The issue: People make decisions every day based on prior commitments and consistent ideas.
Major strength: Cialdini undoubtedly makes valid arguments for why people do what they do in terms of the commitments they have already agreed to. It’s something we tend to not think about consciously (just as the American soldiers didn’t realize they were slowly committing to Communist ideas in their writing) but we are affected by it every day. I could relate to his story about the woman who wrote cards saying she would never smoke another cigarette again and gave them to loved ones so she could uphold her commitment. There’s something to be said about sharing your commitment with other people so you can feel more accountable. I got into running about three years ago and noticed I do this when I want to achieve a goal in terms of my distance or time. I’ll tweet out that I am going to run 6 miles today, or I’ll track my mileage and purposely try to get a certain pace so I can tell others later, hence encouraging myself to run faster and longer in the process.
Cialdnini’s discussion of that feeling in the pit of your stomach is incredibly valid as well. We tend to phrase a question a certain way or get a person excited about something before we drop the ball on them that we’re trying to coerce them into making a decision (thus making them feel obligated). One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone at my part-time wait staff job purposely asks me “What are you doing tomorrow?” When I automatically say I have nothing planned, they ask if I can pick up their shift. I feel like I have to say yes because I already told them I had no plans. It’s smarter on their part to ask me that question they did rather than simply “Can you work for me tomorrow?” I don’t have time to think of an excuse because I literally just said I have no plans. Therefore that person has the day off and I have to go into work when I originally was looking forward to that day off for myself.
Major weakness: I felt like Cialdini had very valid points in his chapter on how we are coerced into following through with commitments, but I had to question his argument about the people who agreed to having the signs put up in their yard after committing to a lesser request of signing a petition. He says: “Signing the beautification petition changed the view these people had of themselves. They saw themselves as public-spirited citizens who acted on their civic principles.”
In recent research of “Slacktivism” for my case study about the Kony 2012 campaign, I would argue that Cialdini’s comment might be a sweeping generalization. It seems that a majority of the time, an organization can get people to commit to a small request, such as signing a petition on social media or changing their profile picture for a cause. But when it comes to getting these people to actually going out in their community to fundraise or physically doing something to support the campaign, people tend to not be as proactive, even if they had already signed that social media petition.
Underlying assumption: People tend to go through with commitments based on the fact that they feel they have an obligation to that commitment. Also, people are inherently uncomfortable when “backed into a corner” about a commitment they feel they have.
Provocative questions: In terms of disciplining children, compliance with parents is somewhat based on the individual child, but how much does that child’s personality affect outcomes of rule-following?
How has technology and social media affected the way we stick to commitments? Is there something to be said about the fact that we can more easily back out of commitments or compliance because we don’t have to do it face-to-face as much anymore?