All at once, things began to make sense. These were people with real problems, and they were desperately searching for a way to solve those problems. They were seekers who, if our discussion leaders were to be believed, had found a potential solution in TM. Driven by their needs, they very much wanted to believe that TM was their answer.
Now, in the form of my colleague, intrudes the voice of reason, showing the theory underlying their newfound solution to be unsound. Panic! Something must be done at once before logic takes its toll and leaves them without hope once again. Quickly, quickly, walls against reason are needed; and it doesn"t matter that the fortress to be erected is a foolish one. "Quick, a hiding place from thought! Here, take this money. Whew, safe in the nick of time. No need to think about the issues any longer." The decision has been made, and from now on the consistency tape can be played whenever necessary: "TM? Certainly I think it will help me; certainly I expect to continue; certainly I believe in TM. I already put my money down for it, didn"t I?" Ah, the comforts of mindless consistency. "I"ll just rest right here for a while. It"s so much nicer than the worry and strain of that hard, hard search."
Seek and Hide If, as it appears, automatic consistency functions as a shield against thought, it should not be surprising that such consistency can also be exploited by those who would prefer that we respond to their requests without thinking. For the profiteers, whose interest will be served by an unthinking, mechanical reaction to their requests, our tendency for automatic consistency is a gold mine. So clever are they at arranging to have us play our consistency tapes when it profits them that we seldom realize that we have been taken. In fine jujitsu fashion, they structure their interactions with us so that our own need to be consistent leads directly to their benefit. profiteers, whose interest will be served by an unthinking, mechanical reaction to their requests, our tendency for automatic consistency is a gold mine. So clever are they at arranging to have us play our consistency tapes when it profits them that we seldom realize that we have been taken. In fine jujitsu fashion, they structure their interactions with us so that our own need to be consistent leads directly to their benefit.
Certain large toy manufacturers use just such an approach to reduce a problem created by seasonal buying patterns. Of course, the boom time for toy companies occurs before and during the Christmas holiday season. Their problem is that toy sales then go into a terrible slump for the next couple of months. Their customers have already spent the amount in their toy budgets and are stiffly resistant to their children"s pleas for more.
So the toy manufacturers are faced with a dilemma: how to keep sales high during the peak season and, at the same time, retain a healthy demand for toys in the immediately following months. Their difficulty certainly doesn"t lie in motivating kids to want more toys after Christmas. The problem lies in motivating postholiday spent-out parents to buy another plaything for their already toy-glutted children. What could the toy companies possibly do to produce that unlikely behavior? Some have tried greatly increased advertising campaigns, others have reduced prices during the slack period, but neither of those standard sales devices has proved successful. Both tactics are costly, and have been ineffective in increasing sales to desired levels. Parents are simply not in a toy-buying mood, and the influences of advertising or reduced expense are not enough to shake that stony resistance.
Certain large toy manufacturers, however, think they have found a solution. It"s an ingenious one, involving no more than a normal advertising expense and an understanding of the powerful pull of the need for consistency. My first hint of the way the toy companies" strategy worked came after I fell for it and then, in true patsy form, fell for it again.
It was January, and I was in the town"s largest toy store. After purchasing all too many gifts there for my son a month before, I had sworn not to enter that store or any like it for a long, long time. Yet there I was, not only in the diabolic place but also in the process of buying my son another expensive toy-a big, electric road-race set. In front of the road-race display I happened to meet a former neighbor who was buying his son the same toy. The odd thing was that we almost never saw each other anymore. In fact, the last time had been a year earlier in the same store when we were both buying our sons an expensive post-Christmas gift-that time a robot that walked, talked, and laid waste. We laughed about our strange pattern of seeing each other only once a year at the same time, in the same place, while doing the same thing. Later that day, I mentioned the coincidence to a friend who, it turned out, had once worked in the toy business.
"No coincidence," he said knowingly.
"What do you mean, "No coincidence"?"
"Look," he said, "let me ask you a couple of questions about the road-race set you bought this year. First, did you promise your son that he"d get one for Christmas?"
"Well, yes I did. Christopher had seen a bunch of ads for them on the Sat.u.r.day morning cartoon shows and said that was what he wanted for Christmas. I saw a couple of ads myself and it looked like fun; so I said OK."
"Strike one," he announced. "Now for my second question. When you went to buy one, did you find all the stores sold out?"
"That"s right, I did! The stores said they"d ordered some but didn"t know when they"d get any more in. So I had to buy Christopher some other toys to make up for the road-race set. But how did you know?"
"Strike two," he said. "Just let me ask one more question. Didn"t this same sort of thing happen the year before with the robot toy?"
"Wait a minute . . . you"re right. That"s just what happened. This is incredible. How did you know?"
"No psychic powers; I just happen to know how several of the big toy companies jack up their January and February sales. They start prior to Christmas with attractive TV ads for certain special toys. The kids, naturally, want what they see and extract Christmas promises for these items from their parents. Now here"s where the genius of the companies" plan comes in: They undersupply undersupply the stores with the toys they"ve gotten the parents to promise. Most parents find those toys sold out and are forced to subst.i.tute other toys of equal value. The toy manufacturers, of course, make a point of supplying the stores with plenty of these subst.i.tutes. Then, after Christmas, the companies start running the ads again for the other, special toys. That juices up the kids to want those toys more than ever. They go running to their parents whining, "You promised, you promised," and the adults go trudging off to the store to live up dutifully to their words." the stores with the toys they"ve gotten the parents to promise. Most parents find those toys sold out and are forced to subst.i.tute other toys of equal value. The toy manufacturers, of course, make a point of supplying the stores with plenty of these subst.i.tutes. Then, after Christmas, the companies start running the ads again for the other, special toys. That juices up the kids to want those toys more than ever. They go running to their parents whining, "You promised, you promised," and the adults go trudging off to the store to live up dutifully to their words."
"Where," I said, beginning to seethe now, "they meet other parents they haven"t seen for a year, falling for the same trick, right?"
No Pain, No (Ill-gotten) Gain Jason, the gamer in this cartoon, has gotten the tactic for holiday gift success right, but, I think he"s gotten the reason for that success wrong. My own experience tells me that his parents will overcompensate with other gifts not so much to ease his pain but to ease their own pain at having to break their promise to him.
FOXTROT 2005 Bill Amend. Reprinted with permission of UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE. All rights reserved. 2005 Bill Amend. Reprinted with permission of UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE. All rights reserved.
"Right. Uh, where are you going?"
"I"m going to take the road-race set right back to the store." I was so angry I was nearly shouting.
"Wait. Think for a minute first. Why did you buy it this morning?"
"Because I didn"t want to let Christopher down and because I wanted to teach him that promises are to be lived up to."
"Well, has any of that changed? Look, if you take his toy away now, he won"t understand why. He"ll just know that his father broke a promise to him. Is that what you want?"
"No," I said, sighing, "I guess not. So, you"re telling me that the toy companies doubled their profits on me for the past two years, and I never even knew it; and now that I do, I"m still trapped-by my own words. So, what you"re really telling me is, "Strike three." " He nodded, "And you"re out."
In the years since, I have observed a variety of parental toy-buying sprees similar to the one I experienced during that particular holiday season-for Beanie Babies, Tickle Me Elmo dolls, Furbies, Xboxes, Wii consoles etc. But, historically, the one that best fits the pattern is that of the Cabbage Patch Kids, $25 dolls that were promoted heavily during mid-1980s Christmas seasons but were woefully under-supplied to stores. Some of the consequences were a government false advertising charge against the Kids" maker for continuing to advertise dolls that were not available; frenzied groups of adults battling at toy outlets or paying up to $700 apiece at auction for dolls they had promised promised their children; and an annual $150 million in sales that extended well beyond the Christmas months. During the 1998 holiday season, the least available toy that everyone wanted was the Furby, created by a division of toy giant Hasbro. When asked what frustrated, Furby-less parents should tell their kids, a Hasbro spokeswoman advised the kind of promise that has profited toy manufacturers for decades, "I"ll try, but if I can"t get it for you now, I"ll get it for you later" (Tooher, 1998). their children; and an annual $150 million in sales that extended well beyond the Christmas months. During the 1998 holiday season, the least available toy that everyone wanted was the Furby, created by a division of toy giant Hasbro. When asked what frustrated, Furby-less parents should tell their kids, a Hasbro spokeswoman advised the kind of promise that has profited toy manufacturers for decades, "I"ll try, but if I can"t get it for you now, I"ll get it for you later" (Tooher, 1998).
Commitment Is the Key Once we realize that the power of consistency is formidable in directing human action, an important practical question immediately arises: How is that force engaged? What produces the click click that activates the that activates the whirr whirr of the powerful consistency tape? Social psychologists think they know the answer: commitment. If I can get you to make a commitment (that is, to take a stand, to go on record), I will have set the stage for your automatic and ill-considered consistency with that earlier commitment. Once a stand is taken, there is a natural tendency to behave in ways that are stubbornly consistent with the stand. Even preliminary leanings that occur before a final decision has to be made can bias us toward consistent subsequent choices (Brownstein, 2003; Brownstein, Read, & Simon, 2004; Russo, Carlson, & Meloy, 2006). of the powerful consistency tape? Social psychologists think they know the answer: commitment. If I can get you to make a commitment (that is, to take a stand, to go on record), I will have set the stage for your automatic and ill-considered consistency with that earlier commitment. Once a stand is taken, there is a natural tendency to behave in ways that are stubbornly consistent with the stand. Even preliminary leanings that occur before a final decision has to be made can bias us toward consistent subsequent choices (Brownstein, 2003; Brownstein, Read, & Simon, 2004; Russo, Carlson, & Meloy, 2006).
As we"ve already seen, social psychologists are not the only ones who understand the connection between commitment and consistency. Commitment strategies are aimed at us by compliance professionals of nearly every sort. Each of the strategies is intended to get us to take some action or make some statement that will trap us into later compliance through consistency pressures. Procedures designed to create commitment take various forms. Some are bluntly straightforward; others are among the most subtle compliance tactics we will encounter. On the blunt side, consider the approach of Jack Stanko, used-car sales manager for an Albuquerque auto dealership. While leading a session called "Used Car Merchandising" at a National Auto Dealers a.s.sociation convention in San Francisco, he advised 100 sales-hungry dealers as follows: "Put "em on paper. Get the customer"s OK on paper. Get the money up front. Control "em. Control the deal. Ask "em if they would buy the car right now if the price is right. Pin "em down" (Rubinstein, 1985). Obviously, Mr. Stanko-an expert in these matters-believes that the way to customer compliance is through their commitments, thereby to "control "em" for profit. strategies is intended to get us to take some action or make some statement that will trap us into later compliance through consistency pressures. Procedures designed to create commitment take various forms. Some are bluntly straightforward; others are among the most subtle compliance tactics we will encounter. On the blunt side, consider the approach of Jack Stanko, used-car sales manager for an Albuquerque auto dealership. While leading a session called "Used Car Merchandising" at a National Auto Dealers a.s.sociation convention in San Francisco, he advised 100 sales-hungry dealers as follows: "Put "em on paper. Get the customer"s OK on paper. Get the money up front. Control "em. Control the deal. Ask "em if they would buy the car right now if the price is right. Pin "em down" (Rubinstein, 1985). Obviously, Mr. Stanko-an expert in these matters-believes that the way to customer compliance is through their commitments, thereby to "control "em" for profit.
Commitment practices involving substantially more finesse can be just as effective. For instance, suppose you wanted to increase the number of people in your area who would agree to go door-to-door collecting donations for your favorite charity. You would be wise to study the approach taken by social psychologist Steven J. Sherman. He simply called a sample of Bloomington, Indiana, residents as part of a survey he was taking and asked them to predict what they would say if asked to spend three hours collecting money for the American Cancer Society. Of course, not wanting to seem uncharitable to the survey-taker or to themselves, many of these people said that they would volunteer. The consequence of this subtle commitment procedure was a 700 percent increase in volunteers when, a few days later, a representative of the American Cancer Society did call and ask for neighborhood canva.s.sers (Sherman, 1980). Using the same strategy, but this time asking citizens to predict whether they would vote on election day, other researchers have been able to increase significantly the turnout at the polls among those called (Greenwald, Carnot, Beach, & Young, 1987; Spangenberg & Greenwald, in press). Courtroom combatants appear to have adopted this practice of extracting a lofty initial commitment that is designed to spur future consistent behavior. When screening potential jurors before a trial, Jo-Ellen Demitrius, the woman currently reputed to be the best consultant in the business of jury selection asks an artful question: "If you were the only person who believed in my client"s innocence, could you withstand the pressure of the rest of the jury to change your mind?" How could any self-respecting prospective juror say no? And, having made the public promise, how could any self-respecting selected juror repudiate it later?
Perhaps an even more crafty commitment technique has been developed by telephone solicitors for charity. Have you noticed that callers asking you to contribute to some cause or another these days seem to begin things by inquiring about your current health and well-being? "h.e.l.lo, Mr./Ms. Targetperson," they say. "How are you feeling this evening?," or "How are you doing today?" The caller"s intent with this sort of introduction is not merely to seem friendly and caring. It is to get you to respond-as you normally do to such polite, superficial inquiries-with a polite, superficial comment of your own: "Just fine" or "Real good" or "I"m doing great, thanks." Once you have publicly stated that all is well, it becomes much easier for the solicitor to corner you into aiding those for whom all is not well: "I"m glad to hear that, because I"m calling to ask if you"d be willing to make a donation to help out the unfortunate victims of . . ." great, thanks." Once you have publicly stated that all is well, it becomes much easier for the solicitor to corner you into aiding those for whom all is not well: "I"m glad to hear that, because I"m calling to ask if you"d be willing to make a donation to help out the unfortunate victims of . . ."
The theory behind this tactic is that people who have just a.s.serted that they are doing/feeling fine-even as a routine part of a sociable exchange-will consequently find it awkward to appear stingy in the context of their own admittedly favored circ.u.mstances. If all this sounds a bit far-fetched, consider the findings of consumer researcher Daniel Howard (1990), who put the theory to test. Residents of Dallas, Texas, were called on the phone and asked if they would agree to allow a representative of the Hunger Relief Committee to come to their homes to sell them cookies, the proceeds from which would be used to supply meals for the needy. When tried alone, that request (labeled the standard solicitation approach) produced only 18 percent agreement. However, if the caller initially asked, "How are you feeling this evening?" and waited for a reply before proceeding with the standard approach, several noteworthy things happened. First, of the 120 individuals called, most (108) gave the customary favorable reply ("Good," "Fine," "Real well," etc.). Second, 32 percent of the people who got the How-are-you-feeling-tonight question agreed to receive the cookie seller at their homes, nearly twice the success rate of the standard solicitation approach. Third, true to the consistency principle, almost everyone (89 percent) who agreed to such a visit did in fact make a cookie purchase when contacted at home.
The question of what makes a commitment effective has numerous answers. A variety of factors affects the ability of a commitment to constrain our future behavior. One large-scale program designed to produce compliance ill.u.s.trates how several of the factors work. The remarkable thing about this program is that it was systematically employing these factors decades ago, well before scientific research had identified them.
During the Korean War, many captured American soldiers found themselves in prisoner-of-war camps run by the Chinese Communists. It became clear early in the conflict that the Chinese treated captives quite differently than did their allies, the North Koreans, who favored harsh punishment to gain compliance. Specifically avoiding the appearance of brutality, the Red Chinese engaged in what they termed their "lenient policy," which was, in reality, a concerted and sophisticated psychological a.s.sault on their captives. After the war, American psychologists questioned the returning prisoners intensively to determine what had occurred, in part because of the unsettling success of some aspects of the Chinese program. For example, the Chinese were very effective in getting Americans to inform on one another, in striking contrast to the behavior of American POWs in World War II. For this reason, among others, escape plans were quickly uncovered and the escapes themselves almost always unsuccessful. "When an escape did occur," wrote psychologist Edgar Schein (1956), a princ.i.p.al American investigator of the Chinese indoctrination program in Korea, "the Chinese usually recovered the man easily by offering a bag of rice to anyone turning him in." In fact, nearly all American prisoners in the Chinese camps are said to have collaborated with the enemy in one way or another.1 1It is important to note that the collaboration was not always intentional. The American investigators defined collaboration as "any kind of behavior which helped the enemy," and it thus included such diverse activities as signing peace pet.i.tions, running errands, making radio appeals, accepting special favors, making false confessions, informing on fellow prisoners, divulging military information, etc.
READER"S REPORT 3.1 From a Sales Trainer in Texas
The most powerful lesson I ever learned from your book was about commitment. Years ago, I trained people at a telemarketing center to sell insurance over the phone. Our main difficulty, however, was that we couldn"t actually SELL insurance over the phone; we could only create a quote and then direct the caller to the company office nearest their home. The problem was callers who committed to office appointments but didn"t show up.
I took a group of new training graduates and modified their sales approach from that used by other salespeople. They used the exact same "canned" presentation as the others but included an additional question at the end of the call. Instead of simply hanging up when the customer confirmed an appointment time, we instructed the salespeople to say, "I was wondering if you would tell me exactly why you"ve chosen to purchase your insurance with ."I was initially just attempting to gather customer service information, but these new sales a.s.sociates generated nearly 19% more sales than other new salespeople. When we integrated this question into everyone"s presentations, even the old pros generated over 10% more business than before. I didn"t fully understand why this worked before.
Author"s note: Although accidentally employed, this reader"s tactic was masterful because it didn"t simply commit customers to their choice; it also committed them to the reasons for their choice. And, as we"ve seen in Although accidentally employed, this reader"s tactic was masterful because it didn"t simply commit customers to their choice; it also committed them to the reasons for their choice. And, as we"ve seen in Chapter 1 Chapter 1, people often behave for the sake of reasons (b.a.s.t.a.r.di & Shafir, 2000; Langer, 1989).
An examination of the prison-camp program shows that the Chinese relied heavily on commitment and consistency pressures to gain the desired compliance from their captives. Of course, the first problem facing the Chinese was to find a way to get any collaboration at all from the Americans. These prisoners had been trained to provide nothing but name, rank, and serial number. Short of physical brutalization, how could the captors hope to get such men to give military information, turn in fellow prisoners, or publicly denounce their country? The Chinese answer was elementary: Start small and build. turn in fellow prisoners, or publicly denounce their country? The Chinese answer was elementary: Start small and build.
For instance, prisoners were frequently asked to make statements that were so mildly anti-American or pro-Communist that they seemed inconsequential ("The United States is not perfect." "In a Communist country, unemployment is not a problem."). Once these minor requests had been complied with, however, the men found themselves pushed to submit to related, yet more substantive, requests. A man who had just agreed with his Chinese interrogator that the United States was not perfect might then be asked to indicate some of the ways in which he thought this was the case. Once he had so explained, he might be asked to make a list of these "problems with America" and to sign his name to it. Later he might be asked to read his list in a discussion group with other prisoners. "After all, it"s what you really believe, isn"t it?" Still later, he might be asked to write an essay expanding on his list and discussing these problems in greater detail.
The Chinese might then use his name and his essay in an anti-American radio broadcast beamed not only to the entire camp but to other POW camps in North Korea as well as to American forces in South Korea. Suddenly he would find himself a "collaborator," having given aid and comfort to the enemy. Aware that he had written the essay without any strong threats or coercion, many times a man would change his self-image to be consistent with the deed and with the new "collaborator" label, often resulting in even more extensive acts of collaboration. Thus, while "only a few men were able to avoid collaboration altogether," according to Schein, "the majority collaborated at one time or another by doing things which seemed to them trivial but which the Chinese were able to turn to their own advantage. . . . This was particularly effective in eliciting confessions, self-criticism, and information during interrogation" (1956).
Other groups of people interested in compliance are also aware of the usefulness and power of this approach. Charitable organizations, for instance, will often use progressively escalating commitments to induce individuals to perform major favors. Research has shown that such trivial first commitments as agreeing to be interviewed can begin a "momentum of compliance" that induces such later behaviors as organ or bone marrow donations (Carducci, Deuser, Bauer, Large, & Ramaekers, 1989; Schwartz, 1970).
Many business organizations employ this approach regularly as well. For the salesperson, the strategy is to obtain a large purchase by starting with a small one. Almost any small sale will do because the purpose of that small transaction is not profit, it is commitment. Further purchases, even much larger ones, are expected to flow naturally from the commitment. An article in the trade magazine American Salesman American Salesman put it succinctly: put it succinctly:
Start Small and Build U.S. Acres Paws. Used By Permission. Paws. Used By Permission.
The general idea is to pave the way for full-line distribution by starting with a small order. . . . Look at it this way-when a person has signed an order for your merchandise, even though the profit is so small it hardly compensates for the time and effort of making the call, he is no longer a prospect-he is a customer. (Green, 1965, p. 14) The tactic of starting with a little request in order to gain eventual compliance with related larger requests has a name: the foot-in-the-door technique. Social scientists first became aware of its effectiveness in 1966 when psychologists Jonathan Freedman and Scott Fraser published an astonishing set of data. They reported the results of an experiment in which a researcher, posing as a volunteer worker, had gone door to door in a residential California neighborhood making a preposterous request of homeowners. The homeowners were asked to allow a public-service billboard to be installed on their front lawns. To get an idea of the way the sign would look, they were shown a photograph depicting an attractive house, the view of which was almost completely obscured by a very large, poorly lettered sign reading DRIVE CAREFULLY. Although the request was normally and understandably refused by the great majority of the residents in the area (only 17 percent complied), one particular group of people reacted quite favorably. A full 76 percent of them offered the use of their front yards.
The prime reason for their startling compliance has to do with something that had happened to them about two weeks earlier: They had made a small commitment to driver safety. A different "volunteer worker" had come to their doors and asked them to accept and display a little three-inch-square sign that read BE A SAFE DRIVER. It was such a trifling request that nearly all of them had agreed to it, but the effects of that request were enormous. Because they had innocently complied with a trivial safe-driving request a couple of weeks before, these homeowners became remarkably willing to comply with another such request that was ma.s.sive in size.
Freedman and Fraser didn"t stop there. They tried a slightly different procedure on another sample of homeowners. These people first received a request to sign a pet.i.tion that favored "keeping California beautiful." Of course, nearly everyone signed since state beauty, like efficiency in government or sound prenatal care, is one of those issues no one opposes. After waiting about two weeks, Freedman and Fraser sent a new "volunteer worker" to these same homes to ask the residents to allow the big DRIVE CAREFULLY sign to be erected on their lawns. In some ways, the response of these homeowners was the most astounding of any in the study. Approximately half of these people consented to the installation of the DRIVE CAREFULLY billboard, even though the small commitment they had made weeks earlier was not to driver safety but to an entirely different public-service topic, state beautification.
At first, even Freedman and Fraser were bewildered by their findings. Why should the little act of signing a pet.i.tion supporting state beautification cause people to be so willing to perform a different and much larger favor? After considering and discarding other explanations, Freedman and Fraser came upon one that offered a solution to the puzzle: Signing the beautification pet.i.tion changed the view these people had of themselves. They saw themselves as public-spirited citizens who acted on their civic principles. When, two weeks later, they were asked to perform another public service by displaying the DRIVE CAREFULLY sign, they complied in order to be consistent with their newly formed self-images. According to Freedman and Fraser:
What may occur is a change in the person"s feelings about getting involved or taking action. Once he has agreed to a request, his att.i.tude may change, he may become, in his own eyes, the kind of person who does this sort of thing, who agrees to requests made by strangers, who takes action on things he believes in, who cooperates with good causes. (p. 201) What the Freedman and Fraser findings tell us, then, is to be very careful about agreeing to trivial requests, because that agreement can influence our self-concepts (Burger & Caldwell, 2003). Such an agreement can not only increase our compliance with very similar, much larger requests, it can also make us more willing to perform a variety of larger favors that are only remotely connected to the little one we did earlier. It"s this second, general kind of influence concealed within small commitments that scares me.
Just Sign on the Plotted Line Have you ever wondered what the groups that ask you to sign their pet.i.tions do with all the signatures they obtain? Often they don"t do anything with them, as the princ.i.p.al purpose of the pet.i.tion may simply be to get the signers committed to the group"s position and, consequently, more willing to take future steps that are consistent with it.
It scares me enough that I am rarely willing to sign a pet.i.tion anymore, even for a position I support. Such an action has the potential to influence not only my future behavior but also my self-image in ways I may not want. Further, once a person"s self-image is altered, all sorts of subtle advantages become available to someone who wants to exploit that new image.
Who among Freedman and Fraser"s homeowners would have thought that the "volunteer worker" who asked them to sign a state beautification pet.i.tion was really interested in having them display a safe-driving billboard two weeks later? Who among them could have suspected that their decision to display the billboard was largely a result of signing the pet.i.tion? No one, I"d guess. If there were any regrets after the billboard went up, who could they conceivably hold responsible but themselves themselves and their own d.a.m.nably strong civic spirits? They probably never even considered the guy with the "keeping California beautiful" pet.i.tion and all that knowledge of social jujitsu. and their own d.a.m.nably strong civic spirits? They probably never even considered the guy with the "keeping California beautiful" pet.i.tion and all that knowledge of social jujitsu.
Hearts and Minds Notice that all of the foot-in-the-door experts seem to be excited about the same thing: You can use small commitments to manipulate a person"s self-image; you can use them to turn citizens into "public servants," prospects into "customers," prisoners into "collaborators." Once you"ve got a person"s self-image where you want it, that person should comply naturally naturally with a whole range of requests that are consistent with this new self-view. with a whole range of requests that are consistent with this new self-view.
Not all commitments affect self-image, however. There are certain conditions that should be present for a commitment to be effective in this way: they should be active, public, effortful, and freely chosen. The major intent of the Chinese was not simply to extract information from their prisoners. It was to indoctrinate them, to change their att.i.tudes and perceptions of themselves, of their political system, of their country"s role in the war, and of communism. Dr. Henry Segal, chief of the neuropsychiatric evaluation team that examined returning POWs at the end of the Korean War, reported that war-related beliefs had been substantially shifted. Significant inroads had been made in the political att.i.tudes of the men:
Many expressed antipathy toward the Chinese Communists but at the same time praised them for "the fine job they had done in China." Others stated that "although communism won"t work in America, I think it"s a good thing for Asia." (Segal, 1954, p. 360) It appears that the real goal of the Chinese was to modify, at least for a time, the hearts and minds of their captives. If we measure their achievement in terms of "defection, disloyalty, changed att.i.tudes and beliefs, poor discipline, poor morale, poor of "defection, disloyalty, changed att.i.tudes and beliefs, poor discipline, poor morale, poor esprit esprit, and doubts as to America"s role," Segal concluded, "their efforts were highly successful." Let"s examine more closely how they managed it.
The Magic Act Our best evidence of people"s true feelings and beliefs comes less from their words than from their deeds. Observers trying to decide what people are like look closely at their actions. Researchers have discovered that people themselves use this same evidence-their own behavior-to decide what they are like; it is a primary source of information about one"s own beliefs, values, and att.i.tudes (Bem, 1972; Vallacher & Wegner, 1985).
The rippling impact of behavior on one"s self-concept and future behavior can be seen in research investigating the effect of active versus pa.s.sive commitments (Allison & Messick, 1988; Fazio, Sherman, & Herr, 1982). For instance, in one study, college students volunteered for an AIDS education project in the local schools. The researchers arranged for half to volunteer actively by filling out a form stating that they wanted to partic.i.p.ate. The other half volunteered pa.s.sively by failing failing to fill out a form stating that they to fill out a form stating that they didn"t didn"t want to partic.i.p.ate. Three to four days later, when asked to begin their volunteer activity, the great majority (74 percent) who actually appeared for duty came from the ranks of those who had actively agreed to partic.i.p.ate. What"s more, those who volunteered actively were more likely to explain their decisions by implicating their personal values, preferences, and traits (Cioffi & Garner, 1996). In all, it seems that active commitments give us the kind of information we use to shape self-image, which then shapes future actions, which solidify the new self-image. want to partic.i.p.ate. Three to four days later, when asked to begin their volunteer activity, the great majority (74 percent) who actually appeared for duty came from the ranks of those who had actively agreed to partic.i.p.ate. What"s more, those who volunteered actively were more likely to explain their decisions by implicating their personal values, preferences, and traits (Cioffi & Garner, 1996). In all, it seems that active commitments give us the kind of information we use to shape self-image, which then shapes future actions, which solidify the new self-image.
Understanding fully this route to altered self-perception, the Chinese set about arranging the prison-camp experience so that their captives would consistently act act in desired ways. Before long, the Chinese knew, these actions would begin to take their toll, causing the prisoners to change their views of themselves to align with what they had done. in desired ways. Before long, the Chinese knew, these actions would begin to take their toll, causing the prisoners to change their views of themselves to align with what they had done.
Writing was one sort of committing action that the Chinese urged incessantly upon the captives. It was never enough for prisoners to listen quietly or even to agree verbally with the Chinese line; they were always pushed to write it down as well. Schein (1956) describes a standard indoctrination session tactic of the Chinese:
A further technique was to have the man write out the question and then the [pro-Communist] answer. If he refused to write it voluntarily, he was asked to copy it from the notebooks, which must have seemed like a harmless enough concession. (p. 161) Oh, those "harmless" concessions. We"ve already seen how apparently trifling commitments can lead to further consistent behavior. As a commitment device, a written declaration has some great advantages. First, it provides physical evidence that an act has occurred. Once a prisoner wrote what the Chinese wanted, it was very difficult for him to believe that he had not done so. The opportunities to forget or to deny to himself what he had done were not available, as they were for purely verbal statements. No; there it was in his own handwriting, an irrevocably doc.u.mented act driving him to make his beliefs and his self-image consistent with what he had undeniably done. Second, a written testament can be shown to other people. Of course, that means it can be used to persuade those people. It can persuade them to change their own att.i.tudes in the direction of the statement. More importantly for the purpose of commitment, it can persuade them that the author genuinely believes what was written. very difficult for him to believe that he had not done so. The opportunities to forget or to deny to himself what he had done were not available, as they were for purely verbal statements. No; there it was in his own handwriting, an irrevocably doc.u.mented act driving him to make his beliefs and his self-image consistent with what he had undeniably done. Second, a written testament can be shown to other people. Of course, that means it can be used to persuade those people. It can persuade them to change their own att.i.tudes in the direction of the statement. More importantly for the purpose of commitment, it can persuade them that the author genuinely believes what was written.
People have a natural tendency to think that a statement reflects the true att.i.tude of the person who made it (Gawronski, 2003). What is surprising is that they continue to think so even when they know that the person did not freely choose to make the statement. Some scientific evidence that this is the case comes from a study by psychologists Edward Jones and James Harris (1967), who showed people an essay that was favorable to Fidel Castro and asked them to guess the true feelings of its author. Jones and Harris told some of these people that the author had chosen to write a pro-Castro essay; they told other people that the author had been required to write in favor of Castro. The strange thing was that even those people who knew that the author had been a.s.signed to do a pro-Castro essay guessed that the writer liked Castro. It seems that a statement of belief produces a click click, whirr whirr response in those who view it. Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, observers automatically a.s.sume that someone who makes such a statement means it (Allison, Mackie, Muller, & Worth, 1993). response in those who view it. Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, observers automatically a.s.sume that someone who makes such a statement means it (Allison, Mackie, Muller, & Worth, 1993).
Think of the double-barreled effects on the self-image of a prisoner who wrote a pro-Chinese or anti-American statement. Not only was it a lasting personal reminder of his action, it was also likely to persuade those around him that it reflected his actual beliefs. As we will see in Chapter 4 Chapter 4, what those around us think is true of us is enormously important in determining what we ourselves think is true. For example, one study found that one week after hearing that they were considered charitable people, homemakers in New Haven, Connecticut, gave much more money to a canva.s.ser from the Multiple Sclerosis a.s.sociation (Kraut, 1973). Apparently the mere knowledge that someone viewed them as charitable caused these people to make their actions consistent with that view.
Savvy politicians have long used the committing character of labels to great advantage. One of the best at it was former president of Egypt, Anwar Sadat. Before international negotiations began, Sadat would a.s.sure his bargaining opponents that they and the citizens of their country were widely known for their cooperativeness and fairness. With this kind of flattery, he not only created positive feelings, he also connected his opponent"s ident.i.ties to a course of action that served his goals. According to master-negotiator, Henry Kissinger (1982), Sadat was successful because he got others to act in his interests by giving them a reputation to uphold.
Once an active commitment is made, then, self-image is squeezed from both sides by consistency pressures. From the inside, there is a pressure to bring self-image into line with action. From the outside, there is a sneakier pressure-a tendency to adjust this image according to the way others perceive us (Schlenker, Dlugolecki, & Doherty, 1994). Because others see us as believing what we have written (even when we"ve had little choice in the matter), we once again experience a pull to bring self-image into line with the written statement. to adjust this image according to the way others perceive us (Schlenker, Dlugolecki, & Doherty, 1994). Because others see us as believing what we have written (even when we"ve had little choice in the matter), we once again experience a pull to bring self-image into line with the written statement.
In Korea, several subtle devices were used to get prisoners to write, without direct coercion, what the Chinese wanted. For example, the Chinese knew that many prisoners were anxious to let their families know that they were alive. At the same time, the men knew that their captors were censoring the mail and that only some letters were being allowed out of camp. To ensure that their own letters should be released, some prisoners began including in their messages peace appeals, claims of kind treatment, and statements sympathetic to communism. The hope was that the Chinese would want such letters to surface and would, therefore, allow their delivery. Of course, the Chinese were happy to cooperate because those letters served their interests marvelously. First, their worldwide propaganda effort benefited greatly from the appearance of pro-Communist statements by American servicemen. Second, in the service of prisoner indoctrination, the Chinese had, without raising a finger of physical force, gotten many men to go on record supporting the Communist cause.
A similar technique involved political essay contests that were regularly held in camp. The prizes for winning were invariably small-a few cigarettes or a bit of fruit-but were sufficiently scarce that they generated a lot of interest from the men. Usually the winning essay was one that took a solidly pro-Communist stand . . . but not always. The Chinese were wise enough to realize that most of the prisoners would not enter a contest that they thought they could win only by writing a Communist tract. Moreover, the Chinese were clever enough to know how to plant in the captives small commitments to communism that could be nurtured into later bloom. So, occasionally, the winning essay was one that generally supported the United States but that bowed once or twice to the Chinese view. The effects of this strategy were exactly what the Chinese wanted. The men continued to partic.i.p.ate voluntarily in the contests because they saw that they could win with essays highly favorable to their own country. Perhaps without realizing it, however, they began to shade their essays a bit toward communism in order to have a better chance of winning. The Chinese were ready to pounce on any concession to Communist dogma and to bring consistency pressures to bear upon it. In the case of a written declaration within a voluntary essay, they had a perfect commitment from which to build toward collaboration and conversion.
Other compliance professionals also know about the committing power of written statements. The enormously successful Amway Corporation, for instance, has a way to spur their sales personnel to greater and greater accomplishments. Members of the staff are asked to set individual sales goals and commit themselves to those goals by personally recording them on paper:
One final tip before you get started: Set a goal and write it down. write it down. Whatever the goal, the important thing is that you set it, so you"ve got something for which to Whatever the goal, the important thing is that you set it, so you"ve got something for which to aim-and that you write it down. There is something magical about writing things down. So set a goal and write it down. When you reach that goal, set another and write that down. You"ll be off and running. aim-and that you write it down. There is something magical about writing things down. So set a goal and write it down. When you reach that goal, set another and write that down. You"ll be off and running.
If the Amway people have found "something magical about writing things down," so have other business organizations. Some door-to-door sales companies use the magic of written commitments to battle the "cooling-off" laws that exist in many states. The laws are designed to allow customers a few days after agreeing to purchase an item to cancel the sale and receive a full refund. At first this legislation hurt the hard-sell companies deeply. Because they emphasize high-pressure tactics, their customers often buy, not because they want the products but because they are duped or intimidated into the sale. When the laws went into effect, these customers began canceling in droves.
The companies have since learned a beautifully simple trick that cuts the number of such cancellations drastically. They merely have the customer, rather than the salesperson, fill out the sales agreement. According to the sales-training program of a prominent encyclopedia company, that personal commitment alone has proved to be "a very important psychological aid in preventing customers from backing out of their contracts." Like the Amway Corporation, these organizations have found that something special happens when people put their commitments on paper: They live up to what they have written down.
Another common way for businesses to cash in on the "magic" of written declarations occurs through the use of an innocent-looking promotional device. Before I began to study weapons of social influence, I used to wonder why big companies such as Procter & Gamble and General Foods are always running those "25-, 50-, or 100-words or less" testimonial contests. They all seem to be alike. A contestant is to compose a short personal statement that begins with the words, "I like the product because . . ." and goes on to laud the features of whatever cake mix or floor wax happens to be at issue. The company judges the entries and awards prizes to the winners. What puzzled me was what the companies got out of the deal. Often the contest requires no purchase; anyone submitting an entry is eligible. Yet, the companies appear to be willing to incur the costs of contest after contest.
I am no longer puzzled. The purpose behind the testimonial contest-to get as many people as possible to endorse a product-is the same as the purpose behind the political essay contests: to get endors.e.m.e.nts for Chinese communism. In both instances the process is the same. Partic.i.p.ants voluntarily write essays for attractive prizes that they have only a small chance to win. They know that for an essay to have any chance of winning at all, however, it must include praise for the product. So they search to find praiseworthy features of the product, and they describe them in their essays. The result is hundreds of POWs in Korea or hundreds of thousands of people in America who testify in writing to the products" appeal and who, consequently, experience that magical pull to believe what they have written.
READER"S REPORT 3.2 From the Creative Director of a Large, International Advertising Agency
In the late 1990s, I asked Fred DeLucca, the founder and CEO of Subway restaurants, why he insisted in putting the prediction "10,000 stores by 2001" on the napkins in every single Subway. It didn"t seem to make sense, as I knew he was a long way from his goal, that consumers didn"t really care about his plan, and his franchisees were deeply troubled by the compet.i.tion a.s.sociated with such a goal. His answer was, "If I put my goals down in writing and make them known to the world, I"m committed to achieving them." Needless to say, he not only has, he"s exceeded them.
Author"s note: As of January 1, 2008, Subway had over 28,000 restaurants in 86 countries. So, as we will also see in the next section, written-down and publicly made commitments can be used not only to influence others in desirable ways but to influence ourselves similarly. As of January 1, 2008, Subway had over 28,000 restaurants in 86 countries. So, as we will also see in the next section, written-down and publicly made commitments can be used not only to influence others in desirable ways but to influence ourselves similarly.
The Public Eye One reason that written testaments are effective in bringing about genuine personal change is that they can so easily be made public. The prisoner experience in Korea showed the Chinese to be quite aware of an important psychological principle: Public commitments tend to be lasting commitments. The Chinese constantly arranged to have the pro-Communist statements of their captives seen by others. They were posted around camp, read by the author to a prisoner discussion group, or even read on the camp radio broadcast. As far as the Chinese were concerned, the more public the better. Why?
Whenever one takes a stand that is visible to others, there arises a drive to maintain that stand in order to look look like a consistent person (Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Bonoma, 1971; Schlenker et al., 1994). Remember that earlier in this chapter I described how desirable good personal consistency is as a trait; how someone without it may be judged as fickle, uncertain, pliant, scatterbrained, or unstable; how someone with it is viewed as rational, a.s.sured, trustworthy, and sound. Given this context, it is hardly surprising that people try to avoid the look of inconsistency. For appearances" sake, then, the more public a stand, the more reluctant we will be to change it. like a consistent person (Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Bonoma, 1971; Schlenker et al., 1994). Remember that earlier in this chapter I described how desirable good personal consistency is as a trait; how someone without it may be judged as fickle, uncertain, pliant, scatterbrained, or unstable; how someone with it is viewed as rational, a.s.sured, trustworthy, and sound. Given this context, it is hardly surprising that people try to avoid the look of inconsistency. For appearances" sake, then, the more public a stand, the more reluctant we will be to change it.
An ill.u.s.tration of the way public commitments can lead to consistent further action was provided in a famous experiment performed by two prominent social psychologists, Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard (1955). The basic procedure was to have college students first estimate in their minds the length of lines they were shown. At this point, one sample of the students had to commit themselves publicly to their initial judgments by writing their estimates down, signing their names to them, and turning them in to the experimenter. A second sample of students also committed themselves to their first estimates, but they did so privately by writing them down on a Magic Writing Pad and then erasing them by lifting the Magic Pad"s plastic cover before anyone could see what they had written. A third set of students did not commit themselves to their initial estimates at all; they just kept the estimates in mind privately. also committed themselves to their first estimates, but they did so privately by writing them down on a Magic Writing Pad and then erasing them by lifting the Magic Pad"s plastic cover before anyone could see what they had written. A third set of students did not commit themselves to their initial estimates at all; they just kept the estimates in mind privately.
In these ways, Deutsch and Gerard had cleverly arranged for some students to commit themselves publicly, some privately, and some not at all, to their initial decisions. What Deutsch and Gerard wanted to find out was which of the three types of students would be most inclined to stick with their first judgments after receiving information that those judgments were incorrect. Therefore, all the students were given new evidence suggesting that their initial estimates were wrong, and they were then given the chance to change their estimates.
The results were quite clear. The students who had never written down their first choices were the least loyal to those choices. When new evidence was presented that questioned the wisdom of decisions that had never left their heads, these students were the most influenced by the new information to change what they had viewed as the "correct" decision. Compared to these uncommitted students, those who had merely written their decisions for a moment on a Magic Pad were significantly less willing to change their minds when given the chance. Even though they had committed themselves under anonymous circ.u.mstances, the act of writing down their first judgments caused them to resist the influence of contradictory new data and to remain consistent with their preliminary choices. However, Deutsch and Gerard found that, by far, it was the students who had publicly recorded their initial positions who most resolutely refused to shift from those positions later. Public commitments had hardened them into the most stubborn of all.
This sort of stubbornness can occur even in situations in which accuracy should be more important than consistency. In one study, when 6- or 12-person experimental juries were deciding a close case, hung juries were significantly more frequent if the jurors had to express their opinions with a visible show of hands rather than by secret ballot. Once jurors had stated their initial views publicly, they were reluctant to allow themselves to change publicly. Should you ever find yourself as the foreperson of a jury under these conditions, you could reduce the risk of a hung jury by choosing a secret rather than public balloting technique (Kerr & MacCoun, 1985).
The Deutsch and Gerard finding that we are truest to our decisions if we have bound ourselves to them publicly can be put to good use. Consider the organizations dedicated to helping people rid themselves of bad habits. Many weight-reduction clinics, for instance, understand that often a person"s private decision to lose weight will be too weak to withstand the blandishments of bakery windows, wafting cooking scents, and late-night Sara Lee commercials. So they see to it that the decision is b.u.t.tressed by the pillars of public commitment. They require their clients to write down an immediate weight-loss goal and show show that goal to as many friends, relatives, and neighbors as possible. Clinic operators report that frequently this simple technique works where all else has failed. that goal to as many friends, relatives, and neighbors as possible. Clinic operators report that frequently this simple technique works where all else has failed.
Of course, there"s no need to pay a special clinic in order to engage a visible commitment as any ally. One San Diego woman described to me how she employed a public promise to help herself finally stop smoking:
I remember it was after I heard about another scientific study showing that smoking causes cancer. Every time one of those things came out, I used to get determined to quit, but I never could. This time, though, I decided I had to do something. I"m a proud person. It matters to me if other people see me in a bad light. So I thought, "Maybe I can use that pride to help me dump this d.a.m.n habit." So I made a list of all the people who I really wanted to respect me. Then I went out and got some blank business cards and I wrote on the back of each card, "I promise you that I will never smoke another cigarette."