>>>Click here to skip to the video
I'm going to teach you about three methods of persuasion, when to use each method, and which method is most likely to produce behavior change that really last.
One of the most important functions of communication or tasks in communication is persuasion, which is normally thought of as the science of attitude or behavior change, how we use communication to change people's attitudes and behaviors.
But one question that we might ask ourselves when we engage in persuasion is what kind of change are we really producing in the person that we're persuading?
Is it a superficial change that may go away as soon as we go away?
Or is it a lasting change that will endure long after we're gone and long after our message is forgotten?
3 Methods of Persuasion
Imagine that the behavior that we're trying to change is safe driving. We want people to wear their seatbelts and not run through red lights. We can imagine different ways of trying to influence people to drive safely, wearing their seatbelts and not running through red lights. For example, we could put up red-light cameras. In Illinois, we have these so if you do run through a red light, it takes a picture of your license plate and you get a letter in the mail with $100 ticket for running through a red light. That's one way we can persuade people not to run through red lights. We say, “We'll be watching you. And if you do run through a red light, we're going to punish you with $100 fine.”
A second way we might do it is we might hire a famous celebrity, athlete, movie star or TV star, or a musician, and they could say, “Safe driving is important, friends. I always drive safely. I always put on my seatbelt and I always stop at a red light. So, if you want to be like me, you should drive safely too.”
The third way that we might use is rational persuasion. We might say, “When you stop at red lights, 50% fewer accidents happen. And when you wear your seatbelt, you're 67% less likely to be injured in an accident.” We might try to persuade people in that way. These three examples represent three different mechanisms of influence that I want to talk about today. Each of them can be effective.
If you think about the examples that I gave, you've probably heard these kinds of influence attempts with respect to safe driving. You've probably heard all three types, because all three types can be effective under different circumstances and for different audiences, but the three types produce different kinds of behavior change.
In 1958, psychologist Herbert Kelman published an article in which he said there were three basic processes of social influence that produced three different kinds of behavior change. He called these processes of social influence, compliance, identification and internalization. I want to define each of these in turn.
Compliance
This is the form of influence we accept in order to avoid punishments or get rewards. This is the kind of influence we accept, normally when we're under surveillance or someone is watching our behavior.
The classic example of this is when we stop at a red light because there's a red-light camera there. It's not necessarily that we believe that stopping at red lights is the best idea or that driving safely is the best idea. It's not that we want to be like somebody else who drives, that because our mom stops at red lights we want to stop at red lights, too. No. We stop at red lights because there's a camera there, and if we don't stop, we're going to get a ticket. So, that's compliance – accepting influence in order to avoid a punishment in this case.
But sometimes you can accept influence because you're going to get a reward. Sometimes we can get people to do things. We can get children to do things by promising them rewards, even though they don't necessarily believe in the underlying behavior and their attitudes don't really change. It's just that when you're watching them, and if they're going to get a reward or a punishment, they'll do the behavior. That's compliance.
Identification
This is when we accept influence, because we want to be like someone who's trying to influence us. So the classic example of this in my mind is the old Gatorade commercial from the 1990s. “Be like Mike. I want to be, I want to be, I want to be like Mike.” They're talking about Michael Jordan, the hall of fame basketball player. Since I'm from Chicago, he was one of my heroes, and I remember this commercial very well. It's awesome.
So that is the classic example of identification. “Be like Mike, drink Gatorade.” That's what the message says. It's no more ambiguous than that. They just come right out and say, if you drink Gatorade, you're going to be like Mike, because Mike drinks Gatorade. Of course, this sold a lot of Gatorade because people desperately want it to be like Mike.
The same thing works now with the Kardashians or Rihanna. Rihanna signed a contract with Louis Vuitton to sell luggage and cosmetics. People want to be like Rihanna so they'll buy the same products that she wears because of this process of identification.
So in this case, we don't necessarily believe that Gatorade is the best tasting drink. Nobody really believes Gatorade tastes that good, but we wanted to be like Mike. It's not really the content of the message that we believe. It's not really consistent with our beliefs and values, but we'll accept influence, because we want to be like the person who's doing the influence, or be like someone that the behavior is associated with. This is why celebrity endorsements work so well, because we want to be like celebrities, or we want to have lives like theirs. So we use the products that they endorse.
This kind of influence is only effective when the relationship is salient or relevant. That is, when we feel the salience of that relationship. That's when we're amenable to influence in terms of identification, just like we're amenable to influence in terms of compliance if we're under surveillance. Identification works when the relationship with this other person is relevant, then we can be persuaded. I see Michael Jordan and I think, “Oh man, he could get me to buy anything.” Anything that he does. I'll buy Nike shoes, I'll drink Gatorade, because I want to be like Mike. That's identification.
Internalization
This is where we accept influence because the behavior or the attitude is consistent with our own values. The reward that we get is not to be like Mike or to avoid a punishment or get a reward, but it's because it's intrinsically satisfying to us. The behavior or attitude that we're adopting is consistent with our own values. After a sort of rational deliberation, we have decided to internalize this attitude or behavior and make it our own because we're happy with it being part of us.
An example of internalization is really any time that we accept influence as the result of rational persuasion. Someone makes arguments and gives evidence and produces statistics, and we review that evidence and those statistics, and we come to the conclusion that, “Yes, I accept these arguments. They are consistent with my beliefs. I accept the reasoning. I accept the evidence as valid. I accept the speaker or the persuader as someone with credibility who has expertise and who's telling me the truth, and therefore I'm going to change my attitude or my behavior as a result.”
In terms of the driving-safely example, it might be that we read a newspaper article or blog post or see a documentary that talks about how dangerous driving leads to all sorts of deaths and accidents and disabilities and carnage, whereas safe driving saves lives and money and heartache and so on. We internalize this value and these behaviors as our own, because we've been rationally persuaded. That's internalization.
What’s interesting about internalization is that we will enact the behavior whenever the issue is relevant. So, what that means is that if I adopt safe driving by internalizing that attitude, making it part of my own framework of attitudes and beliefs, then I will drive safely all the time. I will stop at every stoplight, not only when there's a camera there or when I want to be like some celebrity who says I should drive safely, but because I've internalized this attitude or this behavior. I will drive safely all the time.
In internalization, whenever the issue is relevant, I will produce that attitude of that behavior. This is a big contrast to compliance, where I only comply when I'm under surveillance or identification. There, I only adopt the behavior when the relationship with this important other is element to me.
The Power Source of Each Persuasion Method
Compliance = Power to Punish or Reward
These three mechanisms of influence also require different sources of power on the part of the person who's doing the persuasion.
For compliance, the kind of power that the persuader needs is the power to produce rewards and punishments. The reason that the state or local municipality has the power to persuade us to stop at red lights is because they have the power to put up these cameras, find us or take away our license. If you have the power to produce rewards and punishments, then you can use compliance as an effective mechanism of social influence. That's why our bosses who have control over rewards and punishments at work can make us comply with rules at work, because they have the power, they have the means to punish us or reward us. This is often enough to make us comply, even with rules that we don't really believe in.
Think of all the rules that you follow at work that you don't really believe in, but you comply with them because you're under surveillance in some way, and the person who's doing the persuading or the influencing has the power to reward you or punish you. That's the source of power for compliance. The power to reward or punish you.
Identification = Power of Attractiveness
Anyone who you find attractive has the power to influence you by means of identification. In terms of Michael Jordan, I looked up to him. He was my hero. I thought he was the greatest basketball player ever. I was incredibly attracted to his charisma and his athletic skill and so on. I wanted to be like Mike, just like all those millions of other people who drank the Gatorade. Anyone who is attractive to us because of their achievements, physical appearance, wealth, or whatever it is, has the power to influence us by means of identification.
They know that we want to be like them. They can exploit that power to influence us. This is the whole sort of mechanism by which the Kardashians can get people to buy anything that they sell, because people want to be like the Kardashians. They want that lifestyle. They want that glamor. So they can use that attractiveness as a source of power to influence people, to do what they want.
Internalization = Power of Credibility
The source of power that lies behind internalization is credibility. Credibility has to do with trustworthiness and expertise. If someone has credibility, it means that we trust that they're going to tell us the truth and we think they know what they're talking about. If those two things are true, if they're trustworthy and expert. We grant them credibility.
In order for someone to use internalization as a mechanism of influence, they must have credibility. This is why we normally use experts to do lots of rational persuasion about health behavior, for example. We get people to say, “You must use sunscreen in order to avoid sunburn and skin cancer.” Instead of getting a celebrity to do that and use identification, we'll often get a scientist or a dermatologist or an oncologist who treats a skin cancer to use their credibility. They are trustworthy, they are expert. And they use that credibility to rationally, persuade us to change our attitudes and our behavior. That's the source of power for internalization, credibility.
Which technique should you use?
All three of these techniques are valid, social influence techniques. If you're trying to decide which technique to use, you should examine, what sort of power do you have? Are you extremely attractive to your audience? Then you might want to use identification. Do you have the power over rewards and punishments? You might want to use compliance. Are you capable of setting up surveillance to make sure people comply with the behavior? Then you might want to use compliance as the mechanism of influence. Do you have tremendous credibility and a lot of arguments and evidence on your side? Then you might want to use internalization.
All of these social influence techniques are actively used in the real world. You can look out all around you. You could just turn on the television or radio or browse the internet, and you'll see all three kinds of appeals being used all the time to sell different products and different ideas. All three techniques can be effective. I would say that in some sense, internalization is the most effective technique, only because it produces the most lasting behavior change.
Let’s say we want people to become vegans or vegetarians. If you can keep them under surveillance all the time and threaten them with punishment when they eat meat or anything non-vegan, you could try to use compliance, but that doesn't seem very likely. You can get a beautiful movie star to say, “I'm a vegetarian, I'm a vegan. You should be like me.” But the problem with both of those techniques is as soon as the person's not under surveillance, they're going to eat bacon. As soon as the thought of that movie stars out of their mind, they're going to have a big stake.
But if you persuade somebody by means of internalization, then you don't need surveillance. You don't need the relevance of the relationship, you don't have to have people thinking about some celebrity, but whenever they eat, because they've been persuaded by these arguments and they've internalized them as part of their own belief system, they will not eat meat. Whenever they eat at all, their thoughts about veganism or vegetarian will be relevant. And since they've been persuaded by this mechanism of internalization, those attitudes will come up and they will decide not to eat meat.
That’s what I think the advantage of internalization is, but it's difficult. You have to have credibility. You have to have the arguments on your side. Often times people are not necessarily that amenable to rational persuasion. You can just look at the world around you and see that rational persuasion does not always work.
That's why we see the frequent use of these other mechanisms of influence, namely compliance and identification. In fact, it's possible to use all three techniques on the same issue, really on the same group of people. In fact, this is done a lot.
Think of something like cigarette smoking. Insurance companies and our employers, and anyone who might have to pay for our health care, they really don't want us to smoke cigarettes. They often use a form of compliance influence, because insurance companies and our employers have the power to offer rewards and punishments in the form of higher insurance premiums or lower insurance premiums. If we do or don't smoke, and they can test our blood or our urine to see if we've been smoking cigarettes. That’s surveillance, and you can give rewards and punishments in the form of higher or lower insurance premiums. That’s compliance as a mechanism of influence to discourage people from smoking.
You can also use identification. You can get a famous celebrity or a famous athlete to talk about how they quit smoking and how smoking is an unattractive habit. They can use that power of their attractiveness. People will want to be like them and say, “Oh, I love that celebrity. I admire that athlete so much. I want to be like them, and they don't smoke, so I should stop smoking too.”
At the same time, you can offer rational arguments. You can say, “Smoking causes lung cancer, kidney cancer, bladder cancer, colon cancer, and heart disease, strokes,” and so on. You can give people all sorts of statistics – it costs a lot of money, it makes you smell bad, etc. You can even get a credible scientist or a public health expert to talk about those arguments.
In fact, we do all three of these things. Smoking is such a big public health problem that we try all three mechanisms of social influence to produce the kinds of behavior change that we're looking for.
Summary
So that's it. A famous article by Herbert Kelman about three mechanisms of social influence: compliance, identification and internalization. The article, hard to believe it was written in 1958, is still extremely relevant even today. These mechanisms of social influence still being used all the time, all around us, everywhere we look.
Question of the day, where in your life are you accepting influence in the form of compliance, identification or internalization? Go down in the comments and leave me a comment below about where you're accepting influence in one form or another. If you like this kind of post or video, I'd be so grateful if you would consider subscribing to our channel or to our email list.