Examine the packaging of some of your favorite consumer packaged goods (i.e., foods, household products, etc.). Choose a product and include a photo of EITHER its packaging OR a single static ad (no videos). How does the packaging/ad currently use Cialdini’s principles of persuasion? Use at least three principles to suggest some specific improvements to the packaging/ad. Make sure you keep in mind the target audience. Please bold the names of the principles you discuss.

Write-ups have a strict 600-word limit and are penalized for exceeding 600 words (1 point per 50 words, rounded up). Shorter write-ups also tend to do poorly. Aim for 500-600 words.  Include the word count and your student ID at the top of the document (e.g., “Word Count: 598”). Do NOT include your name or question prompt.  No fluff rule: Your goal is to show your understanding. Please do NOT write an intro, background, or conclusion. Also do NOT define terms and avoid quoting directly from readings or slides. DO make sure to do the readings thoroughly (the optional ones for that topic may help). Knowledge cannot be faked.

There rarely exist right answers to these questions. That’s what makes the prompts interesting, useful, and fun (we hope). Good write-ups will always reflect a solid understanding of the material but more importantly you should be able to apply the concepts to the prompt. This means that you should not provide definitions and examples from the reading, but instead figure out what concepts are relevant and how they apply to this business situation. The following are a few tangible, specific tips based on years of grading write-ups. I offer them to you in roughly decreasing order of how frustrating their violations are to a grader. 1.Don’t regurgitate the reading. You never need to waste space including definitions from the reading. Write as if your audience not only has read the assigned materials but also knows them well. When necessary, cite a concept as briefly as possible. The fact that you’ve done the reading should be revealed to us by your thinking, NOT by some quotation. 2.Start quickly and end abruptly. For these short write-ups, introductions, background, and conclusions are almost entirely unnecessary. Even worse, they take away space that is much better used in other ways. We don’t expect these things to read like English compositions. Nor are we strangers to why you’re writing in the first place. Jump right in. 3.Choose specific over abstract. Precision is good. It’s good for communication, and it’s good for sharpening thinking. When you feel yourself getting fuzzy, think to yourself: I need an example. We love examples. Make it real. 4.Be realistic. There is nothing more irritating than a cute suggestion (for example, of how an organization might mitigate a particular bias) that works theoretically but is utterly infeasible in the real world. Perhaps the best criterion is to ask yourself if you’d be willing to sit in a manager’s office advocating his or her use of your recommendation. 5.Less is more. Believe it or not, a common mistake is to include too many ideas — not because too many ideas itself is bad, but because these ideas, as intriguing, tantalizing, and, yes, right as they might be, are often too poorly developed. Don’t make this mistake! We’re not impressed with laundry lists. It’s much better to write about a few things really well. Oh, and have fun! This is an opportunity to be creative (the risk-reward tradeoff for creativity is very attractive). A student who is thoughtful and having fun when writing these is generally going to do pretty well. And get more out of it. Thanks!

Harnessing the Science
of Persuasion

by Robert B. Cialdini

Reprint r0109d

HBR Case Study r0109a
Off with His Head?
David Champion

HBR at Large r0109b
The Leadership Lessons of Mount Everest
Michael Useem

Different Voice r0109c
Genius at Work:
A Conversation with Mark Morris

Harnessing the Science of Persuasion r0109d
Robert B. Cialdini

Torment Your Customers
(They’ll Love It) r0109e
Stephen Brown

Radical Change, the Quiet Way r0109f
Debra E. Meyerson

Your Next IT Strategy r0109g
John Hagel III and John Seely Brown

HBR Interview r0109h
Bernard Arnault of LVMH:
The Perfect Paradox of Star Brands
Suzy Wetlaufer

Best Practice r0109j
Speeding Up Team Learning
Amy Edmondson, Richard Bohmer, and Gary Pisano

Tool Kit r0109k
Boost Your Marketing ROI
with Experimental Design
Eric Almquist and Gordon Wyner

October 2001

lucky few have it; most of us do not. A handful
of gifted “naturals” simply know how to cap-
ture an audience, sway the undecided, and

convert the opposition. Watching these masters of
persuasion work their magic is at once impressive
and frustrating. What’s impressive is not just the easy
way they use charisma and eloquence to convince
others to do as they ask. It’s also how eager those
others are to do what’s requested of them, as if the
persuasion itself were a favor they couldn’t wait
to repay.

The frustrating part of the experience is that
these born persuaders are often unable to ac-
count for their remarkable skill or pass it on to
others. Their way with people is an art, and
artists as a rule are far better at doing than at
explaining. Most of them can’t offer much
help to those of us who possess no more
than the ordinary quotient of charisma
and eloquence but who still have to wres-
tle with leadership’s fundamental chal-
lenge: getting things done through oth-
ers. That challenge is painfully familiar
to corporate executives, who every day
have to figure out how to motivate
and direct a highly individualistic
work force. Playing the “Because I’m
the boss” card is out. Even if it
weren’t demeaning and demoraliz-
ing for all concerned, it would be
out of place in a world where
cross-functional teams, joint ven-
tures, and intercompany part-
nerships have blurred the lines
of authority. In such an en-
vironment, persuasion skills
exert far greater influence
over others’ behavior than
formal power structures do.

A

Harnessing the Science
of Persuasion by Robert B. Cialdini

72 Copyright © 2001 by Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. All rights reserved.

No leader can succeed without mastering the art of persuasion.

But there’s hard science in that skill, too, and a large body

of psychological research suggests there are six basic laws of

winning friends and influencing people.

october 2001

IL
L

U
S

T
R

A
T

IO
N

: S
C

O
T

T
W

R
IG

H
T

Which brings us back to where we started. Persuasion
skills may be more necessary than ever, but how can ex-
ecutives acquire them if the most talented practitioners
can’t pass them along? By looking to science. For the past
five decades, behavioral scientists have conducted exper-
iments that shed considerable light on the way certain
interactions lead people to concede, comply, or change.
This research shows that persuasion works by appealing
to a limited set of deeply rooted human drives and needs,
and it does so in predictable ways. Persuasion, in other
words, is governed by basic principles that can be taught,
learned, and applied. By mastering these principles, exec-
utives can bring scientific rigor to the business of securing
consensus, cutting deals, and winning concessions. In the
pages that follow, I describe six fundamental principles of
persuasion and suggest a few ways that executives can
apply them in their own organizations.

The retailing phenomenon known as the Tupperware
party is a vivid illustration of this principle in action.
The demonstration party for Tupperware products is
hosted by an individual, almost always a woman, who in-
vites to her home an array of friends, neighbors, and rel-
atives. The guests’ affection for their hostess predisposes
them to buy from her, a dynamic that was confirmed by
a 1990 study of purchase decisions made at demonstra-
tion parties. The researchers, Jonathan Frenzen and
Harry Davis, writing in the Journal of Consumer Research,
found that the guests’ fondness for their hostess weighed
twice as heavily in their purchase decisions as their re-
gard for the products they bought. So when guests at a
Tupperware party buy something, they aren’t just buy-
ing to please themselves. They’re buying to please their
hostess as well.

What’s true at Tupperware parties is true for business
in general: If you want to influence people, win friends.
How? Controlled research has identified several factors
that reliably increase liking, but two stand out as espe-

cially compelling – similarity and praise. Similarity liter-
ally draws people together. In one experiment, reported
in a 1968 article in the Journal of Personality, participants
stood physically closer to one another after learning that
they shared political beliefs and social values. And in a
1963 article in American Behavioral Scientists, researcher
F. B. Evans used demographic data from insurance com-
pany records to demonstrate that prospects were more
willing to purchase a policy from a salesperson who was
akin to them in age, religion, politics, or even cigarette-
smoking habits.

Managers can use similarities to create bonds with a re-
cent hire, the head of another department, or even a new
boss. Informal conversations during the workday create
an ideal opportunity to discover at least one common
area of enjoyment, be it a hobby, a college basketball
team, or reruns of Seinfeld. The important thing is to es-
tablish the bond early because it creates a presumption
of goodwill and trustworthiness in every subsequent
encounter. It’s much easier to build support for a new
project when the people you’re trying to persuade are al-
ready inclined in your favor.

Praise, the other reliable generator of affection, both
charms and disarms. Sometimes the praise doesn’t even
have to be merited. Researchers at the University of
North Carolina writing in the Journal of Experimental So-
cial Psychology found that men felt the greatest regard for
an individual who flattered them unstintingly even if the
comments were untrue. And in their book Interpersonal
Attraction (Addison-Wesley, 1978), Ellen Berscheid and
Elaine Hatfield Walster presented experimental data
showing that positive remarks about another person’s
traits, attitude, or performance reliably generates liking in
return, as well as willing compliance with the wishes of
the person offering the praise.

Along with cultivating a fruitful relationship, adroit
managers can also use praise to repair one that’s damaged
or unproductive. Imagine you’re the manager of a good-
sized unit within your organization. Your work frequently
brings you into contact with another manager – call him
Dan – whom you have come to dislike. No matter how
much you do for him, it’s not enough. Worse, he never
seems to believe that you’re doing the best you can for
him. Resenting his attitude and his obvious lack of trust
in your abilities and in your good faith, you don’t spend
as much time with him as you know you should; in con-
sequence, the performance of both his unit and yours is
deteriorating.

The research on praise points toward a strategy for fix-
ing the relationship. It may be hard to find, but there has
to be something about Dan you can sincerely admire,
whether it’s his concern for the people in his department,
his devotion to his family, or simply his work ethic. In
your next encounter with him, make an appreciative
comment about that trait. Make it clear that in this case

74 harvard business review

H a r n e s s i n g t h e S c i e n c e o f P e r s u a s i o n

Robert B. Cialdini is the Regents’ Professor of Psychology
at Arizona State University and the author of Influence:
Science and Practice (Allyn & Bacon, 2001), now in its fourth
edition. Further regularly updated information about the in-
f luence process can be found at www.influenceatwork.com.

The Principle of

Liking:
People like those who like them.

The Application:

Uncover real similarities and offer
genuine praise.

at least, you value what he values. I predict that Dan will
relax his relentless negativity and give you an opening to
convince him of your competence and good intentions.

Praise is likely to have a warming and softening effect on
Dan because, ornery as he is, he is still human and subject
to the universal human tendency to treat people the way
they treat him. If you have ever caught yourself smiling at
a coworker just because he or she smiled first, you know
how this principle works.

Charities rely on reciprocity to help them raise funds.
For years, for instance, the Disabled American Veterans
organization, using only a well-crafted fund-raising letter,
garnered a very respectable 18% rate of response to its ap-
peals. But when the group started enclosing a small gift in
the envelope, the response rate nearly doubled to 35%.
The gift – personalized address labels – was extremely
modest, but it wasn’t what prospective donors received
that made the difference. It was that they had gotten any-
thing at all.

What works in that letter works at the office, too. It’s
more than an effusion of seasonal spirit, of course, that
impels suppliers to shower gifts on purchasing depart-
ments at holiday time. In 1996, purchasing managers ad-
mitted to an interviewer from Inc. magazine that after
having accepted a gift from a supplier, they were willing
to purchase products and services they would have oth-
erwise declined. Gifts also have a startling effect on re-
tention. I have encouraged readers of my book to send me
examples of the principles of influence at work in their
own lives. One reader, an employee of the State of Ore-
gon, sent a letter in which she offered these reasons for
her commitment to her supervisor:

He gives me and my son gifts for Christmas and gives
me presents on my birthday. There is no promotion for
the type of job I have, and my only choice for one is to
move to another department. But I find myself resist-
ing trying to move. My boss is reaching retirement age,
and I am thinking I will be able to move out after he re-
tires.…[F]or now, I feel obligated to stay since he has
been so nice to me.
Ultimately, though, gift giving is one of the cruder

applications of the rule of reciprocity. In its more sophis-
ticated uses, it confers a genuine first-mover advantage
on any manager who is trying to foster positive attitudes

and productive personal relationships in the office:
Managers can elicit the desired behavior from cowork-
ers and employees by displaying it first. Whether it’s a
sense of trust, a spirit of cooperation, or a pleasant de-
meanor, leaders should model the behavior they want to
see from others.

The same holds true for managers faced with issues of
information delivery and resource allocation. If you lend
a member of your staff to a colleague who is shorthanded
and staring at a fast-approaching deadline, you will sig-
nificantly increase your chances of getting help when you
need it. Your odds will improve even more if you say,
when your colleague thanks you for the assistance, some-
thing like, “Sure, glad to help. I know how important it is
for me to count on your help when I need it.”

Social creatures that they are, human beings rely heav-
ily on the people around them for cues on how to think,
feel, and act. We know this intuitively, but intuition has
also been confirmed by experiments, such as the one first
described in 1982 in the Journal of Applied Psychology. A
group of researchers went door-to-door in Columbia,
South Carolina, soliciting donations for a charity cam-
paign and displaying a list of neighborhood residents who
had already donated to the cause. The researchers found
that the longer the donor list was, the more likely those
solicited would be to donate as well.

To the people being solicited, the friends’ and neigh-
bors’ names on the list were a form of social evidence
about how they should respond. But the evidence would
not have been nearly as compelling had the names been
those of random strangers. In an experiment from the
1960s, first described in the Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, residents of New York City were asked to
return a lost wallet to its owner. They were highly likely
to attempt to return the wallet when they learned that an-
other New Yorker had previously attempted to do so. But
learning that someone from a foreign country had tried
to return the wallet didn’t sway their decision one way or
the other.

The lesson for executives from these two experiments
is that persuasion can be extremely effective when it
comes from peers. The science supports what most sales
professionals already know: Testimonials from satis-
fied customers work best when the satisfied customer

october 2001 75

H a r n e s s i n g t h e S c i e n c e o f P e r s u a s i o n

The Principle of

Social Proof:
People follow the lead of similar others.

The Application:

Use peer power whenever it’s available.

The Principle of

Reciprocity:
People repay in kind.

The Application:

Give what you want to receive.

and the prospective customer share similar circum-
stances. That lesson can help a manager faced with the
task of selling a new corporate initiative. Imagine that
you’re trying to streamline your department’s work
processes. A group of veteran employees is resisting.
Rather than try to convince the employees of the move’s
merits yourself, ask an old-timer who supports the initia-
tive to speak up for it at a team meeting. The compatriot’s
testimony stands a much better chance of convincing the
group than yet another speech from the boss. Stated sim-
ply, influence is often best exerted horizontally rather
than vertically.

Liking is a powerful force, but the work of persuasion in-
volves more than simply making people feel warmly to-
ward you, your idea, or your product. People need not
only to like you but to feel committed to what you want
them to do. Good turns are one reliable way to make peo-
ple feel obligated to you. Another is to win a public com-
mitment from them.

My own research has demonstrated that most people,
once they take a stand or go on record in favor of a posi-
tion, prefer to stick to it. Other studies reinforce that find-
ing and go on to show how even a small, seemingly triv-
ial commitment can have a powerful effect on future
actions. Israeli researchers writing in 1983 in the Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin recounted how they
asked half the residents of a large apartment complex to
sign a petition favoring the establishment of a recreation
center for the handicapped. The cause was good and the
request was small, so almost everyone who was asked
agreed to sign. Two weeks later, on National Collection
Day for the Handicapped, all residents of the complex
were approached at home and asked to give to the cause.
A little more than half of those who were not asked to
sign the petition made a contribution. But an astounding
92% of those who did sign donated money. The residents
of the apartment complex felt obligated to live up to their
commitments because those commitments were active,
public, and voluntary. These three features are worth con-
sidering separately.

There’s strong empirical evidence to show that a choice
made actively – one that’s spoken out loud or written
down or otherwise made explicit – is considerably more

likely to direct someone’s future conduct than the same
choice left unspoken. Writing in 1996 in the Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, Delia Cioffi and Randy Gar-
ner described an experiment in which college students in
one group were asked to fill out a printed form saying
they wished to volunteer for an AIDS education project
in the public schools. Students in another group volun-
teered for the same project by leaving blank a form stat-
ing that they didn’t want to participate. A few days later,
when the volunteers reported for duty, 74% of those who
showed up were students from the group that signaled
their commitment by filling out the form.

The implications are clear for a manager who wants to
persuade a subordinate to follow some particular course
of action: Get it in writing. Let’s suppose you want your
employee to submit reports in a more timely fashion.
Once you believe you’ve won agreement, ask him to sum-
marize the decision in a memo and send it to you. By
doing so, you’ll have greatly increased the odds that he’ll
fulfill the commitment because, as a rule, people live up
to what they have written down.

Research into the social dimensions of commitment
suggests that written statements become even more pow-
erful when they’re made public. In a classic experiment,
described in 1955 in the Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, college students were asked to estimate the
length of lines projected on a screen. Some students were
asked to write down their choices on a piece of paper, sign
it, and hand the paper to the experimenter. Others wrote
their choices on an erasable slate, then erased the slate im-
mediately. Still others were instructed to keep their deci-
sions to themselves.

The experimenters then presented all three groups
with evidence that their initial choices may have been
wrong. Those who had merely kept their decisions in their
heads were the most likely to reconsider their original es-
timates. More loyal to their first guesses were the students
in the group that had written them down and immedi-
ately erased them. But by a wide margin, the ones most re-
luctant to shift from their original choices were those who
had signed and handed them to the researcher.

This experiment highlights how much most people
wish to appear consistent to others. Consider again the
matter of the employee who has been submitting late re-
ports. Recognizing the power of this desire, you should,
once you’ve successfully convinced him of the need to be
more timely, reinforce the commitment by making sure it
gets a public airing. One way to do that would be to send
the employee an e-mail that reads, “I think your plan is
just what we need. I showed it to Diane in manufacturing
and Phil in shipping, and they thought it was right on tar-
get, too.” Whatever way such commitments are formal-
ized, they should never be like the New Year’s resolutions
people privately make and then abandon with no one the
wiser. They should be publicly made and visibly posted.

76 harvard business review

H a r n e s s i n g t h e S c i e n c e o f P e r s u a s i o n
The Principle of

Consistency:
People align with their clear commitments.

The Application:

Make their commitments active,
public, and voluntary.

More than 300 years ago, Samuel Butler wrote a cou-
plet that explains succinctly why commitments must be
voluntary to be lasting and effective: “He that complies
against his will/Is of his own opinion still.” If an undertak-
ing is forced, coerced, or imposed from the outside, it’s not
a commitment; it’s an unwelcome burden. Think how you
would react if your boss pressured you to donate to the
campaign of a political candidate. Would that make you
more apt to opt for that candidate in the privacy of a vot-
ing booth? Not likely. In fact, in their 1981 book Psycho-
logical Reactance (Academic Press), Sharon S. Brehm and
Jack W. Brehm present data that suggest you’d vote the
opposite way just to express your resentment of the boss’s
coercion.

This kind of backlash can occur in the office, too. Let’s
return again to that tardy employee. If you want to pro-
duce an enduring change in his behavior, you should
avoid using threats or pressure tactics to gain his compli-
ance. He’d likely view any change in his behavior as the
result of intimidation rather than a personal commitment
to change. A better approach would be to identify some-
thing that the employee genuinely values in the work-
place – high-quality workmanship, perhaps, or team
spirit – and then describe how timely reports are consis-
tent with those values. That gives the employee reasons
for improvement that he can own. And because he owns
them, they’ll continue to guide his behavior even when
you’re not watching.

Two thousand years ago, the Roman poet Virgil offered
this simple counsel to those seeking to choose correctly:
“Believe an expert.” That may or may not be good advice,
but as a description of what people actually do, it can’t be
beaten. For instance, when the news media present an ac-
knowledged expert’s views on a topic, the effect on pub-
lic opinion is dramatic. A single expert-opinion news story
in the New York Times is associated with a 2% shift in pub-
lic opinion nationwide, according to a 1993 study de-
scribed in the Public Opinion Quarterly. And researchers
writing in the American Political Science Review in 1987
found that when the expert’s view was aired on national
television, public opinion shifted as much as 4%. A cynic
might argue that these findings only illustrate the docile
submissiveness of the public. But a fairer explanation is

that, amid the teeming complexity of contemporary life,
a well-selected expert offers a valuable and efficient short-
cut to good decisions. Indeed, some questions, be they
legal, financial, medical, or technological, require so much
specialized knowledge to answer, we have no choice but
to rely on experts.

Since there’s good reason to defer to experts, execu-
tives should take pains to ensure that they establish their

own expertise before they attempt to exert influence. Sur-
prisingly often, people mistakenly assume that others rec-
ognize and

appreciate their experience.

That’s what hap-
pened at a hospital where some colleagues and I were
consulting. The physical therapy staffers were frustrated
because so many of their stroke patients abandoned their
exercise routines as soon as they left the hospital. No mat-
ter how often the staff emphasized the importance of
regular home exercise – it is, in fact, crucial to the process
of regaining independent function – the message just
didn’t sink in.

Interviews with some of the patients helped us pin-
point the problem. They were familiar with the back-
ground and training of their physicians, but the patients
knew little about the credentials of the physical therapists
who were urging them to exercise. It was a simple matter
to remedy that lack of information: We merely asked the
therapy director to display all the awards, diplomas, and
certifications of her staff on the walls of the therapy
rooms. The result was startling: Exercise compliance
jumped 34% and has never dropped since.

What we found immensely gratifying was not just how
much we increased compliance, but how. We didn’t fool
or browbeat any of the patients. We informed them into
compliance. Nothing had to be invented; no time or re-
sources had to be spent in the process. The staff’s exper-
tise was real – all we had to do was make it more visible.

The task for managers who want to establish their
claims to expertise is somewhat more difficult. They can’t
simply nail their diplomas to the wall and wait for every-
one to notice. A little subtlety is called for. Outside the
United States, it is customary for people to spend time in-
teracting socially before getting down to business for the
first time. Frequently they gather for dinner the night be-
fore their meeting or negotiation. These get-togethers can

october 2001 77

H a r n e s s i n g t h e S c i e n c e o f P e r s u a s i o n
The Principle of

Authority:
People defer to experts.

The Application:

Expose your expertise; don’t assume
it’s self-evident.

Surprisingly often, people mistakenly

assume that others recognize and

appreciate their experience.

make discussions easier and help blunt disagreements –
remember the findings about liking and similarity – and
they can also provide an opportunity to establish exper-
tise. Perhaps it’s a matter of telling an anecdote about
successfully solving a problem similar to the one that’s on
the agenda at the next day’s meeting. Or perhaps dinner
is the time to describe years spent mastering a complex
discipline – not in a boastful way but as part of the ordi-
nary give-and-take of conversation.

Granted, there’s not always time for lengthy introduc-
tory sessions. But even in the course of the preliminary
conversation that precedes most meetings, there is almost
always an opportunity to touch lightly on your relevant
background and experience as a natural part of a sociable
exchange. This initial disclosure of personal information
gives you a chance to establish expertise early in the
game, so that when the discussion turns to the business at
hand, what you have to say will be accorded the respect it
deserves.

Study after study shows that items and opportunities are
seen to be more valuable as they become less available.
That’s a tremendously useful piece of information for
managers. They can harness the scarcity principle with
the organizational equivalents of limited-time, limited-
supply, and one-of-a-kind offers. Honestly informing a
coworker of a closing window of opportunity–the chance
to get the boss’s ear before she leaves for an extended va-
cation, perhaps – can mobilize action dramatically.

Managers can learn from retailers how to frame their
offers not in terms of what people stand to gain but in
terms of what they stand to lose if they don’t act on the in-
formation. The power of “loss language” was demon-
strated in a 1988 study of California home owners written
up in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Half were told
that if they fully insulated their homes, they would save
a certain amount of money each day. The other half were
told that if they failed to insulate, they would lose that
amount each day. Significantly more people insulated
their homes when exposed to the loss language. The same
phenomenon occurs in business. According to a 1994
study in the journal Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, potential losses figure far more heavily
in managers’ decision making than potential gains.

78 harvard business review

H a r n e s s i n g t h e S c i e n c e o f P e r s u a s i o n
The Principle of

Scarcity:
People want more of what they can have less of.

The Application:

Highlight unique benefits and
exclusive information.

Thanks to several decades of rigorous empirical
research by behavioral scientists, our understand-
ing of the how and why of persuasion has never
been broader, deeper, or more detailed. But these
scientists aren’t the first students of the subject.
The history of persuasion studies is an ancient
and honorable one, and it has generated a long
roster of heroes and martyrs.

A renowned student of social influence,
William McGuire, contends in a chapter of the
Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd ed. (Oxford
University Press, 1985) that scattered among the
more than four millennia of recorded Western
history are four centuries in which the study of
persuasion flourished as a craft. The first was the
Periclean Age of ancient Athens, the second oc-
curred during the years of the Roman Republic,
the next appeared in the time of the European
Renaissance, and the last extended over the hun-
dred years that have just ended, which witnessed
the advent of large-scale advertising, information,
and mass media campaigns. Each of the three
previous centuries of systematic persuasion study
was marked by a flowering of human achieve-
ment that was suddenly cut short when political
authorities had the masters of persuasion killed.
The philosopher Socrates is probably the best
known of the persuasion experts to run afoul of
the powers that be.

Information about the persuasion process is a
threat because it creates a base of power entirely
separate from the one controlled by political au-
thorities. Faced with a rival source of influence,
rulers in previous centuries had few qualms
about eliminating those rare individuals who
truly understood how to marshal forces that
heads of state have never been able to monopo-
lize, such as cleverly crafted language, strategi-
cally placed information, and, most important,
psychological insight.

It would perhaps be expressing too much faith
in human nature to claim that persuasion experts
no longer face a threat from those who wield politi-
cal power. But because the truth about persuasion
is no longer the sole possession of a few brilliant,
inspired individuals, experts in the field can pre-
sumably breathe a little easier. Indeed, since most
people in power are interested in remaining in
power, they’re likely to be more interested in ac-
quiring persuasion skills than abolishing them.

Persuasion Experts, Safe at Last

In framing their offers, executives should also remem-
ber that exclusive information is more persuasive than
widely available data. A doctoral student of mine, Amram
Knishinsky, wrote his 1982 dissertation on the purchase
decisions of wholesale beef buyers. He observed that they
more than doubled their orders when they were told that,
because of certain weather conditions overseas, there was
likely to be a scarcity of foreign beef in the near future.
But their orders increased 600% when they were in-
formed that no one else had that information yet.

The persuasive power of exclusivity can be harnessed
by any manager who comes into possession of informa-
tion that’s not broadly available and that supports an idea
or initiative he or she would like the organization to
adopt. The next time that kind of information crosses
your desk, round up your organization’s key players. The
information itself may seem dull, but exclusivity will give
it a special sheen. Push it across your desk and say, “I just
got this report today. It won’t be distributed until next
week, but I want to give you an early look at what it
shows.” Then watch your listeners lean forward.

Allow me to stress here a point that should be obvious.
No offer of exclusive information, no exhortation to act
now or miss this opportunity forever should be made un-
less it is genuine. Deceiving colleagues into compliance is
not only ethically objectionable, it’s foolhardy. If the de-
ception is detected – and it certainly will be – it will snuff
out any enthusiasm the offer originally kindled. It will
also invite dishonesty toward the deceiver. Remember the
rule of reciprocity.

Putting It All Together
There’s nothing abstruse or obscure about these six prin-
ciples of persuasion. Indeed, they neatly codify our intu-
itive understanding of the ways people evaluate informa-
tion and form decisions. As a result, the principles are
easy for most people to grasp, even those with no formal
education in psychology. But in the seminars and work-
shops I conduct, I have learned that two points bear re-
peated emphasis.

First, although the six principles and their applications
can be discussed separately for the sake of clarity, they
should be applied in combination to compound their im-
pact. For instance, in discussing the importance of ex-
pertise, I suggested that managers use informal, social
conversations to establish their credentials. But that con-
versation affords an opportunity to gain information as
well as convey it. While you’re showing your dinner com-
panion that you have the skills and experience your busi-
ness problem demands, you can also learn about your
companion’s background, likes, and dislikes – informa-
tion that will help you locate genuine similarities and
give sincere compliments. By letting your expertise sur-

face and also establishing rapport, you double your per-
suasive power. And if you succeed in bringing your din-
ner partner on board, you may encourage other people
to sign on as well, thanks to the persuasive power of so-
cial evidence.

The other point I wish to emphasize is that the rules
of ethics apply to the science of social influence just as
they do to any other technology. Not only is it ethically
wrong to trick or trap others into assent, it’s ill-advised in
practical terms. Dishonest or high-pressure tactics work
only in the short run, if at all. Their long-term effects are
malignant, especially within an organization, which can’t
function properly without a bedrock level of trust and
cooperation.

That point is made vividly in the following account,
which a department head for a large textile manufacturer
related at a training workshop I conducted. She described
a vice president in her company who wrung public com-
mitments from department heads in a highly manipu-
lative manner. Instead of giving his subordinates time
to talk or think through his proposals carefully, he would
approach them individually at the busiest moment of
their workday and describe the benefits of his plan in
exhaustive, patience-straining detail. Then he would
move in for the kill. “It’s very important for me to see
you as being on my team on this,” he would say. “Can I
count on your support?” Intimidated, frazzled, eager to
chase the man from their offices so they could get back
to work, the department heads would invariably go along
with his request. But because the commitments never
felt voluntary, the department heads never followed
through, and as a result the vice president’s initiatives all
blew up or petered out.

This story had a deep impact on the other participants
in the workshop. Some gulped in shock as they recog-
nized their own manipulative behavior. But what stopped
everyone cold was the expression on the department
head’s face as she recounted the damaging collapse of her
superior’s proposals. She was smiling.

Nothing I could say would more effectively make the
point that the deceptive or coercive use of the principles
of social influence is ethically wrong and pragmatically
wrongheaded. Yet the same principles, if applied appro-
priately, can steer decisions correctly. Legitimate exper-
tise, genuine obligations, authentic similarities, real so-
cial proof, exclusive news, and freely made commitments
can produce choices that are likely to benefit both parties.
And any approach that works to everyone’s mutual ben-
efit is good business, don’t you think? Of course, I don’t
want to press you into it, but, if you agree, I would love it
if you could just jot me a memo to that effect.

Reprint r0109d
To place an order, call 1-800-988-0886.

october 2001 79

H a r n e s s i n g t h e S c i e n c e o f P e r s u a s i o n

A

THE FINANCIAL PAGE

BRANDED A CHEAT
by James Surowiecki

DECEMBER 21, 2009

recent issue of Forbes features a full-page ad for

the consulting firm Accenture with Tiger Woods

striding through tall grass. The tagline reads, “The road

to high performance isn’t always paved.” To which the

obvious rejoinder these days is “Sometimes it runs

straight into a fire hydrant.” Jokes about Woods’s

current woes come easy, but the story is not trivial—at

least, not in terms of money. Woods has been the best-

paid athlete in the world for almost a decade, and much

of that income is from endorsements; ESPN once

estimated that his lifetime earnings could total as much

as six billion dollars. When the scandal erupted,

journalists and brand-marketing experts alike insisted

that it would have little impact on Woods’s advertising appeal, and his sponsors—including Nike,

Gillette, and Gatorade—quickly affirmed their support for him. But, from the start, this attitude

seemed like wishful thinking. The problem isn’t a question of morals, exactly; it’s that a huge gap

has opened up between Woods’s advertising persona and his public image. With every new

revelation, it seems that the biggest career in sports is being reshaped before our eyes.

The fact that a golfer’s marital troubles might affect the bottom line of a multinational is a

relatively recent phenomenon. Although athletes have been endorsing products for more than a

century—beginning, by most accounts, in 1905, when Honus Wagner put his name on Louisville

Slugger bats—the importance of endorsements to the sports economy really dates back to the

sixties, when Arnold Palmer and his agent, Mark McCormack, effectively invented the athlete as

brand, with Palmer the quintessential Everyman fronting for companies like Pennzoil, Hertz, and

Sears. In the eighties, Michael Jordan took the endorsement game to a new level, perfecting the

iconic association of athlete and individual product with the Air Jordan line, while his off-the-court

bonhomie made him an ideal spokesman for brands like Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and Hanes.

Woods, in turn, has broken new ground by becoming the face of Accenture, a company whose

customers are corporations rather than ordinary consumers. Like his predecessors, he has endorsed

sports products and consumer goods. But he has also become a kind of ubiquitous symbol of the

business world.

There is a logic to this. Unlike Palmer or Jordan, Woods never seemed warm or even especially

personable. Instead, he seemed resolutely businesslike. Woods’s appeal was based, ultimately, not

on his physical abilities but on his mental toughness, his extraordinary capacity for focus and

discipline. He was the man who always made the key putt, who never cracked under pressure. That’s

why Gatorade, introducing a new drink with his face on the label, called the drink Tiger Focus. And

it’s why the most powerful Nike ad about him is the one in which his father, in a voice-over, says,

“I’d say, ‘Tiger, I promise you that you’ll never meet another person as mentally tough as you in

your entire life. And he hasn’t . . . and he never will.’ ”

In other words, Woods has been presented as the embodiment of bourgeois virtues: dedication,

hard work, single-mindedness. Indeed, when, in 2008, Woods won the U.S. Open while essentially

playing on one leg, the Times’ David Brooks devoted a column to his extraordinary ability to block

out distraction and focus on the matter at hand, dubbing him “the exemplar of mental discipline” for

our time. For millions of people—many of them, to be sure, affluent middle-aged white guys—

Woods embodied an approach not just to golf but to life. Myriad studies show that celebrity

endorsements are most successful when there is a tight fit between the pitchman’s identity and the

product he’s pitching. Woods was the rare athlete whose identity seemed to fit not just with golf

clubs or sports drinks but with consulting firms.

The current scandal has disrupted, if not shattered, this image of perfect control. Scandals that

aren’t out of tune with a celebrity’s image are often surprisingly easy to bounce back from: after

images of Kate Moss snorting coke surfaced, her bookings fell, but, over time, they went up.

Revelations that Michael Jordan had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars gambling barely dented

his appeal, since the story reinforced the image of him as a fierce competitor. But scandals that

conflict with a person’s public image can wreak havoc. And it’s hard to think of a scandal that’s

more discordant with an image of focus and discipline than this one. Woods’s alleged cavorting

with Vegas waitresses and celebrity groupies, his woeful “sexts” and voice mails, his driving his

S.U.V. into a tree: all these things make him look weak and discombobulated. Some have

speculated, optimistically, that this may humanize the Tiger. But that’s exactly the problem: what

was so amazing about Woods was precisely that he wasn’t like the rest of us—that he wasn’t weak

or distracted.

Woods is too big a name for his sponsors to simply abandon him, even though Gatorade has

discontinued its Tiger line (for other reasons, it says). But the scandal may well narrow his appeal,

turning him from someone whose virtues seemed relevant to many fields of work into someone

whose virtues apply mainly to golf. And while comebacks may be an American tradition, it’s not

clear that you can ever get all the way back: for instance, Kobe Bryant’s endorsement income today

is much smaller than his on-court performance would lead you to expect. If Woods returns in April

and wins the Masters, it will make for an extraordinary story. Still, it seems unlikely that any

company will be advising us to “Be a Tiger” anytime soon. ♦

ILLUST RAT ION: CHRIST OPH NIEMANN

To get more of The New Yorker’s signature mix of politics, culture and the arts: Subscribe Now