NO. 4 Liking

Extracted from: Robert Cialdini – Influence. 6 Weapons of Influence.

Why we buy more from people we like and people who are similar to us.

A group of researchers studying the Pennsylvanian Judicial system realized that defendants that were better-looking and better presented at court received a more favorable treatment than those that were less well presented and (perhaps) less good-looking. Handsome men received significantly lighter sentences. In another study of damages awarded, a defendant who was better-looking than his victim was assessed at an average amount of $5,623, but when the victim was the more attractive of the two, the average assessment was $10,052.

A similar study was carried out in Canada during federal elections, found that attractive candidates received more than two and a half times more votes as unattractive candidates. Yet most, 73% of votes denied, in the strongest possible terms, that their votes had been influenced by physical appearance. And we find similar results in hiring situations.

It seems that we attribute good-looking people with traits as talent, kindness, honesty, and intelligence. We make judgments without necessarily being aware that physical attractiveness plays a role in the process. Social scientists call this the “halo effect”. One positive characteristic of a person dominates the way that person is viewed by others. We are often unaware of this cognitive bias.

The same works in the opposite direction, too. The better we like someone, the better our perception of their personality and their intellect. For example, attractive children are often viewed as less naughty.

We can see the same thing happen in other areas, too. When our local team wins a championship, we bask in their glory because the halo of success infuses everyone who supports it. When our team wins, we use the term “We”, when they lose, we use “They”. Success reflects on us. Good feeling equates to liking. It is well known that the sales of your local, supported team’s kit increase exponentially when they are successful.

We attribute the team’s success, by association, to our success, and others who view us do the same. Charities, for instance, will host expensive dinners, so that those who attend can associate the good feeling with liking (and giving) for the charity.

Conditioning and Association.

When a weatherman brings news of severe weather, they are often at the receiving end of hate mail. When anyone brings bad news, we tend to vent our anger on them, although they may be just a messenger. The nature of bad news infects the teller as does good news. We dislike the person who brings unpleasant information, by association. Hence the saying “don’t shoot the messenger.”

During the US space program product, association went into complete overdrive. Similarly, during the Olympics, particularly if a national team has won gold, we are suddenly inundated with products that associate themselves with that team. The official hairspray of the Olympic team. The breakfast cereal of the World Cup team. Association allows products to bask in the glow of the success of others. Politicians are very quick to associate themselves with success. This may not be logical but it is positive.

Likewise, when people name-drop, they do so because they want to be associated with the halo of a celebrity. A successful sportsperson will often endorse products so that the product can share in their success (and they are obviously paid handsomely for this endorsement). This is why products are placed in movies. When a famous actor in a film drinks a soft drink, the drink has associated themselves with the celebrity that people associate themselves with. By association, success breeds success or the perception of success.

Compliments and Flattery.

Compliance professionals exploit “liking” by association. You will often notice that a salesperson will often try to get you to like them to grease the wheels of the sale. They may start by flattery and compliments, which by the rule of reciprocation, means that we feel compelled to reciprocate. They may mirror your body language, they may claim to have a cousin who comes from the same town are you hail from, they may share your interests and hobbies. All these methods are designed to make you like them more, and the more you like them the easier the sale.

Joe Girard was the number one car salesman in the world, according to the Guinness Book of World Records. His philosophy was that he would give people a fair price from someone you like. Every month he would send out thirteen thousand holiday greetings cards to his former customers with the personal message “I Like You.” There was nothing else on the card except his name. As Girard said, “we are suckers for flattery.” Although there are limits to our gullibility – especially when we think we are being manipulated - we tend, as a rule, to believe praise and to like those who provide it, oftentimes when it is completely false.

We have an automatic positive reaction to compliments such that we may often fall victim to someone who uses it in an obvious attempt to win our favor. When someone fancies us can be a bewitchingly effective device for producing return liking and willing compliance.

Similarity.

We like people who are similar to us. That likeness may be in their opinions, their personality traits, their background, or lifestyle. That is why compliance professionals will often try to ensure o have “something in common” with us.

In a study in the 1970s, a group of researchers wanted to test our “liking” and compliance with people who looked similar. The researches dressed as either “Hippy” or “straight” (this was the 1970’s). What they found was that when the researcher was dressed similarly to their prospect, their requests for a dime for a telephone call was granted in more than two-thirds of the time. However, when they were dressed dissimilarly it was granted less than half the time. Another test, to sign an anti-war petition found similar results.

People are more likely to buy insurance when the salesperson is like them in age, religion, and politics, and even small similarities can be effective in getting a positive result and can very easily be manufactured. Many training programs urge trainees to “mirror and match” the customers' body posture, mood, and verbal style to smooth the path to an easier sale.

Contact and Cooperation.

We are persuaded better by familiarity and thus we are also persuaded better by repeated exposure to something. As an experiment for yourself, get an image of yourself and a reversed image of yourself. Decide which version of yourself you prefer and ask a friend to do the same. This experiment was carried out on a group of Milwaukee women and the result showed that their friends preferred the “true” picture of the women, however, the women in question preferred the reverse image of themselves because that was what they were used to seeing in the mirror every day. Our attitude towards something is influenced by the number of times we have been exposed to it in the past.

This is perhaps why some people have recommended integration in schools. However, when social scientists looked at this they discovered that often the opposite pattern would occur. School desegregation is sometimes more likely to increase prejudice between races than decreasing it. This sounded wrong to me until I read the evidence.

Elliot Aronson found that students in competitive situations tend to clump together (familiarity). Research showed that becoming familiar with something doesn’t necessarily cause liking in fact it can bring about disliking, especially when games “become fiercely competitive and stakes are high because kids are competing for the love and approval of one of the two or three most important people in their world”. Thankfully there are solutions to the problem.

Cooperative learning.

Muzafer Sherif went to camp with the children he had studied to understand how and why the competitive rivalry would arise. Simply separating boys into two different cabins created a “we vs “us” mentality, and was increased when they were given names for their huts. This accelerated their sense of rivalry. So, he constructed a situation between the groups where cooperation was to their mutual benefit. They interrupted the water supply. To solve the problem, the boys from both cabins had to work together to fix the problem. Conjoint efforts towards common goals bridged the rift between the groups. When success resulted from mutual efforts, it became difficult to maintain feelings of hostility.

Back at school Aronson developed what he called the “Jigsaw Classroom” which required students to work together in cooperation for the common benefit. Each student was one piece in the puzzle. Familiarity produced by contact usually leads to greater liking, but the opposite can occur if it carries with it too much competition and distasteful experiences. However, team-orientated learning as an antidote informs us of the heavy impact of cooperation on the liking process and this is something compliance professionals systematically use. “Pulling together” led to a desire to become “teammates”.

We can see this spirit of cooperation in the “good-cop/ bad-cop” scenario. Where the bad-cop will threaten and bully the suspect, the good-cop will step in and (by contrast) offer to get the suspect a coffee (reciprocity) or let him know that he is on the suspect's side (team). He will help him, he will protect him. Thereby gaining the confession (by reciprocity) they need by becoming the suspect’s “friend” (savior, confessor).

Compliance professionals will use positive associations to connect themselves with the things we like. That may be beauty and desirability. When perfume adverts show us a life of freedom and abandon, we associate ourselves with their product. We want their story. Advertisers spend many hours finding the right actor to represent the values to which they believe we desire and aspire to. The connection doesn’t have to be a logical one, just a positive one. That’s why politicians get well-known figures to participate in their campaigns so that we can associate and like them. They wish to visibly connect with winners to make them more likable by association. By showing positive associations and burying negative ones, they try to get people to think more highly of them and like them more.

Politicians have long realized the power of sport to unify feelings and emotions. Before the 1980 Olympics, American prestige, certainly in Ice Hockey, was at a low ebb. The US needed some good news and it was to come in the form of a hockey match between the USA and USSR. The USA beat the Soviet Union and the fall out was palpable. A sense of communal joy spread across the USA. Sales of Team USA shirts soared; even used ticket stubs of the game were passing hands for small fortunes.

Everyone could join in basking in the communal glory associated with victory and liking.

6 Weapons of Influence:

Reciprocation,

Commitment and Consistency,

Social Proof,

Liking,

Authority

Scarcity

Liking - Why we buy more from people we like.