Chapter 2 2. Reciprocity

There is a saying in China: If you eat someone's soft mouth, you can take someone's hand short.No one wants to be called a cheapskate by colleagues or friends behind their backs. Once a friend treats you once, you must firmly remember how much the other party spent on the treat, and strive to return the friend as soon as possible, and plan the expenditure corresponding amount.This is actually the psychological effect of return. In this chapter, the author will thoroughly analyze this principle and how to apply it to your business contacts, not only to invite customers to dinner, but also to carefully arrange the atmosphere that allows them to remember what we created , so that this kind of memory can be expanded and played in the future, so as to obtain a commercial cooperation contract.This is perhaps the most useful heart of this chapter.

A few years ago, a university professor did a little experiment.He randomly selected a group of people he had never met and sent them Christmas cards.While he figured some people might reply, he was truly amazed by the reaction—a snowflake of holiday cards from people he'd never met.Most of the people who sent greeting cards back to him never thought about asking who this strange professor was.They received a greeting card, click, wow, and they automatically sent one back.Although the scope of this experiment is small, it is an excellent illustration of the role of the most effective weapon of influence around us - the principle of reciprocity - in guiding human behavior.The principle of reciprocity holds that we should try to repay others in the same way for what they have done for us.If a person gives us a birthday gift, we should remember his birthday and buy him a gift when it is his birthday.If a couple invites us to a party, we must also remember to invite them to our party.So, because of the principle of reciprocity, we feel obligated to return the favors, gifts, invitations, etc. that we have received at some point in the future.Since acceptance often implies an obligation to repay, in English and many other languages, "duty to reciprocate" has become practically synonymous with "thank you."

One of the most impressive things about the principle of reciprocity, and the sense of duty that goes hand in hand with it, is that they are almost ubiquitous in human civilization.After doing in-depth research on this principle, sociologist Alvin asserted that there is almost no social organization in the world that does not agree with this principle.And this principle is pervasive in every social organization, in almost every form of exchange.In fact, a well-developed repayment system derived from the principle of reciprocity may be a unique property of human civilization.The famous archaeologist Charlie De believes that the reason why human beings are human is entirely due to the reciprocity system.He said: "We can become human because our ancestors learned to share their food and skills in a fair payback network." Social anthropologists Lionel and Robin see this "payback network" as A unique adaptive mechanism for humans.It is precisely because of such a network that there is a division of labor, the exchange of different commodities and the exchange of different services (enabling people to develop their own skills in a certain area), and at the same time many trusting individuals form an efficient social unit.

What is central to the kind of social progress that Tiger and Fox describe is the sense of indebtedness that will be owed to others in the future.This sense of indebtedness is widely accepted and strongly supported, and its role in the evolution of human society cannot be underestimated.Because Zehua means that a person can give something (such as food, energy, care) to others because he believes that he has not lost this thing.This is the first time in the history of human evolution that when a person gives any resource to others, he does not actually lose these things.The result: to facilitate transactions that had to be initiated by providing resources to others, and to enable intricate and well-ordered systems of aid, grants, defense, and trade, with enormous benefits to society.Clearly, the principle of reciprocity is a product of the development of human civilization, so it is not surprising that it is deeply rooted in the entire socialization process we experience.

A good example of how far-reaching the principle of reciprocity can hold for the future is the puzzling story of a $5,000 disaster relief grant between Mexico and Ethiopia in 1985. In 1985, Ethiopia was arguably the most disaster-stricken and poorest country in the world.Its economy collapsed, last year's drought and civil war wiped out food supplies, and hundreds of thousands died of disease and starvation.Given the circumstances, I wouldn't be surprised at all if $5,000 in disaster relief was sent from Mexico to a country in dire straits.But when I read a newsletter in the newspaper that the donors were the opposite of the recipients, I was speechless in amazement.Officials from the Ethiopian Red Cross decided to donate $5,000 to Mexico to help victims of the Mexico City earthquake that year.

I have a problem with myself, whenever I am puzzled by some behaviors of people, I can't help but ask the bottom of the matter to find out what's going on, and this has caused me a lot of trouble in my personal life, but It is very helpful to my career.After the above incident happened, I couldn't help but want to dig some more detailed information.Fortunately, there was a journalist who was as puzzled by Ethiopia's behavior as I was, and set off to find out.The answer he got was another powerful demonstration of the great power of the principle of reciprocity: Ethiopia decided to donate money to Mexico even though they themselves were not rich.Because in 1935, when Ethiopia was invaded by Italy, Mexico also provided aid to Ethiopia.After learning about this situation, I am in awe of what Ethiopia has done, but I am no longer confused.Clearly, the need for reciprocation transcends huge cultural differences, great distances, severe famine, and Ethiopia's own interests.In a word, after half a century, the responsibility to repay has finally overcome all resistance and won.

Undoubtedly, human societies derive an important competitive advantage from the principle of reciprocity, so they train their members to believe in and obey this principle.Each of us is told to obey this principle.And each of us knows that if you follow this principle, you will be approved by society, and if you don't, you will be ridiculed by people.Those who do not abide by the principle of reciprocity are labeled as charlatans, ungrateful, treacherous, etc., because of the general distaste for people who only know what to expect but don't get back.Often we keep them at arm's length lest we come across as the same.However, it is precisely because of our actions that those who want to use this principle to profit have an opportunity.

To understand how the power of the principle of reciprocity is exploited by those familiar with it, let us look at an experiment conducted by Professor Dennis of Cornell University.In this experiment, a subject is invited to participate in a so-called "art appreciation," which is to rate some drawings with another subject, who, let's call him Joe, is actually pretending to be His true identity is Professor Regan's assistant.In order to achieve the goal, the experiment was carried out in two situations.In the first case, Joe offered the real subject a small favor: During a brief break between ratings, he went out for a few minutes and returned with two Cokes.He gave one bottle to the subject and kept the other bottle for himself, and said to the subject, "I asked him (the person who conducted the experiment) if he could bring back a bottle of Coke, and he said no problem, so I'll bring you one too." A bottle." In another instance, Joe did not give the subjects any small favors.After a two-minute break he came in empty-handed, and in all other respects Joe behaved exactly the same.

Later, after scoring all the drawings, the person conducting the experiment temporarily left the room.At this point, Joe asks the subject to do him a favor, saying he's selling a lottery ticket for a new car.If he sells the most lottery tickets, he gets a $50 bonus.Joe asked the subjects to help him buy some twenty-five-cent lottery tickets.He said: "You can buy a few tickets, of course, the more the better." This is the real purpose of the experiment: to compare the number of lottery tickets that the subjects bought from Joe under the two conditions.Undoubtedly, those who had previously accepted Joe's Coke were more likely to buy lottery tickets.Apparently, they all felt like they owed Joe something, so they bought twice as many tickets as they would have otherwise.Although this experiment is simple, it reveals several important features of the principle of reciprocity.Below I will analyze these characteristics in detail to understand how the principle of reciprocity is effectively used by people.

An important reason why the principle of reciprocity can be such an effective persuasive tool is because of its enormous power.Under its influence, people will easily agree to a request that they would definitely refuse if they did not feel indebted.Even some factors that are usually influential are dwarfed by it, and the second result of the experiment provides sufficient evidence for this.In addition to being interested in the persuasive effects of the principle of reciprocity, Professor Regan is also interested in how personal likes and dislikes influence people's compliant behavior.To compare the effect of the subjects' liking for Joe on the number of lottery tickets they bought, Regan asked them to fill out several forms indicating how much they liked Joe, and then began to analyze the relationship between liking level and the number of lottery tickets purchased.It turned out that there was a clear trend that the more the subjects liked Joe, the more lottery tickets they bought from him.This finding is not surprising at all.It's anyone's guess that people are more willing to help those they like.

However, there is an even more interesting phenomenon in Regan's experiment, which is that when the subjects received Joe's Coke, the positive relationship between liking and compliance disappeared completely.For those who owed Joe a favor, it didn't matter whether they liked him or not, they felt it was their duty to repay him, and they did.In this way, people who say they don't like Joe but owe him a favor buy as many lottery tickets as people who like him.That is to say, the reciprocity principle is so powerful that it completely overwhelms another factor that can affect people's compliance-the degree of liking for the supplicant. Think what this result means to us!That is to say, for people we don't normally like, like uninvited salesmen, obnoxious nodding acquaintances, or representatives of some weird organization, as long as they send us a small Small favors, we are very likely to agree to them.Let's look at an example that most of us have come across.The Hale Society is an oriental religious group that originated in Calcutta, India and has a history of hundreds of years.In the 1970s, the group suddenly achieved impressive growth, not only in the number of followers, but also in the amount of wealth and real estate owned by it.The growth of the group's economic strength has been the result of a series of activities, with fundraising campaigns in public places initiated by members of its society being by far the main and most visible one.In the United States, many people still remember the society's early fundraising activities: a group of dedicated Krishna people, usually with shaved heads, wearing ill-fitting robes, wearing leggings, holding rosary beads and bells. On the streets of the city.They sang hymns in unison and asked people to donate money for them. This method of fundraising, while very compelling, is not very effective.The average American finds Krishna followers eccentric and is reluctant to donate money to them.The Krishna Society soon realized they had a tricky public relations problem, as those who would have donated money did not like the way Krishna Society members looked, dressed and acted.If the club is an ordinary commercial organization, then the problem is easy to solve, just change those things that the public doesn't like.But the Krishna Society is a religious group whose members look, dress and behave in relation to their religious beliefs.As we all know, no matter in which denomination, religious factors usually do not change for secular reasons.So the leaders of the Krishna Society had a real problem.On the one hand, they are unwilling to change their religiously significant clothing and hairstyles; on the other hand, the American public's antipathy to their clothing and hairstyles threatens their financial situation.What should they do? The Krishna Society has found a very clever solution with a new method of fundraising.This method is based on the principle of reciprocity to make a fundraising request, and does not require the fundraiser to have a good impression of the fundraiser.As Reagan's research demonstrates, this approach is powerful enough to overcome people's aversion to fundraisers.The new approach is to solicit donations from people in crowded public places (airports are their favorite).But before the donation request, they will first send a small gift to the fundraiser, a book (usually "Bhagavad Gita"), a magazine called "Return to Divinity" sponsored by the club, or use The most economical way is always a flower.The unwary passer-by would suddenly find a flower stuffed into one's hand or pinned to a garment, and never to be released again.Even if he made it clear he didn't want the flower, the solicitor would refuse to take it back, insisting, "No, it's a gift from us." Only then, when the principle of reciprocity had been quietly activated, Only members of the Krishna Society make requests for donations.This "give first, beg later" strategy has been a huge success.With the huge donations raised in this way, the Hale Krishna Society has 321 temples, shops, houses and real estate in the central area of ​​the United States and overseas. By the way, the Krishna Society doesn't use this method of fundraising much anymore.But it is worth noting that this is not because the principle of reciprocity itself is less effective than before, but because we have found ways to prevent members of the Krishna Society from using it.After being tricked once, many travelers have become wary of the robed Krishnas at airports and train stations.They either carefully routed themselves to avoid encountering these people, or prepared in advance to avoid their gifts.To combat growing vigilance, the Krishna Society told its members to dress more modernly when soliciting donations so that they would not be instantly recognizable (some even wore travel bags or with a box).Even the camouflage didn't help much, however.Because many people now know that in public places such as airports, you can't just accept things you didn't ask for.In addition, the management of the airport has taken a series of measures to alert us to the identity and intentions of the members of the Krishna Society.So now we can often see at the airport that the fundraising activities of Krishna members are limited to a certain area, and the airport will set up signs and broadcast to remind people that Krishna members are collecting donations here.This speaks volumes for the social value of the principle of reciprocity, as we choose to confront the Krishna Society to find ways to avoid them rather than withstand the pressure of its gifts.The principle of reciprocity that makes it work is too powerful, and the benefits to society too great, to be violated. Politics is another arena where the principle of reciprocity comes into play.The principle of reciprocity can be seen at every level of politics. · At the top level, politicians adopt the method of voting for each other or supporting each other, so that all kinds of weird offensive and defensive alliances are flooding the political arena.In order to repay some kind of benefits that the proposer once gave them, many elected representatives will even cast a vote that is completely inconsistent with their own positions.Many political analysts were surprised that Lyndon Johnson was able to get so many bills through Congress early in his presidency, as some members of Congress who were expected to strongly oppose the proposals also voted for them.After some careful analysis, political scholars found that this is not because Johnson is politically astute, but because he has helped many members of Congress during his years in charge of the Senate and House of Representatives.He was able to enact an astonishing number of bills in a short period of time after becoming president, because he took advantage of the favors owed by congressmen in the past.Interestingly, the problems encountered by President Carter in the early days of his tenure can also be explained by this principle.Democrats held majorities in both the House and Senate when Carter became president, but Carter struggled to get his bills approved in Congress.This happened because Carter came to the White House directly from outside Congress.During the campaign, he used his status as a Washington outsider to make a big fuss, claiming that he owed nothing to anyone in Washington.And his troubles with legislation have something to do with that, because it shows that no one in Washington owes him anything either. ·On ​​another level, both companies and individuals like to give gifts and help to law enforcement and legislative officials in various names, and at the same time, people have formulated a series of laws to restrict these behaviors.Both phenomena demonstrate the power of the principle of reciprocity that cannot be underestimated.Even legitimate political donations are less about supporting a favorite candidate than accumulating as much debt of favor as possible.Just look at the list of companies and organizations that have donated to both major candidates in important campaigns.If you're skeptical, or want to see real evidence that political donors expect something in return, listen to Charles Keating's unabashed confession.He was recently charged with defrauding the state of deposits and loans, among other crimes.Asked if there was any connection between the $1.3 million campaign funding he gave five senators and their subsequent confrontation with the federal regulator on his behalf, he said: "I want to say in the strongest possible voice, I certainly will. hope so." • At the popular level, local political organizations know that the number one way to keep their candidates in office is to ensure voters get all sorts of small favors.This method is still used today by the little people in many cities who cling to politicians.But the common people are not alone in exchanging political support for personal gain.During the 1922 presidential election, actress Sally was asked why the Democratic favorite, Jerry, would use her name. She replied: "Twenty years ago, I asked 10 friends to help me move. But he came alone." Of course, there are too many examples where the principle of reciprocity has shown its power in the business field. Here we can look at a few examples related to "free trials" that everyone is familiar with.Free trials have a long history as an effective marketing tool.The general approach is to provide a small amount of relevant products to potential customers, and explain that the purpose of doing so is to let them try to see if they like the product.From the manufacturer's point of view, it is certainly a legitimate desire for the public to test the quality of their wares.But the beauty of a free trial is that the item being tried for free is also a gift, and thus leverages the power of the reciprocity principle.When the person pushing the merchandise appears to be a jujitsu method, it unleashes the indebtedness-inducing natural force inherent in the gift itself.The best place to offer a free trial is a supermarket.There, patrons can often sample a morsel of cheese or a sliver of meat.Many people find it difficult to throw the toothpick and walk away after accepting the free food tasting offered by the smiling staff member.As a result, they tend to buy a little something, even if they don't particularly like the item.One such example is cited in Vance's book The Secret Persuader.Here's an example of an effective variation on the free-trial strategy: Workers at a supermarket in Indiana set out cheese and asked customers to cut off a slice and try it themselves.Using this method, one day in just a few hours, he sold 1,000 pounds of cheese. Amway uses another form of free trial strategy.Amway Corporation is a very fast growing company that manufactures and sells home and personal care products, all of which are sold using a nationwide community door-to-door network.The company, which just a few years ago was based in a basement, now generates $1.5 billion in annual sales.They do this by letting customers try out free samples from the Barge.The so-called "Bage" is composed of many Amway products, such as furniture polish, detergent, shampoo, spray deodorant, insecticide, glass cleaner and so on.Salesmen bring the items to customers' homes on a special tray or in plastic bags.The in-house Amway Career Handbook tells salesmen to leave the "Bag" at the customer's home "for 24, 48 or 72 hours, at no charge, and without burdening her with any thought. Just tell her you Want her to try these products... No one would turn down an offer." At the end of the trial period, the Amway salesman would go back to the customer's home and take an order for the items the customer was willing to buy.Since almost no one can use up a full bottle of "Bage" in such a short period of time, Amway's salesman will take the remaining products in the "Bage" to the next store or across the street. Another lead from , and start the process all over again.Many of Amway's salesmen have several "Bags" circulating in their sales territory at the same time. Of course, by this time, you and I know from research that those customers who have accepted and tried "Bage" have fallen into an embarrassing situation that has to be affected by the principle of reciprocity.Many customers feel indebted and buy from the salesman some of the items they have already tried.Amway certainly knew this was bound to happen.However, even in a company with such an excellent growth record as Amway, the effect of "Bage" is very sensational.In the reports written by dealers in various states to the head office, the extraordinary efficacy of "Bage" was recorded: when.But this does not mean that this method does not work, the key is how to apply creatively. It's unbelievable!We have never seen such an exciting moment.The speed at which merchandise is selling is astounding and we are only just getting started... As soon as the salespeople started using Bage, sales have grown phenomenally.This is one of the best sales strategies we have ever had... When we went to pick up the "Bag", on average, each customer bought half of the products... In a word, the effect is amazing!We've never seen such a strong reaction across the company. It seems that the dealers of Amway are completely conquered by the great power of "Bage" - they are ecstatic, but a little puzzled.And of course you and I shouldn't be surprised anymore. In fact, the principle of reciprocity also plays a role in many purely interpersonal relationships that have nothing to do with the exchange of money and commercial benefits.And this is my favorite example of how powerful the principle of reciprocity can be.European scientist Abel told a story about a German soldier in World War I.The mission of this soldier is to capture enemy soldiers for interrogation.Because trench warfare was being fought at the time, it was quite difficult for a large group of troops to pass through the frontier no-man's land where the two armies faced each other, but it was relatively easier for a soldier to crawl over quietly and sneak into the enemy's trench.During the Great War, both sides in the war had special forces in this area. They would periodically climb into the enemy's trenches to capture a soldier and bring him back for interrogation.The hero of our story has successfully performed such a mission many times before, and now he is off again.Once again he deftly crossed the area in front of the two armies' positions and unexpectedly appeared in front of a lone soldier in the enemy's trench.The soldier was eating when he was disarmed in a flash because he was defenseless.The terrified soldier had only one loaf of bread left in his hands.At this moment, he did what may be the most important thing in his life: he gave some bread to the German soldiers in front of him.The German soldier was so moved by his actions that he couldn't bear to take him away.Although he knew his superiors would be furious, he turned and left the trench, walked through no man's land, and returned to his camp empty-handed. The power of the reciprocity principle is also demonstrated by the story of a woman who saved her own life.In the above story, the captured soldier saved his life by giving favors, but the woman saved her own life by refusing favors.Diane is a resident of Jonestown, Guyana. In November 1978, when Jim, the leader of Jones City, called on the residents of the city to commit mass suicide, most of the people obediently drank a poisonous drink and died.But Diane refused Jones' order, and she fled Jones City and hid in the jungle.She said she did this because she had turned down Jones' help during a difficult time.Once, when she was sick, she didn't accept the special food Jones offered her because "I knew he would have me at my disposal as long as I accepted it. I didn't want to owe him anything." We mentioned earlier that the power of the principle of reciprocity lies in the fact that even a stranger, or an unlovable or undesirable person, will greatly enhance our ability to give us a small favor before making a request of our own. Possibility that we grant its request.However, the reason why this happens has to do with another characteristic of the principle of reciprocity, in addition to the enormous power inherent in the principle of reciprocity itself.Some people can make us feel indebted by doing us an unsolicited favor.Think about it, the principle of reciprocity only says that we should reciprocate the kindness of others, but it does not say that we have an obligation to reciprocate only when we actively ask for this kindness.For example, the Disabled Veterans of America report that typically only 18 percent of people donate when their solicitation letters are mailed out.But when they offered to include a small gift in the letter (such as a glued-back, personalized address label), the donation rate nearly doubled, to 35 percent.Of course, if we ask for some kind of favor ourselves, the sense of responsibility in return may be greater; but even if the favor is unsolicited, this sense of debt still exists. Once again we can find the origin of this phenomenon in the social meaning of the principle of reciprocity.The reason why the principle of reciprocity was established is to promote the development of reciprocal relationships so that people do not have to worry about losing anything when they initiate such relationships.If the principle of reciprocity serves this purpose, then the initial unsolicited benefit must create a sense of indebtedness on the receiving party.And since reciprocity confers great advantages on the culture that conceived it, we always do everything possible to ensure that the principle serves its purpose.Because, when the famous French anthropologist Marcel described the gift-giving process in human civilization and the social pressure associated with it, he said: giving is a duty, receiving is a duty, and repaying is also a duty. Although the sense of responsibility to reciprocate constitutes the essence of the principle of reciprocity, the reason why the principle of reciprocity is so easy to be exploited is because of the sense of responsibility to receive mentioned above.Accepting a sense of responsibility not only diminishes our ability to choose our benefactors, but puts that power in the hands of others.Just looking again at the few examples mentioned earlier, it becomes clear how this process works.First let's go back to Ragen's experiment.In this experiment, Joe's small favor doubled the number of lottery tickets the subject bought, but the small favor was not requested by the subject, but Joe voluntarily did it.None of these subjects refused Joe's Coke, because it was embarrassing to refuse Joe's Coke under the circumstances: first, Joe had already spent the money, and second, it was not too much to accept a bottle of Coke Especially since Joe had bought himself a bottle.It would be impolite to refuse such a thoughtful gesture from Joe.Even so, receiving the Coke created a sense of indebtedness in the subjects, which became clear when Joe announced that he wanted to sell everyone some lottery tickets.It is worth noting that the balance of power in this process is extremely uneven, because all real options are in the hands of Joe, who chooses the form of the favor initially given, and the form of returning the favor.Of course, it was said that the subjects had the right to say "no" to Joe's two proposals.But it is really not easy to do this.Because saying "no" at any point violates the inherent cultural power of the principle of reciprocity. In this light, even an unsolicited favor, once accepted, can create a sense of liability in us.The fundraising techniques employed by members of the Krishna Society have aptly illustrated this point.I have systematically observed the fund-raising tactics of Krishna Society members at airports and documented the reactions of those they target.The most common scenario is this: A passerby at the airport, presumably a businessman, is hurrying through a crowded crowd.A fund-raiser from the Krishna Society came up to him and handed him a flower.The man was taken aback and took the flower.But he reacted immediately, and Shi Guan returned the flower, saying that he didn't want it.The Krishna member replied that the flower was a gift from the Krishna Society and he could keep it...but if he could donate a little money, the Krishna Society could do more Good deeds, the club will be very grateful.At this time, the businessman said again, "I don't want this flower, please take it back." But the fundraiser refused again, "This is a gift from us, sir." From the businessman's It was obvious from his face that he was very conflicted.Should he keep the flowers and walk away without paying a penny, or should he yield to the pressure of the ingrained principle of reciprocity and hand over a little?Slowly, the inner struggle spread from his face to his whole body.His body deviates from the flower-giver, as if about to walk away at any time, but is pulled back by the force of the principle of reciprocity.His body leaned over again, but to no avail, he still couldn't move away.Finally, he nodded as if giving up, fumbled in his pocket, and took out a dollar or two.The other party accepted it politely.This time he can get away.So he walked away freely, still holding his "present" in his hand, until he saw a trash can, and he stepped forward and threw the flowers into it. I happened to witness a very funny scene at the airport once, so it was clear to the members of the Krishna Society that people didn't want their gifts.One day a few years ago, I was at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport observing a group of Krishna Society members who were collecting donations.I noticed that one member would frequently leave the area where they were collecting donations, and always come back with more flowers.When she went to get flowers again, I just decided to take a break.Since I had nowhere to go either, I followed her.It turned out she was taking a "garbage route."She walked a little further away from the fundraising area, picked up the flowers discarded by the fundraisers from one trash can after another, and brought them back to distribute to her companions (God knows how many times some of these flowers have been recycled), so that These flowers can again play a role in the reciprocity process.One of the things that struck me most about this incident is that most of the discarded flowers brought donations to Krishna Society members from those who threw them away.This is the essence of the principle of reciprocity: Even though a gift is so annoying that it is thrown away at the first opportunity, it can still be equally effective in the process of reciprocity. 除了克里希纳会社以外，很多其他的组织也认识到了这一点。也就是说，即使是没人想要的礼物，也会造成人们的负债感。我们每个人收到过多少次慈善机构寄来的小礼物，如个性化第地址标签、贺卡、钥匙扣以及随小礼物一起寄来的募捐信？仅去年一年我就收到过5次，其中两次是从伤残军人组织寄来的，其余的是教会学校和医院寄来的。所有这些募捐信都有一个共同的主线，那就是随信寄来的东西是该机构送给我的礼物，而我寄去的钱不会被他们看做是购买这些礼物的货款，只会被看做是对该机构的捐款。正如一封来自一个教会组织的信中所说的，他们并不希望我直接支付随信寄来的一包贺卡，但希望这些贺卡会起到“鼓励善举”的作用。除了很明显的税收上的好处之外，我们可以看出来为什么对这些组织来说，把这些东西看做是礼物而不是商品反而会更有利：强大的文化压力迫使我们必须回报我们所得到的礼物，即使这些礼物并不是我们想要的；但是，我们却没有任何压力去购买我们不想要的商品。 互惠原理的另一个特点就是人们可以利用它去谋取利益。虽然这一原理原本是为了促进合作伙伴间的平等交易，但荒谬的是，现在它却常常被用做促成不平等交易的工具。互惠原理简单地说就是对他人的某种行为，你要以一种类似的行为去回报。比如说，如果人家给了我们某种好处，我们就应该以另一种好处来报答他，而不能对此无动于衷，更不能以怨报德。由于相似的报答行为有很多种，所以在选择采取哪种行为上我们还是有相当大的灵活性的。别人最初给我们的小恩小惠会造成我们的负债感，以至于我们甘愿用更大的好处去报答他。正如我们前面所看到的，互惠原理能使我们选择接受什么样的恩惠，也能使我们选择用哪种方式去报答他人的恩惠，所以我们很容易被那些乐于使用互惠原理的人扯入一场不公平的交易中。 雷根的实验再一次提供了证据。在那个实验里，乔给其中一组的实验对象买了一瓶可乐作为最初的礼物，稍后要所有的实验对象以每张两毛五分钱的价钱买一些彩票。我一直没有说明的是，那个实验是在20世纪60年代末进行的，那时候一瓶可乐卖一毛钱。那些接受了乔价值一毛钱饮料的人平均每人买了两张彩票，有些人甚至买了7张。即使仅从平均数来看，我们也知道乔做成了一笔很划算的生意，他的投资回报率达到了500%，真是很可观呀。 但在乔的例子中，500%的回报也不过是区区5毛钱而已。互惠原理真能形成互换的两个好处间的巨大差异吗？在某些情况下，当然是不可能的。我的一个学生就有过这样的经历。直到今天，她对这件事都懊悔不已： 大约一年以前，有一天，我的车突然发动不着了。当我一筹莫展的时候，有一个人走了过来，并最终帮我发动了汽车。我向他道谢，他说不用客气。正当他要离开时，我对他说，不论什么时候，如果他需要帮忙的话，他都可以来找我。大概一个月以后，这个人出现在我的门外，他说他想借我的车用两小时，因为他的车正在修理。我本来是不太想把车借给他的。一是因为我的车很新，二是他看上去太年轻了。但我觉得我多少欠了他的情，所以最后还是把车借给他了。结果他把我的车全毁了。后来我才直到他还不到开车的年龄，而且也没有买保险。 到底是什么会让一个年轻聪明的女子把自己的新车借给一个完全陌生的人（而且还是一个年纪很小的人）？就因为一个月前他曾帮过她一个微不足道的小忙？或说得更笼统一点，为什么受人滴水之恩常常会使人涌泉相报呢？一个重要的原因就在于负债感所具有的那种令人不快的特征。我们大多数人都已发觉，负债感会让我们感到极不愉快。它重重地压在我们的心头，以至于我们必须要将它除去。找到负债感的根源并不难。因为互惠原理在人类社会的体系中至关重要，当我们背负着负债感时会感到极不舒服。如果我们不去报答别人最初给予的恩惠，互惠的过程就会嘎然而止，而我们的恩人将来也不大可能再去做同样的好事。因此，从儿时起，只要我们得到了他人的恩惠，就如坐针毡，浑身不自在。因此，仅这一个原因就能使我们心甘情愿地付出比我们所得到的多得多的东西。这样做的目的，仅仅是为了让自己逃脱负债感造成的心理重压。 使人们做出回报的原因还有另外一个，那就是如果一个人接受了人家的恩惠却不打算回报，那他在社会群体中会极不受欢迎。当然也有例外的时候，比如说由于受到条件或能力的限制，确实不能回报别人的恩情时，也能得到大家的谅解。但一般说来，人们对不遵守互惠原理的人普遍心存厌恶。人们小心翼翼地极力避免被贴上诸如招摇撞骗、忘恩负义这类的标签，所以为了避开这种恶名，即使是不公平的交换，有时候我们也愿意接受。 因此，内心的不安和来自外界的巨大羞辱给人们造成了极大的心理负担。当我们了解了这一点之后，就不难理解为什么人们付出的回报往往比得到的恩惠多得多。匹兹堡大学所做的一项实验表明，即使人们确实有某种需要，但如果感到自己难以回报，往往尽量避免请求别人的帮助。这一点都不奇怪，很简单，因为他们宁愿遭受物质上的损失，也不愿背负心理上的重担。 由于担心以后可能会有其他的损失，有时候人们拒绝他人的礼物和帮助。如果一个男人送给一个女人一件贵重的礼物，或是慷慨地为她晚上的消遣买单时，通常会让这个女人产生一种负债感，从而使她感觉极不舒服。即使像一杯饮料这种小恩小惠，也会让人产生负债感。 还有另一种方法可以利用互惠原理让他人答应自己的请求。与那种给大家一点好处然后就要求人家回报的方式相比，这种方法更为巧妙。从某些方面来看，有时候这种方法比那种直截了当的方法更能达到预期的效果。几年前，我就亲身经历了一件事，使我对这种方法的妙处有了第一手的认识。 有一天我正在街上走着，迎面过来一个十一二岁的男孩。他先做了一番自我介绍，然后问我要不要买几张周六晚年度童子军杂技表演的票，5块钱一张。我对这种事情向来没什么兴趣，因此婉言谢绝了。“哦，既然你不想买杂技表演的票，”他说，“那要不要买几块我们的大巧克力？只要一元钱一块哟。”我买了两块，同时立刻意识到事情有点不对劲，因为（a）我不喜欢巧克力；（b）我不喜欢随便花钱；（c）我站在那里，手里拿着两块他的巧克力；（d）他拿着我的两块钱走掉了。 为了搞清楚刚才到底发生了什么，我马上回办公室把我的助手们召集起来开会。在讨论的过程中，我们开始明白互惠原理是如何让我同意购买那个小男孩的巧克力的了。广义地讲，互惠原理说的是如果一个人对我们采取了某种行为，我们应该以类似的行为去回报。我们前面已经看到，这个原理产生的一个结果就是，我们有义务回报我们所得到的恩惠。然而，这个原理产生的另一个结果是，如果他人对我们做出了让步，我们也有义务做出让步。想到这个一点时，我们意识到那个童子军对我采用的就是这种手段。当他要我买一元钱一块的巧克力时，他已经做出了一个让步，因为与他让我买5块钱一张的票相比，这的确是一种让步。如果我要按照互惠原理的指示行事，我就应该做出一个让步。正如我们所看的，我的确做出了让步：当他的要求由大变小时，我由拒绝变成了顺从，即使我对他提供的两样东西都毫无兴趣。 这个经典的例子极好地说明了影响力的武器是怎样将力量赋予到一个请求之上的。我买了一件东西，并不是因为我多么地喜欢它，而是因为提出这个请求的方式运用了互惠原理。我喜不喜欢巧克力比不重要，这个童子军对我做出一个让步，咔哒，哗，我也就回应了一个让步。当然，相互退让的方法并不是在所有的情况下，对所有的人都有效，本书所谈到的影响力的武器没有一个会有如此强大的威力。然而，在我与童子军的交易中，这种方法已经让我莫名其妙地买了几块我不想要而且价格也贵得离谱的巧克力。 那么，为什么在对方的退让面前我会感到有压力呢？我们在互惠原理为社会带来的利益中再一次找到了答案。对任何团体来说，为了组织的利益，必须要让团体成员通力合作达到某个共同的目标。然而，人们总是带着一些难以被他人接受的条件参加各种社会活动。因此，为了达到有利于社会的合作，必须将最初那些令人抵触的愿望搁置一旁。只有通过妥协才能实现这种合作，而相互退让正是一种重要的妥协过程。 互惠原理可以通过两种方法促成彼此之间的让步。第一种方法显而易见，互惠原理给已经接受让步的人造成一种压力，迫使他采取类似的行动。第二种方法虽然没有那么明显，但却极为重要。跟前面我们提到过的接受了他人的好处、礼物或帮助的情形一样。这种“必须回报他人所做出的让步”的责任感促成了令全社会满意的结果，而这是通过保证任何追求这种结果的人都不被他人利用才得以实现的。毕竟，如果没有这种相互退让的社会责任感，谁会愿意第一个做出牺牲？谁也不想冒白白放弃一些东西却得不到任何回报的风险。但是，由于互惠原理的作用，当我们首先做出牺牲时，我们觉得很安全，因为我们知道对方有责任做出类似的牺牲来回报我们。 由于妥协过程受到互惠原理的控制，所以我们有可能将最初的让步当作一种有效的顺从技巧来使用。我们将这种简单的技巧称为“拒绝——退让”策略。假设你想让我答应你的一个请求，有一个方法可以帮你大大提高你的成功率：你先提出一个比较大的、极有可能会被我拒绝的请求，然后，当我拒绝了这个请求之后，你再提出一个小一些的、你真正感兴趣的请求。如果你能很有技巧地提出第二个请求，就会让我认为这第二个请求是你做出的一个让步，因而让我觉得自己也有义务做出相应的让步。我现在就有这样一个机会，即同意你的第二个请求。 那个童子军是不是就是用了这个方法才让我买了他的巧克力呢？他的要求从5块钱降到了一块钱，是不是为了卖掉他的巧克力而有意设下的圈套呢？作为一个至今仍不愿将自己第一枚童子军奖章丢掉的人，我真心希望事实不是这样。但不惯这个“先大后小”的请求顺序是不是有意设计的，它产生的效果都是一样的。正因为这个方法很有效，所以有些人为达到自己的目的，会故意使用这种“拒绝——退让”策略。首先让我们来看一看人们是怎样运用这个策略，把它变成一种有效的让顺从的工具的；然后我们再举几个这方面的例子，最后我们来分析一下这个技巧所具有的几个鲜为人知的特点，正是这个几个特点使它成为一种被普遍使用的、让人顺从的策略。 记得在遇到那个童子军之后，我将我的助手们召集在一起，想要搞清楚到底发生了什么事情。我们设计了一个实验来测试“拒绝——退让”策略的有效性。这个实验的目的主要有两个。首先，我们想知道这个策略对除我之外的其他人是否也同样有效。虽然今天早些时候这个策略的确在我身上起了作用，但我从来都是一个容易上当受骗的人，所以我们依旧提出了这个问题。“拒绝——退让”策略能否在足够多的人身上发挥作用，从而成为一种普遍有效的让人顺从的武器呢？如果回答是肯定的，那么这种策略就应该引起我们足够的注意。 实验的第二个目的是要确定这个策略作为一种让人顺从的手段，它到底有多大的杀伤力，它究竟能否让人们答应一个确实有分量的请求。如果我们对这个策略生效的原因分析得正确的话，那么这第二个请求就不必很小，而只要比前一个小一点就可以了。我们的猜测是，当提出请求的人从一个较大的请求转换到一个较小的请求的时候，成功的关键就在于这个举动要使被请求者感觉到是一种让步。所以即使第二个请求实际上是一个很大的请求，但只要它比第一个请求小，这个策略就会起作用。 经过一番周密的思考，我们决定把这个策略用到一个我们认为大多数人都不会答应的请求上。我们假扮成县里青年咨询计划部门的工作人员，到大学校园里去问大学生们是否愿意陪一群少年犯去参观动物园。要与一群年龄各异的少年犯一起在公共场所呆上好几个小时，而且也没有任何报酬，这对于大学生们来说当然是没有什么吸引力的。结果也正像我们所预料的那样，绝大部分人（83%）都拒绝了这个请求。但当我们用一种不同的方式对同一所学校的学生提出这个问题时，却得到了截然不同的结果。在我们邀请他们作为义务管教员去动物园之前，我们先提出了一个更大的请求：在至少两年的时间里，每周花2个小时的时间为少年犯们提供咨询服务。当然所有的人都拒绝了那个极端的请求。在他们拒绝了那个请求之后，我们才提出了这个小一点的、参观动物园的请求。这一次，由于参观动物园的请求是以让步的形式提出来的，我们的成功率明显地提高了，答应去动物园的学生人数是原来的3倍。 可以肯定的是，如果某种策略可以把人们答应一个实质性请求的比率变成原来的3倍，人们是决不会把这个策略束之高阁的。例如，工会在谈判时就常常采用这个方法。他们总是先提出连他们自己都不奢望达到的极端要求，然后以这个要求为起点，做出一系列让步，最终达到让对方做出真正的让步的目的。由此看来，起点越高，这个过程就越有效，因为“让步”的空间大。但这个结论只在一定的范围内有效。以色列巴依兰大学所做的一项关于“拒绝——退让”策略的研究表明，如果最初提出的请求太极端太无理，这个策略就会产生相反的效果。因为在这种情况下，最初提出极端要求的一方会被对方认为是没有诚意。这样一来，以后的退让就不会被看做是真诚的让步，因此也就不能令对方妥协了。因此，真正的谈判高手最初提出的条件虽然都很夸张，但从来不会特别离谱。其高明之处在于，他们所提的条件既为以后的让步留出足够的余地，又能得到一个令人满意的最终结果。 看起来，一些成功的电视节目制作人如特兰特和加里，似乎都是个中高手。在《电视指南》的作者迪克所做的一次真实采访中，两人都承认“会故意在剧本中插入一些审查员肯定会砍掉的台词”，因为只有这样他们才能将他们希望的对白加进来。在这一点上，马歇尔表现得特别主动。看看下面摘自罗素文章中的一段文字就知道了。 但是马歇尔……他不仅承认了他的把戏……看起来他酷爱此道。例如，他曾拍摄过一部收视率排在前几名的电视连续剧《拉维恩和雪莉》。他讲述了拍摄时的一个小插曲。他说：“其中一个场景是斯奎格冲出公寓时，刚好碰见楼上的几个女孩。他说：'在我欲望消失前，你们动作能不能快点？'其实原来剧本中的台词比这句话还要露骨，因为我们知道审查剧本的人肯定会把它删掉。他们确实这么做了。于是我们故作无辜地提出，嗯，那说'在我欲望消失前'怎么样？他们回答说'可以。'有时候你就得让步。” 在电视连续剧《快乐日子》中，被审查最多的是“处女”这个词。“那一次”，马歇尔说，“我知道我们遇到麻烦了。所以我们把这个词用了7次，希望他们砍掉6次，能给我们留一次。这一招还真管用。对'怀孕'这个词我们也采用了这个办法……” 当我调查上门推销这种销售方式时，我还见识到了另一种形式的“拒绝——退让”策略。这些公司采用的是未加设计、更多地靠临场发挥的方法。当然，对挨家挨户推销商品的销售人员来说，他们最主要的目标是把东西卖出去。然而，在我所调查过的那些公司中，它们的培训方案中都强调要达到第二重要的目标，那就是从潜在客户那里获取推荐名单，包括朋友、亲戚或邻居的名字。上门推销的人如果能够说出一个“推荐”他们来访的熟人的名字，他们的成功率会明显地提高，其原因我们将在第5章中加以讨论。 当我假装在这些公司接受销售培训时，从来没有人告诉，我应该故意使人们拒绝购买我的商品，以便能退一步去向他们索取推荐名单。然而有几家公司指出，如果顾客拒绝购买我的东西，我要抓住这个机会让他来推荐一些他朋友的名字：“既然目前你不需要这一套精美的百科全书，那能不能麻烦你给我几个熟人的名字？对他们来说，也许正是一个很好的机会呢。”很多人本来是不愿意让朋友受这个罪去面对这种强势销售的，但由于这个请求是作为一个让步提出来的，很多人碍于情面都提供了几个朋友的名字。 到目前为止，我们已经讨论了“拒绝——退让”策略成功的一个原因，就是因为它运用了互惠原理。这个“先大后小”的策略能够成功还有几个原因。第一个与我们在第1章中将过的认知对比原理有关。认知对比原理说明的一种倾向是，一个人在刚买了一套西装之后会花更多的钱去买毛衣。因为在刚刚适应了一件大件商品昂贵的价格后，相比之下，小件商品原本不高的价格当然会显得更便宜。同样，“先大后小”这种提出请求的顺序也运用了认知对比原理，因此，与前面那个大一些的请求相比，后来提出的比较小的请求也就显得更小了。比如说，假设我想向你借5块钱，那我可以先找你借10块钱。这样做的好处是，如果你拒绝了，我再提出借5块钱，这样就同时运用了互惠原理和对比原理的力量。我借5块钱的要求不但会被看做是一个理应得到的让步，而且与直接提出借5块钱的要求相比，也会使这个要求显得不是太高。 互惠原理和认知对比原理结合在一起就会产生一种可怕的力量。“拒绝——退让”策略正是这两者相结合的产物，因此它产生的效果十分惊人。在我看来，唯有这个理论才能对当代最令人困惑的政治事件，也就是闯入民主党全国委员会在水门大厦的办公室，最终导致尼克松总统下台的“水门事件”，做出一个合理的解释。这个行动的参与者之一，杰布，在听到闯入水门大厦的盗贼被抓获的消息之后，第一个反应就是觉得难以置信，“我们怎么会愚蠢到这个地步？”的确，怎么会呢？ 为了了解尼克松政府采取的破门而入的行动有多么荒唐，有必要回顾一下下面这几个事实： ·这个行动是戈登的注意。利迪负责为“总统竞选连作委员会”搜集情报。利迪在委员会的高层人士中素有“古怪”的名声，人们一向怀疑他的可靠性和判断力。 ·利迪的计划耗资巨大，要25万美元的现款。 ·3月底，当利迪的提议在CRP主任约翰和他的助手马哥伍德和弗雷德里克参加的会议上获得批准时，正是尼克松在11月当选前景最为明朗的时候。埃德蒙，民意调查表明唯一有可能与尼克松一决雌雄的公开宣布参加竞选的人，在初选中表现极差。而看上去最容易击败的对手，乔治，则极有可能会得到他的党内提名。看来，共和党的胜利已经是唾手可得了。 ·这个破门计划执行起来风险也很高。它需要10个人的参与，并且每一个人都要谨慎行事。 ·他们打算给民主党全国委员会主席劳伦斯的办公室装上窃听器。这个办公室中并没有什么足以对现任总统造成危害的情报。而且看来这种资料根本就不存在，除非现任政府自己做出什么蠢事。 尽管上述诸多事实都提出了明显的忠告，但这个由一个判断力有问题的人提出来的花钱多、风险大、毫无意义而且很有可能带来灾难的计划却得到了批准。像米歇尔和马哥伍德这么聪明的人怎么会干出这种蠢事呢？答案也许就存在于一个很少被提及的事实之中：这个被批准的耗资25万美元的计划并不是利迪提出来的第一个计划。实际上，在此之前他还提出过两个计划，而现在这个计划正是在对前两个计划做出巨大让步之后才被批准的。他的第一个计划是两个月之前在与米歇尔、马格拉德和约翰的一次碰头会上提出来。那个计划要耗资100万美元，包括一架有特别装备的联络追踪飞机，一条载有“高级应召女郎”用来讹诈民主党政客的游艇，以及一支执行破门闯入和绑架抢劫行动的小分队，这还不包括给水门大厦安装窃听器。一周之后，利迪又向这群人提出了第二个计划，删掉了原计划中的某些方案并把费用降低到了50万。当这两个计划都被米歇尔否定了以后，利迪才向米歇尔、马哥伍德和弗雷德里克提出了这个“精简”的25万美元的计划。这个计划仍旧愚不可及，但与前两个计划相比要好的多，因此获得了批准。 这样看来，约翰米歇尔这个冷酷精明的政客是不是也和我这个容易上当的傻瓜一样，在同样的策略面前栽了跟头呢？我们都被卷入了一场不合算的交易中——只不过我的对手是一个兜售巧克力的童子军，而他的对手是一个兜售政治灾难的家伙。 大多数水门事件的调查者认为，杰布的证词对那次批准利迪计划的重要会议做了最真实的描述。从他的证词中我们可以找到一些线索。首先，马格拉德说“没有谁特别赞成这个计划”，但是，“在看过最初的100万这个天文数字后，我们想25万也许还可以接受……我们不想让他空手而归。”米歇尔觉得“我们应该给利迪一点什么……因此批准了这个计划，好像在说，'好吧，让我们给他25万，看他能搞出什么名堂来。'” 与利迪最初的极端要求相比，“25万美元”看起来变成了补偿他所做出的让步的一种手段。马哥伍德事后的回忆表明，利迪所采用的方法是我所见过的最简洁的“拒绝——退让”策略。“如果他一开始就跟我们说，'我有一个闯入劳伦斯的办公室安装窃听器的计划'，我们会毫不犹豫地拒绝他。但他却先提出了一套复杂的包括应召女郎、绑架、抢劫、阴谋破坏、窃听的庞大计划……他说他要一整块面包，而实际上给他一半或是1/4他就心满意足了”。 还有一点也对我们很有启示，那就是虽然弗雷德里克最后顺从了他上司的决定，但他却是三个人中唯一直接表示反对这个计划的人。在他看来这是常识，“这样做风险太大，不值得。”他一定觉得奇怪，为什么他的同事米歇尔与马哥伍德跟他的观点不一样。当然，拉如可能与另外两个人有很多的不同之处，从而导致了他们对利迪的计划也有不同的看法。但有一个事实却是明摆着的，那就是在这三个人中，只有拉如没有参加过前两次会议，没有听利迪介绍他那两个更宏伟的计划。也许正因为如此，拉如才没有像其他人一样受到互惠原理和对比原理的双重影响，才能能够对荒唐透顶的第三个计划做出可观的评价。 之前我们曾经说过，“拒绝——退让”策略之所以有效，除了互惠原理之外，还有其他一些因素也在起作用。我们已经讨论过第一个因素，也就是认知对比原理。但这个策略还有另外一个优势，它不同于前面讲到的那些因素，它并不是一则心理学原理，而仅仅与提出的两个请求的顺序有关。让我们再一次假设我想向你借5块钱。我先开口向你借10块钱，这样做不会有任何过错。如果你同意了，我借到了两倍的钱；如果你拒绝了也没有关系，我还可以退一步向你借5块钱，因为这才是我最初的目的。而且这一次我成功的几率会大大增加，因为互惠原理和对比原理都会助我一臂之力。因此无论哪一种情况都是对我有利的。就像仍一枚硬币，不管是正面向上还是反面向上，都是我赢，而你却输定了。 零售商在销售那些高档商品时就毫不掩饰地使用了这种“先大后小”的请求顺序。他们总是先带顾客去看那些最奢侈的商品，如果顾客买了这些东西，商店自然会大赚一笔；即使顾客不想买，他们还可以让顾客去看另一个价值比较合理的商品。《消费者报告》转载了《销售管理》上的一篇报道，就为这种方法的有效性提供了证据： 如果你是个卖台球桌的人，你会为哪一种台球桌做广告呢，是329块钱的，还是3000块钱的？或许你想为价钱低的那一款做宣传，但希望顾客来时会买价格比较高的那一款。但宾士城公司新来的市场推广经理沃伦指出，这种做法可能是错误的。为证明他的看法，凯利拿出一组一家很具代表性的商店的销售数据：在第一个星期，顾客们先被带去看比较便宜的商品，然后销售人员怂恿他们考虑买价格更贵一些的商品——传统的卖高策略……那个星期的平均销售额是550元……但是，在第二星期，顾客们……不管他们想要哪一种台球桌，总是先被带去看3000块钱一张的那种……然后再去看价钱和质量都越来越低的其他型号的台球桌。结果平均销售额超过了1000元。 有利就有弊，既然“拒绝——退让”策略的效果是如此显著，那它也可能会有一些明显的弊端。比如说，这个策略的受害者可能会因为被迫做出妥协而怀恨在心。为了发泄心中的怨恨，他们可能会拒绝履行自己口头做出的承诺，也可能会对那个工于心计使用“拒绝——退让”策略的人失去信任，决定以后不再和他打交道。如果这些情况时有发生，那么那些想使用“拒绝——退让”策略的人就会三思而后行。然而研究表明，随着“拒绝——退让”策略的一再使用，受害者做出上述反应的次数不但没有增加，反而还有所减少！在我们试着搞清楚其中的原因之前，先让我们看几组证据。 加拿大发表的一项实验结果表明了“拒绝——退让”策略的受害者是否会如约满足策略使用者提出来的第二个请求。此外，实验结果还表明了他们是否会像自己所承诺的那样去履行他们的职责。跟往常一样，研究人员先提出一个更大的请求（为社区一家心理健康中心每周工作2小时，而且至少要坚持两年），然后再提出那个小一点的请求（每天为该中心无偿工作2小时），结果人们口头答应这个较小请求的比率（76%）比单独提出该请求时的比率高很多（29%）。然而，更重要的问题是在那些答应了这个请求的志愿者中，到底有多少人会真正去这家心理健康中心工作呢？ 为了验证“拒绝——退让”策略再一次发挥出神奇的力量，使真正来工作的比例大大提高（85%对50%）。 为了验证“拒绝——退让”策略的受害者是否因为感到受人利用，而拒绝策略使用者提出的任何进一步的请求，心理学家做了另外一个实验。在这个实验中，研究人员要求大学生们在学校的献血活动