The issue: Once individuals make a commitment they face personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with their decision.
Major strength: Cialdini’s arguments for an individual’s behavior and actions to commitments are valid and can be proven true in situations like attending events if committing to the power of a written statement. However, the part I most identified and found interesting was the part about fraternity rituals and hazing. As a member of a sorority I find myself in two different types of situations. When I meet another member of a sorority we automatically bond due to the similar experiences and have immediate conversations topics like philanthropies and sorority events. On the other hand, when I meet someone who is not a member of a sorority I often get asked why I joined and scolding looks as to judge my want to be a part of Greek life that carries a stigma. Cialdini summarizes the experience of going through pledging nicely by saying, “persons who go through a great deal of trouble or pain to attain something tend to value it more highly than persons who attain the same thing with a minimum effort” (pg. 78). We had non-Greek fraternities on our campus like the Engineering frat or the choir fraternity but membership was simply showing up to meetings. Earing your way into something heightens the positive association with it, helps define you as an individual, and enhances your commitment and consistency to uphold that organizations values.
Major weakness: Although Caildini gives various examples that support the idea that commitment drives individual behaviors, he lacks to see the differences in impact and scale. For example: the college students who volunteered for an AIDs educational program and signed forms stating their willingness to participate probably felt committed due to a fear of looking dishonest, unreliable, unstable, and irresponsible to their college and the program administrators. On the other hand, did the soldiers behave the way they did because of a commitment they gave to their Chinese captors? Or did they comply due to fear, the stress of being a held prisoner in a foreign place, the stresses of war, etc.? I don’t see how Caildini can compare these situations equally and use them as the quota for all situations concerning commitment.
Underlying assumption: I think an underlying assumption within this chapter is that individuals are willing to do anything that serves their best interests. People justify their actions and behave in ways consistent to their commitments just so they don’t have to admit their ideas or perceptions by others are wrong. We all want to be seen as honest, respectful, and held-highly by others, and in doing so we participate in actions that will achieve those results. Admitting faults is much harder than attempting to ignore them.
Provocative questions:
1) What happens when the outcome of an individual’s behavior is opposite of that than what they convinced themselves it would be? For example: What happens after the betters lose money on their token horse at the racetrack or when the individuals find out the meditation program they paid $75 for actually doesn’t fix sleeping disorders?
2) Does commitment and consistency work the same way if it is self-administered? Suppose I know the power of a written statement and I address a note to myself that convinces me that I need to donate more money to charity in order to be seen by others as trustworthy and caring. Do I change my behaviors and try to adhere to what is in the note even though I don’t have to justify my actions to anyone else but myself?
3) Did the example with the Christmas toys remind anyone else of “Jingle All the Way” with Arnold Schwarzenegger?