Hobgoblins of the Mind

It is easier to resist at the beginning than at the end. 
—LEONARDO DA VINCI

ASTUDY DONE BY A PAIR OF CANADIAN PSYCHOLOGISTS UNCOVERED something fascinating about people at the racetrack: Just after placing a bet, they are much more confident of their horse’s chances of winning than they are immediately before laying down that bet.1 Of course, nothing about the horse’s chances actually shifts; it’s the same horse, on the same track, in the same field; but in the minds of those bettors, its prospects improve significantly once that ticket is purchased. 

Although a bit puzzling at first glance, the reason for the dramatic change has to do with a common weapon of social influence. Like the other weapons of influence, this one lies deep within us, directing our actions with quiet power. It is, quite simply, our nearly obsessive desire to be (and to appear) consistent with what we have already done. Once we have made a choice or taken a stand, we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment. Those pressures will cause us to respond in ways that justify our earlier decision. 

Take the bettors in the racetrack experiment. Thirty seconds before ticket—had been the critical factor. Once a stand had been taken, the need for consistency pressured these people to bring what they felt and believed into line with what they had already done. They simply convinced themselves that they had made the right choice and, no doubt, felt better about it all. putting down their money, they had been tentative and uncertain; thirty seconds after the deed, they were significantly more optimistic and self assured.

The act of making a final decision—in this case, of buying a ticket—had been the critical factor. Once a stand had been taken, the need for consistency pressured these people to bring what they felt and believed into line with what they had already done. They simply convinced themselves that they had made the right choice and, no doubt, felt better about it all.

Psychologists have long understood the power of the consistency principle to direct human action. Prominent theorists such as Leon Festinger, Fritz Hieder, and Theodore Newcomb have viewed the desire for consistency as a central motivator of our behavior. But is this tendency to be consistent really strong enough to compel us to do what we ordinarily would not want to do? There is no question about it. The drive to be (and look) consistent constitutes a highly potent weapon of social influence, often causing us to act in ways that are clearly contrary to our own best interests.

Source :

Read More

The Psychology of Persuasion

Parallel form of human automatic action is aptly demonstrated in an experiment by Harvard social psychologist Ellen Langer. A well known principle of human behavior says that when we ask someone to do us a favor we will be more successful if we provide a reason.People simply like to have reasons for what they do. Langer demonstrated this unsurprising fact by asking a small favor of people waiting in line to use a library copying machine:  There was a queue for the copying machine. The experimenter asked if they could go in front of someone. The likelihood of being given permission to queue-jump depended on how the request was phrased:

“Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I’m in a rush?” (a meaningful reason) –  The effectiveness of this request-plus-reason was nearly total: 94%  of those asked let her skip ahead of them in line.

Compare this success rate to the results when she made the request only:

“Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?” (no reason) – 60% of those asked let her skip ahead of them in line.

At first glance, it appears that the crucial difference between the first request was the additional information provided by the words “because I’m in a rush.” But a third type of request tried by Langer showed that this was not the case. It seems that it was not the whole series of words, but the first one, “because,” that made the difference. Instead of including a real reason for compliance, Langer’s third type of request used the word “because” and then, adding nothing new,merely restated the obvious: "Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies? ". The result was that once again nearly all (93 percent) agreed, even though no real reason, no new information, was added to justify their compliance.

 “Just Because” 

When we ask someone to do us a favor we will be more successful if we provide a reason. 

Credits : “ Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion” by Robert B. Cialdini (Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University).

Read More