influence-psychology

---
name: influence-psychology
description: Use when writing persuasive copy, testimonials, or urgency messaging. Applies Cialdini's seven principles: reciprocity, commitment, social proof, authority, liking, scarcity, unity.
category: Business Knowledge
version: 1.0.0
tools: []
---

# Influence Psychology Framework

Apply Robert Cialdini's persuasion science -- six decades of research into why people say "yes" -- to product, copy, and sales, ethically.

## Core Principle

People don't decide rationally -- they use mental shortcuts (heuristics) that can be triggered to influence behavior. These shortcuts evolved because they're usually reliable, but they can be exploited. Understanding them lets you design products, messaging, and experiences that align with how people actually decide.

## Scoring

**Goal: 10/10.** Score any persuasive element (feature, copy, flow, campaign) against these bands, then apply the ethics gate. Always report the current score and the specific change needed to reach 10/10.
- **9-10** -- multiple principles deliberately layered; every claim truthful; users can reverse the decision; passes the transparency test (still works if the user knows the strategy); safe for vulnerable users.
- **7-8** -- principles deliberately layered and honest, but one gap (weak reversibility, or a principle left unlayered).
- **5-6** -- one principle present but generic, or leverage left on the table.
- **<=3** -- no principle deliberately designed, OR any tactic is deceptive/coercive. Fabricated proof, fake scarcity, or a hidden-cost dark pattern caps the score at 3 regardless of other strengths.

## The Seven Principles of Influence

### 1. Reciprocity
People feel obligated to give back to those who give first. The gift must come before the request; unexpected, personalized gifts beat generic ones; even small gifts create obligation. Applications: full-access free trials before asking to pay (Spotify Premium), value-upfront content marketing (HubSpot's free CRM), rewarding both sides of a referral (Dropbox: both get storage). Copy: "Here's a gift for you..." / "As a thank you for signing up..."

### 2. Commitment & Consistency
People want to stay consistent with past statements and actions -- inconsistency is psychologically uncomfortable. Small initial commitments lead to larger ones (foot-in-the-door); public beats private, written beats verbal, active (user-generated) beats passive. Onboarding sequence: micro-commitment ("What brings you here?") -> small action -> public/written goal -> reinforcement. Applications: Duolingo's "commit to 5 min/day," Strava's public goal-setting, Snapchat/GitHub streak tracking. Ethical boundary: make every commitment freely chosen and easily reversible -- no trick opt-ins or locked-in defaults.

### 3. Social Proof
People determine what's correct by observing what others do -- most powerful when observers are uncertain, and similar others carry more weight. Specific numbers beat vague claims ("2,347 users" over "thousands"); negative social proof backfires ("9 out of 10 don't..."). Six types: wisdom of crowds, wisdom of friends, expert, celebrity, certification, user proof. Applications: "Trusted by 10,000+ companies," live signup counters, usage stats ("85% of teams use this feature"). Ethical boundary: disclose when proof is curated rather than representative.

### 4. Authority
People follow credible, knowledgeable experts -- titles, credentials, and even symbols (lab coats, official design) trigger automatic compliance. Admitting a weakness paradoxically increases trustworthiness; expertise doesn't transfer across domains, but people assume it does. Sources: credentials, experience, association (investors/partners), original content, and transparency about limitations. Applications: "Built by ex-Google engineers," original research reports, security certifications (SOC 2, GDPR).

### 5. Liking
People prefer to say yes to those they like. Six stacking factors: attractiveness (halo effect), similarity, compliments, cooperation toward shared goals, familiarity (repeated exposure), and positive association. Applications: friendly conversational brand voice (Mailchimp), real team bios and photos, warm empathetic support copy. Copy: "We're [similar trait] just like you" / "We built this because we were frustrated with..."

### 6. Scarcity
People want more of what's running out. Loss aversion beats gain-seeking; scarcity of time outperforms scarcity of quantity; newly-scarce beats always-scarce; exclusive access beats open access. Four types: limited quantity, limited time, exclusive access, competition ("12 people viewing this"). Ethical boundary: ethical scarcity reflects real constraints (true inventory, genuine deadlines); unethical scarcity invents limits, resets countdown timers, or repeats "Only 2 left!" daily -- especially toward vulnerable users.

### 7. Unity
People say yes to those they consider part of "us" -- shared identity, not mere similarity (Liking says "like me"; Unity says "is me"). Four sources: place, shared experience, values, and tribe/co-creation. Applications: "For remote-first teams," "We" language around a shared struggle, user-generated community content. Ethical boundary: build the in-group by what it stands for, not by vilifying an out-group.

## Combining Principles

The most powerful persuasion layers several principles at once. SaaS landing page: authority ("Built by ex-Stripe engineers") + social proof ("Trusted by 5,000+ companies") + liking (warm copy) + scarcity ("Join the beta -- limited spots") + reciprocity ("Start free, no credit card") + unity ("For founders who move fast"). Referral program: reciprocity (reward both parties) + social proof ("X friends already joined") + unity ("Invite your team") + commitment (ask after a good experience).

## Product Applications by Principle

| Principle | Context | Example |
|-----------|---------|---------|
| Reciprocity | Free trials, referral programs | Full product access before the ask; reward both sides of a referral |
| Commitment | Onboarding, goal-setting | Small public commitment early, reinforced with progress later |
| Social proof | Landing pages, signup flows | "Trusted by 10,000+ companies"; live signup counters |
| Authority | About pages, partnerships | Founder credentials; security certifications (SOC 2, GDPR) |
| Liking | Brand voice, support | Friendly conversational tone; real team bios and photos |
| Scarcity | Pricing, waitlists | Genuine limited-time discounts; real capacity-based beta access |
| Unity | Brand positioning, community | "For remote-first teams"; user-generated community content |

## The Ethical Line

Persuasion helps people see value they'd appreciate anyway; manipulation tricks people into choices against their interests. Run every persuasive element through the ethics gate above before shipping, and apply extra scrutiny -- including the regulatory landscape (FTC, GDPR, DSA, dark-patterns law) and vulnerable-population safeguards -- whenever a tactic feels borderline or targets vulnerable users.

## Common Mistakes

| Mistake | Why It Fails | Fix |
|---------|-------------|-----|
| Using only one principle | Leaves persuasive leverage on the table | Layer 2-3 complementary principles, e.g. authority + social proof |
| Vague social proof ("many customers love us") | Reads as filler, not evidence | Use a specific number: "2,347 users," not "thousands" |
| Fabricated scarcity or countdown resets | Destroys trust the moment it's discovered | Only ever show real inventory, real deadlines, real capacity |
| Asking "Why" instead of showing reciprocity first | Request feels one-sided | Give real value (trial, content, gift) before any ask |
| Copying a competitor's urgency tactic verbatim | May not reflect your actual constraints | Anchor every tactic in a real, honest business fact |
| Treating persuasion as a one-time copy tweak | Misses compounding effect of layered principles | Audit the full funnel -- landing page, onboarding, pricing -- together |

## Quick Diagnostic

Is at least one principle deliberately designed in, not accidental? Are multiple principles layered together? Is every claim (numbers, credentials, scarcity) literally true? Can the user easily reverse or opt out of the decision? Would the tactic still work if the user knew you were using it? Is it safe to show to a vulnerable or financially stressed user?