Discussion—Persuasion and Influence

 Discussion—Persuasion and Influence

Cialdini (2001) provides many compelling insights into how choices are influenced. Even though marketers are barred from outright deception, you can still find examples of information or promotions designed to lead customers in a direction that may not be in their rational best interest.

Some theorists suggest that rationality only plays a part in one’s decision toolkit. Outside influences (one such example is authority figures hawking goods or services) bear upon the choices you make. It is a susceptibility to these outside pressures and social constructs that may lead you, as a decision maker, away from well-reasoned optimization. The ability to manipulate an individual along these lines leads to the use of nonrational techniques, which are recognizable in the marketing efforts that can inundate your life.

Review the article “Harnessing the Science of Persuasion” by R. B. Cialdini (2001) from this module’s assigned readings. Consider Cialdini’s insights on nonrationaltechniques.

Respond to the following:

• Consider the last two major purchases you made, and list the techniques that may have swayed your choices. Why do you think these techniques impacted your decision?
• What would you do in the future to avoid these psychological pitfalls?

Write your initial response in approximately 300–500 words. Apply APA standards to citation of sources.

• Discuss the difficulties in determining when a social heuristic is, in fact, offered beneficially. For example, a new car may actually be safer, but what do you really need?
• Explain whether the techniques employed were ethical. How would you have countered the tactic(s) in play?

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review,79(9), 72–79. (EBSCO AN: 5329110) http://libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsh&AN=5329110&site=ehost-live 

16

16

8

40

Assignment 1 Grading Criteria	Maximum Points
Initial response: Was insightful, original, accurate, and timely.Was substantive and demonstrated advanced understanding of concepts.Compiled/synthesized theories and concepts drawn from a variety of sources to support statements and conclusions.
Discussion response and participation: Responded to a minimum of two peers in a timely manner.Offered points of view supported by research.Asked challenging questions that promoted the discussion.Drew relationships between one or more points in the discussion.
Writing: Wrote in a clear, concise, formal, and organized manner.Responses were error free.Information from sources, where applicable, was paraphrased appropriately and accurately cited.
Total: