Persuasion: Social Influence and Compliance Gaining (2022) by Robert H. Gass and John S. Seiter provides a deep dive into the mechanics of influence, blending theory with real-world applications. This article distills the book’s core insights, focusing on practical takeaways.

Exec Summary

• Your credibility is crucial, increase it
• Save face to increase compliance, especially if they’re higher status
• NLP is hogwash

FULL SUMMARY

About the Author:
Robert H. Gass is a professor of Communication Studies with a focus on persuasion, social influence, and political rhetoric.
John S. Seiter is a professor of Communication who specializes in influence, deception, and intercultural communication.

1. What’s Persuasion?

Persuasion is still as much an art as it is a science.

Human nature is complex and our understanding of persuasion is still too limited.

However, the inverse is also true.
Persuasion is not just an art; it’s also a science.

And we can better persuade if we understand the science.

Definition of persuasion:

Persuasion involves one or more persons who are engaged in the activity of creating, reinforcing, modifying, or extinguishing beliefs, attitudes, intentions, motivations, and/or behaviors within the constraints of a given communication context.

Persuasion is about long-term influence, while compliance gaining is about immediate agreement.

• Persuasion involves changing someone’s attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors over time.
• Compliance Gaining is more immediate and focuses on getting a person to say yes to a specific request.

Types of Influence

• Persuasion – A voluntary process where people change attitudes or behavior due to logical, emotional, or ethical appeals.
• Coercion – Uses force or threats to change behavior.
• Manipulation – Uses deception or psychological tricks to influence others.
• Propaganda – Often one-sided messaging designed to shape opinions in a biased way.

🛠️ Practical Application:

• Use “Nudges”: Subtle cues can influence behavior (e.g., placing fruit at eye level to increase fruit consumption)
• Use Opinion Leaders For Persuasion: People underestimate the power of in-person influence compared to other communication contexts

2. The Two Prevailing Models of Persuasion

Researchers have identified two major persuasion models, both largely based on how much people reflect and process the information.

While there is criticism against the ‘dual model’ (see ‘unimodel of persuasion’), many studies upheld both models’ utility, and both enjoy broad acceptance.
They are:

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

Suggests there are two routes to persuasion:

• Central Route: Involves deeper thinking. Logical arguments and evidence appeal to critical thinking.
• Peripheral Route: Uses cues like attractiveness, authority, quantity of arguments and emotions that are less related to the substance of the message

Example: A car buyer researching safety features (central route) vs. choosing based on a celebrity endorsement (peripheral route).

People use one or the other depending on:

• Motivation to engage in central processing, for example if you’re highly involved with the topic or issue. Conversely, low involvement, or not caring, means more likely to resort to peripheral cues
• Ability, which refers to mental faculties and knowledge of the topic (ie.: IQ and expertise)

More factors that influence central or peripheral include:

• Background noise
• Time constraints
• Mood
• Need for cognition, a personality trait related to ‘enjoying thinking about things’

Some researchers suggest there can be parallel processing—that is, using both routes at once ( Petty, Kasmer, Haugtvedt, & Cacioppo, 2004).
However, they also suggest there is usually a tradeoff between the two and one tends to prefer one or the other.

Heuristic-Systematic Model

Similar to ELM, emphasizing systematic (deep) vs. heuristic (shallow) processing:

• Systematic Processing: Careful evaluation of arguments
• Heuristic Processing: Relying on mental shortcuts like “experts know best.”

Example: Trusting a doctor’s advice because of their white coat, rather than evaluating the evidence yourself.

Shelley Chaiken and Alice Eagly, the original researchers behind the model, maintain that simultaneous processing of messages by both system is common, but there is little empirical evidence for simultaneous processing.

‘Sufficiency principle’: states that people use the systematic processing as little as possible to conserve mental energy. Such as, we strive for the perfect tradeoff where we know and process as much needed, but no more than needed.

🛠️ Applications

• Make people think for lasting persuasion
• Tailor your approach to their cognitive engagement

Social Judgment Theory: Why Ideologues Are Tough to Persuade

Social judgment theory explains how people accept or reject certain messages.

On a given topic there are a range of possible opinions that one can hold.
For example, on the murder’s punishment one’s position can range according to this chart:

Seiter, J. S. , & Gass, R. H. (2022). Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining (7th Edition). The ‘X’ marks the ‘anchor position’, the most preferred option

Note that Muffy and Mort’s positions are close.

But Muffy is an ego-involved person because this has personal significance to them and their sense of self. They are strongly committed to their stand and are more likely to reject other positions.

It’s difficult to persuade someone who is ego involved because their latitude of rejection is large while their latitude of acceptance is narrow (e.g., Sherif, Kelly, Rodgers, Sarup, & Tittler, 1973).

Exceptions apply if the intervention is related to goals/needs rather than values, in which case strong arguments facilitate persuasion.

Trump’s success is dexplained by large latitudes of rejection

The authors observe that while Trump has low approval ratings, he was an effective politician and persuader, and is revered by his fanbase.

Even in the face of compelling evidence, some people do not change their minds.
And they explain why with social judgment theory:

Political polarization highlights the role of resistance to persuasion.
Social judgment theory, goes a long way in explaining this divide. When people have small latitudes of acceptance and large latitudes of rejection, opposing messages are discounted.

3. Attitudes and Consistency

‘Attitude’ is:

“A psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor”

You can think of it as part of character and linked to behavior.
In general, stronger attitudes are better predictors of behavior. When attitudes are weaker, people may use the
reverse approach, inferring their attitudes from their behavior (Holland et al., 2002 ).

Why is this relevant?
Because attitudes help predict, explain, and modify behavior.

Besides attitude, people’s intentions also matter, shaped by attitudes towards behaviors, normative beliefs (what we believe people generally do), and perceived behavior control, related to whether we believe we can do it or not.

Key Takeaways:

• People strive for consistency in beliefs and actions.
• Cognitive dissonance occurs when behavior contradicts beliefs, often leading to attitude change.

🛠️ Practical Application for Marketing

• Sell both indulgence and virtue at once: Marketing products as “light,” “fat-free,” or “organic” allows consumers to indulge while staying consistent with their health goals or values.
• Brand Loyalty with consistency: Foster strong associations with your brand to make consumers feel inconsistent or uneasy to switch

And its opposite:

• Marketing Inconsistency – Encourage brand switching: Ads like “Think different” (Macintosh) or “I could have had a V8!” create psychological imbalance, urging consumers to question habits and try new products.

• Encourage active participation to deepen commitment: Asking consumers to vote, customize, or share experiences with a product increases their psychological investment and brand attachment.

• Merchandising – Secure loyalty with branded rewards: Offers like logo mugs drive consumers to buy more of a product to earn rewards, locking in loyalty and boosting consumption over time.

• Adapt your message to their values: Persuasion works best when you align your appeal with the audience’s beliefs and values, rather than trying to shift their entire worldview.

🛠️ Practical Applications for Interpersonal Persuasion

• Expose contradictions to motivate change: Pointing out inconsistencies in someone’s attitudes can move them toward your position—but push too hard, and you risk backlash or rejection.

• Secure public commitments: When people state their choices or beliefs publicly (e.g., resolutions, political support), they’re more likely to follow through due to the pressure to stay consistent.

• Use effortful or ritualized entry: The more effort or symbolic meaning involved in joining (e.g., initiations, training, pledges), the stronger the psychological commitment.

• Let people make small initial commitments: Once someone says yes or invests a little, they’re more likely to escalate and stay the course (the foot-in-the-door technique).

• Leverage sunk-cost bias: People often stick to a decision because they’ve already invested time, energy, or money—even when it’s irrational. Persuaders can use this tendency to keep people engaged.

• Ask, don’t order: people naturally push back against threats to their freedom. For example, littering behavior increases with negative or punitive messages compared to polite ones ( Horsley, 1988 ; Huffman, Grossnickle, Cope, & Huffman, 1995).
  So acknowledge listeners’ personal autonomy

• 🛡️ Avoid commitment traps yourself (defensive strategy): Don’t be rushed into commitments, and be willing to back out if a decision turns out poorly. This isn’t a persuasion tactic, but it’s useful resistance advice.

Cognitive Dissonance, Consumption, & Persuasion

• CDT explains rationalizing contradictions: People experience discomfort (dissonance) when their beliefs clash with actions, like enjoying Apple products despite poor worker conditions, and seek to reduce it by justifying their choices.

• Post-decision discomfort drives justification: After tough choices, people worry if they were right, using strategies like “sour grapes” (e.g., “the grapes were sour anyway”) to ease the tension.

• Buyer’s remorse ties to selective exposure: After purchases (e.g., an expensive TV), people seek confirming info (ads for their brand) and avoid conflicting info to lessen regret and dissonance.

• Polarization simplifies decisions: Post-choice, people exaggerate the chosen option’s value (e.g., iPhone over Android) and downplay the rejected one, turning gray areas into black-and-white for self-justification.

• Dissonance varies by self-image and culture: Internal conflict (e.g., laughing at offensive jokes despite values) or cultural lens (individualistic vs. collectivistic) shapes dissonance, though it’s universal to some degree.

• Magnitude depends on choice and effort: More choice, foreseeable bad outcomes, belief contradictions, or effort (e.g., big sacrifices) increase dissonance; forced actions reduce it (“I had no choice”).

🛠️ How to use cognitive dissonance to persuade

• Increase dissonance to make someone question their current beliefs or behavior—prompting change.

• Decrease dissonance to reassure someone that a past choice or action was correct—reinforcing commitment.

• Use selective exposure: Encourage people to focus on information that supports their decisions while avoiding contradictory evidence.

• Get people to persuade themselves (CAA): Have individuals voluntarily advocate for a position they initially disagree with. The dissonance between their spoken message and private beliefs leads them to shift their attitudes to align with what they publicly expressed. This works best when the behavior is voluntary.

4. Credibility

Credibility may be defined as:

“Judgments made by a perceiver (e.g., a message recipient) concerning the believability of the source”

To increase your credibility, focus on the primary dimensions because the secondary ones may or may not matter:

Primary dimensions

• Expertise (AKA competence or qualification). There is a ‘halo effect’ of expertise, so famous people successful in one area ‘carry over’ their expertise in another -that’s why brand endorsers may know nothing of what they endorse.
  • experienced/inexperienced
  • informed/uninformed
  • trained/untrained
  • qualified/unqualified
  • skilled/unskilled
  • competent/incompetent

Credibility can be thought of as a ‘peripheral cue’, and works even more with ‘cognitively lazy’ people.

👉🏼 TIP: Be more confident if you have low credibility, but share possible doubts or limitations of your analyses if you have high credibility (Karmarkar & Tormala, 2010)

• Trustworthiness (AKA also called character, safety, or personal integrity), akin to ‘warmth’ in the competence and warmth model
  • honest/dishonest
  • open-minded/close-minded
  • fair/unfair
  • unselfish/selfish
  • moral/immoral
  • ethical/unethical
  • genuine/phony

Wearing religious symbols such as crosses increases trustworthiness. And companies engage in corporate social responsibility to bolster their trustworthiness.

👉🏼 TIP: If you’re unbiased, objective, and non-partisan, explain why. If you’re biased, admit it upfront and then display you weigh all sides and are fair-minded in your evaluation.

• Goodwill, is synonymous with ‘perceived caring’ and can be demonstrated with empathy, understanding for others’ needs and ideas, responsiveness, and receptive
  • cares about me/doesn’t care about me
  • not self-centered/self-centered
  • sensitive/insensitive
  • understanding/not understanding

Expertise seems to have the greatest effect on persuasion.

Secondary Dimensions

Extroversion
– timid/bold
– verbal/quiet
– meek/aggressive
– talkative/silent

Composure
– poised/nervous
– relaxed/tense
– calm/anxious
– excitable/composed

Composure
– poised/nervous
– relaxed/tense
– calm/anxious
– excitable/composed

🛠️ Strategies for Enhancing Credibility

• Be well-prepared and organized.
  Know your material, plan your argument, and anticipate objections to appear competent and credible.

• Cite evidence and credible sources.
  Back your claims with facts and trustworthy references—especially important if you lack personal credibility.

• Mention your (or your sources’) expertise early.
  Establish qualifications before presenting your argument to maximize perceived authority.

• Demonstrate honesty and sincerity.
  Show moral character and mutual benefit to build trust with your audience.

• Show goodwill and empathy.
  Be caring, responsive, and attentive to your listeners’ needs and emotions.

• Highlight your objectivity.
  If you have no personal stake, say so. If you do, acknowledge it and give solid reasons for your stance.

• Be likable.
  Use warmth, smile, remember names, and act genuinely to boost emotional connection and receptivity.

• Match your speech style to the audience and context.
  Avoid disfluencies and inappropriate slang to maintain a smooth and credible delivery.

• Emphasize relevant similarities.
  Show shared positive traits or experiences that connect you meaningfully to your audience.

• If low in credibility, focus on substance and relevance.
  Raise involvement and emphasize the message content to engage the central route of persuasion.

• Use endorsements or introductions from credible others.
  Leverage someone else’s reputation to enhance your own credibility via association.

5. Communicator Characteristics and Persuasion

Some brief takeaways:

• Middle-aged people are less persuadable, while younger and older people are more persuadable (curvilinear relationship between age and persuadability
• Lower IQ people are more persuadable, but the author suggest that a truthful persuasive message based on solid logic may work better on intelligent people
• Men are more persuasive, due to a double standard in audience perception that judges assertive women more harshly (Matthews, 2016; Smith et al., 2013)
• Authoritarians obey authorities (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levenson, & Sanford, 1950 ; Allport, 1954 )
  • Dogmatic also obey authorities, are closed-minded, have difficulty being objective, and tend to believe there is only one right way to do things (i.e., their way)
  • Social vigilantes are similar to dogmatics but seek to persuade others, counterargue more, seek to dominate the conversation and resort to manipulative tactics (also see gaslighting and gaslighting signs)
• Narcissists are persuaded by messages that enhance their conceit

The Role of Personality in Persuasion

Different personality traits affect how individuals persuade and are persuaded:

• High self-monitors adapt their persuasion style to fit the audience.
• Low self-monitors remain consistent regardless of context.
• People with a high need for cognition prefer logical arguments, while those with a low need for cognition respond better to emotional appeals.

🛠️ Practical Application:

• Adapt persuasion tactics: Use logical arguments for analytical individuals and emotional appeals for intuitive thinkers.
• Mirror and match communication styles: Adjust language and tone to align with the audience.

6. Conformity and Group Influence

Researchers have long debated how group size influences conformity.
Two key theories offer differing predictions:

• Social Impact Theory (SIT) posits that the first person added to a group has the greatest persuasive impact, with each additional member having progressively less influence
• Social Influence Model (SIM) argues that conformity increases up to about three or four group members, after which additional members have little added effect

Empirical research has shown mixed support for both theories. A major reason might be that people conform for two distinct reasons:

• Informational Influence: wanting to be right.
• Normative Influence: wanting to be liked.

Campbell and Fairey (1989) proposed that group size affects these motivations differently:

• When accuracy matters (e.g., quiz shows), informational influence dominates, and early group additions have the most impact.
• When social approval matters (e.g., fitting in with neighbors), normative influence peaks with groups of two or three.

Further findings:

• People follow the majority: use social proof. Works particularly well in collectivist cultures and when people purchase gifts or products for others)

• Deindividuation: Individuals in groups act differently than alone.

• Public responses trigger more normative influence; private responses allow more informational influence.

• Allies reduce conformity: even when they’re ‘dubious’ partners, a dissenting partner (ie.: visually impaired) can prevent someone from yielding to majority pressure.

• Anger from the majority backfires: rather than encouraging conformity, it often leads to anti-conformity, as dissenters resist perceived coercion.

• Conformity increases quickly with small groups but levels off after 3–4 members.

• People conform either to be right or to be liked, and group size affects these motives differently.

• Women are more likely to conform

• Groups polarize decisions, a phenomenon initially wrongly understood as ‘risky shift’, people instead tend to become more extreme in their decisions when in groups (and become less accurate)
  • 💡 Solution: make important decisions in isolation, or be aware of the group’s tendency to go for extremes

• Collectivist cultures conform more: A meta-analysis by Bond and Smith (1996) finds much higher conformity higher among collectivists than individualists. Even when they are encouraged to dissent, collectivists resist doing so more than individualists do (Curseu & ten Brink, 2016).
  But the difference disappeared in one study examining informational influence.

• An audience improves outcomes for simple and rehearsed tasks and impairs performance on complex and novel tasks

• People contribute less in bigger groups (social loafing)
  💡 Solutions:
  • Provide individual feedback about their own performance or their group’s performance
  • Monitor individual performance or make individual efforts identifiable
  • Assign meaningful tasks
  • Make tasks unique so individuals feel more responsibility
  • Enhance cohesiveness of work groups
  • Make them feel their contributions matters

🛠️ Persuading Groups: Practical Tips

If you’re alone in a group and want to influence others:

• Establish credibility if you have expertise.
• Use one of two proven minority influence strategies:
  • Conform first, then deviate (build goodwill before challenging the group).
  • Disagree consistently and confidently (signal conviction and attract attention).
• Win over just one person—it can trigger a shift in the majority.
• Mention future interactions—people are more open to minority opinions if they expect to engage again.

7. Language and Persuasion

Positive words frame your message positively and improve persuasion.

Some takeaways:

• Aphorisms work
• Metaphors are persuasive
• Names influence judgments, popular get better grades and can be sources of stereotypes and discrimination (Elon Musk ought to take note)
• Using people’s names increases tips
  • Younger men prefer first names, older men prefer titles + surnames
• Language influences thoughts
  • The labels we assign others affect the recipient, but also tell about our own attitudes
• Tell people ‘Please don’t be a cheater’ instead of ‘Please don’t cheat’. Personalization increases compliance with ‘personal identities’
• Cussing is a double-edged sword. Avoid it in formal settings: it makes significantly less competent compared to less formal settings. But when cussing violated audience expectations in a positive way (e.g., people rated themselves as positively surprised by the cussing), ratings of the speaker’s competence increased.
• Vivid language is more persuasive: Ie.: it’s more vivid to say “the glass crashed and shattered into pieces” than it is to say “the glass broke.” A meta-analysis of over 40 studies found that vivid messages tend to be more persuasive than pallid ones ( Blonde & Girandola, 2016 )
• Intense language is a double-edge sword (read below), and intensity can be thought of as ‘deviating from normality’.
  Eg.: “You are shockingly stupid” versus “You are not real smart.” “The lumber industry is raping our forests” versus “The lumber industry is cutting down a lot of trees.”
  It works better when:
  • The audience already agrees with you. If they disagree, the exaggeration will turn them off
  • The speaker is credible as credible people are afforded more latitude
  • The intensity grabs attention without exaggerating it. The extra attention may increase processing and reach, but too much intensity is perceived as extreme and will be rejected
  • The speaker matches the audience’s language style. Intense speaker persuade intense speakers, but turn off non-intense speakers

Power & Ultimate Terms

Richard Weaver (1953 ) labeled ultimate terms the highly revered words that carry special power in a culture. According to Weaver, there are three types of ultimate terms:

However, ultimate terms change with time and culture.
These days, ’empowerment’ is a power word, and also popular are superfoods, future-proof, moonshot, and, perhaps especially, monster, ultra, energy, and performance.

Framing

For more modern political framing, for example, Luntz, a political consultant advises:

• Tax cut ➡️ tax relief
• Global warming ➡️ climate change
• Voucher ➡️ opportunity scholarship

“Washington” and “I.R.S.,” are negative and should be attached to a policy you want to turn people against.

For more see:

• Framing 101
• Political framing with George Lakoff’s book ‘Don’t Think of An Elephant‘
• Framing techniques
• Political manipulation

Name manipulation

Read these organizations’ names:

• “Citizens for the Environment”
• “National Wetlands Coalition”
• “Greening Earth Society”

Sound environment friendly enough?
Well, they’re all ANTI-environment think tanks, chosen on purpose to manipulate public opinion (Bricker, 2014).

🔴 Powerless Language

In general, it’s best to avoid these low-power expressions:

a considerable amount of research indicates that using these powerless forms of speech can prevent you from being persuasive ( Erickson et al., 1978 ; Newcombe & Arnkoff, 1979 ), even when you are using strong arguments (Hosman & Siltanen, 2011 ).

• Hesitations (signal uncertainty or anxiety): “Well, I, uh, you know, um, would like to borrow a dollar.”

• Hedges (qualify the utterance in which they occur): “I guess I sort of like you and kind of want to know you.”

• Intensifiers (fortify the utterance): “I really believe that and agree with you very much.”

• Polite forms (indicate deference and subordination): “Excuse me, if you wouldn’t mind too much, I’d appreciate it if you’d please shut the door. Thank you.”

• Tag questions (lessens the force of a declarative sentence): “This is fun, don’t you think? Much more fun than yesterday, isn’t it?”

• Disclaimers (utterances offered before a statement that anticipate doubts, signal a problem, or ask for understanding): “I know this is a really dumb question, but . . .?”

• Deictic phrases (phrases indicating something outside the speaker’s vicinity): “That man over there is the one who stole my wallet.”

But there are important caveats, including:

• Type of powerless language: Not all powerless forms are equally damaging.
  → Politeness can enhance credibility (Bradac & Mulac, 1984)
  → Hedges may hurt, but can sometimes help depending on context (Durik et al., 2008; Jensen, 2008)

• Speaker credibility:
  → Tag questions hurt low-credibility speakers, but can help high-credibility ones—especially when paired with strong arguments (Blankenship & Craig, 2007). Presumably because it makes people think harder

• Gender, and women must navigate speech expectations more carefully (Carli, 1990)
  → Women were more persuasive using powerless speech with men and powerful speech with women
  → Men’s persuasiveness was unaffected by speech style

Learn more:

• Powerless language to avoid
• Empowered language to adopt

8. Nonverbal Influence

• Warm behavior is persuasive (AKA: ‘immediacy’) warmth, closeness, friendliness, and involvement with others increase persuasion (direct effects model of immediacy, see Andersen, 2004 ; Segrin, 1993 )

But calibrate to the context:

• Sometimes anger and dominance are more persuasive, and likable facial expressions could be counterproductive.
  One study found warm behavior is effective among equal status, but dominant behaviors are more effective in established hierarchies (Mehrabian & Williams, 1969)

• Conservatives prefer leaders with dominant faces, liberals prefer leaders with non-dominant ones ( Laustsen & Petersen, 2016 )

• Mirror your speaking partner: in one study ( Guéguen, 2009 ), 66 males found the women who mirrored their behavior more sexually attractive. Another study found that mirroring negotiators were more likely to reach a deal ( Maddux, Mullen, & Galinsky, 2008 )

Read more on:

• The science of social calibration
• Dominant body language
• Warmth and competence and how to perfectly combine the two

🛠️ Further findings and practical takeaways:

• Emblems (nonverbal behaviors with a precise meaning, often hand gestures) and illustrators increase persuasion. Meaning: gesticulate

• Self-touching (adaptors) signals anxiety, albeit it’s not sure it lowers persuasion: while some research suggests that the use of adaptors was associated with less persuasion ( Maslow et al., 1971 ; Mehrabian & Williams, 1969 ), other research shows the opposite ( Maricchiolo et al., 2009 ). But most research agrees that self-touching behaviors signals anxiety and lack of composure

• Gazing at listeners produces more compliance than averting gaze if it’s a legitimate request, but within limits
  • Long fixed gazes are perceived as challenges, so don’t overdo it
• Look away with illegitimate requests to increase compliance, it makes you look more humble and wins sympathy

• Smile broadly for warmth, slightly for power: One study, for example, found that broad smiles foster perceptions of warmth, while slight smiles promote perceptions of competence (Wang, Mao, Li, & Liu, 2017)
• Maintain open body language: Avoid crossed arms and maintain eye contact.

• Smile slowly and maintain it for some seconds: when smiles appear quickly, the smiling person is perceived as less trustworthy and attractive than when smiles have a slower onset ( Krumhuber, Manstead, & Kappas, 2007 )

• Avoid smileys: unlike actual smiles, “smiley” (🙂)emoticons did not increase perceptions of warmth and actually decreased perceptions of competence ( Glikson, Cheshin, & van Kleef, 2018 )

• Scarcity is persuasive because it limits the freedom of buying at any time. How well it works depends on people’s time orientation, but a future-oriented focus can be temporarily activated by making people focus on how the future will be like

• Attractiveness is persuasive
  • Attractive friends and partners make average people more attractive (assimilation), but attractive random people make average people less attractive (contrast) ( Melamed & Moss, 1975 )
  • Endomorphs body shapes may be discriminated against
  • Baby-faced women are perceived as more attractive but less mature, but it may still benefit them politically, while baby faces cost male politicians
  • The most persuasive faces are similar to ours
  • Clean-shaven men better sell beauty products, bearded men better sell when expertise and trustworthiness matter ( De Souza, Baião, & Otta, 2003 )

• High-status clothing is persuasive, but it also depends on context. Meta-analyses indicate that fancy suits, uniforms, and high-status increase compliance ( Segrin, 1993 ), but clothing that makes people identify with a persuader work better. Hensley (1981 ), for instance, found that well-dressed people were more persuasive in airports, but casually dressed people were more persuasive at bus stops

• Optimal speed of voice depends on the receiver’s ability to understand. Fast speech can boost credibility and persuasion (Simonds et al., 2006; Miller et al., 1976), but its effectiveness depends on the listener’s ability to process it (Buller & Aune, 1988). It may also reduce message scrutiny (Smith & Shaffer, 1995), but fast disclaimers are less persuasive than when delivered at normal speed (Herbst et al., 2012).
  • Synthetic voices can be as persuasive as human ones (Stern et al., 1999).

• Appropriate touching is persuasive and to do it well, again, you must be a well-calibrated person

Say the authors:

The use of touch for persuasive purposes is tricky because touch is so ambiguous.
What one person may see as “warm,” for example, another may view as a “power play.” (…) What one person might interpret as “friendly,” another may see as “flirtatious.”

In one study in competitive contexts touching decreased cooperation, probably because it seemed a power move (Camps, Tuteleers, Stouten, & Nelissen, 2013).

The studies that found touching increased persuasion was done on the hand or arm.

• Stand closer if you’re cool or powerful but maintain appropriate distance if you aren’t or it backfires

Research on personal space and persuasion shows conflicting results.

While some studies, like Baron and Bell (1976), found that standing closer increased compliance—possibly because closeness signals liking or urgency—others found the opposite (ie.: Smith and Knowles (1979) and Albert and Dabbs (1970) reported that space invasions decreased helpfulness and persuasiveness).

Judee Burgoon’s expectancy violations theory may explain why (and, I add, standard power dynamics and social exchange theory also explain why).
When our expectations for distance are violated, we feel aroused or distracted. Whether that helps or hurts persuasion depends on how rewarding we find the person. If the violator is likable or powerful, the violation can boost persuasion. If not, it backfires.

Practically, if you’re perceived as attractive or credible, a slight space violation may help. If not, it’s safer to respect expected distances.

9. Structuring and Ordering Persuasive Messages

Research shows that message structure and timing significantly affect persuasion.

Strong arguments are most persuasive when placed at the beginning (anticlimax) or end (climax) of a message—not in the middle (pyramidal) (Sikkink, 1956).

Whether you speak first or last in a sequence also influences outcomes.

🛠️ Best Ordering to Increase Compliance:

• Start or end with your strongest points, not the middle—lead or finish strong.
• For spoken messages (like speeches or videos): put strong arguments first for more impact.
• If the audience will decide immediately after hearing your message: go last (recency advantage).
• If there’s a long delay before decision-making: go first (primacy advantage) (Miller & Campbell, 1959)
• If your message is interesting, controversial, or familiar to the audience: go first (Furnham, 1986)
• If your message is dull, neutral, or unfamiliar: go last.
• For sensory, experiential products (e.g., food, music): aim to be sampled last.
• For functional, information-heavy products (e.g., tools, appliances): aim to be sampled first (Biswas et al., 2010)

How to Inoculate Against Persuasion

Inoculation theory (1964) uses a biological metaphor where exposure to a weakened virus builds immunity.

In persuasion, it involves presenting a threat (warning of counterarguments) and refutational preemption (weakened counterarguments with refutations) to strengthen resistance to persuasive attacks, especially for unchallenged beliefs like cultural truisms (McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961).

It outperforms supportive strategies by preparing individuals for future arguments, offering broad protection (Banas & Rains, 2010; Pfau, 1997).

🛠️ Practical Takeaways: Quick Tips for Persuasion Resistance

• Warn your audience of opposing arguments: Alert people to upcoming challenges to their beliefs to prepare them mentally (McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961; Banas & Rains, 2010).

• Present and refute weak counterarguments: Expose people to diluted versions of opposing views and show why they’re flawed to build stronger resistance (McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961).

• Use two-sided refutational messages that include your POW, and the opposing side that you refute: Present your argument alongside opposing views, then debunk them.
  Two-sided messages are more persuasive than onesided messages, as long as the two-sided messages refute opposing arguments. When two-sided arguments were not refutational, they were less persuasive than one-sided messages (Daniel O’Keefe,1999; Mike Allen; Allen et al., 1990 )
  • Two-sided messages also make you more credibile (O’Keefe, 1999), and make people more open minded towards opposing message when dealing with deeply entrenched moral attitudes, especially if you do it respectfully (Xu & Petty, 2021)

• Focus on unquestioned beliefs: Protect widely accepted ideas (e.g., “brush your teeth daily”) by preemptively defending them against attacks (McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961).

• Encourage generating supporting arguments: Prompt people to think of reasons supporting their beliefs to shield against diverse attacks (Papageorgis & McGuire, 1961; Parker, Rains, & Ivanov, 2016).

• Give time after warnings: Allow a short delay (e.g., 10 minutes) after warning about a persuasive message to let people prepare counterarguments (Freedman & Sears, 1965; Romero et al., 1996).

• Make the issue personally relevant: Connect the topic to your audience’s lives to motivate them to resist persuasion (Romero et al., 1996).

• Minimize distractions during preparation: Ensure people can focus after a warning to develop strong counterarguments (Romero et al., 1996).

• Forewarn about persuasive intent: Alert people that a message is designed to persuade them to spark psychological reactance and increase resistance (Fukada, 1986; Benoit, 1998). It’s related to inoculation, but a different tactic. Research shows both tactics are moderately affects, and forewarning works best with people who have the motivation and ability to counter-argue
  • Mental depletion increases persuasion attempts, but forewarning combats it

• Reinforce resistance periodically: Refresh warnings or inoculation every few weeks to maintain effectiveness (Scheibe et al., 2014).

• Emphasize fairness to reduce reactance: When persuading a warned audience, stress impartiality or their interests to lower resistance (Fukada, 1986; Benoit, 1998).

Loss Frame VS Gain Frame: The Myth of The ‘Loss Frame’

Tversky & Kahneman set off a pop psychology myth with their early findings that ‘people react more to losses than to gains’.

Instead more recent studies show no clear winner, and what works best depends on a variety of factors, including:

• Present-minded people → respond better to loss-framed messages.

• Future-minded people → equally influenced by both.

• High sensation seekers → prefer loss-framed.

• Low sensation seekers → prefer gain-framed.

• Good mood → makes people more open to loss-framed info.

Health context matters:

• Detection behaviors (e.g., cancer screening) → loss-framed is better.
• Prevention behaviors (e.g., sunscreen, exercise) → gain-framed is better.

Explicit VS Implicit: Explicit Generally Better… But It Depends

Implicit conclusion ads lead audiences to infer the message themselves (e.g., Burger King example), while explicit conclusion ads state the message directly.

Advantages of implicit conclusions:

• People who reach their own conclusions persuade themselves, often more effectively (Kardes et al., 1994).
• More effective when the message is personally relevant (Sawyer & Howard, 1991).
• Preferred by individuals high in need for cognition (Martin et al., 2003/2004).
• Viewed as less pushy when audiences are suspicious of persuasion (Martin & Strong, 2016).

Advantages of explicit conclusions:

• More persuasive overall, especially in narratives and media (Moyer-Guse et al., 2012).
• Provide clearer guidance, leading to better outcomes (Dillard, 2014).

🛠️ Further Findings and Takeaways

• Choose quality for attentive audience, quantity for inattentive people: If your audience scrutinize your message, use strong arguments, but if your audience is not involved, quantity of arguments may be quite effective

• Evidence works for lower-credibility speakers, but not much for high-credibility speaker. But most speakers gain with evidence, so use lots of high quality evidence

• Statistical evidence is generally more persuasive than anecdotal/narrative evidence—especially when making generalizations or when audience involvement is high.

• Vivid narrative (stories or personal examples) evidence works better when audience involvement is low

• Use both statical and narrative evidence since they’re additive. E.g.: start with a story, follow up with data to show it’s not a fluke

• Repetition is persuasive up to a point, then it becomes less persuasive. A study pointed at 3 repetitions

10. Compliance Gaining

Persuasion is an umbrella term for changing beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Compliance is a subset of persuasion, typically referring to changing a person’s overt behavior—think of tasking and executing, for example.

Compliance-Gaining Tactics

With examples of how you could get your son to clean his room, based upon Marwell & Schmitt (1967)

• Promising a reward: Offer a reward for compliance.
  E.g., promise him ice cream if he cleans his room.
• Threatening a punishment: Threaten a consequence for non-compliance.
  E.g., say you’ll give away his Wii if he doesn’t tidy up.
• Using positive expertise: Assert that compliance benefits him based on your knowledge.
  E.g., say successful people keep things clean.
• Using negative expertise: Warn of harm from non-compliance based on your knowledge.
  E.g., say messy people fail in life.
• Promoting liking: Build rapport before making the request.
  E.g., act cheerful and give attention, then ask him to clean his room.
• Using reciprocity: Give something he wants before asking for compliance.
  E.g., buy him a game, then ask him to clean his room.
• Administering punishment: Apply punishment until compliance.
  E.g., ban Wii use until his room stays clean for a month.
• Creating indebtedness: Remind him he owes you for past help.
  E.g., say you go out of your way for him, so he should keep his room clean.
• Generating moral obligation: Frame non-compliance as morally wrong.
  E.g., say disorganized people are morally bad.
• Promoting positive esteem: Suggest compliance will boost his self-esteem.
  E.g., say a clean room will make him feel proud.
• Promoting negative esteem: Suggest non-compliance will lower his self-esteem.
  E.g., say a filthy room will make him feel bad about himself.
• Using positive altercasting: Say admirable people would comply.
  E.g., say good boys like him naturally want clean rooms.
• Using negative altercasting: Say only bad people would not comply. This can be more manipulative and several experiments showed it worked less well than more prosocial approaches
  E.g., say only bratty kids have dirty rooms.
• Being altruistic: Highlight how much his help would mean to you.
  E.g., say you’re overwhelmed and he’d help a lot by cleaning.
• Using positive admiration: Say admired people will respect him more if he complies.
  E.g., say his brother Timmy will be proud if he keeps his room clean.
• Using negative admiration: Say admired people will lose respect if he doesn’t comply.
  E.g., say Timmy will be ashamed if he keeps his room messy.

Power Dynamics & Persuasion: Persuading With Power In Mind

Power influences how people use and respond to persuasive messages.

When one party holds more power, persuasion tends to be more polite and indirect to avoid threatening the other person’s “face” (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

Those with less power use more positive, polite strategies because their requests may not be seen as legitimate or appropriate.
Conversely, more powerful individuals tend to be less polite in their requests (Baxter, 1984).

🛠️ Practical Takeaways:

• Save face: Avoid threatening the other person’s self-image to increase compliance (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Jenkins & Dragojevic, 2013).

• Use politeness when lacking power: Less powerful people succeed more with positive, respectful strategies (Golish, 1999; Golish & Olson, 2000).

• Frame requests positively when lower power: Positive framing works best for persuaders with little power (Levine & Boster, 2001).

• Ask directly and respectfully: Direct requests are both effective and not seen as impolite (Kellermann & Shea, 1996).

• Respond to disrespect calmly: In conflict, polite and direct responses are most effective and appropriate (Weger et al., 2010).

• Refuse without offense: How you say “no” affects both your and the requester’s face and determines whether the refusal is seen as fair or rude (Johnson, 2007).

• Adapt to context and relationships: Power, situation, and social ties all influence which compliance strategies work best.

Cialdini’s 7 Principles of Social Influence

The author’s dedicate a paragraph to Cialdini’s work on Influence.

1. Reciprocity – We feel obligated to return favors, gifts, or kindness, making us more likely to comply with requests.
2. Scarcity – We value things more when they are limited or rare, increasing their persuasive power.
3. Consistency/Commitment – Once we commit to something, we feel pressure to act in ways that align with that commitment.
4. Authority – We are more likely to follow or believe people we see as credible or in positions of power.
5. Liking – We are more easily persuaded by people we like or find attractive and friendly.
6. Social proof – We tend to follow the actions and choices of others, especially in uncertain situations.
7. Unity – We’re more influenced by people with whom we share a group identity or strong sense of connection.

11. Sequential Persuasion

1. Foot-in-the-Door (FITD) – Works because people want to stay consistent with previous actions.
   Example: Getting someone to sign a small petition before asking for a donation. To make it work:
   • Start with the largest possible request that will be accepted – Make the first request big enough to matter, but not so big it gets rejected.
   • Tap into prosocial motives – Use the technique for altruistic or socially beneficial causes, not self-serving ones. So this technique is more useful in demanding donations than for on-commission salespeople
   • Avoid material rewards – Don’t offer incentives for the first request, or it weakens internal motivation to comply again.
   • Switch requesters – Use a different person for the second ask to increase compliance.
   • Label the person positively – Reinforce the first behavior by labeling the person (e.g., “You’re generous”), which boosts follow-up compliance.
   • Appeal to consistency – Make the second request align with the first, especially for people who value being consistent.
     People differ with ‘need for consistency’ though, and some, like Machiavellians, need it less
   • Target clear self-concepts – The tactic works best on people who have a strong, stable sense of self
2. Door-in-the-Face (DITF) – Start with a large request, then scale down to a more reasonable one. Works due to reciprocal concessions (people feel obligated to compromise).
   Example: Asking for a $500 donation first, then lowering it to $50.
   Here’s how to make it work:
   • Start big—but not absurd: Make your first request large enough to be rejected, but not so extreme that it triggers anger or disbelief. (Cialdini et al., 1975; Even-Chen et al., 1978)
   • Use DITF for altruistic goals: The tactic works best for prosocial requests (e.g., volunteering) and when seeking verbal compliance, not personal gain or money. (Feeley et al., 2012)
   • Follow up fast: Make the second, smaller request immediately after the first is refused to maximize compliance. (Dillard et al., 1984; Feeley et al., 2012; Fern et al., 1986; Guéguen et al., 2011)
   • Stick with the same requester: For DITF to feel like a concession, both requests must come from the same individual. (Cialdini et al., 1975)
3. Low-Balling – Get commitment first, then change the deal later. Works because people dislike backing out of commitments.
   Example: A car salesperson quotes a price, then adds extra fees once the buyer is invested.
   • Bait-and-switch: advertises an attractive product or deal to hook you in, but once you’re committed, the product is “unavailable” and you’re steered toward a more expensive or inferior alternative.
     It’s deceptive but effective.
4. That’s-Not-All – Add bonuses or discounts before the person decides. People see the new offer as better by comparison, and enjoy receiving small “wins” even when spending money. Of these, the silver lining effect, or framing the added gift as ‘yes, it costs, BUT you also get… ‘ has the strongest support. (Burger, 1986; Thaler, 1985; Lee et al., 2019)
   Example: Infomercials offering “But wait, there’s more!”
   • Sweeten the deal before they say no: Add free extras before the person can reject your offer—this boosts sales and compliance. (Burger, 1986)
   • Price drops count too: Lowering a price after stating a higher one also increases compliance—more than just stating the lower price directly. (Burger, 1986)
   • Be careful with altruism or high initial asks: The tactic works best in sales, not in charitable or altruistic contexts, and may backfire if the initial price is too high. (Burger et al., 1999; Lee et al., 2019)
   • 👉🏼 If you’re adding a valuable product mention the value or you risk cheapening as a lower-value add-on
5. Even a Penny Will Help – Minimizes resistance by making the ask seem trivial.
   Example: Charity campaigns saying “Even $1 makes a difference.”
   • ‘But it’s up to you‘ technique: Adding a phrase like “but you are free to refuse” significantly boosts the chance they’ll say yes. In one study, this simple line increased donations from 10% to 47.5%, and doubled the average amount. (Guéguen & Pascual, 2000)
6. Pique Technique – Make an unusual request to grab attention.
   Example: Asking for 37 cents instead of spare change.

That’s not all with its bonuses is more persuasive than DITF because it doesn’t require rejection first. (Burger, 1986)

👉🏼 Use a combination whenever possible: research has found that combinations of sequential tactics can be effective (Goldman & Creason, 1981; Goldman, Creason, & McCall, 1981; Goldman, Gier, & Smith, 1981; Souchet & Girandola, 2013)

More compliance technqiues

Besides the ‘mainstays’:

1. Foot-in-the-Mouth: Ask how someone is doing, acknowledge their reply, then make your request. It builds rapport and increases compliance (Howard, 1990; Meineri & Guéguen, 2011).
2. Dump-and-Chase: Don’t take no for an answer—counter objections with solutions. Works as well or better than foot-in-the-door or door-in-the-face (Boster et al., 2009).
3. Four Walls: Ask easy yes-questions to get agreement, then deliver the real ask (e.g., donations). It primes people to say yes (Cialdini & Sagarin, 2005; Guéguen et al., 2013).
4. Just One More: Saying someone is the last one needed increases compliance with requests (Carpenter, 2014).
5. You’ll Probably Refuse, But…: Prefacing a request this way increases donations—likely due to reactance (Guéguen, 2016).
6. Only Request: Saying “This is my only request” makes people more likely to comply, especially with donations (Grzyb & Dolinski, 2017).

12. Deception

Deception is a form of persuasion. Even from the standpoint of pure cases of persuasion, deception involves an intentional attempt to get someone to believe what the liar knows to be false.

Also read:

• Persuasion VS manipulation

Signs of Deception

People are bad at detecting lies and deception, and there are no foolproof or reliable cues for deception.

There are though some cues that are more likely to be present with deception.

DePaulo and her colleagues (DePaulo et al., 2003) combined the results of 1,338 estimates of 158 deception cues.
They are:

• Talking time: Liars’ responses are shorter than truth tellers’ responses.
• Details: Liars provide fewer details than do truth-tellers.
• Pressing lips: Liars press their lips (as if holding back) more than truth tellers.
• Making sense: Liars’ stories are more discrepant, ambivalent, and have less plausibility and logical structure.
• Lack of immediacy: Liars seem more evasive and impersonal, distancing themselves from listeners (e.g., passive voice).
• Uncertainty: Liars sound more uncertain than truth-tellers.
• Raising chin: Liars raise their chins more, possibly to appear more certain.
• Repetition: Liars repeat themselves more than truth tellers.
• Cooperation: Liars are rated as less cooperative in conversation.
• Negative statements: Liars use more negative expressions and complaints.
• Pleasantness: Liars’ facial expressions are less pleasant.
• Nervousness: Liars appear more nervous overall.
• Vocal tension and pitch: Liars’ voices are more tense and higher-pitched.
• Pupil dilation: Liars have more dilated pupils.
• Fidgeting: Liars fidget more than truth tellers.
• Spontaneous corrections: Truth tellers correct themselves more often.
• Admitted lack of memory: Truth tellers more often admit forgetting something.
• Related external associations: Liars mention more peripheral or unrelated events.

Who Tells Better Lies

• Machiavellian lie better (and probably more)

The Machiavellian personality is not interested in interpersonal relationships, manipulates others for selfish purposes, and has little sense of social morality (Christie & Geis, 1970; Geis & Moon, 1981).
Machiavellian personalities are truly “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” Not only do they lie and intend to cheat more often than their counterparts (i.e., low Machiavellians) (Brewer, & Abell, 2015; Jonason, Lyons, Baughman, & Vernon, 2014), they appear more innocent while doing so.

The authors share a study showing that even as children Machiavellians were better liars, both more persuasive, and seen as more innocent.

• High self-monitors lie better

High self-monitors, who use situational information to behave more appropriately, are better deceivers than low self-monitors (Elliot, 1979; Miller, deTurck, & Kalbfleisch, 1983).

• Socially skilled and emotionally aware people are better deceivers

Emotional awareness (Wielgopolan & Imbir, 2020 ) and skills at expressing basic emotions improve deception (Riggio & Friedman, 1983).

Expressive, socially skilled, and tactful individuals (Riggio, Tucker, & Throckmorton, 1987; Riggio, Tucker, & Widaman, 1987), as well as competent (Feeley, 1996) and precise, friendly communicators (O’Hair et al., 1988), are more successful at deceiving others.

Apprehensive communicators instead leak more cues (O’Hair, Cody, & Behnke, 1985).

• Men are better liars than women

The results of two meta-analyses found that males tend to be more successful at lying than females (Kalbfleisch, cited in Burgoon, Buller, Grandpre, & Kalbfleisch, 1998 ; Zuckerman, DePaulo, & Rosenthal, 1981 ). Likewise, a study by Lloyd, Summers, Hugenberg, and McConnell (2018 ) found that female deceivers were easier to “read” than male deceivers

Can you train people to be effective lie detectors?

Training people to detect lies has shown only minor improvements in accuracy, with some studies even reporting negative effects from such training (Hauch et al., 2016; Akehurst et al., 2004; Kassin & Fong, 1999).

However, when experts can actively question suspects, their accuracy improves significantly, suggesting that enhancing interrogation techniques may be a more effective focus (Levine et al., 2014; Luke et al., 2016).

As for whether some people are naturally better lie detectors, research has not found strong evidence for consistent individual differences (Roulin & Ternes, 2019; Bond & DePaulo, 2008).
While traits like emotional intelligence, involvement, or self-monitoring have been explored (Forrest & Feldman, 2000; Brandt et al., 1980b; Geizer et al., 1977; DePaulo et al., 1980; Rosenthal & DePaulo, 1979), their impact on detection accuracy appears limited.

However, some individual differences may still play a role in real-world settings, especially if lie and truth detection are treated as separate abilities, with distinct skills supporting each (Stewart, Wright, & Atherton, 2019).
Initiating and maintaining attention increased truth detection, while understanding people’s mental states improved deception detection ( Stewart et al., 2019 ).

However, rather than just observing, a more proactive approach may help.
Hartwig and Bond (2011) argue that actively eliciting cues to deception—rather than just observing—can make liars easier to detect. Here are three key strategies:

• Increase cognitive load to strain liars’ mental resources:
  Asking suspects to recount events in reverse order or through multiple formats makes lying more difficult and less consistent (Vrij, 2018; Vrij et al., 2008; Leins, Fisher, & Vrij, 2012).
• Request verifiable details to test claims:
  Liars tend to avoid details that can be fact-checked. Asking for verifiable information helps distinguish them from truth tellers (Vrij, Leal, & Fisher, 2018; Nahari, Vrij, & Fisher, 2014; Harvey et al., 2016).
• Use strategic questioning and expose contradictions at once, later in the questioning works best (early on can make innocent people look guilty):
  Techniques like Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) withhold known evidence until after suspects commit to statements, making contradictions clearer (Granhag & Hartwig, 2008; Hartwig et al., 2005; Vrij, 2018; Sorochinski et al., 2014).
• Leverage context-sensitive information to assess plausibility:
  Providing interrogators with relevant background info (e.g., demographics of NFL players) greatly improves detection accuracy (Blair, Levine, & Shaw, 2010; Levine, 2020).
• Ask diagnostic questions that reveal underlying motives:
  Questions targeting confidence in co-conspirators, justification of actions, and suggested punishments can differentiate liars from truth tellers (Levine et al., 2014).

Other findings

• It’s harder to lie well on important matter: a phenomenon called ‘motivational impairment effect’ ( DePaulo & Kirkendol, 1989 )
• Peple tend to assume honesty, ‘truth default theory’
• Stereotypes on lie detection are untrue
  • Shifty eye contact: liars don’t avoid eye contact, and sometimes engage in even more eye contact
  • Direction of gaze has no evidence to support it
• People say they look for certain cues, but rely on others like signs of ambivalence, uncertainty, and indifference, all more reliable
• Truth detection and deception detection are two different skills
• Collaborative deception detection may be more effective than relying on individuals. One study found that groups were significantly more accurate than individuals when the group consisted of established teams—not strangers (McHaney, George, & Gupta, 2018).
• Familiarity is a double-edged sword: some biases like expecting honesty or dishonesty decrease accuracy but knowledge increases accuracy.
• Suspicion increases accuracy of judging lies, but decreases accuracy of judging truth. Overall, the effect cancels each other out
• Anxious behavior looks like deception (Cruz, and Morr, 2000)

Learn more

• Dark psychology
• Manipulation tactics
• Manipulation: an overview
• Emotional manipulation

13. Motivational Appeals

Definition of motivational appeals:

external inducement (AKA incentives), often of an emotional nature, that are designed to increase an individual’s drive to undertake some course of action.

Emotions work better when people rely on peripheral processing

Use strong arguments with anger

• Use message-relevant anger with strong arguments for persuasion;
• Avoid unrelated anger (Walter et al., 2019)
• Channel anger constructively to avoid destructive outcomes (Skurka, 2019), and include clear actionable speps

Fear Appeals Can Be Effective

Fear appeals are common and can be persuasive in parenting, advertising, and public discourse (Altheide, 2002; Furedi, 2018; Gardner, 2009; Glassner, 1999).

Well-designed fear appeals can change attitudes, intentions, and behaviors (Boster & Mongeau, 1984; Cho & Witte, 2004; Mongeau, 1998; Ruiter et al., 2001; Tannenbaum et al., 2015; Witte & Allen, 2000)

The Stage Model explains that fear is most persuasive when it’s relevant to us, and the risks are high, leading to central processing and looking and ready for solutions (‘coping appraisal’).

Stage model of fear arousing communication

However, people only take action if they believe they can do something about the risks.

Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) explains that people either ignore, fear, or take action based on perceived threat and efficacy (Witte, 1992, 1994; Maloney, Lapinski, & Witte, 2011):

• Response efficacy: “Will the suggested action work?”
• Self-efficacy: “Can I do it?”

If both types of efficacy are also high, people take steps to address the threat rationally and proactively (‘danger control’).

If efficacy is low (even with high threat), people often engage in fear control—they panic, deny, or suppress the fear instead of addressing the danger.

So, to summarize:

• Low threat → Message ignored
• High threat → People listen
• High threat + high efficacy → Danger control (desired outcome)
• High threat + low efficacy → Fear control (undesired outcome)

🛠️ To make your fear appeal work:

1. Emphasize severity and susceptibility (high threat),
2. Clearly outline effective solutions (response efficacy),
3. Instill confidence in the audience’s ability to act (self-efficacy).

Otherwise, the message may backfire, increasing anxiety without action.

Pity, Guilt, & Shame

• Pity works in eliciting donations, with with negative portrayals more persuasive than positive ones (ie.: starving children)
• Moderate guilt can work, but it’s easier to overdo it and it backfires (Bessarabova, Turner, Fink, & Blustein, 2015), with a feeling of being manipulated (Singh, Crisafulli, & Quamina, 2020)
  • Emphasize the positive feelings of doing the right thing, rather than the guilt trip of inaction

Humor

• Humor seems more effective at increasing knowledge than changing attitudes or behavior
• Avoid self-disparaging humor when you must project competence
• Use moderate humor, don’t overdo it

Pride & patriotism work

• Patriotic ploys are effective when used appropriately, and they work better on nationalistic receivers
  • Food servers earned significantly more tips with a patriotic message (“United We Stand”) on patrons’ checks than a traditional message (“Have a Nice Day”).
  • Patriotism increased consumers’ intentions to purchase domestic brands without altering perceptions of quality or reliability

The authors note that ‘flag waving effects’ may be waing though, although I’m not convinced of that as more liberalism is often contrasted with even stronger nationalism from the conservatives.

Ingratiation & flattery work

Overall, research suggests that ingratiation works—and works well (Gordon, 1996).
It can backfire when it’s too obvious, albeit some studies find that even shameless ingration works (e.g., Chan & Sengupta, 2010).

However, to make it work best perceived sincerity is the key.

There are four types of ingratiation:

• Other Enhancement, giving compliments or flattery.
  • Indirectly through a third party to appear more genuine.

• Opinion Conformity, agreeing with the target’s views or preferences.
  • Technique: initial disagreement followed by agreement to show persuasion.

• Self-Presentation
  • Bragging or showcasing admirable traits to boost one’s image.
    Example: mentioning volunteer work to appear virtuous.

• Doing Favors (added by later scholars)
  Example: Providing help or assistance to win favor.

🛠️ Tips to make ingration work:

• Focus on positives effective ingratiators mentally focus on the target’s strengths, which helps make praise sound authentic rather than calculated (Westphal & Shani, 2016).

• Make it sincere Ingratiation is more effective when perceived as genuine. If the flattery appears manipulative or self-serving, it can lead to the “slime effect,” where the ingratiator is disliked and distrusted (Vonk, 1998; Yan et al., 2020).

• Tailor the delivery with personalized and targeted compliments (e.g., directed at individuals in small groups) are more persuasive than broad or generic ones, which can seem insincere (Seiter & Weger, 2010).

• Use subtlety and questions
  Reframing a compliment as a question (e.g., asking for style advice while embedding flattery) makes it feel less obvious and more authentic (Westphal & Shani, 2016).

14. Visual Persuasion

• Pictures beat words, at least when it comes to being more easily recognized and recalled (Hockley, 2008 ; Pelli, Farell, & Moore, 2013; Stenberg, 2006)
• Movies export Western values, and movie characters’ action may be seen as placing a stamp of approval on those behaviors.
  • Adolescents who see a lot of smoking on the big screen are more likely to light up ( Leonardi-Bee, Nderi, & Britton, 2016 ; Wellman et al., 2016 )
  • Exposure to sexual content increases the likelihood of unprotected sex ( O’Hara, Gibbons, Gerrard, Li, & Sargent, 2012 )
  • Viewing more violence = more aggression and antisocial behavior in people. “Fifty years of research on the effects of TV violence, notes John Murray (2008 ), “leads to the inescapable conclusion that viewing media violence is related to increases in aggressive attitudes, values, and behaviors” (p. 1212).
    Plus, people tend to view the world as scarier and more dangerous
• Shocking ads work if they work a fine line. It significantly increases attention, benefits memory, and positively influences behavior” (Dahl, Frankenberger, and Manchanda, 2003). Other studies also support the effectiveness of shock ads ( Scudder & Mill, 2009).
  However, they must not be so shocking to incite rebellion, and people may get used to shock if there is an oversupply

15. Esoteric Forms of Persuasion

• Subliminal advertising doesn’t work

“the results show no significant positive or negative effect . . . subliminal advertising does little to influence consumer behavior” (p. 527). After reviewing 50 years’ worth of research on subliminal advertising, Broyles (2006 ) similarly announced that “subliminal advertising just is not effective”

• Priming is too weak to make an impact in the real world

First off, people must already have a need or drive for subliminals to have any effect.

Priming’s effects also rely on controlled laboratory settings without distractions and with the test immediately following the priming.
The real world is inherently more chaotic.

Finally, the effects are minor and transitory.

• Neurolingist programminc is hogwash

The original theory, developed by Richard Bandler and John Grinder (1975 , 1979 ), lies somewhere between pop psychology and junk science (…) Despite the extravagant claims, there is scant evidence that NLP works.

One study compared an indirect message using NLP with a direct message without NLP (Dixon, Parr, Yarbrough, & Rathael,1986), and the one without NLP was significantly more effective.

• Background music works to affect mood or emotions without the person realizing it
• Scents work, but purchasing decisions are too complex to be influenced by scent alone, and there is too much varciance among people
• Different colors have different effects

The Cultural Element: How to Persuade Interculturally

Individualist VS Collectivist

1. Collectivist cultures (e.g., China, Korea) value harmony, group goals, and social obligations.
2. Individualistic cultures (e.g., U.S.) value independence, personal achievement, and self-expression.

Power Distance

1. High Power Distance Cultures (e.g., China, Russia):
   • Accept hierarchy and inequality.
   • Less likely to donate to charity (feel less personal responsibility).
   • Judge product quality by price.
   • Less prone to impulsive “vice” purchases.
2. Low Power Distance Cultures (e.g., U.S., Germany):
   • Value equality and challenge authority.
   • More egalitarian in persuasive approaches.

🛠️ How to frame your message

• Individualistic messages for the West (e.g., “The art of being unique”) work better in individualistic societies.

• Collectivist messages for the East (e.g., “We bring people closer together”) are more effective in collectivist societies.

• Indirect tactics for East, Chinese managers favor indirect, relationship-based tactics like coalition-building, gift-giving, hints, and group-based appeals

• Direct & rational for the West, U.S. managers prefer rational and direct persuasion and requests

• Self-persuasion for the West, e.g., “Why would you choose healthier foods?”).

MORE WISDOM

Naive heroes enable takers: working bees & social loafers

I found this part enlightening, and once again confirmed why the world can benefit from our mission:

diligent isolates, unlike social loafers, are people who increase their efforts and willingly work alone in an effort to rescue group projects.
However, because they do not know how to delegate or have the social skills required for group projects, diligent isolates can be just as bad for group projects as social loafers. (…) the presence of diligent isolates promoted social loafing in other group members

And I’ve also personally experience this dynamic in real life multiple times (I was the loafer).

Persuasion and coercion are close relatives

While many draw a net distinction, the authors seem them as ‘close relatives’ and often overlapping:

In fact, we would suggest that most influence attempts we encounter in daily life include both persuasive and coercive elements. Rarely in life is one free to make a completely unfettered choice. There are almost always strings attached. This is particularly true of face-to-face encounters. If a friend asks to borrow 20 bucks, we can say “no,” but there may be relational consequences for declining.

True.
That’s why on this website we espouse more strategic approach to saying no.

Also see:

• How to say no
• How to reject a date invite
• How to turn down sex (for women)

Everyone runs ‘mental calculations’ in relationships

Research by Cai and Wilson (2000 ) suggests that different types of requests, such as these, present similar concerns for persuaders in all cultures, though cultural differences may occur when making such requests. For instance, on one hand, asking a favor may lead you to feel indebted, regardless of your cultural background

But culture may change how the same feelings and calculations translate into behavior:

because they are more concerned with saving face, people from Japan, compared to those from the United States, may worry more about imposing on others. As a result, the Japanese may be less direct and especially polite when seeking favors ( Cai & Wilson, 2000 ). Moreover, although the rebuff phenomenon (see previously) occurs in both U.S. and South Korean cultures, it is less pronounced in the latter culture (Kim et al., 2019)

Collectivist cultures are feminine?

Hofstede (1984) identified four different dimensions of values along which any culture can be placed.

One of them was masculinity/femininity:

Third, some cultures can be characterized as “masculine” because people in them value competition, strength, assertiveness, and achievement, whereas others can be characterized as “feminine” because people in them value cooperation, affection, intuition, and nurturance.
As such, members from masculine cultures (e.g., Japan, Italy, Austria, Mexico, England, Venezuela) should conform less than members from feminine cultures (e.g., Scandinavian countries, Portugal, the Netherlands).

Beware of Debates To Distort Public Opinions

more than 97% of climate scientists believe humans are causing global warming? Despite that, the media frequently features one mainstream scientist debating one dissenting scientist. As a result, viewers often develop the mistaken impression that there is a 50:50 debate on the issue, rather than nearly overwhelming scientific consensus—unless, that is, they’ve been taught ahead of time (i.e., inoculated) about the ways in which people are typically bamboozled by such false impressions of equivalence

Beware of Manipulative Labeling

This can be a technique of dark psychology, making people feel guilty until they comply with your request:

Label someone’s behaiovr negatively to make them feel guilty, and they will be then be ‘nicer’ to regain prosocial points.
And they’re more likely to agree to related, prosocial requests—especially those that let them reject the negative label.

Also read:

• Dark psychology
• Manipulation tactics
• Manipulation: an overview
• Emotional manipulation

QUOTES

It’s often a matter of where you stand:

propaganda and indoctrination are largely pejorative terms used to describe persuasive messages or positions with which people disagree.

On repetition losing persuasiveness over time (though I had to wonder whether the authors weren’t conflating tiredness with unpersuasiveness):

The authors, for example, have become so tired of that tedious Energizer bunny, they wish it would “keep going and going” and never come back!

CONS

On rare occasions, the text leaned slightly toward a discursive style

For instance, in the discussion of Hollywood films, the authors note that Hollywood exports Western values, while some foreign audiences push back against this perceived ‘cultural imperialism.’

I would have appreciated more evidence-based insights into whether such resistance is effective, or whether Hollywood—and Western cultural exports more broadly, the ‘soft power‘—tend to prevail in spreading Western values.

That said, these moments are exceptions in what is otherwise an excellent and well-researched work.

PROS

Highly practical

The 7th Edition of Persuasion offers a wealth of actionable guidance and takeaways for becoming a more effective persuader, making it especially valuable for practitioners and students of influence alike.

Well-researched and put together

The authors draw on a wide range of literature—including meta-analyses—without over-relying on isolated studies, which lends the work both depth and credibility.

Sound judgment where evidence is limited

In areas where the research is inconclusive or does not support firm conclusions, the authors offer their own interpretations.
These contributions come across as thoughtful, logical, and intellectually honest.

Engaging (unlike most handbooks)

As sleuths of persuasion, the authors wrote the book to be a captivating read.

I found it easy to read, engaging… And even entertaining.
The authors share many personal anecdotes, and don’t shy away from humor.

Just some examples of:

• If you don’t stop doing that you’ll go blind’ <— The title for the persuasiveness of fear :D
• We suspect that the male shoppers avoided the frozen food aisle. <– Referring to 200 naked shoppers who responded to the ‘free groceries for naked shoppers’ campaign in Germany

While some may find this tone too informal, I appreciate it.
As empowered readers, we shouldn’t confuse humor with (lack of) authoritativeness.

A coherent narrative helps you grasp persuasion in all its facets

The authors excel at stepping back from the individual “trees” of specific studies to present a cohesive, big-picture view of persuasion.

This clarity of structure allows for a big-picture understanding of persuasion and its core principles.

REVIEW

Persuasion: Social Influence and Compliance Gaining is a deeply insightful, engagingly written book that combines academic rigor with practical strategies to help readers master the art and science of influence.

It allowed me to improve several articles on this website.
And if we decide to make a lesson on persuasion strategies and techniques for Power University, this book will serve as a core resources. And given our high bar for Power University, that’s always the biggest compliment I can pay to any book.

Many thanks to Robert H. Gass and John S. Seiter, I’ll be sure to also get the 8th edition.

Check the best books on persuasion or get this book on Amazon.