Just who is in control of you?

The disturbing power of “others”

Advertisements

I’m not a particularly influential person. I’d like to be, but the reality is I’m not. Oh, I have some influence. In my role as a financial adviser I routinely help my clients in relation to their financial decisions, but occasionally I lose an existing (and otherwise happy client) to someone else who is no more competent than I but has greater persuasiveness – you know, the kind of person who can “sell ice to Eskimos”. I’ve also given up on the number of times I’ve encouraged clients to see a solicitor or an accountant, and they simply haven’t. And when I talk to my colleagues, they seem routinely to make such recommendations, and hey presto! the client follows their suggestion.

So why am I telling you this? I’m the sort of person who never gives up on trying to improve. So I thought I’d read a book recommended to me, simply called “Influence”, by Robert Cialdini. It was apparently a best seller many years ago, and because the book speaks about human nature rather than whizz bang sales techniques, if it was true 20 years ago, it’s probably still pretty relevant today.

I have to say its contents unnerve me a little, because it’s all about taking advantage of the largely unconscious human behaviours that we all seem to have just below the surface, and how to “trigger” them to our advantage. I have no appetite to control others. Influence, as far as I’m concerned, is not about control, but guidance that people take seriously. So, it hasn’t been an enjoyable read. But I do have to say it’s been a fascinating one.

Amongst many other interesting (and disturbing) character traits, the author speaks about a phenomenon called “social proof”. Now social proof is something most of us are surely already aware of – that our decisions are impacted significantly by the opinions and behaviours of those in our peer group, or in our racial group, or in our nation etc. No surprises there. But what is surprising is the extent by which our actions are shaped.

One particularly fascinating aspect of this is a phenomenon that goes by the wordy title of “Group inhibition of bystander intervention”. To put it simply, there is a tendency that the larger the group of people that witness an event (say a mugging, or a person in need) the less likely it is that anyone will do anything to help.

An example is given of a murder that occurred in the streets of New York in 1964, over a period of half an hour where a woman, Kitty Genovese, was attacked, managed to free herself and run away only to be attacked again and eventually die. What made this tragedy all the more mystifying was that 38 people in the street reportedly either heard or saw part of the altercation and did nothing. These figures have since been seriously disputed, and in fact one or two people did try to do something, but it doesn’t take away from the observations of human behaviour that arose from it.

At first, the outcry from this event was that city life had hardened the hearts of city people and led them to do nothing (one neighbour had openly stated they didn’t want to get involved). But when it was thoroughly investigated, a very different picture emerged. People actually weren’t sure why they had done nothing, and were mystified themselves. Researchers discovered, from this event and from other events (and clinical experiments), a pattern of human behaviour emerging. When we as individuals are confronted by an emergency, we often don’t know what to do. We look for clues in the behaviour of others – how are they responding to this? The very people we are looking to are themselves most likely feeling the same way, and look to us to see how we are responding. The result is that no-one does anything – because no-one else is! On top of this, if no-one else is responding, we don’t want to be the odd man out. We don’t want to be the drama queen that makes a big deal out of the situation.

So, with the murder in the street, people didn’t respond because they thought maybe it wasn’t that bad and because no-one else (to their knowledge) had responded either. Maybe it was a quarrel between lovers, and if someone intervened they would just get shouted down, or if the police were called, they would get annoyed because their time was being wasted. It wasn’t because the onlookers were hard hearted. As a matter of fact, research into this phenomenon has shown that when onlookers are in no doubt of the problem or danger, they are much more likely to take action.

I find this aspect of human nature both fascinating and disturbing, that we as human beings could be so dictated by our social context. How many times have you or I walked down the street, noticed someone in apparent trouble, and felt awkward or unsure about doing anything because others were also just passing them by? I unfortunately can confess to this. The same research that documented this phenomenon also showed that a single individual, noting the plight of someone else, is much more likely to respond if they are on their own, than if there are others present.

There are very good reasons why we are social animals and why the opinions of others count. I think it would be foolish to assume that peer pressure is always bad. It just “is”. But it concerned me to realise just how controlled we are by it. This kind of influence is so powerful that it would be hard to resist. But surely, once we are aware, we must choose how we will act. After all, who do you want to be in control of your life, yourself or the madding crowd?

The book “Influence” is actually a fascinating read if you want to be amazed at the unconscious predictability of human behaviour, as it unpacks many other surprisingly strong traits of human behaviour. If you can stomach its cringeworthy application to sales, I do recommend it.

Author: Terry Lewis

I'm a guy in his 50's who thought it might be fun to write about day to day issues - the stuff that life is made of. It's helped me think and develop some deeper perspectives. I enjoyed it so much I thought I might start posting it in a blog, and here we are! I intend to mix it up as much as I can. I am a thinking kind of guy so the majority of my posts will probably have some kernel of truth or (hopefully) wisdom nestled in there somewhere. But I also hope to have some light hearted posts as well. Too much thinking can make life pretty dull! Anyway, hope you like it.

8 thoughts on “Just who is in control of you?”

  1. It seems lately that social proof (and also fear) hold capital for many people doesn’t it, Terry? How sad that there are books like “Influence” out there teaching salespeople how to prey on these foibles of the human psyche. The clients who abandon you for someone who could “sell ice to an Eskimo” will regret it soon enough, though. After all, anyone can close a sale — but only skilled financial professionals can provide sound advice based on years of experience and insight. Hats off to you for turning your back on this dubious sales method.

    1. Thanks for the vote of confidence Heide. In relation to my work, I wish it was that straightforward. I really don’t want my ex-clients to be worse off with their new adviser (well, maybe a little!), and if they are, they’re still not likely to come back! The reality is that if I don’t influence them, others will. People often don’t know what they need (particularly in relation to financial decisions), and so influence is necessary – mere information is seldom enough. Trust and rapport are huge influencers, and I have no doubt my clients trust me (or most of them do). Also, being a bit of a tech-head, my competence is pretty evident (I think) but all it takes is for someone else to ‘appear’ more competent or more self assured.
      It’s not as if I’m losing clients left right and centre – it’s only occasionally, and I think for most businesses that’s inevitable. But I take my role as an influencer seriously. I know I can make a difference in my clients’ lives (and it’s good for my business too!), and it frustrates me when I sense that I haven’t made a dint in their thinking. I baulk at the idea of manipulation, and maybe that’s why I’m not more influential. But the line between influence and manipulation is a fine one, and it’s a line I really don’t want to cross. Thanks, as always, for your comments 😊

      1. From our interactions I have no doubt that your clients find you empathetic, trustworthy, and technically competent, Terry! (Your not wanting your clients to be worse of with a new advisor is certainly evidence of the empathy and trustworthiness in putting your clients’ interests first.) But since I posted my first comment I’ve been mulling over why this isn’t enough sometimes. And perhaps it wouldn’t be so wrong to take a couple of pages from that book and “inoculate” your clients by explaining the risks of their finances falling into the wrong hands? It’s a little bit fear-based — but I don’t think it’s wrong to point out dangers when they’re real. As you so wisely say, though, the line between influence and manipulation is very fine indeed.

        PS: I expect to continue thinking about this overnight, so don’t be surprised if I’m back again tomorrow. 🙂

      2. Not sure that I’m 100% pure of heart about my former clients, but I will say it brings me no joy to think of them receiving poor advice or not being helped.
        I think the reality is that when people meet an influential person (or charismatic, or larger than life) they are somewhat at the mercy of their powers. In such a competitive industry as mine, clients are often ‘poached’ by the banks, who coax them to see their financial adviser (“A second opinion never hurts”!) whenever they interact. All it takes is someone with the “X” factor, and clients come away with the feeling that they will be better looked after, regardless of whether that is the case. And it is entirely possible that they *will* be looked after just as well as with me – people can be charismatic and competent as well.
        Thankfully this occurs infrequently, either because my clients say no to begin with, or the bank adviser they meet isn’t anyone special. But I don’t know that there is any defence for this other than becoming similarly influential ourselves. I’ll never be a strongly influential person (doesn’t hurt to know your limitations) but always keen to improve

  2. I’ll have to look for that book! Because I agree with you, we give others far too much influence over our lives. We need to learn to trust our own instincts, and when we do need outside input, to ask only those whose opinions we value.

  3. Read Influence a few years back, and then in a Marketing course. It seems less like Influence than it does “slight manipulation” via …taking advantage of unconscious psychological processes. Effective, but it’s a lil’ slimy of an approach to persuasion. For the type of social influence you’re interested (i.e honest and personable, more inclined to sell fur coats to eskimos than ice), you might like Carnegie’s book “how to win friends & influence people” or “the charisma myth”. Best of luck on your work!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s