Some may say that this is the best time of the year; Girl Scout cookie season. It’s during this time of the year that we have adorable little girls in adorable outfits asking us if we would like to buy a box (or ten) of Girl Scout cookies. Most recently I encounter a few girls selling cookies in the Panhellenic Building. While I haven’t been able to deny them any time before, I walked into the building determined I did not need to buy any. I figured this time I would be able to turn them down. I was in a hurry and all I had was my keys. When they asked if I would like to buy any, I turned them down, saying I had already bought some and I didn’t have any money on me. They responded with “we take card payments.” I told them know that I didn’t have my card. And then, unexpectedly, they came back with “we take Venmo” and bam. I left the building that night with yet another box of Girl Scout cookies.

Ryan Gosling is me. 

Perloff chapter 1, Introduction to Persuasion, does as it say and introduces us to the idea of persuasion. Perloff defines persuasion in this way; “a symbolic process in which communicators try to convince other people to change their attitudes or behaviors regarding an issue through the transmission of a messages in an atmosphere of free choice.” (Perloff, 17) Perloff’s is different than others as it contains components that other definitions of persuasion do not. I would like to focus on the end of the definition when Perloff mentions free choice. This gives us the idea that there is free choice, but what is it when there is not free choice? That is coercion. When it comes to free choice, Perloff claims that “self-persuasion is the key to successful influence.” (Perloff, 22) Essentially Perloff tells us that others can only set us up for persuasion, but we are the ones who ultimately persuade ourselves. Coercion on the other hand “employs force.” (Perloff, 22) It is important to understand that persuasion is not coercion and vice versa. To simplify it, according to Perloff, persuasion=free choice and coercion=force.

In my example regarding the sweet girls selling me Girl Scout cookies, I was sure they had coerced me into buying them. They gave me 3 options of purchase, the last one being one I could not, for whatever reason say no too. But according to Perloff, this is persuasion in its finest and simplest form. In the situation, I was in I completely and fully had the opportunity to say no to purchasing cookies. There was no force and no threat to me had I not bought cookies. But, their offers and smiles persuaded me too, even when that was not my intention. This was fully my choice. As Perloff says, we persuade ourselves. I could have said no, but instead could not resist to deny the cute little girls and felt a sense of guilt as I thought about saying no. So, in this example of persuasion, we are able to see exactly what Perloff means by free choice, persuasion vs. coercion, and the idea that we persuade ourselves.

Have you ever had a fight with one of your parents? For me, I think back to the days of middle school when my mom and I barley went a day without getting into an argument of some sort. Sometimes I believed my mom and I would argue just for the sake that each of us wanted to be right. Now as I’m a senior in college we rarely argue and if we do, I handle it much more like an adult which makes these arguments a lot smoother. In general, I remember my mom saying no to something that I had asked of her, from her, or to her and thinking “she just says no to say no.” As I’ve gotten older and watch my parents argue with and parent my brother, who’s now a senior in high school, I see the consistency that they once held with me. My brother will ask to do something that maybe they don’t totally disagree with, but if they’ve said no before, most of the time the answer is still no. Don’t get me wrong, I believe there are reasons for the “no” phenomenon children see in their parents that regard the safety and health of the child, etc. But it’s also interesting to consider the possibility of other things that influence the way parents parent their children.

In our book “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion” by Robert Cialdini, in chapter three Cialdini addresses commitment and consistency. In order to help us better understand what consistency and commitment is, Cialdini mentions towards the beginning of this chapter is that “it is important to recognize that in most circumstances consistency is valued and adaptive.” which he says makes it “so powerful a motive…” (Cialdini, 60) Cialdini discusses in this chapter the human nature that is behind us being consistent and upholding commitment as it is part of what stems our everyday behavior. Levels of high and low consistency are related to a certain type of person, either being looked down upon with low levels of consistency, or looked to as a noble person with someone who has high levels of consistency. Cialdini points out that “because it is so typically in our best interests to be consistent, we easily fall into the habit of being automatically so, even in situations where it is not the sensible way to be.” (Cialdini, 60) Cialdini says that consistency offers a “shortcut” and that “we need only believe say, or do whatever is consistent with our earlier decision.” (Cialdini, 61)

When considering the experiences, I have had with my parents and watching them parent my brother, I can see the ways in which they have chosen to be consistent with the rules they enforced, even if they may differ on those rules or feel as though there is no reason to argue about it. The shortcut being consistent can provide can sometimes be the easy way to ease a situation that may require more thought or effort or even result in an argument should they engage in the conversation. As Cialdini says, it is a human nature to follow through with being consistent. If my parents were not to be consistent after they chose a previous decision there was the chance that as their children we would see the “undesirable personality trait….whose beliefs, words, and deeds don’t match (and) may be seen as “indecisive confused, two-faced…” (Cialdini, 60) Being consistent as a parent can often be in the best interest of the child, but also relates directly back to the ideas Cialdini points out in this chapter when it comes to consistency and commitment.

Jane the Virgin is a TV series about a girl, Jane, who was accidentally artificially inseminated. This show is about Jane’s relationship with her family, her ex-boyfriend, and the father of her child. I have attached a photo below of a scene in an episode of Jane the Virgin. The father of Janes baby, Rafael, offers Jane’s ex-boyfriend the opportunity to become the godfather of Jane and Rafael’s baby. While this may sound silly, Michael, the ex-boyfriend had been fighting to be a part of Janes life and he had just rescued their baby. While Rafael does not like Michael, in this time of great appreciation for what Michael does for their baby, Rafael feels inclined to reciprocate the grand gesture. While this example may be unrealistic, we still see the idea of reciprocity behind Rafael’s action towards Michael.

In the book Influence by Robert Cialdini, chapter two addresses reciprocation. Cialdini starts this chapter by giving us an example of what he calls “the rule for reciprocation. This rule says that we should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided us.” (Cialdini, 17) This rule is a basis for this chapter and is exemplified many ways as Cialdini goes into detail regarding reciprocity. An important idea of the reciprocity rule is that after the act presented by someone “we are obligated to the future repayment of favors, gifts, invitations, and the like.” (Cialdini, 17-18) The rule of reciprocity is one that has been embedded in us and aligns with our human nature. Cialdini goes into the idea that even the liking of someone does not affect reciprocity negatively when it comes to favors and reciprocation. After an experiment explained in chapter two about the idea of liking Cialdini says that “the rule for reciprocity was so strong that it simply overwhelmed the influence of a factor-liking for the requester- that normally affects the decision to comply.” (Cialdini, 21)

Through the Jane the Virgin example given in the first paragraph, I explain the way the rule of reciprocity is seen in this specific episode. We can directly see what Cialdini would describe as reciprocity as Rafael repays Michael for what he provided them with, with an outstanding honor for his outstanding act of heroism. There was a certain amount of obligation to repay him and this was a way he felt he could do so. As mentioned in the Cialdini chapter, the rule of reciprocity also includes the obligation we feel to return whatever was received. I also mentioned that Rafael does not like Michael. They have both been fighting over Jane’s love and in turn have turned into enemies in a sense. But, in this scene we see Rafael asking Michael to be the godfather, despite their issues. This also directly relates to what was mentioned in the Cialdini chapter being that the urge to reciprocate can be extremely effective even when we do not like someone. Not liking someone does not change the way we see the rule of reciprocity. The episode of Jane the Virgin while fictional still displays the very real ideas that we see every day in society through the rule of reciprocity.