ways. Internally, there is tremendous pressure to bring your self-image into line with what you have claimed on paper. Externally, there is additional pressure to adjust your self-image according to the way others perceive you. And since research shows that others see you as believing what you have written down, you are pressured to bring your self-image into line with your written statements.

What all of this boils down to is that you will consistently tend to behave according to your self-image, which is shaped by your actions, including public, written attestations. To others, you are what you do, and your image of yourself is based largely on your deeds! So when you take a visible stand (e.g., commit to something on paper), you are psychologically inclined to behave accordingly and maintain that stand in order to look like you are being consistent.

More Work Means More Commitment

There is mounting evidence that the more effort you put into a commitment, the greater the chances that it will influence your future attitudes and opinions. Various studies have shown that individuals who experience a great deal of trouble or pain to attain something tend to value it more highly than individuals who attain it with little or no effort.

This phenomenon is well demonstrated in the hazing rituals of college fraternities and also the “boot camp” of the armed services. There is no doubt that the rigors, tribulations, and hardships of such initiation rites make these groups appear more attractive and worthwhile and significantly heighten a newcomer’s commitment to the group.

Taking Responsibility

When a commitment is put into action, made public, and involves a degree of effort, it will probably change your self-image and future behavior. But something even more powerful instills commitment in individuals: accepting responsibility.

To clarify this point, take for example the refusal of fraternities to include public-service activities in their initiation rites. They could structure their hazing practices, which involve effortful commitment, around distasteful and strenuous civic activities. But they don’t, even though it would improve their unfavorable public image.

The reason is quite simple. They want their new fraternity members to own what they have done. They don’t want to give the initiates any opportunity to believe that they suffered through a harsh hazing for charitable purposes. They want to engender commitment by forcing would-be fraternity brothers to take complete responsibility for their actions.

Research shows that we accept responsibility for our behavior when we believe we have acted in a certain way without any strong outside pressures. A belief that participating in a hazing ritual helps a deserving charitable organization (which could be construed as an outside pressure) might motivate immediate compliance, but that belief will not get individuals to accept responsibility for their behavior. Consequently, without accepting responsibility, initiates are less likely to feel committed to their fraternity.

The Magic of Inner Change

Commitments that entail inner change (e.g., often experienced by fraternity initiates and military enlistees) tend to last a long time. For example, someone who has been recruited by a charitable organization may shift her self-image to that of a “public-spirited citizen” and is likely to continue volunteering time to the organization and other charities as long as the new self-image remains intact.

There is another advantage to commitments that lead to inner change: external measures are no longer needed to reinforce the desired behavior. The person who now views herself as “civic-minded” will automatically begin to look at herself differently. She will begin to note available community service opportunities, will be more open to arguments that favor civic action, and will generate additional reasons to justify her original commitment. In other words, she will repeatedly assure herself that her choice to volunteer her time was the right choice and will behave consistently (i.e., continue to volunteer) within her new system of beliefs.

Commitments resulting in some kind of inner change often involve building new perceptions about ourselves, a self-image that supports the choices to which we have become committed.

Throwing a Lowball

Automobile salespeople frequently use the tactic called “throwing a lowball” in which a prospect is offered an excellent price on a car. It is not a genuine good deal, however; it’s only purpose is to entice an individual to buy a car. After the prospect considers buying the car for the stated price, the commitment to purchase is reinforced by the automatic tendency to develop additional reasons (besides getting a good price) to support the choice to buy.

After taking the car out for a test drive, completing purchase forms, and arranging for financing (all of which are intended to elongate the process and allow commitment to blossom and grow), something happens. A calculation “error” is discovered, or the sales manager cancels the originally offered price, or something occurs that puts the transaction on hold.  Then a new (but still “competitive”) price is offered.

Although the many variations of “throwing a lowball” don’t work on everybody, this sales tactic is sufficiently effective to be used by many car dealers. They know that personal commitment is a powerful ally. Once a commitment is made (even those gotten by exploitation), people will almost immediately build a support system to justify the commitment. More often than not, these justifications are so strong that the decision to buy is not affected even when the original inducement (i.e., price that is “too good to be true”) is removed from the table.

Lowballs are frequently thrown at us outside of the automobile showroom. It’s not unusual for this “give-it-and-then-take-it-away-later” tactic to be used in personal, social, and business situations.

For instance, someone might promise you something to get you to do a favor and then renege on the promise after you have performed the favor. Even after the promise is withdrawn, you may still be pleased with your compliant behavior simply because you have undergirded your commitment with other reasons for the choice you made.

Ethical Marketing

Unscrupulous companies may take advantage of the natural connection between commitment and consistency. They may throw prospects a lowball or use other marketing and sales tactics that are designed to put the natural commitment process in motion without raising anyone’s eyebrows. These organizations may do everything in their power to exploit people’s automatic tendency to remain consistent. Tricks and gimmicks are often used to elicit a seemingly innocuous commitment (a “small yes” to a request or offer) from unwary prospects, who are then lead down the sometimes costly path to the “big yes” of purchasing unwanted or worthless products.

Ethical organizations undoubtedly use their knowledge of the principle of consistency to influence the buying decisions of prospective customers. There is nothing dishonest about using legitimate marketing approaches that ask individuals to make a commitment, as long as the request or offer is made in the spirit of fairness and transparency.

For example, it is completely acceptable to ask individuals to commit to using a free sample or service without any strings attached. If the rules of accepting such an offer are adequately spelled out and exploitative measures are not operating in the background, then consumers are allowed to make their own choices freely. Of course, organizations that use such marketing and sales approaches are hoping that the initial commitments from prospective customers energize the principle of consistency and ultimately contribute to their profitability.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Emerson understood the difference between the type of consistency that has great value in our daily lives and the type that is rigid and blind.

Unethical, under-the-radar marketing and sales practices essentially are employed to exploit people’s tendency to give in to “foolish consistency.” These marketing and sales programs are specifically designed to prey on imprudent individuals and to unfairly activate the “consistency and commitment” button to influence people to buy inferior and overpriced products and services.

Learn the six universal principles of influence and how to use them to improve your marketing efforts.

Part 2 of this seven-part series of articles, which are based on Dr. Robert Cialdini’s book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, explains the first principle of influence -- Reciprocation.

The First Principle of Influence: Reciprocation

If you ever felt inclined to return a favor, then you have experienced the power of the "rule of reciprocation." This rule states that we should make every attempt to repay, in kind, anyone who gives us something.

Cultural anthropologists have determined that this rule, which has been established in all societies, has a powerful social purpose. The reciprocity rule promotes the development of reciprocal relationships because it encourages individuals to initiate an exchange without the fear of loss. In other words, if you give something (for example, food, energy, or care) to someone, this rule gives you confidence that you will be repaid in kind at some point in the future.

The process of socialization deeply implants within us a sense of obligation to repay anything that is given to us. Since we understand the social sanctions for violating this rule, we will do everything in our power always to abide by it and to take responsibility for our indebtedness.

The rule of reciprocation is so pervasive in our society that we rarely give it a second thought. The tactics of reciprocity appear at every level in politics. Its influence is evident whenever “free” products or services are being offered to consumers. And this rule governs many interpersonal situations that do not involve politics, money, or commercial exchange (e.g., favors, gifts, invitations).

Uninvited Debts

Studies have shown that the reciprocity rule is so powerful that we are more likely to comply with requests from people we might ordinarily dislike (unwelcome salespeople, disagreeable acquaintances, representatives of unpopular organizations) if they merely do us a small favor prior to making their requests.

These studies underscore an important aspect of this rule -- anyone can trigger a feeling of indebtedness by doing us an uninvited favor. The rule of reciprocation does not require us to ask for anything we have received in order for us to feel obligated to repay. We might feel a stronger sense of obligation to return a favor we have requested, but we still feel indebted to people who give us things we do not ask for. How many times have you felt the twinge of obligation whenever you receive a “gift” from a nonprofit organization asking for a contribution?

Given the natural cultural forces favoring reciprocation arrangements in our societies, there is not only an obligation to repay, but also an obligation to receive. This obligation to receive, which intrinsically serves a social purpose, makes the reciprocity rule easy to exploit because such an obligation essentially eliminates our ability to choose whom we wish to be indebted to.

More often than not, we yield to the social pressures of the deeply ingrained reciprocity rule and feel obligated to accept an uninvited gift or favor and then feel indebted to the donor.

Unfair Exchanges

Established to promote equal exchanges between partners, the reciprocity rule demands that a gift or favor is to be reciprocated with a similar gift or favor. Unfortunately, this rule can easily be exploited for profit by unscrupulous individuals. People can easily be manipulated into an unfair exchange and agree to returning a favor that is substantially larger than the obligating first favor.

Why do small gifts or favors from others often stimulate larger return gifts or favors? The answer to this question is simple: because we typically feel uncomfortable when we are indebted to others, and we feel shame if we do not make a reasonable attempt to reciprocate.

Reciprocal arrangements are extremely vital for the functioning of our social systems. We are conditioned from birth to feel discomfort when we owe something to someone. If we didn’t feel this way, and we did not feel the need to return gifts and favors, then reciprocal relationships and exchanges would stop dead in their tracks. Since this is not in the best interest of society, we are trained to feel beholden to benefactors. In addition, individuals who do not conform to the dictates of the reciprocity rule are usually disliked by their social groups.

Thus, we are often willing to return a larger favor than we received simply to relieve ourselves of this psychological burden of debt and to avoid being called a “moocher,” “welsher,” or “ingrate.”

It’s no wonder, then, that we typically avoid asking for a needed favor if we are not in a position to repay it in the future. And it’s totally understandable why we often decline certain gifts or favors if we know we will feel uncomfortable accepting them (e.g., an expensive gift, a drink from a stranger at a bar).

Reciprocal Concessions

The straightforward way to employ the reciprocity rule is to provide someone with a gift or favor and then ask for one in return. The rule dictates that we repay gifts and favors we have received.

There is a subtle, indirect route, however, to achieve the same results. Let’s say that a Girl Scout asked you to buy a raffle ticket for ten dollars but you declined because you didn’t want to spend that much money. Then suppose you were asked to buy a chocolate bar for two dollars. It’s highly likely that you would buy the chocolate bar, even if you didn’t like chocolate. Why would you do that?

One of the consequences of the rule of reciprocation is the feeling of obligation to make a concession to someone who has made a concession to us. But you might argue, “There was no concession on the part of the Girl Scout to begin with!”

Actually, the Girl Scout’s request that you buy the chocolate bar was a bone fide concession because it was presented as a retreat from the request to buy the ten-dollar raffle ticket. The reciprocation rule requires that one concession be reciprocated with another concession. The tendency to reciprocate a concession may not be so strong as to work in all situations with all people, but we all feel the tug of reciprocal concession nevertheless.

Members in society are expected to work together toward the achievement of common goals. Conventions, like mutual concession, are put in place to promote compromise whenever incompatible desires exist. The obligation to reciprocate a concession encourages socially desirable arrangements by ensuring that individuals who initiate such arrangements are not exploited. If we weren’t obligated to reciprocate a concession, then there would be no incentive to begin the compromise process.

The “Rejection-Then-Retreat” Technique

Since it appears that the rule for reciprocation governs the compromise process, an initial concession can be used as part of a “rejection-then-retreat” technique that can be highly successful in eliciting compliance.

One way of increasing your chances of getting someone to say “yes” to a request is to initially ask for more than you want. After the larger request is rejected, you “retreat” by making a smaller request, one that you were interested in to begin with. If your requests are structured skillfully, your second request would be viewed as a concession. The reciprocity rule should kick in at this point and the individual should respond with a concession, which would probably be compliance with your second (smaller) request.

A number of psychological experiments have been designed to determine if the rejection-then-retreat technique could be used with genuinely sizable requests. The question posed by these experiments was: “Does the smaller request to which a requester retreats have to be a small request for the technique to work effectively?”

The findings from these experiments indicated that compliance to a request is more likely if the requester’s retreat from a larger to smaller favor appear to be a concession. In other words, the second request can be one that is objectively large, as long as it is smaller than the first request.

The results also suggested that the larger the initial request, the more effective the compliance technique, since there is more room available for making concessions. The tactic backfires, however, if the first request is viewed as unreasonable, since retreats from unrealistic initial requests are not considered as genuine concessions, and subsequently are not reciprocated.

The Compliance Cycle

At this point you might be thinking that there must be a drawback to using the rejection-then-retreat technique. Don’t people resent being manipulated into compliance? Because of this resentment, wouldn’t people refuse to live up to any verbal agreement? And if they actually did follow through with what they originally agreed to, wouldn’t people simply refuse to deal with the manipulative requester again out of distrust?

Strangely enough, research indicates that these types of negative reactions are less likely to occur when the rejection-then-retreat technique is used. The evidence suggests that this compliance strategy gets people to agree to a desired request, to carry out the request, AND surprisingly to agree to additional requests. So why are people who are duped into compliance so willing to continue to comply?

We already know that the reciprocity rule states that a concession will probably stimulate a return concession, as long as the requester’s initial request is not unreasonable or is considered a manipulative ploy. But we haven’t examined other findings unearthed by research studies, which show that there are two positive by-products of the act of concession.

When people concede in response to an initial concession made by someone attempting to elicit compliance to a request, they tend to feel both responsible and satisfied with the arrangement that has been made. These feelings of responsibility and satisfaction motivate individuals to engage in further agreements. In other words, once an individual has agreed to do something, he/she is likely to continue to agree to do other things.

Psychological experiments clearly have demonstrated that a requester’s concessions during negotiations causes individuals to feel responsible for “dictating” the final agreement. It’s understandable, then, that people will be more likely to follow through with an agreement if they feel responsible for the terms of the contract.

The experimental evidence also indicates that agreements that have come about through concessions (i.e., during negotiations) are quite satisfying. When concessions are used to bring about compliance, people are likely to feel satisfied with the final arrangements of a deal. It stands to reason that this feeling of satisfaction increases the chances of individuals agreeing to other such arrangements in the future.

Ethical Marketing

There is nothing inherently wrong with the reciprocity rule; it serves a valuable purpose in society. The problem arises when people and organizations try to exploit it and take advantage of unwary individuals.

Understanding the principle of reciprocation can be helpful in developing highly successful marketing campaigns, as long as your offers for products and services are honest and not the initial steps in attempts at exploitation.

If you play by the social rules of the reciprocation game, you are participating fairly in the “honored network of obligation” that benefits society. However, if your initial favors (or gifts) are marketing and sales tricks designed specifically to obtain compliance with a larger return favor, keep in mind that the rule states that favors are to be met with favors.

If you use gifts as sales devices intended to exploit the public, alert consumers will see you as a wolf in sheep’s clothing and will most likely decline your offer without even feeling a tug from the reciprocity rule. As Dr. Cialdini states, “A favor rightly follows a favor – not a piece of sales strategy.”

Have you ever read a book that really made you think about things in a totally different way?  I just finished reading such a book and decided to digest its contents in a series of seven articles.

I am not the only one who gives high marks to Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini.  The Journal of Marketing Research has concluded that “For marketers, it is among the most important books written in the last 10 years.”  In Part 1 of this series, I outline Dr. Cialdini’s major premises regarding factors that influence us whenever we make a choice or take action.

Triggers and Behavioral Patterns

After studying the behavior of animals for several decades, ethologists have determined that most species are subject to “fixed action patterns,” which are automatic responses to certain “trigger features” in their environment.

For example, when a male animal defends its territory in the presence of another male of the same species, the rival male as a whole doesn’t trigger the territorial defense behavior. Instead, the trigger often is just one very small aspect of the intruder. In the case of male robins, the trigger is red breast feathers. Experiments have shown that male robins will attack a clump of red breast feathers but will not attack a perfect, stuffed replica of a male robin without red breast feathers.

You might be asking at this point what all of this has to do with the psychology of persuasion as it pertains to your marketing efforts. Just bear with me, because it turns out that humans also have certain fixed behavioral patterns in response to virtually transparent trigger features in their environment.

In other words, we engage in blindly mechanical patterns of behavior in response to things of which we have little or no awareness. Let’s dig a bit deeper and find out what the universal human triggers are!

Behavioral Shortcuts

It’s not any big surprise that human beings are wired like other animals in the animal kingdom. Automatic, stereotyped behavior is very common in the world of human action. What’s important to the study of influence and persuasion is understanding why we respond so automatically and mechanically to certain things.

Our world has become increasingly more complicated, and we are forced to respond to an environment that involves an overwhelming number of stimuli. We need shortcuts to cope with all of this complexity.

Instead of analyzing all aspects of things we encounter everyday, we use “rules of thumb” to organize matters according to a few key features and respond rather mindlessly when one or more of these key features is present.

Stereotyped behavior is not necessarily a terrible thing, especially when it is the most efficient form of behaving in a given situation. We don’t always have the time, energy, or capacity to respond in any other way. As environmental stimuli saturate our lives more and more, we are likely to rely more heavily on these behavioral shortcuts.

Our automatic responses to certain triggers in our environment often save us lots of time and get us the results we want. But sometimes things backfire and our mindless choices create headaches and cause additional problems.

Invisible Forces

Let’s consider the experience of a tire company that mailed coupons (involving a printing error) that offered no savings to customers. The error was eventually corrected and new coupons were mailed. What’s interesting is that the coupons that offered absolutely no savings produced as much customer response as did the coupons that offered substantial savings.

We have learned to behave mechanically on the assumption that discount coupons will not only save us money but will also save us the time and mental energy needed to save that money. The tire company’s coupon (whether or not it offered actual savings) functioned as a trigger feature eliciting an automatic behavior pattern that is based on this prevalent assumption.

Although we are relying more frequently on automatic behavior patterns to get us through our stress-filled days, most people know very little about these patterns. And what’s more, we take action without any awareness of how some individuals and organizations are using their knowledge of “human triggers” to influence our decisions and choices.

Unlike animals who instinctively respond to certain situations, we develop automatic responses to psychological principles that we have been taught to accept. We rarely perceive the power of these principles because they are so pervasive and we are subjected to them early in life. These basic principles essentially operate as invisible forces of influence in the course of human interaction.

Principles of Influence

Dr. Cialdini has identified the following six major principles of influence that pervade all aspects of our personal, social, and business lives:

• Reciprocation – This principle states that we should make every attempt to repay, in kind, anyone who give us something.
• Consistency – This principle states that we desire to be (or at least to appear) consistent in terms of our beliefs, opinions, actions, and decisions.
• Social Proof – This principle states that we determine whether our behavior is “correct” based on what other people think is correct.
• Liking – This principle states that we generally prefer to say “yes” to the requests of someone we know and like.
• Authority – This principle states that we have a deep-seated sense of duty to authority in society.
• Scarcity – This principle states that things and opportunities seem more valuable to us when their availability is limited.

In Parts 2-7 of this series, I will discuss the above principles and how they operate behind the scenes to influence people’s buying behavior and decisions.

This is the third article in a series of three articles about improving business profitability by implementing strategic measures for managing employees. Find out how to address training issues that typically create nightmares for many organizations.

Employee Development Contributes to Organizational Health

Most companies give little or no thought to all the ways in which the training and development of their employees can contribute to long-term organizational health and profitability. More often than not, organizations take the point of view that training is a “necessary evil” that must be provided to employees.

Unfortunately, many training programs have not kept up with the times and usually do not meet major organizational objectives. Companies tend to go through the motion of “training” their employees. The biggest mistake is failing to examine current training programs and assuming that they automatically help employees become more productive, quality oriented, safety conscious, and committed to the organization.

For companies to reap the financial benefits of training programs, it is important to examine the effectiveness of current approaches for educating employees. In addition, it is critical for organizational leaders to adopt the perspective that “employee development” is one of the many keys for improving profitability. Leaders also need to understand that employee development should address not only technical knowledge and skills, but also job-related traits that embody company values and contribute to primary business goals.

Ghouls That Disrupt Training Programs

An effective selection system does not guarantee that employees will be successful on the job. A training and development program that delivers the desired results is absolutely required to ensure that each employee is contributing positively to a company’s bottom line. To get the results you want, however, you need to address a number of spooky training issues. If you think you are being haunted by uncontrollable poltergeists that disrupt your training and development programs, you are not alone!

The following training ghouls have created hair-raising disturbances in companies for a long time:

• High training costs. Training costs are escalating because designing, delivering, and managing training programs are becoming significantly more complex.
• Limited training time. Given the number of business challenges requiring attention today, the amount of time available for training employees keeps shrinking.
• Inadequate training content. Training programs often do not provide relevant, comprehensive information to employees in all major subject matter areas.
• Poor follow through. Most organizations have difficulties in providing effective on-the-job development opportunities after employees complete formal classroom training.
• Motivation and capability issues. Money spent on training unmotivated employees who are not capable of learning is an expense that has hair-raising effects on a company’s profitability.
• Poor retention. Since the amount of information needed for job success continues to grow, most employees find it difficult to remember everything covered in training programs.

Although companies tend to struggle with various specters that interfere with daily business operations, certain techniques can be used to minimize the disturbances created by these invisible forces.

Ghostbusting Strategies That Work

If you want to address issues that historically have strangled your business profitability, consider the following measures when designing or enhancing your training programs:

BizTip #1 – Link your training programs to the hiring process.

If employees cannot succeed in your training programs, they are unlikely to succeed on the job. Therefore, make sure that you identify and hire employees who have the required skills, abilities, and traits for learning what is needed for effective job performance.

BizTip #2 – Incorporate “accelerated learning” principles and techniques.

A large, scientific body of knowledge about human learning has developed over the past three decades. These findings have practical implications for developing training programs that promote faster learning, motivate people to learn, and increase the retention of information.

BizTip #3 – Communicate high expectations.

Research has shown that people tend to attain a level of achievement corresponding to expectations that are clearly and consistently communicated. Training programs that do not emphasize personal responsibility for learning and the importance of mastering job-related skills typically fail to encourage employees to meet job expectations.

BizTip #4 – Provide regular feedback to individuals.

If people do not know how they are performing in a training program or what they can do to improve job performance, they will probably not make any attempt to improve. Providing feedback to employees regarding their knowledge and skills usually motivates individuals to make improvements in the required areas.

BizTip #5 – Recognize and reward good performance.

Most training programs do not make adequate use of motivational techniques that encourage employees to work harder and learn more. Recognizing and rewarding certain behaviors can contribute significantly to improving performance in learning environments and on the job.

What’s in Your Training Bag of Tricks?

The haunting issues of exorbitant training costs, insufficient training time, poorly motivated employees, and inadequate retention of information can be managed to some extent by ensuring that your training programs involve the right “content” and “process.” The kind of information provided to employees and how the information is conveyed contribute both to training success and job success.

Most companies realize the importance of providing training to their employees in all crucial areas. But few organizations use techniques that speed up the learning process and help employees apply what they learn. Being comprehensive without employing effective learning techniques normally will not give organizations the results they need.

Training and development programs should be designed to accelerate learning while providing all the information needed for effective job performance. To overcome your business challenges, consider including the following design features in your training programs:

BizTip #6 – Maximize efficiency by structuring the learning process.

Both classroom and on-the-job activities should be highly structured to help employees get the most out of learning in the time available. Information provided earlier in a training program should create “building blocks” for information provided later.

BizTip #7 – Promote an accelerated learning environment.

All aspects of a training program should optimize learning by creating a relaxed but stimulating atmosphere. Research has shown that people learn faster and remember more when the learning experience is interesting and fun.

BizTip #8 – Focus on all key subject matter areas.

Make sure that your training programs cover all technical and nontechnical areas that contribute to job success. Don’t forget about nontechnical subject matter relating to customer service, safety, and documentation.

BizTip #9 – Emphasize the application of knowledge.

“Hands-on” learning should be emphasized to meet the learning needs of employees. Consistently remind employees of what they are expected to learn and why they need to know the material. This approach to learning establishes expectations and highlights the practical significance of the information being conveyed..

BizTip #10 – Use collaborative learning techniques.

Studies have indicated that communication, cooperation, and teamwork help people learn material faster. Training programs should include a variety of classroom and on-the-job activities that foster collaboration and problem solving among employees.

Making Investment Decisions That Won’t Drive You Batty

Every time you set aside time for employees to learn what they need to know, you are essentially making an investment decision. You are wagering that the effort and expense of training your employees will give you good business returns in the form of higher productivity, better quality of work, enhanced customer service, and fewer accidents.

Since employee development is a never-ending process that should never be neglected, it makes sense to use the best ghostbusting techniques to exorcise training problems that have haunted your organization for years. Instead of going through the motion of “training” your employees and not getting the results you want, make investment decisions that increase the chances that employees will learn everything they need to know to be successful on the job.

Interested in Part 1 of this article?  Read "Strategizing for Profitability: The Key to Business Success (Part 1.1)"

Interested in Part 2 of this article?  Read "Strategizing for Profitability: Are Your Employees Costing You Money or Making You Money (Part 2.1)"

Sometimes our clients ask us to develop materials that address organization issues. We wrote the following article in response to a client’s request to help them improve their safety training program for new hires.

Have you done any of the following things while driving your vehicle?

• Talk on your cell phone
• Send a text message
• Look at a map
• Search for a CD
• Program your GPS
• Eat something messy
• Gaze at a billboard
• Daydream

The above activities normally wouldn’t hurt you, but they can become deadly (for you or someone else) when they are performed when you’re behind the wheel!

What exactly is distracted driving?

Whenever you are engaging in an activity that takes your mind off of driving safely, you are allowing yourself to become distracted. “Distracted driving” has become a major safety hazard on American roads and is a big cause of accidents that result in serious injury or death.

In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported that 5,870 people lost their lives and an estimated 515,000 people were injured in accidents in which driver distraction was noted on the police report. The NHTSA concluded that distracted driving is probably a much greater problem than what these statistics indicate because the numbers of deaths and injuries represent only “reported” distractions.

Keep in mind that every single time you take your eyes or focus off the road while you’re driving, even for a second or two, you are putting your life and the lives of others in jeopardy. And it’s just as important to constantly remind yourself that other people’s distracted driving habits can get you in a heap of trouble if you don’t stay focused and alert at all times.

Why is distracted driving a problem?

What difference does it make then if you take your eyes off the road or focus on something other than driving for a second or two? The answer to this question is simple . . . It’s the difference between life and death!

Most drivers are unaware of how long it takes to bring a vehicle to a complete stop at different speeds. With each passing second – from the moment you recognize that you need to stop your vehicle to the moment that your vehicle actually comes to a stop – your vehicle is traveling further than you might think. Let’s use an example to give you an idea of what’s involved whenever you need to come to a complete stop.

Suppose you have ideal conditions for stopping your vehicle. That means that at the very minimum you have dry pavement, you have excellent visibility, your brakes are in tip-top shape, you’re not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, AND you are paying full attention to your driving (i.e., you’re not being distracted by anything).

Under these ideal conditions, let’s say that you are driving down the road at 50 mph and you are approaching an intersection where you have a green light. About 250 feet before you reach the intersection, a car lurches into the intersection, stalls, and comes to a dead stop right in the middle of the intersection. There is no “escape route,” so you are forced to put on your brakes to avoid an accident.

We can estimate the total distance that your vehicle would travel before coming to a complete stop, which is called the “overall stopping distance.” This total distance is based on the following three types of distance traveled:

• Thinking Distance – The distance traveled while you determine if a hazard actually exists and you decide that braking is necessary.
• Reaction Distance – The distance traveled while you transfer your foot to the brakes.
• Braking Distance – The distance traveled while you apply the brakes and “braking mechanics” come into play to slow the vehicle down and eventually stop it.

Table 1 below provides the estimated “overall stopping distance” for a vehicle traveling at 50 mph under ideal conditions. The average time needed for “thinking” and “reaction” is based on estimates used by many driver safety experts.

Table 1 – Estimated Overall Stopping Distance Under Ideal Conditions

Type of Distance                               Average Time Needed       Distance Traveled
Thinking Distance                               .8 second                              59 feet
Reaction Distance                              .7 second                              51 feet
Braking Distance                                Not applicable                      125 feet
Estimated Overall Stopping Distance                                             235 feet

In this example, the driver needed to stop the vehicle within 300 feet. The “average” driver under ideal conditions would have been able to stop the vehicle in time to avoid a serious accident.

But what would happen if we added distracted driving to the equation?  Table 2 below provides the estimated “overall stopping distance” for a vehicle traveling at 50 mph under ideal conditions, except for one variable – that the driver is distracted because he/she is looking at a map.

Table 2 – Estimated Overall Stopping Distance Under Ideal Conditions, Except That Driver Is Distracted

Type of Distance                               Average Time Needed        Distance Traveled
Thinking Distance                              1.8 seconds                           132 feet
Reaction Distance                             .7 second                                51 feet
Braking Distance                               Not applicable                        125 feet
Estimated Overall Stopping Distance                                              308 feet

In this second example, note that we have added only one second to “thinking” because the driver was distracted for this length of time.  The reaction distance and braking distance remain the same as in the first example.  Since it takes the distracted driver an extra second to realize that a road hazard exists ahead, an additional 73 feet are traveled before the vehicle comes to a complete stop.  In this case, there would have been an accident, causing serious injury or even death.

How long does it take to stop a vehicle in real-life situations?

Don’t forget that we have been talking about hypothetical situations involving ideal conditions. The distances indicated above are essentially underestimates of what would occur in most real-life situations. Since we rarely drive when all conditions are perfect, it takes a lot longer to stop a vehicle than you might think.

Let’s say that you were driving in a residential area at only 30 mph. The road is wet and visibility is poor because it’s raining. Your brakes are badly worn and have been making strange sounds lately. Since you got only five hours of sleep last night, you are still a bit sleepy. You decide to make a phone call, and you take your eyes off the road for a split second to pick the phone up. At the very moment you take your eyes off the road, out of the blue, a child darts into the road right in front of your vehicle.

In ideal conditions without any distracted driving involved, your vehicle would travel about 111 feet before it came to a complete stop (yes, this is correct – do the math!). If we didn’t add any extra stopping distance caused by bad visibility, poor road conditions, less-than-adequate brakes, and grogginess from lack of sleep, BUT we added a half-second of time for you to glance at your phone when you were picking it up, your vehicle would travel an extra 22 feet (for a total of 133 feet) before you would be able to stop it completely.

In this example, we’re not sure if you hit the child or not. But you can see that a vehicle going 30 mph can travel quite a distance before coming to a complete stop, even under the best of conditions. If you factor in distracted driving, wouldn’t you want that extra 22 feet to increase your chances of NOT hitting the child that ran into the street?

Table 3 below might help remind you how far vehicles travel at different speeds in only one short second.

Table 3 – Distance a Vehicle Travels in ONLY ONE SECOND at Different Speeds

Speed         Distance Traveled
70 mph       103 feet
60 mph       88 feet
50 mph       73 feet
40 mph       59 feet
30 mph       44 feet
20 mph       29 feet
10 mph       15 feet

What can you do about distracted driving?

Many things may be out of your control as a driver, but there is definitely one thing that you CAN control. You always have the choice of remaining observant and alert while you are driving!

If you choose to allow distracted driving to become part of the equation, then you are choosing to live dangerously. And you are also putting other people’s lives on the line!

Don’t you agree that you should focus only on your driving when you are behind the wheel? A split second of distraction can make the difference between life and death!

13 Simple Steps for Taming the Strange Beast in Your Life

Do you know what job stress is? If someone asked you, would you be able to give a clear definition of what it is? Are you aware of job stress in your daily life?

Job stress is a strange beast! Most people have experienced it but would be hard pressed to explain what it is. And many individuals are not even aware that they are experiencing job stress on a daily basis.

Let’s explore this rather shadowy but ever-present headache and ways you might be able to get it under control!

What exactly is job stress?

We have all heard about it and we have all felt its effects. But we usually don’t take a step back and ask ourselves what job stress is and how it affects our lives.

Job stress (also called “workplace stress”) is usually defined as the harmful physical, emotional, and psychological reactions that you experience when:

• Your capabilities, resources, or needs do not match the requirements of your job very well
• Your job places high demands on you but you have little or no control over the outcomes

How common is job stress?

Our world is becoming more complicated and our future is becoming more uncertain. So it’s no wonder that research is showing that stress in the workplace has been increasing over time:

• A study done by a life insurance company found that 40% of workers reported that their job is “very or extremely stressful.” In addition, 25% of employees felt that their jobs contributed to their stress more than anything else.
• A non-profit organization studying workplace stress found that about 25% of workers feel they are “often or very often burned out or stressed by their work.”
• A survey conducted by a research organization indicated that 75% of people believe that workers today experience more on-the-job stress than workers a generation ago.
• A Gallup Poll found that 80% of people experience job stress and that almost half of all employees feel that they need help in coping with this stress.

So if you are feeling stressed out at work, you’re not alone!

Some jobs are inherently more stressful than others. No one would argue that jobs involving danger, like police and firefighter work, create stress. And it’s clear to most people that high demanding jobs, like customer service and healthcare work, also entail lots of stress.

But did you ever think that repetitive, detailed work is stressful? Research studies indicate that manufacturing jobs and other work involving detail and repetition can be very stressful to most people.

It appears, then, that stress is not limited to certain jobs or industries. It shows it’s threatening face just about everywhere you look!

What are the warning signs of job stress?

Although a little stress at work can actually motivate you and keep you on your toes, prolonged job stress in heavy doses can damage your physical and mental health. That’s why it’s important to put it on your radar so that you can keep it under control.

It’s easy to get caught up in the nitty-gritty of your life and to overlook evidence that job stress is seriously affecting you. You may be feeling that things aren’t quite right, but you may not question why you feel so out of balance.

Any combination of the following symptoms or “warning signs” might indicate that you are experiencing excessive stress at work:

    Physical Symptoms

• Fatigue / sluggishness
• Headaches
• Muscle tension
• Difficulty concentrating
• Loss of sex drive
• Stomach problems
• Sleeping problems
• Chronic health problems

    Psychological Symptoms

• Anger
• Frustration
• Irritability
• Impatience
• Negativity
• Cynicism
• Mood swings
• Apathy / loss of interest
• Boredom
• Anxiety
• Depression
• Alienation / social withdrawal

    Behavioral Symptoms

• Conflicts with family, friends, and co-workers
• Increased use of alcohol or drugs
• Absenteeism or being late for work

Of course, you may also be experiencing stress in other areas of your life besides work. Regardless of its source, prolonged stress can be debilitating and can have serious consequences if you don’t take any corrective action.

What are the causes of job stress?

There are two main schools of thought regarding the causes of workplace stress. The first theory focuses on internal factors (or “worker characteristics”), and the second theory focuses on external factors (or “working conditions”).

The theory that emphasizes what’s going on inside of us argues that we are all different and that the things that are stressful for one person may not be stressful for another. This school of thought calls attention to our “individual differences,” such as personality traits and our coping skills.

The second theory states that certain external (or environmental) conditions, such as the following, inherently induce stress:

• Fear of losing one’s job
• Excessive workload demands
• Pressure to meet deadlines
• Pressure to work at optimal levels at all times
• Pressure to meet increased expectations
• Lack of control over work-related decisions and outcomes
• Unclear or conflicting job expectations
• Inadequate work direction or supervision
• Dangerous working conditions
• Demanding or angry customers
• Excessive overtime
• Changing work hours or rotating work schedules
• Inflexible work hours
• Frequent emergencies demanding immediate response

It seems that both theories have something important to say about job stress. On the one hand, you will be in a better position to deal with stress if you understand your own personality traits and what makes you feel stressed out. On the other hand, if you are aware of the common environmental factors that contribute to job stress in most people’s lives, you may pay more attention to them and recognize when they are affecting you negatively.

What things might stress you out on a brand new job?

Most individuals feel greater stress whenever things change in their lives. It’s typical for someone to get more anxious when they get married, have a baby, move into a new house, or start a new job. Feeling overwhelmed by these things is quite normal mostly because change involves uncertainty and confusion about what the future has in store for us.

Learning how to become successful on a new job can be very stressful at times. The job itself has its challenges, and it places certain demands on you. But the degree of stress that you experience on the job will depend primarily on how you look at things and how you cope with expectations and difficulties.

The first couple of months on a new job may be the most difficult for you because you may not be completely confident in your ability to complete your job tasks. At first, the job may feel overwhelming and you may question whether or not you are doing things correctly. As you become more familiar with the technical aspects of the job, however, your self-confidence will grow and you will experience less stress over time.

Sometimes stress is self-imposed because you feel that you shouldn’t get stressed out and because you think that you are the only person having problems. It’s important to remember that most people feel some kind of stress during the first few months on a new job. Stress simply comes with the territory!

How can you reduce job stress in your life?

Although people experience job stress in one way or another, everyone seems to handle it differently. How you cope with stress can make a big difference to your productivity, safety, and overall well-being at work and at home.

Your ability to manage your own stress can make the difference between success or failure on the job. And reducing your job stress can significantly increase your job satisfaction and improve your relationships with co-workers and managers.

You can do a number of things to reduce stress on the job and enhance your work life. But the first step in fighting stress is to take responsibility for your own physical and emotional well-being. If you don’t do anything about stress you experience, whether it’s coming from your job or other areas of your life, it’s not likely to evaporate on its own.

If you find that stress at work is affecting your job performance or is making you feel less satisfied with your job, it’s time to take action. The better you feel physically and psychologically, the stronger you will be to combat the ongoing onslaught of stress.

Try several of the stress-reduction techniques indicated below. Even changing some small things in your life can make a big difference in the amount of stress you are experiencing. As you make more positive choices, you will soon notice that you are able to manage your own stress and feel better about your work and home life.

1.  Talk to someone you trust.

If your stress is overwhelming and your anxiety is out of control, ask someone you trust to help you. Simply talking about your fears and worries with a spouse, friend, supervisor, or co-worker may significantly reduce your stress. Getting support and understanding from someone you trust often opens up new avenues for taking positive action to address stress in your life.

2.  Take a short break.

If you notice that you are having problems with stress on a particular day at work, take a short break to clear your mind. Maybe taking a brisk walk or closing your eyes and relaxing for a few minutes might help. Sometimes merely focusing on something else for a brief moment can reduce stress almost immediately.

3.  Exercise regularly.

Nothing seems to have a more immediate effect on stress than aerobic exercise (e.g., running, biking, swimming). When you exercise, substances (called “endorphins”) that are released in the brain induce a sense of well-being and satisfaction. Try to get at least 30 minutes of aerobic exercise (i.e., the kind that makes you sweat a little) three or more times per week to boost your energy, lift your spirits, calm your nerves, and relax your body.

4.  Take time to relax every day.

When you are feeling anxious and stressed out, you often forget about relaxing. One of the best ways to deal with stress is to introduce at least 20-30 minutes of relaxation into your daily routine. This means finding a quiet place away from distractions where you can be alone. Lie down or sit comfortably in a chair, close your eyes, and go to a place in your mind’s eye where you can relax and feel at peace. By using this type of relaxation technique, you will be able to decrease your anxiety, reduce muscle tension and pain, and improve your moods around other people.

5.  Use your diaphragm to breathe.

Breathing slowly and deeply with your diaphragm (i.e., belly) is one of the easiest and best ways to control anxiety created by stress in your life.  The purpose of breathing is to get oxygen into the cells of your body and to eliminate waste products. The brain is particularly sensitive to oxygen, and even small dips in the amount of oxygen getting to the brain can make a big difference in how you feel and behave. For example, when you get angry, your breathing is probably shallower and faster, reducing the oxygen content of your blood. Subsequently, your brain will have less oxygen, making you more irritable, impulsive, confused, and possibly violent. If you are like most adults, you are probably breathing almost completely from the upper part of your chest, which means that your breathing is shallow and that your brain is not getting enough oxygen. To learn how to breathe more effectively and to reduce your level of anxiety, lie on your back and place a small book on your belly. Make the book go up and down by breathing with your diaphragm. Correct negative breathing patterns by practicing diaphragmatic breathing for 5-10 minutes every day until you get the hang of it and do it naturally throughout your day.

6.  Get enough sleep every night.

It is clear that sleep is critical for optimal brain functioning. Research has shown that insufficient sleep results in mood instability, reduced cognitive ability, irritability, and periods of confusion. When you are sleep-deprived, it is much more difficult to stay emotionally balanced and to handle stress on the job. Make every effort to get at least six to eight hours of sleep every night.

7.  Eat healthy foods.

Diets high in protein (e.g., lean meats, eggs, low-fat cheeses, nuts, legumes) and rich in complex carbohydrates stabilize blood sugar levels and also help people feel more energetic and focused. Unfortunately, most individuals have a diet filled with simple sugars (e.g., candy, cake, pastries, ice cream) and simple carbohydrates (e.g., white bread, pasta, white rice, potatoes). This kind of diet results in depression, negativity, lethargy, mental fuzziness, and poor concentration. Be sure to eat complex carbohydrates (e.g., whole-grain bread or crackers, brown rice) and to stay away from simple, refined carbohydrates. Also, don’t go too long without food because low blood sugar will make you feel anxious and irritable. Finally, make sure you balance your high-protein diet with healthy portions of vegetables.

8.  Drink alcohol in moderation.

Drinking alcohol may temporarily reduce your worrying and anxiety. But too much alcohol on a regular basis can actually increase your feelings of stress. In addition, if you drink alcohol to relieve your job stress, you may be going down the path of alcohol abuse and dependency.

9.  Avoid caffeine and nicotine.

Both caffeine (in coffee, black tea, and certain sodas) and nicotine significantly decrease blood flow to the brain. This only worsens anxiety.  Smoking when you are feeling overwhelmed and stressed may seem calming, but nicotine is a powerful stimulant that actually increases levels of anxiety.

10.  Increase your “emotional intelligence.”

You can improve your stress management skills by learning more about your emotions and using them in constructive ways. “Emotional intelligence” in the workplace involves the following four components:

• Self-awareness (recognizing your emotions and how they affect you and others). By becoming more aware of your own emotions, you will be in a better position to know when you are experiencing stress and what you can do to cope with it.
• Self-management (controlling your emotions and behavior). If you learn how to stay in charge of your internal emotional experience at all times, you will become more self-confident and self-controlled.
• Social awareness (understanding and responding appropriately to other people’s emotions). You can avoid stressful situations with others at work if you recognize and effectively use nonverbal communication cues (e.g., eye contact, facial expressions, tone of voice, posture, gestures).
• Social management (relating effectively to other people and managing conflict). Stress in the workplace is drastically reduced whenever you are able to address conflict with others through effective listening, cooperation, and shared humor.

11.  Work on your bad habits.

Sometimes the stress you experience at work is self-imposed by self-defeating behaviors. For example, you may be the kind of person who puts undue stress on yourself because you want to do everything perfectly. You are bound to feel overwhelmed and stressed at times if you have unrealistic expectations or try to do too much.

12.  Control your negative thoughts.

Your overall emotional state of mind depends essentially on the kinds of thoughts you have. Thoughts release certain chemicals in the brain, and these chemicals have a dramatic effect on how you feel. Angry, sad, and cranky thoughts release certain chemicals that make your body feel bad. And happy, hopeful, and compassionate thoughts release other chemicals that make your body feel good. Your brain translates your emotional states into physical states of relaxation or tension. Negative thoughts result in your body being tense and distressed. Positive thoughts result in your body being relaxed. If you generally have pessimistic or gloomy thoughts, learning how to control them will help you deal more effectively with stress and anxiety in your life.

13. Learn to be more organized.

If you are disorganized, you may be experiencing stress because you feel like you are losing control in your life. If organization does not come naturally to you, you many need to take extra steps to learn how to become more organized in your daily affairs.  If you are having problems keeping things organized, consider the following suggestions:

• Establish clear goals for all aspects of your life and write them down.  While looking at your list of goals, ask yourself the following question every day: “Are my decisions and actions getting me what I want in life?”  This exercise will help you manage your time in a way that is consistent with your interests and goals.
• Make a daily list of things that need to get done and cross things off this list once you have completed them.  Be sure to attach deadlines to your tasks.
• Prioritize your projects.  You might want to do unpleasant tasks first and make your pleasant tasks your rewards for completing things you don’t feel like doing.
• If a task seems overwhelming to you, break it into smaller tasks.  Taking small steps will eventually get you where you want to go.
• Take the time to keep your work area organized.  If you procrastinate, your physical space will just keep getting more and more disorganized.