Robert Cialdini on the Psychology of Influence (Podcast)

we had another three hours. I had so many questions. I was taking notes furiously. You can hear me writing and typing in the background. We I wanted to circle back to so many things he brought up. There's so much to talk about. Really, it needs about eight hours. We were lucky we had him for well over an hour talking about you know, most people when they expand a successful book, they do a light touch up. This new book it's double the size of the original. It

absolutely is practically a brand new book. Look for the blue and gold cover if you want to make sure you're getting the edition. I found the conversation to be nothing short of of fascinating and spectacular and I think you will. Also, you will hear my thought process of do I just stay with this topic, do I get to the next question? Let me circle back? And of

course you run out of time. There's there's I literally had forty more questions to ask him, plus all of my notes and and unfortunately, you know, these podcasts aren't nine hours long. But you will find this to be absolutely fascinating. He is an intriguing person and just so knowledgeable about why people do what they do and how we influence each other in including some of the ethical considerations of that. Let me stop babbling with no further ado.

My conversation with Professor Robert Chaldeini, author of Influence, the Psychology of Persuasion. This is Master's in Business with very renaults on Bluebird Radio. My extra special guest today is Dr Robert Chaldeini. He is the region's Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Marketing at Arizona State University. He is the author of books that have sold more than seven million copies, including Influence, The Psychology of Persuasion and Persuasion, A Revolutionary

Way to Influence and Persuade. His new and expanded version of Influence is just out Robert Chaldini, Welcome back to Master's in Business. Thank you, very good to be with you again. Same. I've been looking forward to this for a while, and I have to start with, you know, my my something version of Influences, the skinny, little dog eared paperback. The new book is I don't know, it's probably double in size, it's bigger, it's it's expanded, it's

more in depth. How much of this book is new and different compared to either the original or any of the prior revisions. We added two hundred and twenty new pages, so it's almost like a new book. It's we didn't just append two d and twenty pages. We uh integrated the new material into the existing material, because the existing material still UH fortunately stands, and we wanted to emphasize new directions, new UH information, new examples, and specific new

ways to harness those principles. One of the things we got as feedback on previous editions is, you know, Professor Sheldy, we we understand those principles of influence, We see their utility and business, but can you give us the exact words that we can use to ignite them, to activate

them in a particular situation. So there's a lot more of uh, specific things to say, specific scripts to use, specific sequences of information to provide that allow you to uh uh to be the benefit of those powerful sources

of change. But quite interesting, I have to go back to the original book and ask you a question that you know, just grabbed me when I first read this and in in the beginning of your research for ins LUNs, which really dates back to you as a grad student, you spent a few years working undercover at places like used car dealerships or telemarketing firms. Tell us a little

bit about the genesis of influence, you know. I started working as a academic research psychologists social psychologist, studying my passion, which is persuasion and social influence in a laboratory, using college students as my subjects for the most part, and learning some important things I think by being able to structure an environment in which we were able to test exactly the question that we were interested in um in

a rigorous way. But I quickly began to see that I was limiting myself in recognizing how we could generalize the results that we got from college students in a lab. A tory to the influence wars that are being fought all around us every day, in which people are trying to move us in a particular direction, and we're trying to move others in a particular direction. What's the evidence of what works in naturally occurring interactions between people that

cause one person to say yes to another? And it seemed to me that there were professions whose business it is to get others to say yes to them, right, they must know what works, otherwise they would go out of business. So I began to take training undercover in as many of the influence professions as I could get access to by UH signing up to be a trainee. So I would learn what they had learned that got people to say yes in a variety of these professions.

So I learned how to sell automobile from a lot. I learned how to sell insurance from a desk. I learned how to sell portrait photography over the phone. But I didn't stop with sales. I learned how advertisers, as and and copywriters get people to say yes from an ad they write. How how charity solicitors get people to give funds and donations to particular causes, How recruiters get people, not just arm service recruiters or business uh you know,

corporate recruiters get people to move in their direction. What do cult recruiters do? Right and down the line? I looked for what were the commonalities that worked in each of these various professions that everybody said, do this, do this thing because it enriches us if you do so. Tell us some of the common analities, what phrases and thoughts and influence programs for lack of a better word,

because I think sales training is the wrong description. What was the common thread in all of these different entities. I was shocked at how small the footprint was. I only counted six universal principles of influence that were recommending in each of these um influence professions. The first is reciprocity.

People say yes to those they owe. So one thing you can do is give first, give something of value to people, and they will stand ready to give back to you when you ask for something, not necessarily directly in return, but down the road. If you give them um information that's a value for them, You give them something a favor or a service for free, and then uh, the it's their turn, They're much more likely to say yes to you in return. There's a lovely little study

it done in a candy shop. Right if the manager gives a little piece of chocolate two people as they come in as a sample, they're forty two more likely to buy candy. Right now. The key is you might say, well, maybe they just like the chocolate, so they bought some more. If you look into the data, the great majority didn't buy any more chocolate. They bought something else because it wasn't what they had received. It was that they had received.

So I always advise if you go into a situation where you want to be more influential, Let's say you're in a new situation, maybe a new organization or setting, and there's a group of people you want to be influential there. The first question to ask is not to look around that room and say, who can most help me here? The first question is home can I most help here? So show up with donuts and coffee the

first day, and and it will pay dividends. Those people will stand on the balls of their feet ready to give back to you. I remember a couple of years ago we started getting solicitations through the mail for some charity where they included a dollar bill in the mailer, and you say, wow, that looks so expensive, And I remember they used to do it. I might have been the Heart Association used to send return receipt stickers for you to put on a piece of mail you were

sending out, so you had your name and address. But this was the next level. And then you stop and think about it. Well, between the stamp and the envelope and the printing and putting it together, the dollar may be the cheapest part of it, but still that has to have an impact on people who open up an unsolicited letter and there's a dollar in it. Right. Here's the thing. You can't send the dollar back, right right,

So you keep it. And as soon as you've kept it, the rule of reciprocity that's been installed in you from childhood that says you must not take without giving a return kicks in. And the American Veterans Association gives that little pack of uh gummed address labels in there. Right,

it increases donations. That doesn't surprise me at all, because not only does my wife use them, but I imagine every time she pulls out that role of shiny gold return addresses and pulls it off she remembers, Oh, this came to me from this group, and it it has to be, it has to be a nagging motivation that I should really reciprocate their generosity. You know, I get these pins at various conferences and so on that have some sponsors name on them and so on, and and uh,

you know, Uh, they're so trivial. I hardly pay attention to them, and they usually go in a drawer with fifty other pins. Right, But I went to one conference, all right, I was a speaker, so they knew who I was and they put my name on the pin. Jeez, what was the impact of that on you? So that's

one of the accelerators of the proof. Not only should you give first, which is kind of different from the new usual business exchange where we say to people, you buy our product, you sign our contract, and we will give back to you exactly what you hope for. That means they have to go first. Rule for reciprocity says you go first anyway, and if you give something personalized to the individual, right, the rule for reciprocity immediately becomes

more muscular. That pen. I carry it around with me because it's got my name on it, and every time I look at it, I see my name on one side of the pen and the sponsor's name on the other side of the pen. Just like your wife remembers, I remember that they gave me this pen personal gift, not just a a universal gift, the gift to everybody. That's one of the keys to accelerating the power of

this principle. You know, after our first conversation, I think that was two years ago, I got a lot of email from from different people, but the one that really stood out to me was from a fan of yours, Bob, and he said, you were burying the lead in your insight about reciprocity, and he believes that reciprocity is even more powerful than you suggest. So I have to ask you two questions about this. First, have you ever heard

this concept? Has anyone ever told you, hey, you're not emphasizing reciprocity enough, and and what are your thoughts on on this idea of his? Yes, I think he's right. Uh, it is so fundamental that it appears in every human culture. There's not a single human society on earth that fails to train its members in reciprocity from childhood. You must not take without giving him turn. You must not take

without giving and return. In every language, we have very nasty names for people who don't abide by that rule. We call them moochers right who take without giving a return or or or or uh um. We can call them various things like like that, spongers, or takers, or ingrates or teenagers. To be honest, nobody wants to be labeled like that. So people always give back to us.

And in keeping with what your listeners said, UH, I have in the new book got language to help uh help us employ the situation in places where we used to drop the ball. How many times have you heard somebody say, Barry, thank you so much for this. That was really great. You really helped me out. And what do you put in the moment after genuine thank you right where the rule for reciprocity dominates that situation, I'll tell you what I used to say, don't worry about it.

There was not a big deal. Big deal would have done it for anybody. My pleasure, my pleasure. It's not your pleasure. You went beyond I know that I went above and beyond it. I went to some effort to do it, and then I just slap it out the window with the back of my hand. So here's what I say. Now, one of two things. If that individual is somebody who I have a long term relationship with, I say, of course, I was glad to do it. It's what long term partners do for one another. I

put it on the map. I don't deny it, I don't dismiss it, I don't diminish it. I say, it's what long term partners do for one another. And now when I need something from that individual, you know, to turn something around more quickly, and so I could whatever the issue is, right, they'll move heaven and earth for you. Yeah, they'll Now let's say you don't know that person, it's the first time, and you've done something above and beyond the call for this person. They say, thank you, that

was great. Very Here's what I think I would say in that moment. Look, I was glad to do it. I know that if the situation had ever been if the situation were ever reversed, you do the same for me. Once again, we don't diminish it. We just say you play by the rules. I know you. Look, I know you'd played by the rules. And let's be careful not to say if the situation had been reversed, you would have done the same for me. That's in the past.

If ever happened in the in the past, what you do, what I say now is if the situation were to be reversed, I know you would do the same for me. So you're planting the seed perspectively as opposed to referencing what already took place in the past. I'm planting the seed, and I've cultivated the earth before I planted. It's almost like it's pre suasion, exactly right. So we're talking about

reciprocity on a micro level. And some of the examples that you reference in the book social Etiquette, gift giving, handshakes, the Golden rule, um, things like collaboration or even collusion. But what about reciprocity on a macro level, and some examples include the Martial plan or open immigration policies. How does macro reciprocity work. It works remarkably. It goes back to the Magna Carta in fact, where you know the

British statement of how we govern now. One of the one of the features of it from I think the twelfth century said, if we're in a war with another country. If our people are representatives who are selling our commercial representatives are people who are selling in their country, or you know, if they are protected, then we have to

protect their foreign citizens who are in our country. It explains something that I'm old enough to remember that the Cuban missile crisis back in the early sixties when the world was on pins and needles, because the US had found that Russia Soviet Union at that time had sent guided missiles and put them in Cuba and pointed them

to the United States nuclear missiles. Well, John F. Kennedy was president at the time, confronted Cruscheff, head of the Soviet Union at the time, and demanded that they be removed otherwise there would be war. And said, We've set up a blockade, so any Solviat ships that are currently coursing to Cuba to continue to add to the nuclear stockpile there, they would be stopped, right And Cruisia said, if you do that, that's an active war. If not any war, it was a nuclear war that was estimated

to eliminate one third of the population on Earth. How did they get out of it? Well, the the story was that Kennedy was so steadfast, so steely, i'd so resolute that he refused to back down. And eventually Kruscheff blinked and removed his missiles from Cuba and the US one, and Kennedy built his reputation as an anti Soviet leader. That increased his popularity. Would there have been some new documents released recently from the Kennedy library that showed that

it was not that at all. It was reciprocation. Kennedy promised to remove missiles from Turkey that we're pointed to the Soviet Union if Kruscheff would remove miss from Cuba and required that Kruscheff not tell anyone about the reciprocal exchange because that would weaken his political Kennedy's political position at home as somebody who compromised with the Soviets. And so what happened was the rule for reciprocity was suppressed

as the true reason. Instead, stubbornness was elevated. The thing that actually would have created a war was elevated to permanence as the reason we got out of it. It was the opposite. It was reciprocity that exists in all human cultures. That's what got us out of the Cuban missile. So there's a whole another conversation to be had about why politicians have to hide what really happened and present

such a strong face. I'll hold off on that, but I have to ask you a question about evolutionary biology because you said reciprocity and a lot of the rules of influence show up in every single culture on earth. So is this a learned behavior or is this really written in our genetics as social primates. This is something

that only humans have. In terms of future reciprocity. There will be some exchanges, cooperative interactions between uh infra humans and within their species right there, they can cooperate, but the idea of getting something and having an obligation to give into the future, only we have that, and it's mostly,

in my view, socialized into us rather than evolved into us. Now, I'm not going to take a clear stand on that, but for the most part, in my view, the reason it exists, and we have those nasty names in every human culture for people who violate the rule, is that if we have a society where people give and take and cooperate and exchange, the society thrives, it flourishes. So that's why it's socialized into us. I think primarily quite fascinating. I have to start with a quote from the new

version of the book that that I found quite fascinating. Quote. Essential assertion of this book is that our choice of what to say or do immediately before making an appeal significantly affects its persuasive success. But there's a related choice that occurs even before that one. It's whether on ethical grounds to try to attain success in such a way. That's the beginning of chapter thirteen. Discuss why you thought it was important to dedicate a big chunk of the

book to this. Because the principles we talk about in the book our dynamite, and we've got possession of dynamite, so we have to use it ethically. We can use these principles for ill, or we can use it for them for good. And the clear recommendation is if we use them in an ethical, responsible way, we build relationships, We build long term, sustainable exchange histories with people, and

that can hinues into the future. If we use it to to exploit or deceive or course people into change, we may get that change in the immediate situation, but we've we've essentially um created an adversary, Uh, somebody who resents being pushed or tricked into assent. So uh. In fact, Richard Taylor, Nobel Laureate, in in one of the endorsements for the book, here's what he says about the book. There's dynamite here. Please what use what you learn with care?

That's a very wise thing for him to say, not surprisingly it's Nobel Prize winner. It's the ethics of the process that are so important to producing long term relationships that continue to pay off for us. You know, I mentioned earlier that you had gone undercover at car dealerships and charities and insurance sales place. There's a line that has always stayed with me from the book, which is, quote, the number one rule for salespeople is to show customers

you genuinely like them. Why is this so important for a salesperson to demonstrate affection to a customer or a client Because people like those who like them. And now we're into the second principle of influence liking that. Uh, it allows us to be more influential if we can arrange for people to feel a sense of rapport, sense of liking for us before we begin the process. We're halfway there, already to assent before we even deliver the

re asked or the recommendation or the proposal. And uh so, one way to do that is to turn the rule that I always heard in every one of these training programs on its ear. They we were always told, if you want to get somebody to um say yes to you for your request or proposal, get them to like you, right, and then there are various ways to get them to

like you. But one thing I recognized is that the way you the best way to do it is to come to like them and show them that you like them and down come the barriers to change because they know that if you like them, you're going to steer them correctly. That's what we do with the people we like. That's what we do with our friends, right, and the

and the fact is they will be right. If you truly come to like somebody, you will try to give that person the best possible arrangement because of that sense of rapport and affection you have for that person. So that's what we can do. Because we can control how much we like other people more than we can control whether they like us or how much they like us so let's work on ourselves. Find things that are genuinely

praiseworthy about that person. Right. It may take a little longer for certain people and other people, but you can do it. Focus on that and let that person know, give them a compliment, a genuine compliment, or find things that are genuinely similar between you and that person. Not only do we like people who who like us, we like people who are like us, members of the same tribe. That's right, you referred recently to. I forgot who you were talking about. But they were a fan of the

same team that you're a fan of. And suddenly everything about that person is Hey, they were smarter, their books were, but everything about them took a step up. And that's just because they're members of the same you know, they like the same things, the members of the same trime. They have similar affiliations. It's that powerful social proof. It's that powerful. It's that powerful. And I mean, and I'll give you the exact situation. I grew up in Wisconsin.

The NFL team that's the home team in Wisconsin has always been the Green Bay Packers. I read an article a few months ago that said that um justin Timberlake, that's and Little Wayne. Any all, these two musical celebrities, right, they are both avid Packer fans. Very I immediately thought better of their music, and I wanted them to succeed into the future because we are members of the same tribe, and you are not what I think of as a

Little Wayne fan from the outset. But man, now, so since we're talking about ethical considerations and questions, it raises a really important issue. How do we protect ourselves from people who may not have your level or Dick Taylor's level of ethical recognition, and how do we protect ourselves from unscrupulous users of of these psychological techniques. Right, So, at the end of every chapter in the book, I have a section called defense how to say no to

somebody who's used these principles. Right, So, let's let's take the liking principle for example, And let's say you're shopping for a car, or you've got somebody who wants to partner with you on some business deal, and you find yourself liking that person more than you would have expected

for the amount of time that you've spent together. Let's let's go to the car sales room and and if you recognize that liking is there in the situation, added to an extent that's inordinate more than you would expect. Step back from the situation and recognize why did Why am I liking this salesperson? Oh yeah, he gave me donuts and coffee. Oh yeah. Uh. He says that his wife grew up in the same place that I grew up. Oh yeah, he complimented me on my uh, interior choices

for the car. I'm looking all right? And then and then separate that sales person from the car, because you'll be driving the car off the lot, not him. Quite interesting, you know. Before we get into some specifics. My favorite story in the original book is how you met Charlie Manger. Tell us about how your relationship with Charlie Manger came about.

One day I went to my mailbox to find an envelope, big envelope, and I opened it to find a note from Charlie Manger appended to a single goal share of Berkshire Hathaway stock. The note said, you don't know me, but we have used the material in your book Influence to make us so much money here at Berkshire Hathaway. I'm sending you a share of a a stock out of reciprocation. Your first principle, right, you deserve something in return. At the time that share was worth seventy dollars. This

was like, is that what we're talking about? Yes, and today that's worth about four hundred and thirty dollars exactly.

And let me tell you the reason I held onto that share all these years with great benefit was because of what Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger do in there in Warren's letter to his shareholders every year for Brickshire Hathaway, where Warren establishes his credibility on the front page, on the first or second page of text of every of those uh of those letters, he does something to give me a sense of his credibility, his knowledge and trustworthiness.

He mentioned something that went wrong that year, something that didn't go as expected, and then he says, of course we've learned from that, we will never do that again. And then he moves on to the strengths of the year, all the things that went right. Very every year, I would say to myself, Wow, I'm dealing with a straight shooter here. Not only is this guy knowledgeable, he knows, you know, what's what went right and what went wrong. He's not trying to fool himself with this. He's trustworthy.

He's willing to tell us what went wrong before he tells us what went right. Right, he establishes his truthfulness, which makes me believe in what went right, to truly process it deeply and believe it fully. Because he first was willing to tell me what went wrong, I now believe the next thing he said. I recall reading something about that in influence someone who is honest and humble exactly, so I have never thought about selling that unit of a share of stock because every year I see how

honest and knowledgeable the man is. On the front page of the text that he said, there was a couple of years ago Berkshire did so well that year. There wasn't anything they did wrong. So you know what, what what Warren did? He told us about a mistake he made with Dexter shoes, about an error, just so he's making clear to us. Look, I'm not trying to claim

that I know everything. Look, I make mistakes right, And once again I'm astounded by the um, the honest, the transparency of the guy, and am willing to follow him from there on. So uh, it's it's a brilliant Uh, it's a brilliant tactic that it's not a tactic in the sense that he's doing something phony. He is an honest guy. He's showing us his honesty by doing something I recommend too. I would recommend to all your listeners.

If you've got a case to make, and all cases, of course have strengths and weaknesses, mention a weakness relatively early in your case, because that establishes your credibility for what you say next, and that's the moment for your strongest argument, immediately after you've mentioned a weakness, if you're saying, you know, I think we ought to move in this in this direction for your investments, let's say your h an advisor. H but there, let's talk about there's some

tax consequences of this. And this may take a little bit longer, right, but I think it will be well worth it for these reasons. People will now listen to those reasons differently in the moment after you've managed mentioned a weakness, and you will allow those strengths to just wipe out the weakness. Quite interesting. The other story in the book that really cracked me up. I guess we should have talked about it when we were discussing the

ethical considerations. Is the story of the two tailors Sit and Harry, where one of them pretends to be hard of hearing. To tell us a little bit about that story, because it's just unbelievable that these guys figured this out and used it so effectively. The breck Yes, the story of the who were ran a man's clothing shop back in the nineties in the depression right there and uh when a a person would come in, a man would

come in to buy a suit. Um, he would be in front of that three pained mirror you know you stand and be getting trying on a suit, and one of the brothers would call to across the room to the tailor, his other brother, Harry, how much for this? Uh? This beautiful? Oh will suit right? And Harry would call

back and the other brother would say, uh. He would cut his ear to hear, and then he'd say he says twenty nine dollars as if he didn't hear it correctly, and the guy would jump at it, sits and hustle out of the store, thinking he had pulled something over on the do bag brothers. In fact, the dog brothers and pulled something over on him, which was to say, you're getting this deal. They're getting this at a at a big discount. In fact, was the true price of

the suit. So here's the question that story raises, and I'm fascinated by it. So in the traditional world of behavioral finance, folks like Failure or Kneman would say the buyer there the suit, buyer was anchored on thirty nine dollars and suddenly twenty nine looks relatively inexpensive. So so it kind of raises a couple of questions. Is this just anchoring? Is this is there some social authority about oh, I'm getting a thirty nine a more valuable suit. What's

going on with this? And then I want to ask you some questions about behavioral economics. Why does the buyer think they're getting a bargain? And by the suit and run out right, you're correct about the anchoring process. If I give you a high number initially, if I ask you the distance to the sun, very and then I want to sell you a bottle of mineral water, right, the price of that bottle of water seems smaller to you by the process of anchoring, right, And so you're

more likely to buy it. It's crazy, but that's the truth. That's the way we work. It has to do with something called perceptual contrast. Anyway, in that contrast that the nine dollars suit now seemed less expensive than it would have if he hadn't heard thirty nine dollars first. So that's one component. The other is he thinks he's getting a great deal on this. Besides the fact that it seems less expensive. It seems like it's a thirty nine dollars suit that he's getting for nine dollars. So both

of those things are are working. So let's talk about behavioral finance and and throughout the book, you know, I kept having in the back of my head parallels to behavioral economics. Your first version of this was, did you have any idea that you were operating in parallel with people like Conomen and Teversky or Richard Thaylor or Robert Schiller or Thomas Killovich. How aware were you of that fields which really wasn't recognized for at least a decade or two later. I had no idea, but I think

I understand why it turned out that way. So, for example, influenced the book has been called the Bible of um, of e commerce, of digital marketing. Well, when it was written, there was no e commerce, there was no digital market there was no internet. And people have said how could you see a hit so far in the same way that you would say how could you see so far ahead into behavior of finance or behavior economics? It was not by looking forward as some sort of oracle. It

was by looking inward. What are the things that have always moved us as a species towards change? What are the things that have always counseled us correctly as to its time to to act in this way versus some other way? It were it was the six universal principles of influence that had always driven us into change. And so that's what I did. I didn't look forward thirty years. I looked inward to the factors that have always moved

us as a species. Huh. So let's talk about some of those six We talked about reciprocity, we talked about social proof. What other key drivers do you think are worth mentioning. We've also talked about authority to a degree, the extent to which you you you you want to say yes to those individuals who have showed you that they are credible sources of information. They are both knowledgeable and trustworthy. We've talked about that. Another is, of course, scarcity,

the idea of that. Let's talk about that because that is such a key issue in economics and finance, in psychology, Why is scarcity such a giant driver? It turns out that the key to scarcity, that is uh, the idea that people want more of those things they can have less of, right, is that they're afraid of losing. They're afraid of losing that desirable opportunity. They're afraid of missing out on this uh, this chance to move in a

productive direction, and so on. And as Daniel Kaneman has shown us, loss a version, the idea of losing something is more powerful, more motivating than the idea of gaining that very same thing, right, and scarcity, So loss is the ultimate form of scarcity. It means you can't get

it anymore. Right. So, the thing that makes scarcity so powerful across the widest range of situations is the idea that we will lose something, and that loss drives us crazy to an extent that a gain doesn't benefit doesn't make us as as satisfied as a loss makes us dissatisfied with the very same thing, right, So it's almost a two to one ratio. We feel losses twice as intensely as we feel the pleasure of gains. And my pet theory on that I want to want to ask

you about it feels that gains are temporary. You get a windfall, you can go out and you know, spend it freely and it's gone. But losses feel like they're permanent and never to be recaptured again. Why do you think the loss factor the scarcity factor is so much more intense. I have my own opinion, but I really like yours as well. So my guess is that if you ever see something with a big effect, it's never caused by one thing, always multiplely multiply caused. So here's

what I have thought. Uh, And it's an evolutionary explanation. If you are if you are um operating at a level of survival, right, and you have a chance to gain something, Okay, you'll get an increment upward. Right, if you get an increment downward, you may be gone. Game over right, You're gone. So you have to pay much more attention to the idea of losing something because you it may eliminate you. Right, existential threats are are more significant than you know a few I I always think

about this question in terms of Las Vegas. Not that I've been to Vegas and it seems like years, but right outside of the casinos is very often jewelry shops, and you watch people come out with winnings and buy you know, crazy expensive jewelry and stupid expensive watches. But the people who lose the rent money, they're really in dire straits. And that's not for people on the edge of survival. If you're if you're just above that subsistence level,

in it's an existential threat to suffer a loss. Existential is precisely right, you're gone, so you have to be alert to it. You have to be suspicious about any situation. You have to be willing to move against encounter. The possibility of loss to a much greater extent than the probability of gain makes a lot of sense. Any other of the main principles that we didn't get to that you think is worth mentioning before I have one more question I have to ask you, but I want to

stay with the principles. Yes, and there's the new one, the one that I call unity. I've actually added a seventh for this addition, um and we've kind of talked about it already. It's that the willingness of people. If if it as a communicator, you can arrange for people to see you as one of them, right, as of them, not just like them in tastes or preferences or styles

or so on, that that's what that increases liking. But if you can get them to see you as one of the category of individuals that you consider a WE group and US group, everything inside that category becomes easier to influence. Your more cooperative. You believe those people more, you trust those people more, you say yes to those people more. And what's what's key is you have to

bring to consciousness that unity that exists. Right. And I'll give you a short example of something that worked for me. A while ago. I was writing a report. It was due the next day, and as I was skimming it before putting in an envelope and sending it off, I uh, I saw that there was a section of it that

was not really compel. I didn't really have the evidence to make that case in that one section that I that I I wanted to be persuasive about but I knew that a colleague of mine, let's call him Tim uh did some research the previous year and he had the data that I needed, but I didn't have them. He had the data, so I sent him Uh an email. I said, Tim, I explained, you know, I have this thing. It has to go in the mail tomorrow to this

granting agency, and UM, I don't have the data. Could you go into your archives get that data out for me and send it over to me so I could get it into my report and and get it off by the end of the day. I said, I'm going to call you to tell you about the specifics of what I need. Well, I called him, and Tim was known to be an irascible kind of sour guy. He just was a negative guy. So he picked up the phone.

He said, Bob, I know why you're calling and the answer is no. Look I can't I can't be responsible for your poor time management skills. Man, I'm busy too. Very before I knew the research about unity and being raising to consciousness the category similarity between people right that defines them right, I would I would have said, come on, Tim, I need this this thing is due tomorrow. He already

said no to that. Here's what I said instead, Tim, We've been members of the same psychology department now for twelve years. I really need this. I had the data that afternoon. I imagine not a lot of people say no to you and get away with it. Well my kids, Well reciprocity doesn't always work with kids, for for obvious reasons they expected. So so let me ask you this question. The last time we I had you on the show, I asked you a question what made Donald Trump such

an effective communicator? Given the fact that we now have a new president and there's all sorts of of things going on around that, I want to ask you this question about President Biden. A large percentage of Republicans don't believe he was legitimately elected. They believe President Trump that the election was stolen. Given everything you know about tribes and influence, what do you think President Biden can do to influence this group of Republicans that he was legitimately elected.

I'm going to suggest something. It's a little used, very under used strata g from persuasion science. The convert communicator. This is somebody who used to believe what you believed, but you currently believe he's one of you or she's of you, and then has a new piece of information that you don't have that changed his or her mind and tells you why you can't dismiss that person. This is of your tribe, this is of you, this is

one of you. Now you've got a communicator not speaking from outside of your WE group, but speaking to you from inside of your WE group and providing a piece of information you don't have. So let's say it's about getting vaccinated and you're just not convinced that you should

and it's not necessary. And then you have somebody who says, I used to believe that, and then my mother got she wouldn't wear a mask, she wouldn't socially distance, she wouldn't get vaccinated just like me, and we buried her last week. Or if it was it's about measles vaccinations, and you say, and then my daughter got measles and she's deaf, right, all right, Now that's a piece of information you don't have, but it's coming from one of you. That's what I would recommend, So I know I only

have you for a limited amount of time. Let's this has really been absolutely intriguing. But let's jump to our favorite questions that we ask all of our guests, starting with tell us what you've been streaming this past year under Lockdown? What are your favorite Netflix or Amazon Prime shows? Or what podcasts are keeping you entertained. I've been re

streaming Breaking Bad. I love this show and These Days The Crown I've been I'm still in the middle of The Crown, right, So those are the two I've been entertaining myself with when I'm haven't been writing this uh expansion to the book quite quite interesting. Tell us about your mentors who helped influence your career, either as a professor or or an author. Yes, so there are three individuals in in graduate school and in my post doctoral fellowship.

One was my major advisor at chat Insco. Another uh famous psychologist at my graduate institution u n C at Chapel Hill, John Tebow. And then my post doctoral fellow advisor, Stanley Shackter at Columbia University. But I'll give you a

mentor who taught me something that I think saved my career. Um, before I went into college, I was a very good high school baseball player, and I had an offer to play minor league baseball, uh, from a scout from the White Sox, and I was going to be in so I don't know, level D baseball, you know, way down below and to start. And he came to my last game and he had a contract and he had he wanted me to sign it. And I was a center fielder. I wanted to be Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays, you know.

And his pen wouldn't work. And on the way to the car to get his other pen, we walked. He asked me, hey, kid, are you any good at school? I said yes. He said, good enough to get into college. Yeah, good enough to finish college. Yeah. Do you like school? Yeah? He said, go to school, kid, you're not good enough to make the Major's And he was right. I couldn't hit a slider. I couldn't hit a good slider and I was going to see a lot more good sliders as I went up to Bronx and he and I

went to school instead. That man. I mean, if I had wound up in you know, Class A ball, I moved up to the middle or maybe Class double A baseball, and then I just couldn't get any further. After four years let's say of trying by four years. Maybe I'm married, maybe I have a child. I don't get to go to college. Now you know what I get to do. I get to be the assistant manager of the pizza hut in the last city I wound up in, and Barry,

we're not having this conversation. Probably not, that's amazing. Did you ever get a hold of who that guy was? Do you know who he is? He passed away. His name was Bunny Brief. I remember him. Did you have an opportunity to Detroit back in the forties and thirties? And but he was a scout in Milwaukee where I grew up in? Yeah, did you ever have an opportunity

to thank him for his Never? Did? He passed away before I had the chance to recognize how important it was for him to tell me, Look, don't just follow your passion, which everybody else says, right, follow your passion that you're good at that great at right right, that's an unbelievable story. So let's go to uh books. Tell us some of your all time favorite books and what

are you reading right now? So, in terms of fiction, Remains of the Day by UM and Underground Railroad by Colin Whitehead for nonfiction, I'm going to go to the things that are influence related Aristotle's rhetoric. My God, at the first time anybody tried to systematize the process of of persuasion, he did it. And then my Nobel laureate authors, uh you know Daniel Koneman for thinking fast and smoke slow, Uh nudge for Sailor and Sunsteen uh. Those And what

I'm reading now is Um Sapiens by Uval Noah Harari. Brilliant, brilliant book, really really interesting. Let's talk about you mentioned don't always just follow your passion. What sort of advice would you give to a recent college graduate who is interested in a career in in psychology or academia, or in writing, or any combination of those three. If you're really interested in a career in psychology, there's a little secret that you can employ. It's called independent study credit.

You get credit for working on a project with one of the professors um in in psycho in the psychology department, or in the communications department or in the marketing department, whichever one you want to go to, and you get experience working as a professional on a project that they have. That tells you whether you really want to go further in this, but it also gives you somebody who can write a letter of recommendation for you to the next step to the master's program or MBA programmers or PhD

program to be in a psychology related career. Quite quite interesting. And our final question, what do you know about the world of psychology today that you wish you knew back when you were first writing Influence. Here's what I wish I knew about the influence process back then that would have uh made for a better environment for me going forward. It is when you are going into a situation with people you don't know right, you don't know much about them at all, think the best of them, think the

best about them. It allows you to be generous with them. And here there are three downstream consequences of that generosity. First, by the principle of liking, they will like you more for being a generous person. Second, by the principle of reciprocation, they will give you that generosity back. Third, by the principle of commitment and consistency. When they recognize that they are being generous with you, they are giving you things,

They are working together with you. They will want to be consistent into the future with what they have already done. And now you have a set of people you like, who like you, who are exchanging favors, gifts and services and information into the future. If I had known that thirty years ago, I would have done it immediately. It took me a long time to recognize that. Huh. Quite fascinating, Bob. Thank you so much for being so generous with your time.

We've been speaking with Robert Sheldini, author of Influence. If you enjoy this conversation, well, be sure and check out any of our previous four hundred such interviews. You can find those at iTunes, Spotify, wherever you feed your podcast fixed. We love your comments, feedback ends suggestions right to us at m IB podcast at Bloomberg dot net. Sign up for my daily reads at Ridholtz dot com. Check out my weekly column. It's on Bloomberg dot com slash Opinion.

Follow me on Twitter at rit Haltz. I would be remiss if I did not think the practice staff that helps put these conversations together each week. Marufle is my audio engineer. Michael Boyle is my producer. Atika val bron is our project manager. Michael Batnick is my head of research. I'm Barry Ritholtz. You've been listening to Master's Business on Bloomberg Radio.