Influence¶
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and Practice.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Public vs. Private Contexts
- The transfer between political voting and organizational decision-making is direct and powerful, resting on what Cialdini (2001) describes as the commitment-and-consistency principle that locks public positions into reputational stakes.
This sourceAllyn & Bacon. Synthesizes commitment-and-consistency research: public commitments produce stronger follow-through than private intentions because reputational stakes make reversal costly, with direct transfer between political voting and organizational decision contexts.
- The transfer between political voting and organizational decision-making is direct and powerful, resting on what Cialdini (2001) describes as the commitment-and-consistency principle that locks public positions into reputational stakes.
Mechanisms¶
- Accountability Check-In
- Its strength is that it is cheap, flexible, and adds both a recurring salience spike and a real social cost to backsliding
This sourceExplains that public commitments create internal and social pressure to behave consistently with a prior commitment.
- Its strength is that it is cheap, flexible, and adds both a recurring salience spike and a real social cost to backsliding
- Manipulation Tactic Labeling Card
- The moves it lists sit on top of well-worn levers of influence — authority, scarcity, urgency — which is why a short list covers so much ground.
This sourceDescribes well-worn influence levers including authority, scarcity, and urgency.
- The moves it lists sit on top of well-worn levers of influence — authority, scarcity, urgency — which is why a short list covers so much ground.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 3 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 2 other ways.
- https://books.google.com/books/about/Influence.html?id=NRkxsDq8CgAC ×1
- https://search.worldcat.org/title/influence-science-and-practice/oclc/43607370?page=citation ×1
Registry ID ref:10f064128765 · see in the full table