The human factor strongly influences business.
1. Dennis Regan's retaliation experiment
It is based on a simple idea: having received something, a person wants to give something in return. Social psychologist Robert Cialdini has highlighted this feeling among six key principles of influence.
In 1971, a professor at Cornell University showed the power of mutual exchange in his experiment. He made the subjects believe they were taking part in the evaluation of works of art, along with a partner who was actually Regan's assistant. At some point, the assistant left the room for a couple of minutes, and then returned with soda in his hands. In the other group, he did not bring anything. At the end of the experiment, the assistants asked the subjects to do them a favor - to buy a lottery ticket. As expected, those who received the soda were much more inclined to comply, despite the fact that the tickets were much more expensive. At the same time, in subsequent experiments, Regan showed that the personality of the assistant did not matter, as well as the fact that the soda (a favor they did) was not needed by the subjects.
APPLICATION:
If you provide simple services to your colleagues or clients, they are more likely to help in return. Essentially, all business relationships are based on mutual exchange.
The explanation for this phenomenon lies in the area of cognitive dissonance. When you make a commitment and agree to something, it will be difficult to refuse: it puts pressure on your principles and reputation. You will need to enter into dissonance with yourself in order to abandon a previously made decision. Later in business, this fact became known as “foot-in-the-door-technique”.
One of the first studies to reflect the principle was conducted by Jonathan Friedman and Scott Fraser in 1966. Researchers called Californian housewives and asked them to answer a few questions about the product they were using. Three days later, they called again and asked if they could go to their house for a couple of hours to see how they were doing with cleaning products. Friedman and Fraser found that those women who had already agreed to answer questions over the phone were twice as likely to meet them.
APPLICATION:
Don't try to jump straight at a customer or partner with a big offer. Give out information in parts. Get the person to agree to something less first.
APPLICATION:
The more connections a consumer has with a brand, the more loyalty he feels towards it. That is why often seen advertising can induce people to buy through associations.
The control group consisted of university students and specially invited students who knew about the experiment. They were all shown a card with a line, followed by a card with three lines on it — A, B, and C. Subjects were then asked to say which of the three lines was equal to the length shown on the first card. The answer was obvious, but the researchers persuaded the brought students
In 1971, a professor at Cornell University showed the power of mutual exchange in his experiment. He made the subjects believe they were taking part in the evaluation of works of art, along with a partner who was actually Regan's assistant. At some point, the assistant left the room for a couple of minutes, and then returned with soda in his hands. In the other group, he did not bring anything. At the end of the experiment, the assistants asked the subjects to do them a favor - to buy a lottery ticket. As expected, those who received the soda were much more inclined to comply, despite the fact that the tickets were much more expensive. At the same time, in subsequent experiments, Regan showed that the personality of the assistant did not matter, as well as the fact that the soda (a favor they did) was not needed by the subjects.
APPLICATION:
If you provide simple services to your colleagues or clients, they are more likely to help in return. Essentially, all business relationships are based on mutual exchange.
2. Friedman and Fraser's step-by-step experiment
Scientists have proven that if you first propose to do something small, and then expand the conditions and requirements, a person would rather agree to do this than if you immediately offer him something difficult.The explanation for this phenomenon lies in the area of cognitive dissonance. When you make a commitment and agree to something, it will be difficult to refuse: it puts pressure on your principles and reputation. You will need to enter into dissonance with yourself in order to abandon a previously made decision. Later in business, this fact became known as “foot-in-the-door-technique”.
One of the first studies to reflect the principle was conducted by Jonathan Friedman and Scott Fraser in 1966. Researchers called Californian housewives and asked them to answer a few questions about the product they were using. Three days later, they called again and asked if they could go to their house for a couple of hours to see how they were doing with cleaning products. Friedman and Fraser found that those women who had already agreed to answer questions over the phone were twice as likely to meet them.
APPLICATION:
Don't try to jump straight at a customer or partner with a big offer. Give out information in parts. Get the person to agree to something less first.
3. The effect of perception of the familiar Robert Zayonts
In 1968, a Polish psychologist decided to test the hypothesis that people experience positive emotions when they meet something familiar. He divided the subjects into two groups, showed them a series of meaningless Chinese symbols, and asked them to guess their meaning. The longer people looked at the hieroglyphs, the more positive their perception became. Moreover, in the future, the members of the group, where familiar symbols appeared repeatedly, improved their mood.APPLICATION:
The more connections a consumer has with a brand, the more loyalty he feels towards it. That is why often seen advertising can induce people to buy through associations.
4. Asch's conformity experiment
In a famous psychological experiment in 1951, Solomon Asch showed that the pressure of the majority opinion can affect even the most obvious facts.The control group consisted of university students and specially invited students who knew about the experiment. They were all shown a card with a line, followed by a card with three lines on it — A, B, and C. Subjects were then asked to say which of the three lines was equal to the length shown on the first card. The answer was obvious, but the researchers persuaded the brought students