Theories About Behavior An Attempt To Identify With General Situation

1. Classical Conditioning: A Repeated Stimulus Will Trigger
Associated Event.
2. Control Theory: We Seek To Control The World Around Us.
3. Deindividuation: Losing Our Sense Of Self.
4. Extended Parallel Process Model: Threat Leads To Danger- Or
Fear-control.
5. Frustration-aggression Theory: When Stopped From Reaching
Goal, People Turn To Aggression.
6. Non-verbal Behavior: We Communicate Hugely Without Words.
7. Operant Conditioning: Behavior + Reward = More Behavior (And
Vice Versa).
8. Rationalization Trap: Dissonance Reduction Leads To Silly Or
Immoral Actions.
9. Reactance Theory: Prevention Of Action Leads To Action (To
Prove Control).
10. Realistic Conflict Theory: Limited Resources Leads To Conflict.
11. Symbolic Interaction Theory: We Interact With Meaning Of
Symbols.

ANEEK GUPTA 2

CLASSICAL CONDITIONING: A Repeated Stimulus Will Trigger Associated Event.
Description: If A Stimulus That Results In An Emotional Response Is Repeated Alongside Another Stimulus
Which Does Not Cause An Emotional Response, Eventually The Second Stimulus Will Result In The Same
Emotional Response.
Classical Conditioning Is Thus ‘Learning By Association’.
It Does Not Work In All Circumstances. In Particular It Is More Effective Where The Conditioning
May Be Of Evolutionary Benefit.
Research: Pavlov Did Famous Experiments With Dogs, Ringing A Bell And Then Feeding Them. After
A While, He Could Ring The Bell And Their Mouths Would Salivate.
Garcia And Koelling (1966) Showed That Rats Soon Learned To Avoid A Sweet-tasting Liquid When It Was
Followed By An Injection That Made Them Ill, But They Did Not Learn To Avoid The Liquid When They Received
Electric Shocks Afterwards. Presumably This Is Connected With Learning What Foods They Could Safely Eat. The
Rats Did, However, Learn To Avoid The Electric Shock When It Was Paired With Light And Noise (But
Injection+light/Noise Failed). Maybe This Is Related To Learning About Natural Hazards Like Lightning Or Falling
Objects.
Example I Liked My Aunt, She Always Made Me Feel Warm And Wanted. She Always Wore A Particular Perfume.
When I Smell The Perfume Now, I Immediately Feel Warm And Wanted.
So What? Using It If You Want To Persuade Someone To Do Something, Get Them To Do It
At The Same Time As Doing Something They Like Doing. Do Something Specific Every
Time They Do Something You Want (Like Touching Them Somewhere Or Making A
Specific Sound). Then Do That Specific Thing And They'll Think Of Doing The Desired
Behavior.
Defending Watch Out For People Repeatedly Touching You Or Having Strange Behaviors. Check That They're Not
Trying To Program You. ANEEK GUPTA 3

CONTROL THEORY: We Seek To Control The World Around Us.
Description
We Have A Deep Need For Control That Itself, Paradoxically, Controls Much Of
Our Lives. The Endless Effort To Control Can Lead Us To Be Miserable As We Fail
In This Impossible Task Of Trying To Control Everything And Everyone Around Us.
The Alternative Is To See The World As A Series Of Choices, Which Is
Why Glasser Later Renamed Control Theory As Choice Theory.
So What? Using It
Give People Things To Control, Help Them Control The Things In Their Path, Or
Threaten Their Sense Of Control.
Defending
Do Not Try To Control Everything -- Instead See The World
As A Series Of Choices.
ANEEK GUPTA 4

Deindividuation: Losing Our Sense Of Self.
Description: We Normally Carry Our Sense Of Identity Around With Us And Are Thus Well Aware Of How We Are Relating To Other
People. There Are Ways, However Of Losing Ourselves, Including:
1. Becoming A Part Of A Large Group, Such As A Mob Or Army.
2. Becoming Engrossed In An Interesting Task, Such As A Hobby.
3. Meditation And Other Contemplative Activities.
Deindividuation Into A Group Results In A Loss Of Individual Identity And A Gaining Of The Social Identity Of The Group. When Two
Groups Argue (And Crowd Problems Are Often Between Groups), It Is Like Two People Arguing. The Three Most Important Factors For
Deindividuation In A Group Of People Are:
1. Anonymity, So I Can Not Be Found Out.
2. Diffused Responsibility, So I Am Not Responsible For My Actions.
3. Group Size, As A Larger Group Increases The Above Two Factors.
A Paradox Of Deindividuation Is That When You Let Go Of Your Self, Returning To You Self Can Be An
Exhilarating Experience. This Is One Of The Rewards Of Engrossing Hobbies And Meditation.
Significant External Stimulation Helps Deindividuation As It Distracts You From Internal Chatter And Rumination. This Is One Reason
That Pop And Rock Music (And Orchestral Music, For That Matter) Is Often Played Loudly Along With Dramatic Visual Lighting Effects.
Research Diener Et Al Gave Trick-or-treaters The Opportunity Steal Candy. When They Were In Groups And When They Were Sure Of
Their Anonymity, The Stealing Went Up Threefold.
Example The Effects Of Mobs Are Particularly Alarming As Lynching, Riots And Wartime Atrocities Have All Been Done During Periods
Of Deindividuation. Crowds Give You The Opportunity To Hide And Also Allow You To Share The Blame, Reducing The Sense Of
Individual Responsibility. Uniforms And War-paint Also Help Hide Your True Identity. Even Sunglasses Can Support Aggressive Attitudes
As They Hide The Eyes, A Very Important Part Of The Individual.
So What? Using It To Get Someone To Do Something They Would Not Normally Do, Provide Lots Of External Distractions, Including
Noise And Visual Action. Also Camouflage Or Disguise Them So They Do Not Worry About Being Discovered By Others.
Defending Beware Of Crowd Effects And Especially Other People Who Encourage You To Join In And Do Things That You Would Not
Normally Do. If Things Get Nasty, Fade Into The Background. Others Who Are Caught Up By The Mass Hysteria Will Not Notice.
To Reduce Deindividuation In Others, Make Them More Self-aware. Use Their Name. Tell Them What
They Are Doing. ANEEK GUPTA 5

Extended Parallel Process Model: Threat Leads To Danger- Or Fear-control.
Description: People Who Are Threatened Will Take One Of Two Courses Of
Action: D a n g e r C o n t r o l O r F e a r C o n t r o l .
Danger Control Seeks To Reduce The Risk. Fear Control Seeks To Reduce The
Perception Of The Risk.
Danger Control Is Outer-Focused And Towards A Solution. Fear Control Is Inner-
Focused And Away From A Solution.
For Danger Control To Be Selected, A Person Needs To Perceive That An Effective
Response Is Available (Response Efficacy) And That They Are Capable Of Utilizing
This Response To Reduce The Risk (Self Efficacy). If Danger Control Is Not
Selected, Then Action Defaults To Fear Control.
So What? Using It If You Want A Person To Take An Action, Show Them The
Threat, But Also Ensure They Can See That There Is A Solution Which They Can
Use (Probably Your Solution).
Defending When Feeling Threatened, Pause Before Taking The
‘Obvious’ Solution To Reduce The Threat. Consider Who Else Will
Benefit From You Using The Solution.
ANEEK GUPTA 6

Frustration - Aggression Theory: When Stopped From Reaching Goal, People
Turn To Aggression.
Description When People Perceive That They Are Being Prevented From Achieving A
Goal, Their Frustration Is Likely To Turn To Aggression.
The Closer You Get To A Goal, The Greater The Excitement And Expectation Of The
Pleasure. Thus The Closer You Are, The More Frustrated You Get By Being Held Back.
Unexpected Occurrence Of The Frustration Also Increases The Likelihood Of Aggression.
Research Barker, Dembo And Lewin (1941) Put Toys Behind A Wire Screen Where
Children Could See Them. When They Eventually Got To Play With Them, Their Play Was
Very Destructive.
Example Football Crowds Can Become Aggressive When Their Team Starts To Lose.
People In Business Can Also Become Aggressive When Others Start To Frustrate Their
Ambitions.
So What? Using It You Can Cause Tension By Frustrating The Other Person, But Beware
Of It Turning To Aggression.
Defending
Beware Of People Winding You Up. If They Dangle A Carrot Then
Whisk It Away, Either Refuse To Play Or Play Hard, Early And Fast.

ANEEK GUPTA 7

Non-verbal Behavior: We Communicate Hugely Without Words.
Description The Communication Without Words. The Face Is Used A Great Deal. Hand Signals, Shrugs, Head Movements, Etc. Also Are
Used. It Is Often Subconscious. It Can Be Used For:
1. Expressing Emotion (E.G. Smiling To Show Happiness)
2. Conveying Attitudes (E.G. Staring To Show Aggression)
3. Demonstrating Personality Traits (E.G. Open Palms To Show Accepting Qualities)
4. Supporting Verbal Communication
Non-verbal Behavior Also Varies Across Cultures (Such As The ‘Ok’ Finger O), Although The Six Major
Emotions (Anger, Fear, Disgust, Sadness, Happiness And Surprise) Are Common Across The World.
Non-verbal Behavior Is Commonly Called Body Language.
Research Mehrabian (1971) Found That Non-verbal Aspects Were A Significant Part Of Communication, Particularly When Mixed
Messages Are Sent.
Later Studies Showed The Situation To Be More Complex, With Percentages Varying With The Situation Or Even With Individual Things
Being Said. For Example, If A Person Is Not Moving, Then Words And Tone Take Far Greater Proportion.
Example Try The Difference Between Listening To Someone With Your Eyes Closed And Listening/Watching With Your
Eyes Open. It Is Much Easier To Understand When You Are Watching Them.
So What? Using It Read The Other Person’s Non-verbal Behavior. Watch For Changes In Response To Your Communications.
Also Spot Mixed Messages For When The Voice Says One Thing Body Says Another—This Can Be A Sign Of Attempted
Deception.
Beware Of Popular Myths About Body Language (Such As Crossing Arms Signifying Defensiveness). Many Such Anecdotes Are
At Best Dangerous Half-truths. Body Language Is Most Significant When They Appear In Clusters, At The Same Time As A
Significant Event (Such As Being Asked An Embarrassing Question) And When It Is Unlikely That The Other Person Is Trying To
Control Their Non-verbal Behavior.
Watch Your Own Body Language Too For Signs Of What Your Subconscious Is Thinking. Be Careful When Controlling It, As This
Can Lead Perceived Mixed Messages From You.
Defending Watch Your Own And Other’s Non-verbal Behavior. Use It To Improve Your Understanding Of
What Is Going On, Especially At The Subconscious Level. Make Conscious Decisions.
ANEEK GUPTA 8

Operant Conditioning: Behavior + Reward = More Behavior (And Vice Versa).
Description
A Behavior Will Increase If It Is Followed By Positive Reinforcement. It Will
Decrease If It Is Followed By Negative Reinforcement.
Operant Conditioning Is Thus ‘Learning By Consequences’.
Research
Skinner Put Rats And Pigeons In A Box Where Pressing A Lever Resulted In Food
Being Dispensed. From Accidental Knocking Of The Lever, They Quickly Learned To
Deliberately Press It To Get Food.
Example
Parents Often Try To Balance Praise And Punishment. To Be Effective, They Should
Punish Only Behaviors They Wish To Extinguish--they Should Not Punish For Not
Doing What Should Be Done.
So What? Using It If You Want Someone To Work Harder, Do Not Punish
Them When They Do Not Work—Reward Them When They Do. If You
Want Them To Stop Smoking, Make It Unpleasant When They Do
Rather Than Pleasant When They Refrain.
ANEEK GUPTA 9

Rationalization Trap: Dissonance Reduction Leads To Silly Or Immoral Actions.
Description
When We Act To Reduce Dissonance It Can End Up As A Whole Set Of Justifications And
Rationalizations That Lead To Ridiculous Or Even Immoral Actions. Like Pinocchio's Nose,
One Defense Leads To Another Until We Are All Out Of Shape.
The Trick Is To Avoid Unthinking Reaction, Tolerating Dissonance For Long
Enough To Be Able To Decide On A More Appropriate Action.
Example
When President Richard Nixon Got Caught Up In The Watergate Scandal, His Arguments
And Denials Led To His Eventual Demise. Bill Clinton Also Fell Down The Slippery Slope
But Managed To Survive Only Through Some Embarrassing And Very Public Confessions.
So What? Using It
When People Are Seeking Justification They Are Usually Desperate. Give Them Straws To
Clutch At That Lead Them In The Right Direction Or Give Them Rope With Which They
Hang Themselves. You Can Even Tip Them Into The Need For Rationalization In The First
Place.
Defending
Do You Really Need To Go Down That Spiral Of Justification? For Whom? Did You Get
There Through The Trickery Of Someone Else?
ANEEK GUPTA 10

Reactance Theory: Prevention Of Action Leads To Action (To Prove Control).
Description When People Feel That Their Freedom To Choose An Action Is
Threatened, They Get An Unpleasant Feeling Called ‘Reactance’. This Also
Motivates Them To Perform The Threatened Behavior, Thus Proving That Their
Free Will Has Not Been Compromised.
Research Pennebaker And Sanders (1976) Put One Of Two Signs On College
Bathroom Walls. One Read ‘Do Not Write On These Walls Under Any
Circumstances’ Whilst The Other Read ‘Please Don’t Write On These Walls.’ A
Couple Of Weeks Later, The Former Walls Had Far More Graffiti On Them.
Example When Persuading My Children, I Have To Be Careful Because I Know
That If I Push Too Hard They Will Do What I Have Told Them Not To Do, Just To
Show Me Who Is Really In Charge!
So What? Using It
Beware Of Persuading Too Overtly Or Too Much. If People Get Wind That They
Are Being Railroaded, They Will Leap Right Off The Tracks.

ANEEK GUPTA 11

Realistic Conflict Theory: Limited Resources Leads To Conflict.
Description When There Is Limited Resources, Then This Leads To Conflict, Prejudice And
Discrimination Between Groups Who Seek That Common Resource. Once Hostility Has
Been Aroused, It Is Very Difficult To Return To Normal Relations And An Ongoing Feud
Can Arise.
Research Muzafer Sherif Divided A Boy Scout Camp Into Two Groups, The Eagles And The
Rattlers. After Helping The Groups To Each Become Cohesive, He Introduced Competitive
Games And Other Conflicts. Before Long, A Full-scale Riot Was In Progress And The
Researchers Had To Work Hard At Mediation To Defuse The Situation.
Example A Common Situation Is Where Jobs Are Scarce And An Established
Group Blames Immigrants For “Taking The Food Out Of Our Children's Mouths”.
So What? Using It
Gain Control Over A Resource Required By Many. Where You Cannot, Point To
Others Who Use The Resource As Causes Of Your Own Ills.
Defending
When Resources Are Limited, Pre-Empt Conflict By Setting Up Joint
Councils, Etc. To Decide Fairly On Allocation.
ANEEK GUPTA 12

Symbolic Interaction Theory: We Interact With Meaning Of Symbols.
Description People Act Based On Symbolic Meanings They Find Within Any Given Situation. We
Thus Interact With The Symbols, Forming Relationships Around Them. The Goals Of Our
Interactions With One Another Are To Create Shared Meaning.
Language Is Itself A Symbolic Form, Which Is Used To Anchor
Meanings To The Symbols.
Key Aspects Are:
1. We Act Toward Others Based On The Meaning That Those Other People Have For Us.
2. Meaning Is Created In The Interactions We Have With Other People In Sharing Our
Interpretations Of Symbols.
3. Meanings Are Modified Through An Interpretive Process Whereby We First
Internally Create Meaning, Then Check It Externally And With Other People.
4. We Develop Our Self-concepts Through Interaction With Others.
5. We Are Influenced By Culture And Social Processes, Such As Social Norms.
6. Our Social Structures Are Worked Out Through The Social Interactions With Others.
So What? Using It Pay Attention To The Symbols Within The Persuasive Context And Utilize Them.
You Can Place The Symbols There. How People Interpret Them Includes How You Interpret Them.
Defending Pay Attention To The Symbols Within The Persuasive Context And
Notice How They Are Affecting What Happens.
ANEEK GUPTA 13

1. Contact Hypothesis: Bringing Enemies Together
Increases Understanding.
2. Equity Theory: We Are Happiest When Give And
Take Are Equal.
3. Empathy-altruism Hypothesis: If We Feel Empathy
We Are Likely To Help.
4. Prosocial Behavior: We Sometimes Help Without
Need For Reward.
5. Social Exchange Theory: Perception Of
Relationships Depends On Fairness Perception.
6. Terminating Relationships: Relationships Break
Down In Stages.
7. Politeness Theory: We Act Politely Or Rudely
Depending On Whether We Care.
8. Reciprocity Norm: We Need To Return Another's
Favor.
9. Love: There Are Several Styles Of Love.
ANEEK GUPTA 15

Contact Hypothesis:

Bringing Enemies Together Increases Understanding.
Description This Is The Principle That Bringing People Together Who Are In Conflict (Or Where One Is
Bullying The Other), The Conflict Will Subside As They Get To Understand One Another.
When First Tried In Such As Multi-racial Schools, This Often Failed Dramatically. In Practice, It Requires Other
Conditions:
1. Remove Conflict: It Is Not Sufficient Just To Nullify The Source Of Problems, But It Is Necessary.
2. Mutual Interdependence: Where One Party Can Safely Pull Out, Then This Position Of Power Can Destroy
Common Understanding.
3. Equal Status: If One Party Has Advantages That The Other Does Not, Then This Again Unbalances Power.
4. Positive Contact: The Context For Contact Between Parties Must Be Conducive To Friendly Interactions.
5. Typical Contact: The People That Are Met Must Be Perceived As Typical Of The Other Groups, So That The
Positive Perceptions Are Generalized To The Rest Of The Population.
6. Social Norms Of Equality: In The Situation Of Contact, It Must Be A General Norm That All Parties Are
Equal.
Research Sherif Et Al (1961) In The Famous Boy's Camp Study Where They Stirred Up Rivalry Between Two Groups
Found That They Could Cool The Hostility Down By Giving Them Tasks Where No One Group Could Complete It By
Themselves. Thus Forced To Work Together, The Boys Became Friends Again.
Example Judicial Systems Sometimes Insist On Petty Criminals Directly Helping The People They Have
Hurt. Done Well, This Helps Both Parties.
So What? Using It To Mediate Between Conflicting Parties, Use The Above Principles To Set Up A
Situation Where They Can Meet And Increase Understanding.

ANEEK GUPTA 16

Equity Theory: We Are Happiest When Give And Take Are Equal.
Description
People Are Happiest In Relationships Where The Give And Take Are About Equal. If One Person Is
Getting Too Little From The Relationship, Then Not Only Are They Going To Be Unhappy With
This—the Person Getting The Lion’s Share Will Also Be Feeling Rather Guilty About This Imbalance.
This Is Reinforced By Strong Social Norms About Fairness.
In Short-term Relationships We Tend To Trade In Things, Such As Loaning Small Sums Or Buying
Beers. In Longer-term Relationships The Trade Is More Emotional.
Overall, Though, It Is Still Better To Be Getting More Than Less— Although You Could Feel Better
About The Relationship, The Benefits You Get From It Can Buy You Compensatory Happiness
Elsewhere.
Example
Men Who Have Been Pulled Away From Their Family By Their Work Sometimes Try To Even The
Scales With Expensive Holidays. This Does Not Work Well As They Are Trying To Trade (Short-term
Value) Money For (Long-term Value) Emotion.
So What? Using It
If You Are Getting The Short End Of The Stick In A Relationship, Use This To Make The Other Person
Feel Even More Guilt Than They Already Feel. Get Them To Focus On The Value Of The Relationship
Itself Rather Than The More Material Things They Are Getting From It.
Defending
If You Are Getting What You Want From A Relationship, Resist Attempts To Change The Balance.

ANEEK GUPTA 17

Empathy - Altruism Hypothesis: If We Feel Empathy We Are Likely To Help.
Description If We Feel Empathy Towards A Person Who Needs Help, We Are Likely
To Help Them (In Proportion To The Empathy Felt) Without Any Selfish Thoughts.
Otherwise, We Will Help Them Only If The Rewards Of Helping Them Outweigh
The Costs.
Rewards Of Helping Can Be Many And Various, Including Relief From The Distress
Of Seeing Another In Trouble. This Means Separating True Altruism From Selfish
Concerns Can Be Very Difficult.
Beggars Live Totally Off Empathy And Can Be Expert At Putting Themselves In
Situations To Increase This, Such As Using Children And Animals.
Research Toi And Batson (1972) Played A ‘Radio Station Interview’ To Students
About A Disabled Person Who Needed Help. Afterwards They Received An
Anonymous Request For Help. When Instructed Before The Experiment To Be
Objective About What They Heard, The Students Were Much Less Likely To Offer
Help Than When They Had Been Asked To Focus On How The Person Might Be
Feeling.
So What? Using It
Find Empathetic People Or Create An Empathetic Situation Before You Ask For
Help. ANEEK GUPTA 18

Prosocial Behavior: We Sometimes Help Without Need For Reward.
Description Prosocial Behavior Occurs When Someone Acts To Help Another Person, Particularly When They Have
No Goal Other Than To Help A Fellow Human.
So Why Does This Altruistic Behavior Appear? One Thought, Of Kin Selection, Is That It Is A Genetic Response To
Supporting The Broader Gene Pool. Social Conditioning Can Also Have Be A Cause And Prosocial Parents Lead To
Prosocial Children.
The Reciprocity Norm May Also Have An Effect, Where People Help Others, Knowing That One Day They May
Want Someone Else To Help Them In The Same Unselfish Way. Demonstrating Such Social Norms Is Likely To Get
You Admiration From Other People Around You.
Prosocial Behavior Varies With Context As Much As Between People. Men Will Tend To Be Chivalrous For Short
Periods, Whilst Women Will Work Quietly For Longer Periods. People Who Are In A Good Mood Are More Likely
To Do Good, As Are People Who Are Feeling Guilty. People In Small Towns Are More Likely To Help Than Those
Squashed Together In Cities.
Example
Evidence Abounds Of People Helping Others Without Asking For Anything In Return. This Is The Whole Principle
Of Charity. Their Rationale For Helping Others Is Often Intrinsic Motivation.
So What? Using It
Ask For Help. It Is Surprising How Often People Will Give It, Without Thought Of Asking For Something In Return.
Defending
When You Are Helping Other People Out Of The Goodness Of Your Heart, Beware Of People Taking Advantage Of
You. This Does Not Mean You Should Not Be Altruistic; Just Beware Of Vampires.

ANEEK GUPTA 19

Social Exchange Theory: Perception Of Relationships Depends On Fairness Perception.
Description All Relationships Have Give And Take, Although The Balance Of This Exchange Is Not
Always Equal. Social Exchange Theory Explains How We Feel About A Relationship With Another
Person As Depending On Our Perceptions Of:
1. The Balance Between What We Put Into The Relationship And What We Get Out Of It.
2. The Kind Of Relationship We Deserve.
3. The Chances Of Having A Better Relationship With Someone Else.
In Deciding What Is Fair, We Develop A Comparison Level Against Which We Compare The Give/Take
Ratio. This Level Will Vary Between Relationships, With Some Being More Giving And Others Where
We Get More From The Relationship. They Will Also Vary Greatly In What Is Given And Received. Thus,
For Example, Exchanges At Home May Be Very Different, Both In Balance And Content.
We Also Have A Comparison Level For The Alternative Relationships. With A High Such Comparison Level, We Might
Believe The World Is Full Of Lovely People Just Waiting To Meet Us. When This Level Is Low, We May Stay In A High-
Cost Relationship Simply Because We Believe We Could Not Find Any Better Elsewhere.
Research Rusbult (1983) Found That During The Early 'Honeymoon' Period Of A Romantic Relationship, The Balance
Of Exchange Was Largely Ignored. Only Later Were Costs Related To Satisfaction With The Relationship.
Example My Daughter Put A Lot Of Effort Into Buying Her Brother A Birthday Present. He Was Not Sufficiently
Enthusiastic About It And So She Decided To Spend More Time On Her Own Rather Than 'Being Ignored' By Him.
So What? Using It When You Want To Ask Something Else For Something, Make Sure The
Balance Of Exchange Is In Your Favor. You Can Also Work On Their Perception Of How
Exchanges Happen Within Your Relationship.
Defending When People Call In Favors, Think About What Kind Of Exchange Relationship You Have With Them And
Whether This Is Reasonable.
ANEEK GUPTA 20

Terminating Relationships: Relationships Break Down In Stages.
Description There Are Several Ways To Break Up A Relationship. The Results Of Some Research Are Given Here.
Cody’s Survey Of Experience Showed Alternative Strategies:
1. Positive Tone: ‘I Still Like You, But…’
2. Verbal De-escalation: ‘I’m Don’t Love You Any More.’
3. Behavioral De-escalation: Avoiding Contact. Seeing Them Less Often.
4. Negative Identity Management :‘We Each Should See Other People…’
5. Justification: ‘This Relationship Is Not Giving Me What I Want.’
Duck Shows A Four Phase Model:
1. Relationship Phase. The Relationship Is Fairly Healthy, But Dissatisfaction Builds Up With Feelings Of ‘There’s Something
Wrong.’ Eventually The ‘I Can’t Stand It Any More’ Feelings Build Up To A Point Which Catapults You Into The Breakdown
Stages.
2. Intrapsychic Phase. Nothing Much Is Said, But Now The Focus Is On The Faults Of The Other Partner. Evidence Is Sought
By Which They Can Be Blamed For Any Problems. When Enough Evidence Is Accumulated, The Person Feels Justified In
Withdrawing.
3. Dyadic Phase. The Breakdown Now Comes Out Into The Open, Either With One Person Saying ‘I’m Leaving’ Or ‘I’m
Thinking Of Leaving’. Reality Must Now Be Faced By Both Partners And Intensive Discussions May Ensue. The Focus Here Is
On The Partnership. Eventually The Pressure Of ‘I Really Mean It’ Breaks Out And It Becomes A Public Issue.
4. Social Phase. Now The Focus Turns Outwards To The Perceptions Of Other People. Friends May Be Recruited To Either
Camp And Entire Social Groups May Break Into Open Battles Of Who Is To Blame And What Should Be Done. Eventually, It
Becomes Inevitable That The Split Will Happen And Things Move On To The Next Phase. There Can Also Be A Fifth
Phase:
5. Grave - Dressing Phase. The Relationship Now Gets Its Official Burying, With Explanations All In Place (True Or Otherwise).
Example Have You Had Long Drawn Out Ending Of A Relationship? Many Marriages Go Through Long Phases Of Argument And
Recrimination Rather Than Sudden Endings.
So What? Using It To End A Relationship, Pick The Most Suitable From The Above Methods.
Defending It Takes Two To Tango. If The Other Person Is Pulling The Plugs, Just Get Out With Your Dignity.
ANEEK GUPTA 21

Politeness Theory: We Act Politely Or Rudely Depending On Whether We Care.
Description We Maintain Two Kinds Of Face:
1. Positive Face, When Others Like, Respect And Approve Of Us.
2. Negative Face, When We Feel That Others Cannot Constrain Us In Any Way.
Both Of These May Be Threatened When Someone Makes A Request Of Us.
This Causes A Dilemma, As If I Ask In A Pleasant Way, Positive Face Is Satisfied But Negative Face May
Lead Them To Think They Can Take Advantage Of Us. The Reverse Is Also True, As Defensive Talk Will
Threaten The Positive Face.
Conformance To The Social Rules Of Politeness Is Treading A Central And Safe Path Which Neither
Threatens Nor Signals That You May Be Threatened.
Politeness Means Acting To Help Save Face For Others.
Example
When I Am With My Boss, I Show Positive Face. When I Am With The New Guy (Who Seems Pretty
Incompetent) I Show Negative Face.
So What? Using It
Build Trust By Being Polite. Use Negative Face With Out- Group People Or Those Who Would Dissuade
The Other Person.
Defending
Just Because A Person Is Polite It Does Not Mean They Have Good Intentions Towards You.

ANEEK GUPTA 22

Reciprocity Norm: We Need To Return Another's Favor.
Description This Is A Very Common Social Norm Which Says That If I Give Something To You Or Help
You In Any Way, Then You Are Obliged To Return The Favor.
This Norm Is So Powerful, It Allows The Initial Giver To:
1. Ask For Something In Return, Rather Than Having To Wait For A Voluntary Reciprocal Act.
2. Ask For More Than Was Given. You Can Even Exchange A Smile For Money.
Reciprocity Also Works At The Level Of Liking. We Like People Who Like Us, And Dislike Those Who
Dislike Us. This Can Create A Self-fulfilling Prophecy.
Research A Researcher Sent Christmas Cards To A Number Of People He Did Not Know. Most Sent A
Card Back (And He Got Onto The Permanent Christmas List Of Some).
Example Hari Krishna People Have Used This By Giving Passers-by A Small Plastic Flower And Then
Asking For A Donation In Return.
So What? Using It
Give People Things, Whether It Is Your Time Or Money. It Helps If You Give Them Something They Truly
Appreciate. Do Not Give Them Too Much, Lest They Feel Oppressed By Their Obligation. Ask For
Something In Return.
Defending
If People Give You Something, Say Thank You (Which Is Giving Them Something Back In Return!).
When They Ask For Something In Return, Say No. Be Polite (Giving Them Something Else). Or Turn The
Tables, Giving Them Something You Don’t Want, Then Ask Them For Something. Always Be Aware Of
Trickery When People You Hardly Know Offer You Something, Especially If They Ask For Something
From You In Return. ANEEK GUPTA 23

Description Love Is A Massive Motivator And Can Lead People To Perform All Kinds Of Self-sacrificial Acts.
Three Styles Of Love Are (Sternberg):
1. Intimacy: Closeness To, And Liking Of, The Other Person.
2. Passion: Intense Longing And Physiological Arousal. Ecstasy On Reciprocation, Despair On Rejection.
3. Commitment: The Readiness To Do Anything For The Sake Of The Love.
These Combine To Create Seven Styles:
1. Liking: Intimacy Alone
2. Infatuation: Passion Alone
3. Empty Love: Commitment Alone
4. Romantic Love: Passion + Intimacy.
5. Companionate Love: Intimacy + Commitment
6. Fatuous Love: Passion + Commitment
7. Consummate Love: Intimacy + Passion + Commitment
The Games Of Love Are Played On Six Different Stages, And Individuals Will Have Preferred Modes (Lee):
1. Eros: Passionate And Physical. Looks Are Important.
2. Ludus: Love As A Non-serious Game. Harm Is Not Intended But Often Happens.
3. Storge: Slow-growing, Evolving Out Of Friendship And Affection. Similarity Is Important.
4. Pragma: Commonsense And Pragmatic. Known Conditions Must Be Met.
5. Mania: An Emotional Roller-coaster. Stereotyped Romantic Love.
6. Agape: Unselfish And Giving. Spiritual And Other-focused.
Love Can Be Viewed As A Form Of Transference Whereby One Person Puts A Part Of Themselves Into Another Person And Then Feeling Lost
Without That Part, And Subsequently Feeling Whole Again When They Relate To That Person.
Example Many Romantic Mismatches Occur When Partners Both State Their Love For One Another, But Each Is Talking About A Different Style Of
Love. Maybe You Have Experience Of This?
So What? Using It :If You Want Blind Followers, Look Good And Build A Passionate Image. Otherwise Find The History Of Love Of The Other
Person And Play To Their Needs.
Great Sales People Know That The True Secret Is To Love Both Their Products And Their Customers. They Also Know That True Love Binds, And
Devious Trickery Is Out Of The Question.
Defending :If You Dive Into Love Heart First, Pause First And Ask Whether The Other Person Is Truly Committed. Beware Of Blind Love.
Love Can Be The Best Thing Ever, But Also Know That Love Hurts, Especially When Betrayed.

ANEEK GUPTA 24

1. Compensation: Acting To
Disconfirm Negative Perception
From Others.
2. Inoculation: A Weak Argument
Increases Ability To Resist It.
3. Insufficient Punishment: We
Devalue A Resisted Desired
Object.

ANEEK GUPTA 26

Compensation: Acting To Disconfirm Negative Perception From Others.
Description
When We Belief Other People Perceive Us In A Negative Way, We Will
Deliberately Act In A Way To Disconfirm This Belief.
Example
When You First Meet People, You May Fear That They Find You Unfriendly, So You
Act In A Way That Is More Friendly Than You Usually Are.
So What? Using It
Infer To A Person Or Otherwise Let Them Know That They Are Considered
Greedy. Then Ask Them For Something That Will Require Them To Act In A
Generous Way.
Defending
Be Yourself. Avoid Getting Railroaded By People Who Tell You That You Are What
You Are Not.

ANEEK GUPTA 27

Inoculation: A Weak Argument Increases Ability To Resist It.
Description
Like In Medicine, This Is Using A Weak Dose Of A Counter-argument To Make A Person Resistant To It.
Inoculation Works Because It Exposes People To Arguments, Making Them Think About And Rehearse Opposing
Arguments. When They Hear The Arguments Again, Even Stronger Versions, They Pay Less Attention To Them,
Especially If They Believe Their Opposing Argument Is Stronger.
There Are Three Stages To Inoculation:
1. Warning: Tell The Person That It Is About To Happen So They Are Forced To Get Ready.
2. Weak Attack: Attack Them, But Weakly So They Can Easily Resist.
3. Active Defending: The Person Must Actively Defend Them Self (And Find It Relatively Easy To Do So).
Example
My Child Was Being Verbally Abused At School. I Play-acted With Him The Situation. I Played The Abuser, But With
Weak And Stupid Insults. He Played Himself, Laughing Them Off. When He Got To School, He Found Verbal Abuse
Easy To Dismiss.
So What? Using It
After Persuading Someone, Inoculate Them To Prevent Anyone Else Later Undoing Your Good Work. Tell Them About
People Who Will Try To Persuade Them Otherwise And Help Them Develop Counter-arguments.
Defending
Just Because An Argument Works Against Something, It Does Not Mean It Is Valid In Other, Similar Circumstances.

ANEEK GUPTA 28

Insufficient Punishment: We Devalue A Resisted Desired Object.
Description
This Is The Dissonance Felt When A Person Lack Sufficient External Justification For Having
Resisted A Desired Activity Or Object. This Often Results In The Person Devaluing The
Forbidden Thing.
Research
Aronson And Carlsmith (1963) Threatened Children With Either Mild Or Severe Punishment
If They Played With Favored Toys. None Of Them Played With Toys, Even When Left Alone
With Them. Afterwards The Children Who Had Only Been Mildly Threatened Favored The
Toys Less. Lacking A Strong External Justification, They Had Made Internal Attributions That
They Actually Did Not Like The Toys So Much.
Example
Company Disciplinary Systems Often Start With A Weak Dissuasion. This Is All That Most
People Need. Before Long They Not Only Follow But Believe The Company Line.
So What? Using It
To Stop Someone Doing Something, Don’t Threaten Massive Punishment. Threaten Only
Just Enough (Or Use Some Other Minimal Technique) To Stop Them For A While. Eventually,
They Will Give Up Voluntarily.
ANEEK GUPTA 29

1. Bystander Effect: The More Bystanders, The Less Likely It Is One Will Help.
2. Consistency Theory: We Seek The Comfort Of Internal Alignment.
3. Commitment: We Feel Obliged To Complete A Public Commitment.
4. Communication Accommodation Theory: We Morph To Be Like Others.
5. Epistemological Weighting Hypothesis: Conformance Depends On How Closely Our
Norms Match Group Norms.
6. Group Locomotion Hypothesis: Members Are Motivated To Achieve Group Goals.
7. Groupthink: Maintenance Of Group Cohesion Becomes All-important.
8. Impression Management: We Behave Well When We Are Being Watched.
9. Informational Social Influence: When We Don't Know What To Do, We Copy Others.
10.Normative Social Influence: Basic Group Need Forces Us To Conform.
11.Pluralistic Ignorance: Sometimes Most People Disagree With A Group Norm, But
Nobody Speaks Out.
12.Politeness Theory: We Act Politely Or Rudely Depending On Whether We Care.
13.Reciprocity Norm: We Need To Return Another's Favor.
14.Roles: We Conform With Shared Expectations Of Behavior.
15.Self-fulfilling Prophecy: Acting How We Are Treated.
16.Self-monitoring Behavior: We Are Affected By How Others See Us.
17.Social Desirability Bias: We Follow Social Rules When We Are Watched.
18.Social Impact Theory: How We Behave Depends On How Many, Etc. Are Watching.
19.Social Influence: How We Are Strongly Influenced By Others.
20.Social Learning Theory: We Learn Much By Watching Others, Thinking, Then Trying It
Out.
21.Social Norms: Groups Have Rules That Must Be Followed.
22.Spiral Of Silence Theory: We Keep Quiet If We Are In The Minority (And Vice Versa).
ANEEK GUPTA 31

Bystander Effect: The More Bystanders, The Less Likely It Is One Will Help.
Description When There Is An Emergency, The More Bystanders There Are, The Less Likely It Is That Any Of Them
Will Actually Help.
Pluralistic Ignorance Is Where They Assume Nothing Is Wrong Because Nobody Else Looks Concerned.
Bystanders Go Through A Five-step Process, During Each Of Which They Can Decide To Do Nothing.
1. Notice The Event (Or In A Hurry And Not Notice).
2. Realize The Emergency (Or Assume That As Others Are Not Acting, It Is Not An Emergency).
3. Assume Responsibility (Or Assume That Others Will Do This).
4. Know What To Do (Or Not)
5. Act (Or Worry About Danger, Legislation, Embarrassment, Etc.)
Research Latané And Darley Sat A Series Of College Students In A Cubicle Amongst A Number Of Other Cubicles In
Which There Were Tapes Of Other Students Playing (The Student Thought They Were Real People). One Of The
Voices Cries For Help And Makes Sounds Of Severe Choking. When The Student Thought They Were The Only
Person There, 85% Rushed To Help. When They Thought There Was One Other Person, This Dropped To 65%. And
When They Thought There Were Four Other People, This Dropped Again To 31%.
Example A Famous Case Occurred In The Early 1960, Where Kitty Genovese Was Attacked And Eventually
Murdered Over A 45 Minute Period During Which 38 People Witnessed The Attack And Did Not Lift A Finger To
Help In Any Way.
This Was Caused Partially By Social Proof, Whereby When People Are Uncertain, They Look To Other People As To
What To Do. It Can Also Be Caused By People Losing Themselves In The Crowd And Assuming A Smaller Share Of
The Responsibility, Expecting Others To Help In Their Stead.
So What? Using It If You Want Someone To Do Something, Ask Them Specifically (By Name) Or Make Sure They
Cannot Assume That Somebody Else Will Do It. You Can Also Set An Example And Ask For Collaboration.
Defending If You Think Somebody Else Should Be Doing What You Have Been Asked To Do, Question The Motives
Of The Person Asking You (Even Ask Why They Are Not Doing It Themselves!).
ANEEK GUPTA 32

Consistency Theory: We Seek The Comfort Of Internal Alignment.
Description When Our Inner Systems (Beliefs, Attitudes, Values, Etc.) All Support One Another And
When These Are Also Supported By External Evidence, Then We Have A Comfortable State Of Affairs.
The Discomfort Of Cognitive Dissonance Occurs When Things Fall Out Of Alignment, Which Leads Us
To Try To Achieve A Maximum Practical Level Of Consistency In Our World.
We Also Have A Very Strong Need To Believe We Are Being Consistent With Social Norms. When
There Is Conflict Between Behaviors That Are Consistent With Inner Systems And Behaviors That Are
Consistent With Social Norms, The Potential Threat Of Social Exclusion Often Sways Us Towards The
Latter, Even Though It May Cause Significant Inner Dissonance.
Ways We Achieve Consistency Between Conflicting Items Include:
1. Denial Or Ignoring : 'I Didn't See It Happen.'
2. Rationalization And Excuses : 'It Was Going To Fall Anyway.'
3. Separation Of Items :'I Don't Use My Car Enough To Make A Difference .'
4. Transcendence : 'Nobody Is Perfect.'
5. Changing Item : 'I'll Be More Careful Next Time.'
6. Persuasion : 'I'm Good, Really, Aren't I?'
Example If You Make A Promise, You Will Feel Bad If You Do Not Keep It.
So What? Using It Highlight Where People Are Acting Inconsistently With Beliefs, Etc. That Support
Your Arguments. Show How What You Want Is Consistent With The Other Person’s Inner Systems
And Social Norms.
Defending You Will Always Be Inconsistent In Some Areas. When Changing To Fit In With The
Inconsistencies That Someone Else Is Pointing Out, Think About The Other, Potentially More Serious,
Inconsistencies That You Will Be Opening Up.
ANEEK GUPTA 33

Commitment: We Feel Obliged To Complete A Public Commitment.
Description
A Commitment Is A Public Or Private Decision To Act. If We Make A Commitment, We Often Feel
Bound To Follow Through On It, For Fear Of Social Rejection Or Simply Due To The Threat Of
Cognitive Dissonance.
When We Are Committed To Something, We Will Not Change Our Minds Very Easily,
Especially If That Commitment Was Public.
Research
Knox And Inkster (1968) Asked People About To Make A $2 Bet On A Horse How Likely The Horse
Was To Win. They Also Asked People Who Had Just Placed The Same Value Bet. They Found That
People Who Had Just Bet On A Horse Were Even More Convinced That It Would Win.
Example
People Who Volunteer To Help A Political Party Will Over-estimate Their Chances Of Winning.
So What? Using It
When Getting People To Make A Commitment, Make Sure It Will Cause More Dissonance For Them
To Break The Commitment Than To Fulfill The Commitment. For Example By Making The
Commitments Written And Public.
Defending
Refuse To Make Commitments Until You Are Ready. Do Not Be Rushed.
ANEEK GUPTA 34

Communication Accommodation Theory: We Morph To Be Like Others.
Description
When We Talk With Other People, We Will Tend To Subconsciously Change Our Style Of Speech
(Accent, Rate, Types Of Words, Etc.) Towards The Style Used By The Listener. We Also Tend To Match
Non-verbal Behaviors.
This Signals Agreement And Liking. It Should Create Greater Rapport And Them Such That They
Approve Of Us More.
This Can Be Unwelcome, Especially If It Is Perceived As Aping Or Being Overly Familiar.
The Reverse Also Happens : People Deliberately Assert Their Identity By Speaking And Acting
Differently From The Other Person.
Communication Accommodation Theory Used To Be Called Speech
Accommodation Theory.
So What? Using It
Be A Chameleon! Copy The Other Person’s Modes Of Speech (But Not So Much You Sound Like A
Mimic). Also Listen To How They Are Copying You: It May Be A Signal That They Are Seeking Your
Approval.
Defending
If It Seems Like A Person Is Trying To Copy You, Change How You Are Speaking And See If They
Follow. If They Do, Have Fun! Try Some Subtle And Weird Variations And See If They Will Follow You
To The Ends Of The Linguistic Earth.
ANEEK GUPTA 35

Epistemological Weighting Hypothesis: Conformance Depends On
How Closely Our Norms Match Group Norms.
Description We Gain Knowledge In Two Ways:
1. By Ourselves, By Both Active Trial And Error And Passive Observation.
2. Through Others, By Communication And Observation.
When Our Views Differ From The Group’s View, These Conflict With One Another.
The Degree To Which We Will Conform With The Group Norms Depends On The
Weighting We Place Between Personal And Social Knowledge.

So What? Using It
Find The Weighting That Other Person Uses And Play To It. For Example, If They Are
Biased Towards Social Knowledge, Then Talk About What Other People Have Done.
Defending
Know Your Own Preference. Beware Of People Who Play Too Much To It.
ANEEK GUPTA 36

Group Locomotion Hypothesis: Members Are Motivated To Achieve
Group Goals.
Description
Members Of A Group Are Motivated To Help Achieve The Goals
Of The Group. This Is A Classic Situation Of Conformity, Where
The Individual Replaces Their Own Desires With The Greater
Good.
Example
I Am A Member Of The Parents Association At The Local School Where My
Children Attend. I Know Many Teachers There And Spend Many Hours Helping
Out The School.
So What? Using It
Be A Member Of A Group. Ensure The Group Goals Are Aligned With Your
Goals. Ensure The Others In The Group Know The Goals.
Defending
When Looking At A Group, Find Out Their Goals And Decide Whether These
Make Sense To You Before Joining.
ANEEK GUPTA 37

Groupthink: Maintenance Of Group Cohesion Becomes All-important.
Description Groups Sometimes Fall Into A Style Of Thinking Where The Maintenance Of The Group’s Cohesion And
Togetherness Becomes All-important And Results In Very Bad Decision-making.
Janis (1972) Defines It As quot;A Way Of Deliberating That Group Members Use When Their Desire For Unanimity
Overrides Their Motivation To Assess All Available Plans Of Action.quot;
The Eight Primary Symptoms Of Groupthink Are:
1. Illusions Of Invulnerability Where The Group Think It Is Invincible And Can Do No Wrong.
2. Collective Efforts To Rationalize Or Discount Warnings.
3. Unquestioned Belief In The Moral Correctness Of The Group.
4. Stereotyped Views Of The Out-group, Often As Too Evil, Weak Or Stupid To Be Worth Bothering With.
5. Self-censorship As People Decide Not To Rock The Boat.
6. Pressure To Conform.
7. A Shared Illusion Of Unanimity (Everyone Always Agrees With Everyone Else).
8. Protecting The Group From Contrary Viewpoints, By Self-appointed ‘Mind-guards’.
Groupthink Happens Most Often When The Group Is Already Cohesive, Is Isolated From Conflicting Opinions And Where
The Leader Is Open And Directive. The Lack Of A Formal Decision Process Is Also Common.
Problem-solving And Task-oriented Groups Are Particularly Susceptible.
Resulting Decisions Are Often Based On Incomplete Information And Fail To Consider Alternatives And Risks.
Example The Most Famous Example Of Groupthink Is The Presidential Advisory Group Who Almost Led Kennedy Into
Invading Cuba And Potential Nuclear War In The Bay Of Pigs Affair.
The Challenger Disaster Was Another Effect Where Nasa Officials Disregarded Engineer’s Concerns And Decided To Launch
The Shuttle.
For An Enjoyable Example, Watch The Movie 'Twelve Angry Men', Which Is About Blind Agreement And Dissent On A Jury.
So What? Defending
The Leader Should Avoid Being Too Directive And Be Vigilant For Groupthink Effects. External Opinions Should Be Taken
Seriously Or Even Having External People Included In Meetings. The Group Should Be Split Into Subgroups For Reporting
Back And Discussion. Individuals Should Be Privately Polled For Personal Opinions.
ANEEK GUPTA 38

Impression Management: We Behave Well When We Are Being Watched.
Description When We Are Under Scrutiny, We Will Try To Deliberately Manage
The Impressions That Others Form Of Us.
We Will Use Self-enhancement To Make Us Seem Good, For Example Through
Smart Dress, Careful Language, Etc. The Alternative Is Other-enhancement To
Make The Other Person Feel Good, Such As With Flattery.
Example Watch People Being Interviewed On TV. Notice How A Good
Interviewer Uses Other-enhancement To Relax Them. Spot How People Use Self-
enhancement To Look Good.
So What? Using It
Look Good, Sound Good, Make The Other Person Feel Good. But Don’t Over-do
It!
Defending
Appearances Are Deceptive.

ANEEK GUPTA 39

Informational Social Influence: When We Don't Know What To Do, We Copy Others.
Description When We Do Not Know How To Behave, We Copy Other People. They Thus Act As Information Sources For
How To Behave As We Assume They Know What They Are Doing. Also Because We Care A Great Deal About What Others
Think About Us, This Provides A Safe Course Of Action—at The Very Least, They Cannot Criticize Us For Our Actions.
This Leads To Such Effects As People Ignoring Public Muggings And Cult Members Being Led Into Bizarre And Even Suicidal
Acts.
Private Acceptance Occurs When We Genuinely Believe The Other Person Is Right. This Can Lead To Permanent Changes In
Beliefs, Values And Behaviors.
Public Compliance Occurs When We Copy Others Because We Fear Ridicule Or Rejection If We Behave Otherwise.
Informational Social Influence (Also Called Social Proof) Occurs Most Often When:
1. The Situation Is Ambiguous. We Have Choices But Do Not Know Which To Select.
2. There Is A Crisis. We Have No Time To Think And Experiment. A Decision Is Required Now!
3. Others Are Experts. If We Accept The Authority Of Others, They Must Know Better Than Us.
Example Police Often Find Themselves In Situations Of Ambiguity And Crisis. People Will Naturally Turn To The Police For
Advice In Such Situations.
So What? Using It
Get The Other Person Into A State Of Relative Confusion Where They Are Uncertain About What To Do Next, Then Lead Them
To Where You Want Them To Be. It Works Best If You Go First, Doing It. Telling Them What To Do Can Also Be Effective, But
Requires Them To Accept You As An Authority.
For Permanent Change, Precede This By Sufficient Work That They Trust You Completely And View You As An Authority With
Enviable Values And Beliefs.
Defending When The Situation Is Ambiguous Or In Crisis, Do Not Just Look To Other People (Who May Well Be Looking To
You). In Particular, Beware Of People Who Set Themselves Up As An Authority Without Adequate Proof (And A White Coat Or
Commanding Attitude Is Not Proof).
Know That You Always Have Individual Choice, Just As You Have Individual Responsibility For Your Own Actions. In Any
Situation, You Always Have Common Sense Available To You. Do Not Abandon It.

ANEEK GUPTA 40

Normative Social Influence: Basic Group Need Forces Us To Conform.
Description There Is A Fundamental Human Need To Belong To Social Groups. Evolution Has Taught Us That Survival And
Prosperity Is More Likely If We Live And Work Together. However, To Live Together, We Need To Agree On Common Beliefs,
Values, Attitudes And Behaviors That Reduce In-group Threats Act For The Common Good.
We Thus Learn To Conform To Rules Of Other People. And The More We See Others Behaving In A Certain Way Or Making
Particular Decisions, The More We Feel Obliged To Follow Suit.
This Will Happen Even When We Are In A Group Of Complete Strangers. We Will Go Along With The Others To Avoid Looking
Like A Fool.
National Culture Also Has A Significant Effect, And Countries Like Japan Are Far More Likely To Be Influenced By More
Individualistic Cultures Such As In The Usa (Although It Is A Testament To The Power Of This Effect That It Still Has A Massive
Impact Here).
Research Solomon Asch Showed A Group Of People A Line On A Card And Asked Them To Find A Matching Line From A Group
Of Three Lines On Another Card, One Of Which Was Pretty Obviously The Right Choice. The Catch Was That All Except One
Person In The Group Were Collaborators And Chose The Wrong Line. When It Came To The ‘Victim’s Turn, Guess What? In A
Range Of Experiments, 76% Of Them Followed Suit. The Presence Of Just One Supporter Reduced This To 18%.
Example Fads And Fashions Lean Heavily On Normative Social Influence. So Do Racial, Political And Other Situations Of
Persuasion.
So What? Using It To Change A Person’s Behavior, Put Them In A Group Who (Perhaps Primed) Clearly All Exhibit The Desired
Behavior. Then Engineer The Situation So The Person Must Exhibit The Behavior Or Face Potential Rejection Or Other Social
Punishment. If They Do Not Comply, Ensure The Group Gives Steadily Increasing Social Punishment Rather Than Rejecting The
Target Person Immediately. When They Do Comply, They Should Receive Social Reward (Eg. Praise, Inclusion).
Defending Where You Want To Do Something And The Group In Which You Currently Are Socially Punishes You For Doing It,
Make A Conscious Decision As To Whether It Is Worth Fighting Back Or Just Giving Up And Leaving. If They Mean Nothing To
You, Just Carry On And Ignore Them.
It Can Also Be Very Heartening To Watch Other People Resisting (And Your Doing So May Well Give Heart To Other Doubters).
You Can Also Acquire Idiosyncrasy Credits, Where The Group Puts Up With Your Eccentricities. To Do This, Be Consistent In
What You Do, Whilst Also Showing That In Doing So You Are Not Threatening The Integrity Of The Group.

ANEEK GUPTA 41

Pluralistic Ignorance: Sometimes Most People Disagree With A Group Norm, But Nobody Speaks Out.
Description
Groups All Have Norms Of Attitude And Behavior Which Are Shared And Which Help Form The Identity Of The Group.
Adopting These Norms, Even If You Do Not Agree With Them, Is A Part Of The Individual Sacrifice That People Accept
As A Price Of Group Membership.
Pluralistic Ignorance Occurs Where The Majority Of Individuals In A Group Assume That Most Of Their Others Are
Different In Some Way, Whilst The Truth Is That They Are More Similar Than They Realize. They Thus Will Conform
With Supposed Norms. When Most People Do This, The Supposed Norm Becomes The Norm.
These Situations Typically Occur When The Norms Are Older Than All Members Of The Group Or When One Member
Or A Small Group Is Dominant And Can Force Their Attitudes On The Rest Of The Group.
Research
Prentice And Miller Knew That There Was Abnormally High Levels Of Student Alcohol Consumption At Princeton,
Through Various Eating Clubs, Rituals And Parties That Had Led To A Number Of Deaths And Injuries. When They
Questioned Students, They Found Many Who Assumed That Others Wanted To Partake Whilst They Did Not. Their
Were Worried About Possible Consequences But Still Joined In The Celebrations For Fear Of Rejection.
Example
When A Lecturer Asks A Class 'Any Questions?' There Will Often Be A Deafening Silence, Even If Nobody Understands.
So What? Using It
Set Up Norms Within A Group And Act As If Everyone Believes In Them.
Defending
If You Disagree With A Group Norm, Quietly Ask Other Members Of The Group Whether They Really Believe In The
Norm.
ANEEK GUPTA 42

Example
So What? Using It
The Other Person.
Defending

ANEEK GUPTA 43

Reciprocity Norm: We Need To Return Another's Favor.
Description This Is A Very Common Social Norm Which Says That If I Give Something To You Or Help
You In Any Way, Then You Are Obliged To Return The Favor.
This Norm Is So Powerful, It Allows The Initial Giver To:
1. Ask For Something In Return, Rather Than Having To Wait For A Voluntary Reciprocal Act.
2. Ask For More Than Was Given. You Can Even Exchange A Smile For Money.
Reciprocity Also Works At The Level Of Liking. We Like People Who Like Us, And Dislike Those Who
Dislike Us. This Can Create A Self-fulfilling Prophecy.
Research A Researcher Sent Christmas Cards To A Number Of People He Did Not Know. Most Sent A
Card Back (And He Got Onto The Permanent Christmas List Of Some).
Example Hari Krishna People Have Used This By Giving Passers-by A Small Plastic Flower And Then
Asking For A Donation In Return.
So What? Using It
Give People Things, Whether It Is Your Time Or Money. It Helps If You Give Them Something They Truly
Appreciate. Do Not Give Them Too Much, Lest They Feel Oppressed By Their Obligation. Ask For
Something In Return.
Defending
If People Give You Something, Say Thank You (Which Is Giving Them Something Back In Return!).
When They Ask For Something In Return, Say No. Be Polite (Giving Them Something Else). Or Turn The
Tables, Giving Them Something You Don’t Want, Then Ask Them For Something. Always Be Aware Of
Trickery When People You Hardly Know Offer You Something, Especially If They Ask For Something
From You In Return. ANEEK GUPTA 44

Roles: We Conform With Shared Expectations Of Behavior.
Description
People Will Fall Rapidly Into The Expectations They Have About The Roles They Take. In Groups These
Take The Form Of Shared Expectations Of Behavior.
A Trap Of Roles Is That The Role Can Literally Take You Over And You Can Forget Your Real Values And
Beliefs.
Research
Stanley Milgram Took People Off The Streets And Put Them Into A Role Of Interrogator. Within A
Short Time They Were Administering What They Thought Were Very Painful Electric Shocks To Their
Screaming Victim.
Philip Zimbardo Put Students Into A Mock Situation Of Prison Guard And Prisoner. The ‘Guards’ Soon
Became Aggressive And Threatening Whilst The ‘Prisoners’ Became Passive And Withdrawn.
Example
In Many Groups, One Person Plays The Joker, Making And Getting Away With Cracks That Others
Would Not Contemplate.
So What? Using It
Assume A Role Where You Are In Charge Or A Trusted Advisor. Then Tell Other People What To Do.
Defending
Do Not Accept Blindly The Roles That Other People Take, Nor The Roles They Foist On You. Base
Relationships On Evidence, Not Stereotyped Roles.
ANEEK GUPTA 45

Self-fulfilling Prophecy: Acting How We Are Treated.
Description
If A Person Thinks We Are Clever Or Stupid Or Whatever, They Will Treat Us That Way. If We Are Treated As If
We Are Clever, Stupid Or Whatever, We Will Act, And Even Become, This Way. The Person Has Thus Had Their
Prophecy About Us Fulfilled!
This Is Also Known As The Pygmalion Effect.
Research
Robert Rosenthal And Lenore Jacobson, In 1968, Gave All The Children In An Elementary Class A Test And Told
Teachers That Some Of Children Were Unusually Clever (Though They Were Actually Average). They Came
Back At The End Of The School Year And Tested The Same Class Again. Guess What? The Children Singled Out
Had Improved Their Scores Far More Than Other Children. (Rosenthal 1995).
Example
A Management Consultant Starts Off An Engagement Constantly Agreeing With A Senior Manager In An
Attempt To Build Trust. Before Long, The Senior Manager Is Expecting Agreement Every Time. The Consultant
Soon Becomes A Confirmed Yes-man.
So What? Using It
To Make A Person Act In A Certain Way, All You Have To Do Is Believe This When You Interact With Them. If
You Find It Hard To Make This Jump, Persuade Others That The Target Person Has Desired Attributes.
Defending
When People Treat You As If You Had Certain Attributes, Decide Whether This Is Desirable Or Not. Question
Their Behavior If You Do Not Wish To Be Pushed In This Direction.

ANEEK GUPTA 46

Self-monitoring Behavior: We Are Affected By How Others See Us.
Description
Some People Are Sensitive To How Other See Them, Whilst Others Are Not.
People Who Are High Self-monitors Constantly Watch Other People, What They Do And How They Respond To The
Behavior Of Others. Such People Are Hence Very Self-conscious And Like To 'Look Good' And Will Hence Usually
Adapt Well To Differing Social Situations.
On The Other Hand, Low Self-monitors Are Generally Oblivious To How Other See Them And Hence March To Their
Own Different Drum.
Research
White And Gerstein (1987) Told People The Kitty Genovese Story (See Bystander Effect) And Also Told Half The People
That Helping Others Got You Social Rewards. They Also Took A Test To Find High And Low Self-monitors. Later, They
Asked For Volunteers To Help Visually Impaired People. Results Were:
1. Told About Social Reward: High Self-monitors 80%, Low Self-monitors 48%
2. Not Told About Social Reward: High Self-monitors 40%, Low Self-monitors 68%
Example
Have You Ever Been To A Club And Seen Some People Dancing With Wild Abandon Whilst Other Shuffle
Nonchalantly? The Wild Dancers Are Low Self-monitors, Whilst The Shufflers Are Probably High Self-monitors.
So What? Using It
Appeal To High Self-monitors By Telling Them That They Will Look Good And Get Social Approval For What You Want
Them To Do.
In Advertising, High Self-monitors Respond More To Image-based Ads That Promise To Make Them Look Good, Whilst
Low Self-monitors Respond Better To Product-based Ads And Prefer High Quality Goods.
Defending
Are You A High Or Low Self-monitor? Do You Conform To The Above Response To Appeals? Think About What Other
People Are Trying To Get You To Do Before Reacting.
ANEEK GUPTA 47

Social Desirability Bias: We Follow Social Rules When We Are
Watched.
Description
When We Know That Other People Are Watching Us, We Will Tend
To Behave In A Way We Believe Is Socially Acceptable And Desirable.
Example
Watch Young Men And Women Together. Notice The Posing.
So What? Using It
To Get Others To Behave In Some Way, Make That Behavior Not
Only Socially Acceptable, But Also Desirable. And Make Sure They
Know This.
Defending
If A Behavior Is Socially Desirable, Identify Who Will Be Impressed
By Your Exhibiting That Behavior, And Whether You Really Want
That Accolade. ANEEK GUPTA 48

Social Impact Theory: How We Behave Depends On How Many, Etc. Are Watching.
Description
This Theory States That The Likelihood That A Person Will Respond To Social Influence Will Increase With:
1. Strength: How Important The Influencing Group Of People Are To You.
2. Immediacy: How Close The Group Are To You (In Space And Time) At The Time Of The
Influence Attempt.
3. Number: How Many People There Are In The Group.
Increasing The Numbers Has A Decreasing Incremental Effect (Going From 2 To 3 Has More
Effect Than Going From 66 To 67). In Fact Beyond Four Or Five, The Effect Tails Off Rapidly.
This Is The Social Influence Model.
The Effect Is Most Powerful When Everyone In The Group (Apart From The Person Being Persuaded)
Clearly Agree.
Example
In Meetings In The Workplace, Few Will Speak Out If Their Opinion Differs From The Majority.
So What? Using It
Convince One Person About Something. Then Collaborate With Them On Persuading A Friend (Find Out
First Who Will Most Easily Be Convinced). Then Work Through The Group, One At A Time. Also Work Out
Through Interconnected Groups.
Defending
When Your Friends Try To Persuade You About Something, Find Out Who Is Behind It, And Who Is Just
Going Along With Things. Divide And Conquer: Set Up A Counter-group. Or Expose The Situation For What
It Is. ANEEK GUPTA 49

Social Influence: How We Are Strongly Influenced By Others.
Description Social Influence Is The Change In Behavior That One Person Causes In Another, Intentionally Or Unintentionally, As A
Result Of The Way The Changed Person Perceives Themselves In Relationship To The Influencer, Other People And Society In General.
Three Areas Of Social Influence Are Conformity, Compliance And Obedience.
Conformity Is Changing How You Behave To Be More Like Others. This Plays To Belonging And Esteem Needs As We
Seek The Approval And Friendship Of Others. Conformity Can Run Very Deep, As We Will Even Change Our Beliefs And
Values To Be Like Those Of Our Peers And Admired Superiors.
Compliance Is Where A Person Does Something That They Are Asked To Do By Another. They May
Choose To Comply Or Not To Comply, Although The Thought Of Social Punishment May Lead Them To
Compliance When They Really Do Not Want To Comply.
Obedience Is Different From Compliance In That It Is Obeying An Order From Someone That You Accept As An
Authority Figure. In Compliance, You Have Some Choice. In Obedience, You Believe That You Do Not Have A Choice.
Many Military Officers And Commercial Managers Are Interested Only In Obedience.
Research Solomon Asch Showed How A Person Could Be Influenced By Others In A Group To Claim That A Clearly Shorter Line In A
Group Of Lines Was, In Fact, The Longest.
Stanley Milgram Did Classic Experiments In Obedience, Where People Off The Street Obeyed Orders To Give (What They Thought Were)
Life-threatening Electric Shocks To Other People.
Example You Ask Me To Pass The Salt. I Comply By Giving It To You. You Tell Me To Pass The Salt. I Obey By Giving It To You. I Notice
That People Are Using Salt And Passing It To The Person On Their Left Without Comment. I Conform By Doing Likewise.
So What? Using It
Social Psychology Includes A Large Domain Of Knowledge Around Social Influence (Much Of Which Is On This Site). This Provides A
Powerful Basis Through Which To Persuade Others.
Defending Understand The Psychology Of Social Influence And How You Respond To It. Notice Yourself In Social Situations. Also
Notice How Others Are Deliberately Or Unconsciously Influencing You. Then Choose How You Will Respond.

ANEEK GUPTA 50

Social Learning Theory: We Learn Much By Watching Others, Thinking, Then Trying It Out.
Description
Although We Learn By Our Own Trial And Error, We Also Perform Much Learning By Watching Other
People. It Is, After All, Safer To Let Others Make The Mistakes. When The Behavior Makes Sense, We
Go Through It In Our Minds Then Try It For Ourselves.
When We Succeed, We Become More Confident (Self-efficacy). As We Interact With Our
Environment, It Becomes A Two-way Process: As We Change It, It Changes Us (Reciprocal
Determinism).
Learning Is Thus A Combination Of Watching, Thinking And Trying.
We Learn Most From People With Whom We Identify. When Younger This Is Parents. Later It Is Peers.
Attractive And Famous People Also Are Effective, As Do Those In Authority.
Learning Has A An 'Thrill' Or 'Aha' Aspect, Which Reduces As We Become Competent. Thus, When We
Succeed, We Raise The Bar Of Targeted Performance. Also, When We Fail, We Set Our Sights Lower.
Example
Advertisements Are Prime Examples Of Social Learning Theory. We Watch Them, Then Copy Them.
So What? Using It
Model The Behaviors You Want Them To Adopt. Show How They Can Be Successful. Encourage Them
To Copy You.
Defending
Think Before You Copy Others, Including Considering What They Have To Gain From You Doing This.
ANEEK GUPTA 51

Social Norms: Groups Have Rules That Must Be Followed.
Description The Rules That A Group Uses For Appropriate And Inappropriate Values, Beliefs, Attitudes And
Behaviors. These Rules May Be Explicit Or Implicit.
Failure To Stick To The Rules Can Result In Severe Punishments, The Most Feared Of Which Is Exclusion From The
Group. A Common Rule Is That The Some Norms Must Frequently Be Displayed; Neutrality Is Seldom An Option.
Other Norms Include:
1. Injunctive Norms Are Behaviors Which Are Perceived As Being Approved Of By Other People.
2. Descriptive Norms Are Perceptions Of How Other People Are Actually Behaving, Whether Or Not
These Are Approved Of.
3. Explicit Norms Are Written Or Spoken Openly.
4. Implicit Norms Are Not Openly Stated (But You Find Out When You Transgress Them).
Example A Common Group Norm Amongst Academics Is That Dress Is Casual (With The Underlying Implication
That What Goes On In The Mind Is More Important Than What Goes On The Body).
So What? Using It
Think Up A Rule. When Other People Transgress It, Frown. When They Follow It Smile. Before Long They’ll Get The
Point And You’ll Be Smiling All Of The Time.
Defending
Identify The Rules That Other People Are Putting On You As A Condition For Being In Their Group. Do You Really Want
To Follow These Rules? Are There Any Which Are Particularly Irksome? Can You Lead A Revolution? Is It Really Worth
Putting Up With These, Or Is Leaving The Group A Better Option?

ANEEK GUPTA 52

Spiral Of Silence Theory: We Keep Quiet If We Are In The Minority (And Vice Versa).
Description People Will Be Unwilling To Publicly Express Their Opinion If They Believe
They Are In The Minority. They Will Also Be More Vocal If They Believe They Are A Part Of
The Majority.
This Works Because We Fear Social Rejection.
Public Opinion Is The quot;Attitudes Or Behaviors One Must Express In Public If One Is Not To
Isolate Oneself, In Areas Of Controversy Or Change; Public Opinions Are Those Attitudes
One Can Express Without Running The Danger Of Isolating Oneself.quot;
Research Noelle-neumann Showed Subjects A Picture With One Person Angrily Saying, quot;It
Seems To Me That Smokers Are Terribly Inconsiderate. They Force Others To Inhale Their
Health-endangering Smoke.quot; Respondents Were Asked To Phrase A Response To The
Statement Whilst Other 'Planted' People Were There. When Nonsmokers Were Nearby,
Many Smokers Were Less Willing To Openly Support Smokers’ Rights.
Example If You Were On A Long Train Journey, And A Person Next To You Starts To Discuss
The Problems Of Food Safety. Would You Join In The Conversation, Speaking Your True
Opinion? What If It Were Controversial, What Then?
So What? Using It Show People How The Views You Want Them To Express Are
Mainstream, And That The Views You Want Them To Change Are Minority And In Danger Of
Causing Them To Be Socially Rejected.
Defending When You Want To Say Something, Say It. Watch Out For Being Maneuvered
Into A Corner. ANEEK GUPTA 53

Doing Contrary Things
1.Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy: Sometimes We Say Something We Don't
Believe.
2.Counterfactual Thinking: We Can Change Our Own Memories.
3.Rationalization Trap: Justifications Can Lead To Silly Or Immoral Acts.
4.Reactance Theory: Prevention Of Action Leads To Action (To Prove
Control).
5.Compensation: Acting To Disconfirm Negative Perception From Others.
6.Expectancy Violations Theory: Going Against Behavioral Expectations.
7.Urban-overload Hypothesis: City Life Leads To Retreat And Loneliness.
Acting Against Others
1.Self-Evaluation Maintenance Theory: Reacting To Threat Of Others.
2.Politeness Theory: We Act Politely Or Rudely Depending On Whether
We Care.
3.Social Facilitation: The Presence Of Others Helps The Competent And
Hinders The Unskilled.
4.Social Loafing: We Hide In A Crowd, Using Them To Conceal Laziness.
5.Spiral Of Silence Theory: We Are Vocal If We Are In The Majority (And
Vice Versa).
6.Realistic Conflict Theory: Limited Resources Leads To Conflict.
7.Repulsion Hypothesis: We Dislike Those Who Are Not Like Us.
8.Scapegoat Theory: Blaming Others For Problems.

ANEEK GUPTA 55

An Attempt To Identify With Doing
Contrary Things
1.Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy: Sometimes We
Say Something We Don't Believe.
2.Counterfactual Thinking: We Can Change Our
Own Memories.
3.Rationalization Trap: Justifications Can Lead
To Silly Or Immoral Acts.
4.Reactance Theory: Prevention Of Action Leads
To Action (To Prove Control).
5.Compensation: Acting To Disconfirm Negative
Perception From Others.
6.Expectancy Violations Theory: Going Against
Behavioral Expectations.
7.Urban-overload Hypothesis: City Life Leads To
Retreat And Loneliness.
ANEEK GUPTA 56

Counter-attitudinal Advocacy: Sometimes We Say Something We Don't Believe.
Description Sometimes People Will State An Opinion Or Otherwise Support A Point Of View That Is Actually Against
Their Own Beliefs.
For Example, Where We Tell White Lies In Order To Help Other People Or Where Stating Our Beliefs Could Harm Us.
When We Do This, We Will Seek To Reduce Dissonance By Justifying Our Actions. If We Cannot Find External
Justification, We Will Seek Internal Justification. This Then Leads To Us Change Our Beliefs.
Counter-attitudinal Advocacy Is Particularly Effective Where It Is Difficult For The Person To Later Deny That The
Dissonance-causing Behavior Actually Took Place. Thus Written (And Especially Signed) Statements And Public
Activities Can Be Powerful Tools Of Persuasion.
Research Festinger And Carlsmith (1959) Got Experiment Participants To Do A Boring Task And Then Tell A White Lie
About How Enjoyable It Was. Some Were Paid $1, Others Were Paid $20. Later, They Were Asked Openly How Much
They Had Enjoyed The Task. Those Who Were Paid $20 Said It Was Boring. Those Who Had Been Paid $1 Rated The
Task As Significantly More Enjoyable.
Example Counter-attitudinal Advocacy Has Been Extensively Used For Brainwashing, Both With Prisoners-of-war
And Peacetime Cult Members. It Usually Is Done By Making Incrementally Escalating Requests. Small Rewards Are
Offered, Which Are Too Small For The Victims To Use To Attribute Their Behavior Change To, Thus Forcing Internal
Attribution.
So What? Using It Get People To Agree With You, Perhaps On A Small Point, About Something Which You Want To
Persuade Them. Ensure There Is No Significant External Justification. After A While, Their Beliefs Will Change. Ex.
Objection-handling, When A Sales Person Demonstrates A Feature, Talks About A Benefit
Or Uses A Sales Closing Technique, Their Customer May Well Respond In The Negative
Sense, Giving Excuses Or Otherwise Heading Away From The Sale. The Response To This Is
To Handle These Objections. This Is 'Objection-handling'.
ANEEK GUPTA 57

Counterfactual Thinking: We Can Change Our Own Memories.
Description Counterfactual Thinking Is Thinking About A Past That Did Not Happen. This Often Happens In 'If Only...' Situations,
Where We Wish Something Had Or Had Not Happened.
This Can Be So Powerful We Can Change Our Own Memories, Adjusting The Facts And Creating New Memories. It Can Happen To Cover
Up Trauma Or May Be Just Excuses To Avoid Facing Uncomfortable Truths. It Can Also Be To Explain What Is Otherwise Unexplainable.
This Effect Is Increased By:
1. Replication: If We Can Easily Reconstruct Events As Happened Or As Wished For.
2. Closeness: If The Unwanted Event Is Close, Such As Just Missing Winning The Lottery By One Number Or Just Missing A Taxi.
3. Exception: If The Event Occurred Because Of A Non-routine Action That Might Well Not Have Happened ('If Only...').
4. Controllability: If Something Could Have Been Done To Avoid The Event.
5. Action: In The Short Term, We Regret Actions That Cause Problems More Than Inaction That Might Have The Same Effect
(Although In The Longer Term, This Effect Is Reversed).
We Can Also Do The Reverse, Thinking About Bad Things That Did Not Happen, Such As When We Narrowly Avoid Being In An Accident.
Counterfactual Thinking Often Happens Around Situations Of Perceived 'Luck'.
Research Kahneman And Tversky Offered The Following Scenario To A Number Of People:
quot;Mr. Crane And Mr. Tees Were Scheduled To Leave The Airport On Different Flights, At The Same Time. They Traveled From Town In The
Same Limousine, Were Caught In A Traffic Jam, And Arrived At The Airport 30 Minutes After Scheduled Departure Time Of Their Flights.
Mr. Crane Is Told That His Flight Left On Time. Mr. Tees Is Told That His Flight Was Delayed, And Just Left Five Minutes Ago.
Who Is More Upset, Mr. Crane Or Mr. Tees?quot;
96% Of Participants Felt That Mr. Tees Would Be More Upset. Just Missing The Flight Would Increase The Chance Of Him Generating The
Counterfactual Thoughts Of Having Caught It.
Example Silver Medal Winners Do It All The Time. The Closeness To Winning Causes Much Regret And They Need To Excuse Themselves
For Their 'Failure'. In A Reverse Effect, Bronze Medal Winners Often Feel Lucky To Get A Medal, As They Were Very Close To Not Getting
A Medal At All.
Young People May Regret Taking A Course At College That They Do Not Enjoy. Older People Will Regret Dropping Out Or Not Switching
To The Right Course.
So What? Using It Cause Tension By Highlighting Something About The Other Person That Will Cause Dissonance, Then Offer A New
Thought That Can Replace The Uncomfortable Thought. Encourage Them To Accept The New Thought. A Neat Form Is 'What If You
Had...'.
Defending You Are Human And Imperfect. That's Ok. Beware Of People Trying To Change History.
ANEEK GUPTA 58

Rationalization Trap: Dissonance Reduction Leads To Silly Or Immoral Actions.
Description
When We Act To Reduce Dissonance It Can End Up As A Whole Set Of Justifications
And Rationalizations That Lead To Ridiculous Or Even Immoral Actions. Like Pinocchio's
Nose, One Defense Leads To Another Until We Are All Out Of Shape.
The Trick Is To Avoid Unthinking Reaction, Tolerating Dissonance For Long Enough To
Be Able To Decide On A More Appropriate Action.
Example
When President Richard Nixon Got Caught Up In The Watergate Scandal, His
Arguments And Denials Led To His Eventual Demise. Bill Clinton Also Fell Down The
Slippery Slope But Managed To Survive Only Through Some Embarrassing And Very
Public Confessions.
So What? Using It
When People Are Seeking Justification They Are Usually Desperate. Give Them Straws
To Clutch At That Lead Them In The Right Direction Or Give Them Rope With Which
They Hang Themselves. You Can Even Tip Them Into The Need For Rationalization In
The First Place.
Defending
Do You Really Need To Go Down That Spiral Of Justification? For Whom? Did You Get
There Through The Trickery Of Someone Else?
ANEEK GUPTA 59

Reactance Theory: Prevention Of Action Leads To Action (To Prove Control).
Description When People Feel That Their Freedom To Choose An Action Is
Threatened, They Get An Unpleasant Feeling Called ‘Reactance’. This Also
Motivates Them To Perform The Threatened Behavior, Thus Proving That Their
Free Will Has Not Been Compromised.
Research Pennebaker And Sanders (1976) Put One Of Two Signs On College
Bathroom Walls. One Read ‘Do Not Write On These Walls Under Any
Circumstances’ Whilst The Other Read ‘Please Don’t Write On These Walls.’ A
Couple Of Weeks Later, The Former Walls Had Far More Graffiti On Them.
Example When Persuading My Children, I Have To Be Careful Because I Know
That If I Push Too Hard They Will Do What I Have Told Them Not To Do, Just To
Show Me Who Is Really In Charge!
So What? Using It
Beware Of Persuading Too Overtly Or Too Much. If People Get Wind That They
Are Being Railroaded, They Will Leap Right Off The Tracks.

ANEEK GUPTA 60

Compensation: Acting To Disconfirm Negative Perception From Others.
Description
When We Belief Other People Perceive Us In A Negative Way, We Will
Deliberately Act In A Way To Disconfirm This Belief.
Example
When You First Meet People, You May Fear That They Find You Unfriendly, So You
Act In A Way That Is More Friendly Than You Usually Are.
So What? Using It
Infer To A Person Or Otherwise Let Them Know That They Are Considered
Greedy. Then Ask Them For Something That Will Require Them To Act In A
Generous Way.
Defending
Be Yourself. Avoid Getting Railroaded By People Who Tell You That You Are What
You Are Not.

ANEEK GUPTA 61

Expectancy Violations Theory: Going Against Behavioral Expectations.
Description
People Have Expectations About How Other People Should And Will Behave. Their Reaction To The Deviations Of
Others From Expectancy Depends On What They Have To Lose Or Gain.
This Is Often About Non-verbal Behavior (Body Language).
We All Have ‘Body Space’ Outside Of Which We Expect Other People To Remain Except In Specific Conditions. When
The Other Person Is Too Close, I Will Feel Threatened As It Gives Them The ‘First Strike’ Capability Should The
Situation Become Aggressive.
There Are Four Zones Of Body Space (For The Average Person):
1. Intimate Distance: From 0 To 18 Inches. For Sexual And Other Intimate Contact.
2. Personal Distance: From 18 Inches To 4 Feet. Typically For Interactions With Family And Close Friends.
3. Social Distance: From 4 To 12 Feet. Typically For Casual And Social Settings.
4. Public Distance: From 12 Feet And Beyond. Typically For Formal Situations.
When Talking With Other People, We Also Have Expectations About What Is Too Far Away. If A Person Stands Too
Distant From Me, I Might Wonder If I Smell Or Are Socially Unattractive In Some Way.
How We React To Violations Depend On Reward Value, Or What We Expect To Get From
The Relationship. Thus A Man Is Likely To React More Positively Towards An Attractive
Younger Woman Standing Close Than A Larger Man From An Out-Group.
So What? Using It
Do Experiments To Determine The Other Person's Body Space.
Defending
If People Are Standing In Your Body Space Or Further Away Than You Expect, Wonder Why. If It Seems Wrong, Move
Yourself. ANEEK GUPTA 62

Urban-Overload Hypothesis: City Life Leads To Retreat And Loneliness.
Description People In Crowded Cities Are Constantly Bombarded With Stimuli And
Demands On Their Attention. They Thus Tend To Keep Themselves To Themselves
More Than Country Folk. You Can Easily Be Quite Alone In The Middle Of A Multi-
million-person City.
Cities Also Have Higher Crime Rates, Which Are Well Publicized. People Are
Squashed Together In Trains And Shops And Their Body-space, Outside Of Which
They Prefer To Keep Other People, Is Smaller Than Country Folk.
You Might Think That This Makes City Folk Less Altruistic, But Studies Have Shown
That This Is Not True.
Example Consider The Number Of Places In Cities Where Single And Lonely People
Can Meet. There Are Singles Bars, Clubs, Societies Etc. Just Look At The Lonely
Hearts Columns In Newspapers.
So What? Using It In Urban Environments, Give People The Chance To Show That
They Are Individuals And Not Just Statistics. Utilize Apparent Threats And Then
Ask For Help.
Defending If You Are Feeling Alone In The City, Beware Of The Sharks Who Will
Prey On Your Fears. Seek Out Real Friends And Ask Their Opinions When Feeling
Coerced By Others. ANEEK GUPTA 63

An Attempt To Identify With Acting
Against Others
1.Self-Evaluation Maintenance Theory: Reacting To Threat
Of Others.
2.Politeness Theory: We Act Politely Or Rudely Depending
On Whether We Care.
3.Social Facilitation: The Presence Of Others Helps The
Competent And Hinders The Unskilled.
4.Social Loafing: We Hide In A Crowd, Using Them To
Conceal Laziness.
5.Spiral Of Silence Theory: We Are Vocal If We Are In The
Majority (And Vice Versa).
6.Realistic Conflict Theory: Limited Resources Leads To
Conflict.
7.Repulsion Hypothesis: We Dislike Those Who Are Not
Like Us.
8.Scapegoat Theory: Blaming Others For Problems.
ANEEK GUPTA 64

Self-Evaluation Maintenance Theory: Reacting To Threat Of Others.
Description
Our Self-concept Can Be Threatened By How Other People Behave. The Level Of Threat To Us Depends
Both On How Close The Threatening Person Is To Us And Also How Personally Relevant The Behavior
Is.
You Have Several Choices When A Friend Says Something That You Find Particularly Uncomfortable:
1. You Can Distance Yourself From Them.
2. You Can Reduce The Relevance Of Their Behavior To You.
3. You Can Try And Improve Yourself, Reducing The Level Of Threat.
Example
I Pride Myself As Being An Expert On Racehorses. I Am Discussing Racing In A Group Of Friends And
One Friend Turns Out To Be The Daughter Of A Famous Trainer And Shows An Even Deeper
Understanding Than Me. I Now Have To Figure Out How To React To Her.
So What? Using It
Watch How The Other Person Reacts To What You And Others Say To Them. Build An Understanding Of
Their Self-concept And Their Reactions To Threats To It. Then Ensure What You Say Leads To Them
Getting Closer To You.
Defending
Know Yourself. Or At Least Get Better At Knowing Yourself. Notice How You React To Others Who
Threaten Your Self-concept.
ANEEK GUPTA 65

Example
So What? Using It
The Other Person.
Defending

ANEEK GUPTA 66

Social Facilitation: The Presence Of Others Helps The Competent And Hinders The Unskilled.
Description
When We Are Have Tasks Which We Find Relatively Easy, We Find The Presence Of Other People A Positive Stimulus Such That
We Perform Even Better. However, When The Tasks Are Difficult, We Find The Audience Unnerving And We Are More Likely To
Put In A Worse Performance.
This Is Because First, The Presence Of Others Increases Physiological Arousal Such That Our Bodies
Become More Energized, And Secondly Because When We Are Aroused It Is More Difficult To Perform
New Or Difficult Tasks. The Dominant Response Is That Under Arousal It Is Easier To Do Things We Can
Easily Perform.
The Presence Of Others Makes Us Suspect Evaluation. Depending On How We Forecast That Evaluation, We May Look Forward
To Either Adulation Or Criticism And Rejection.
Research
Zajonc, Heingartner And Herman (1969) Got Cockroaches To Run Down A Clear Tube Towards A Light. They Ran Faster When
Watched By Other Cockroaches. When Put In A Simple Maze, It Took Them Longer When They Were Being Watched. (But Did
The Watching Humans Have An Effect? Who Knows? :).
Michaels (1982) And Three Colleagues Overtly Watched Students Play Pool. The Better Players Got Better. The Novices Got
Worse.
Example
Top Sports People Are Often Lifted By The Crowd To Give Their Best Ever Performances At Big Events. Lower Down The Order,
Less Confident Sports People Can Find The Crowds Unnerving And Consequently Make Mistakes.
So What? Using It
When You Want Someone To Feel Good, Give Them An Audience For An Easy Task. If You Want To Destabilize Them, Give
Them An Audience For A Difficult Task. This Will Give You An Opportunity To Rescue Them, Building Trust.
Defending
When An Audience Suddenly Appears When You Are Uncertain About An Important Task, Ask Them To Go Away. Refuse To
Continue Until They Do And You Have Subsequently Calmed Down.
ANEEK GUPTA 67

Social Loafing: We Hide In A Crowd, Using Them To Conceal Laziness.
Description
This Is The Tendency For People To Perform Worse On Simple Tasks, Yet Better At Complex Tasks When
They Are In The Presence Of Others.
This Appears To Be A Direct Contradiction To Social Facilitation, But Can Be Explained By The Differing
Circumstances In Which It Occurs. In Particular, When We Are Working In A Group, It Can Be Easier To Conceal Laziness When
Working In A Group Of People Who Are Working Together.
The Key Here Is That The Loafer Is Not Worried About Being Evaluated. This Can Also Be An Attraction Of Being An
Acknowledge Expert Or In A Position Of Authority: Although It May Take Time To Climb The Mountain, You May Be Able To
Relax Once You Have Got There.
However, When We Are Being Evaluated, Such As When Working On A Team Task, We Will Work Hard To Ensure Nobody Can
Criticize Us For Not Pulling Our Weight.
People Who Have Less Concern For Groups Are More Likely To Be Social Loafers, Such As Men And Western Societies In
General.
Research
Max Ringelmann (1913) Found That When A Group Of Men Were Asked To Pull On A Rope, They Each Pulled Less Hard Than
When Pulling Alone.
Example
Clapping At Concert Need Not Make Much Noise (Saving Your Painful Hands) And Nobody Will Notice.
So What? Using It
To Avoid Social Loafing, Make Sure Everyone In A Group Knows That They Can Easily Be Evaluated By Others. If You Are A
Social Loafer, Then By All Means Find Work Where Nobody Can Point At You And Say You Are Not Pulling Your Weight.
Defending
When Working In A Team, Ensure There Are No Social Loafers, Either By Discussing The Principle (Prodding Consciences) Or
Ensuring Nobody Can Hide In The Woodwork.
ANEEK GUPTA 68

Spiral Of Silence Theory: We Keep Quiet If We Are In The Minority (And Vice Versa). We Are Vocal If
We Are In The Majority (And Vice Versa).
Description People Will Be Unwilling To Publicly Express Their Opinion If They Believe They Are In The
Minority. They Will Also Be More Vocal If They Believe They Are A Part Of The Majority.
This Works Because We Fear Social Rejection.
Public Opinion Is The quot;Attitudes Or Behaviors One Must Express In Public If One Is Not To Isolate
Oneself, In Areas Of Controversy Or Change; Public Opinions Are Those Attitudes One Can Express
Without Running The Danger Of Isolating Oneself.quot;
Research Noelle-neumann Showed Subjects A Picture With One Person Angrily Saying, quot;It Seems To
Me That Smokers Are Terribly Inconsiderate. They Force Others To Inhale Their Health-endangering
Smoke.quot; Respondents Were Asked To Phrase A Response To The Statement Whilst Other 'Planted'
People Were There. When Nonsmokers Were Nearby, Many Smokers Were Less Willing To Openly
Support Smokers’ Rights.
Example If You Were On A Long Train Journey, And A Person Next To You Starts To Discuss The
Problems Of Food Safety. Would You Join In The Conversation, Speaking Your True Opinion? What If It
Were Controversial, What Then?
So What? Using It Show People How The Views You Want Them To Express Are Mainstream, And That
The Views You Want Them To Change Are Minority And In Danger Of Causing Them To Be Socially
Rejected.
Defending When You Want To Say Something, Say It. Watch Out For Being Maneuvered Into A Corner.

ANEEK GUPTA 69

Realistic Conflict Theory: Limited Resources Leads To Conflict.
Description When There Is Limited Resources, Then This Leads To Conflict, Prejudice And
Discrimination Between Groups Who Seek That Common Resource. Once Hostility Has
Been Aroused, It Is Very Difficult To Return To Normal Relations And An Ongoing Feud
Can Arise.
Research Muzafer Sherif Divided A Boy Scout Camp Into Two Groups, The Eagles And The
Rattlers. After Helping The Groups To Each Become Cohesive, He Introduced Competitive
Games And Other Conflicts. Before Long, A Full-scale Riot Was In Progress And The
Researchers Had To Work Hard At Mediation To Defuse The Situation.
Example A Common Situation Is Where Jobs Are Scarce And An Established Group
Blames Immigrants For ‘Taking The Food Out Of Our Childrens’ Mouths’.
So What? Using It
Gain Control Over A Resource Required By Many. Where You Cannot, Point To Others
Who Use The Resource As Causes Of Your Own Ills.
Defending
When Resources Are Limited, Pre-empt Conflict By Setting Up Joint Councils, Etc. To
Decide Fairly On Allocation.
ANEEK GUPTA 70

Repulsion Hypothesis: We Dislike Those Who Are Not Like Us.
Description
We Prefer People Who Have Similar Attitudes To Us. We Can Get On With
People Whose Attitudes Are Moderately Different, But We Will Be
Repulsed By People Whose Attitudes Are Particularly Different From Us.
When Looking For Friends, We Will First Exclude People Whose Attitudes
Are Outside Of An Acceptable Range, Before Looking More Positively For
Closer Friends.
Example
This Is One Of The Reasons Why People From Different Cultures And
Countries Are Repulsed By Behaviors Such As Public Executions And Eating
Different Foods.
So What? Using It
Beware Of Holding Extreme Attitudes As You May Fall The First Hurdle Of
Friendship. If You Cannot Get To Be A Good Friend With A Person, By Being
Moderate, You Can At Least Get To Talk With Them.
ANEEK GUPTA 71

Scapegoat Theory: Blaming Others For Problems.
Description
When Problems Occur, People Do Not Like To Blame Themselves. They Will Thus Actively Seek
Scapegoats Onto Whom We Can Displace Our Aggression. These May Be Out-group Individuals Or
Even Entire Groups. Like Bullies, We Will Often Pick On Powerless People Who Cannot Easily Resist.
Scapegoating Increases When People Are Frustrated And Seeking An Outlet For
Their Anger.
Once Cast As A Scapegoat It Can Be Difficult To Shake Off The Classification.
Research
Weatherly (1961) Got Students Frustrated And Then Asked Them To Write Stories Based On Given
Pictures. Where The People In The Pictures Were Given Jewish Names, Students With Anti-Semitic
Tendencies Wrote Stories That Included Aggression Towards The Jewish Characters.
Example
Jews Had Been The Scapegoat For Many People And Groups Up Until The Holocaust Of World War II. In
Some Communities They Are Still Are Used As Scapegoats.
So What? Using It
When You Have A Problem, Find Someone To Blame Who Cannot Fight Back.
Defending
Refuse To Be A Scapegoat. When You Find People Unfairly Blaming You, Be A Tiger
And Fight Back Strongly, Even If This Is Not Your Normal Role.
ANEEK GUPTA 72

An Attempt To Identify With How We Tell Lies To
Other People.
1. Four-factor Model: There Are Four
Underlying Things Happening When People
Lie.
2. Information Manipulation Theory:
Breaking One Of The Four Conversational
Maxims To Persuade.
3. Interpersonal Deception Theory: Lying Is
A Dynamic Dance Of Liar And Listener.

ANEEK GUPTA 74

Theories About Behavior An Attempt To Identify With General Situation

Theories About Behavior An Attempt To Identify With General Situation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Theories About Behavior An Attempt To Identify With General Situation

Similar to Theories About Behavior An Attempt To Identify With General Situation (20)

More from Dr Aneek Gupta

More from Dr Aneek Gupta (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Theories About Behavior An Attempt To Identify With General Situation