5. The Content, Techniques and Means of the Various Kinds of Influence

5.1. Destructive Psychological Influence

Psychological influence can be destructive to a person: it can deprive someone of the ability to choose, take responsibility, plan, rely on their own efforts, and create something new. Such influence is called destructive.Destructive influence– is influence that involves interacting with partners on unequal terms, treating other people as objects to be acted upon who can be influenced by force or cunning solely to achieve one's own gain. Restricting personal freedom and undermining a person's dignity destroys relationships and impairs the development of the personality. Depending on whether the pressure exerted on another person is open or covert, varieties of destructive influence can be distinguished:

• force-based;

• manipulative.

Force-based Psychological Influence

Force-based psychological influence has been given various names in the work of contemporary authors: «imperative» [Kovalyov, 1987]; «domination» [Dotsenko, 1996].

Force-based influence – is open, unconcealed, imperative influence aimed at achieving one's own goals while disregarding the interests and intentions of the other person.

A distinctive feature of this kind of influence is that it operates from a position of force, which is why some contemporary authors call this type of influence «barbarian», primitive, close to physical force, and unworthy of a civilized person [Sidorenko, 2001].

Force-based influence can be effective in the short term: you make someone do something, you get what you wanted. In the long run, however, it is ineffective, since it gradually destroys the undertaking, working relationships, and personal integrity. Force-based influence can be justified only in extreme cases – emergency situations that threaten a person's life and safety (fire, flood, and so on).

The methodsof force-based psychological influence are:

• attack;

• coercion.

Attack means that the other person is perceived as prey or asan obstacle that might prevent the prey from being caught and must therefore be removed or neutralized.

Coercion means that the other person is perceived as a tool to be used, or asan obstacle that can be turned into a tool.

Attack– is an assault, a sudden, aggressive action against another person or group of people. It is a manifestation of psychological aggression or warfare. In a psychological attack, the only instruments used are psychological means–verbal, nonverbal, and paralinguistic.Psychological attack– is, above all,a verbal attack. The words used by the attacker are addressed not to the target's cognitive side but to their emotional side. It is a sharp, crushing blow delivered through words, one that shakes a person's entire inner being. An attack makes the partner suffer. The blow disturbs a person's peace of mind for a more or less lengthy period of time.

Forms of psychological attack:

1. Impulsive – an irrational, unintentional action caused by the urge to relieve tension and discharge aggressive impulses(«I lost my temper»).

2. Deliberate – a conscious and controlled action intended to influence another person's emotional state, thoughts, intentions, or actions(«This will frighten him and make him change his behaviour».)

3. Total – an action initially carried out under the influence of an impulse, then continued in order to achieve a specific goal(«I lost my temper, and that frightened him and made him change his tactics»).

Means of psychological attack:

1. Destructive criticism;

2. Destructive statements;

3. Destructive advice.

Destructive criticism ‑ is:

• disparaging or insulting judgments about a person's character («You find things like this hard»; «Nobody but you could have done this job so badly»);

• crude, aggressive condemnation, denigration, or ridicule of the person's actions and deeds, of people, communities, ideas, values, or material objects that matter to them, and so on («I'm amazed by your passion for cheap things»; «You're always surrounding yourself with shady people»);

• rhetorical questions aimed at exposing and «correcting» shortcomings («How can you dress so ridiculously?» «Have you completely lost your mind?»).

The destructiveness of this kind of criticism lies in the fact that it does not let a person «save face», it diverts their energy into fighting the negative emotions that arise, and it robs them of self-confidence. In form, destructive criticism is often indistinguishable from suggestive formulas: «You are an irresponsible person». However, the initiator of the influence consciously aims to «improve» the behaviour of the target of the influence (while unconsciously aiming to relieve their own annoyance and anger, display power, or take revenge). They by no means intend to reinforce and entrench the very behaviour patterns that their chosen formulas describe. Characteristically, reinforcing negative behaviour patterns is one of the most destructive and paradoxical effects of destructive criticism. It is also known that in formulas used for suggestion and autogenic training, positive wording is persistently preferred over the negation of negative wording (for example, the formula «I am calm» is preferable to the formula «I am not anxious»).

Destructive statements– are:

• mentions and reminders of objective facts of a person's biography that they cannot change and most often could not have influenced (national, social, or racial background; urban or rural origin; parents' occupation; unlawful conduct by a family member; hereditary or chronic illness; natural build; facial features, and so on). («Well, of course, you're from a small town»; «When you get angry, for some reason I remember your brother, who ended up somewhere not so far away».)

• «friendly», «harmless» references and allusions to mistakes, blunders, and violations the target committed in the past; joking mentions of the target's «old sins» or personal secrets («I often remember how the whole department scrambled to fix your mistake»).

Destructive statements can be made deliberately, to provoke a negative reaction from the partner, or out of bewilderment, thoughtlessness, tactlessness, or under the influence of an impulse. The effect is the same in every case: the target experiences a state of confusion, helplessness, and bewilderment.

Destructive advice– is:

• unsolicited recommendations and suggestions for changing a position, mode of behaviour, and so on.

• peremptory instructions, orders, and directives not implied by the partners' social or working relationship.

E. V. Sidorenko, in her work, gives an example of an incident that happened to her and her American colleague, illustrating how common destructive advice is in our everyday lives and its negative consequences.

«Once, an American colleague of mine, Shelby Morgan, told me: «I'm not always open to other people's criticism and advice. Often I want peace and wholeness, and sometimes I can feel something important taking shape inside me. Why would I want someone else's intervention at that moment?» Once Shelby came to visit me at my dacha with her daughter Sarah. The girl was five years old. The three of us were walking along the platform, and Sarah's sneaker laces were untied. It had just rained. Before our eyes, the snow-white laces were turning into dirty, wet little tails. Neither Shelby nor Sarah paid any attention to this. Having learned from experience with my American friend, I too kept quiet and kept my possible comments to myself. But every woman who passed us was sure to say something like: «Tie the child's shoelaces! Look how they're flopping around!» Sensing that Shelby was a foreigner, they would then turn to me: «Tell her…» and so on. I answered everyone with: «Thank you» and walked on. After the third such remark, Shelby couldn't take it anymore: «Why do we have to walk around with our laces tied? Why does everyone around here know better than me what I should do, and try to make me live differently? Why does everyone in Russia keep giving me advice? This is a violation of my rights!» [Sidorenko, 2002, pp. 44 - 45].

Unsolicited advice belongs among the means of psychological attack, because it violates a person's rights and challenges their ability to decide for themselves which questions to ask and which to avoid, what to pay attention to, what decisions to make, and how to learn from their own mistakes.

Another method of force-based influence – coercion.

Coercion – is compelling (impelling) a person to perform certain actions by means of threats (overt or implied) or deprivation.

Coercion is only possible if the person applying it genuinely has the means to carry out the threats, that is, has the authority to deprive the target of certain benefits or to change the conditions of their life and work. Such means can be called controlling. By coercing, the initiator threatens to use their controlling means in order to obtain the desired behaviour from the target.

Forms of coercion:

1. Announcing strictly fixed deadlines or methods for completing work without any explanation or justification: «You must check your calculations three times, that's my golden rule».

2. Imposing non-negotiable prohibitions and restrictions: «You have no right to approach the client while I'm negotiating with them, even if it's a personal acquaintance of yours».

3. Intimidation with possible consequences: «Those who are about to object to me right now will be cleaning up the mess for a long time afterward».

4. Threat of punishment, in its crudest forms – physical violence: «Either you get this done by Tuesday, or you're fired».

Coercion – is a method of influence that is limited in its possible scope of application, since the initiator of the influence must have levers of non-psychological pressure over the target. If both partners have such levers, they may start «testing each other's strength». Such an interaction can be called an open contest of force. The winner is whoever's threats prove more effective.

In everyday life, especially in business, we often encounter civilized forms of coercion. We are compelled to follow the terms of a contract, an adopted decision, an official instruction, the rules of politeness, and so on. In all these cases, we voluntarily agree that the terms of the contract, the decision, and so on will compel us to act accordingly. What truly coerces us is a prohibition, decision, restriction, punishment, and so on that was not agreed with us in advance and does not have the status of a specific agreement.

Manipulative Influence

Unlike force-based influence, manipulative influence – is disguised pressure. It involves the use not of direct force, but of deception, cunning, provocation, and intrigue. The manipulator's task – is to compel a person to do something needed, but in such a way that the person feels they made the decision themselves, not under threat of punishment, but of their own free will.

Manipulation – is the deliberate and covert inducement of another person to experience certain states, make decisions, and perform actions necessary for the initiator to achieve their own goals.

Like the initiator of force-based influence, the manipulator also treats other people as objects: as tools, obstacles, or prey.However, the manipulator takes into account that people ‑ are «things of a special kind», to which sophisticated, elaborate means of influence must be applied.

To describe the varieties of manipulative influence, E. V. Sidorenko uses the metaphor of the balalaika and the harp. To the manipulator, other people are – balalaikas and harps. And the manipulator, accordingly, is a balalaika player or a harpist. A balalaika, as is well known, has three strings, while a harp has – several dozen. The balalaika-manipulator sees only three strings in the other person, whoever they may be – just as in a balalaika. For example, vanity, greed, and fear. The harp-manipulator picks out each person's individual strings and plays them with precision. These might be curiosity, envy, a desire for independence, a need to dominate, a wish to be attractive to the opposite sex, and so on.

To pluck the strings of the soul, a manipulator may use either a «pinch from above», or a«pinch from below».A pinch – is touching a sensitive string

EXAMPLE

A manipulator can also use universal pinches, which paradoxically act from above and below at the same time. What matters here is that the person cannot tell whether they have been flattered or reproached for something.

Universal pinches:

- Did you get rich or something?

- Did you lose all your money or something?

- You're a person without any hang-ups…

Universal pinches often contain internal contradictions, two opposing vectors, and the target is free to choose which one to react to. Either way, the manipulator achieves their goal – the person is emotionally affected.

Playing on the «strings of the soul» of another person requires the manipulator to study and use the ideas (stereotypes, attitudes, beliefs, rules) to which the target is most attached. The stronger a person's identification with their ideas and principles, and the less aware they are of them, the easier it is to make them an object of manipulation.

Ideas (Stereotypes, Attitudes, Beliefs) That Can Make a Person an Object of Manipulation

Albert Ellis, the author of rational emotive therapy, proposed that people's behaviour is caused by individual ways of evaluating events. Many of these are irrational, not corresponding to reality. They stem from various traumas and emotional disturbances a person has experienced.Irrational ideas– are ourexpectationsabout what otherpeople expectof us, and our expectations aboutwhat otherpeople andthe world as a wholeought to be like.

What matters is that these are expectations we firmly believe in, so when they are not met, it triggers a surge of emotion in us – usually negative.

Criteria for whetherideas areirrational:

1) they can neither be confirmed nor refuted;

2) they provoke unpleasant feelings whose intensity greatly exceeds the intensity of the triggering event (panic instead of mild concern, anguish instead of fleeting annoyance, despair instead of regret, and so on);

3) they prevent a person from adequately assessing and resolving the situation.

A. Ellis divided irrational judgmentsinto four main categories:

1. «Must» judgments.Judgments indicating that someone (or something) should not be the way they are, for example: «I must win the game»; «He must be polite to me», and so on.

2. «Awfulizing» judgments. Judgments that everything is awful, terrible, and dreadful because it is not the way it should be, for example: «It will be terrible if I don't finish cleaning on time».

3. «Ought to» and «should» judgments. Judgments reflecting a person's inability to bear or tolerate the world if it differs from how it «ought to» or «should» be.

4. «Condemning» judgments. Judgments that belittle a person – oneself or the person responsible for the situation not being the way it «ought to» or «should» be, for example: «He is a terrible person and should be punished because he didn't arrive on time».

In addition to these four categories, A. Ellis, at various times, identified 12 common «core» irrational ideas,which, in his view, underlie most emotional disorders.

List of the main irrational ideas, according to A. Ellis

1. It is absolutely essential for an adult that every one of their actions be approved of by others.

2. If actions are wicked and bad, those responsible for them should be severely punished.

3. It is a catastrophe when things do not go the way one would like.

4. All our troubles are imposed on us from outside – by people or circumstances.

5. If something is frightening or worrying – stay constantly on guard.

6. It is easier to avoid responsibilities and difficulties than to overcome them.

7. Everyone needs something stronger and greater than what they feel within themselves.

8. One must be competent, adequate, rational, and successful in every respect (one must know everything, be able to do everything, understand everything, and succeed at everything).

9. Something that had a strong impact on your life once will always continue to affect it.

10. Our well-being is affected by the actions of other people, so we must do everything we can to make those people change in the direction we want.

11. Going with the flow and doing nothing – that is the path to happiness.

12. We have no control over our emotions, and we cannot help but experience them.

The general irrational ideas identified by A. Ellis take on individual content within each culture. In her book, E. V. Sidorenko presents a list of Russian irrational ideas that she obtained through her research. The ideas are arranged in descending order of how frequently they occur.

List of Russian irrational ideas, according to Sidorenko

1. I must…

I must take responsibility upon myself.

If you are asked, you must help (I must give what is asked of me).

I must be sympathetic and understanding, caring and protective.

I am obliged to repay a favour (I am in an unpayable debt. For a favour I must be

grateful).

Refusing is not good (I must not offend by refusing).

I must never lose my composure.

I must not fight, quarrel, or scold.

I must do everything quickly.

I must be likeable.

I must be in control.

I must not be alone.

I must behave correctly.

I must not be a leader.

If I see an injustice, I must correct it.

I must not pay for love.

I must be original.

I must be a man.

I must surpass others.

I must be generous.

I must be brave.

2. Others must…

I must be loved and must not be criticized.

People must not ask to borrow money from me.

People must create an atmosphere of honesty around me.

People must be fair.

Everyone must consider me decent.

3. Everyone must remember…

The Russian «it'll probably be fine».

If I have worked a long time, I deserve more.

The future is more important than the present.

Ideas are more important than the person.

If something of ours is bad, it's still good, because it's ours.

One must submit to the opinion of the majority.

Using special techniques, a manipulator can uncover and activate our irrational, often unconscious, ideas, so in order not to become an object of manipulation, a person needs to work on becoming aware of them.

Criteria for Manipulation

We can identify the distinguishing featuresof manipulation [Sidorenko, 2002]:

1. The manipulator's awareness of their own goals and means.

2. Concealment of the manipulator's goals.

3. Concealment of the manipulator's means.

4. The target taking responsibility for what is happening upon themselves.

According to E. L. Dotsenko, a well-known specialist in the psychology of manipulation, a manipulator can be recognized by the following signs:

1. The manipulator seeks to control the partner's will, and therefore always tries to put the other person in a position of dependency. He draws on that dependency from weaknesses, fears, irrational ideas, and desires the person cannot escape (the desire for money, power, fame, recognition, and so on).

2. The use of deceit; hypocrisy that confuses the target; ingratiation; the urge to please; intrigue that creates the impression that he is holding something back or being evasive.

3. In the manipulator's words there is always a call for disunity («Under no circumstances trust him»).

Manipulators may use verbalandnonverbaltechniques of influence.

A description of the verbal techniques of manipulative influence is presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Verbal Techniques of Manipulative Influence

Manipulation can also be carried out using nonverbal techniques.

Nonverbal Techniques of Manipulation:

1. A sudden speeding up of the pace (of conversation, movements, and so on).

2. A sudden reduction or increase in distance.

3. Restricting personal space.

4. Unsanctioned touching.

The distinctive feature of the techniques of influence used by a manipulator is that they act as subconscious stimuli that bypass psychological control and block the target's system of psychological defences.

Manipulation – is a widespread phenomenon in modern society, pervading the whole of people's lives. Specialists in the psychology of manipulation E. L. Dotsenko, E. V. Sidorenko, and E. Shostrom analyze the reasons for its prevalence.

The American psychologist E. Shostrom considers manipulation an evil and the principal affliction of modern man. The maincause of manipulation–the internal conflictof the manipulator's personality, the content of which is ‑distrust of oneself and other people.

The content of the internal conflict of the manipulator's personality [Shostrom, 1992]

1. An insatiable need for self-affirmation. The manipulator – is a slave to their need to control. Their beliefs: «The better, stronger, and superior we are, the more others value and respect us»; «My strength lies ‑ in the other person's weakness».

2. A feeling of helplessnessin the face of the risk and uncertainty of the world.

3. Fear of being placed in a difficult position, which results in a ritualistic attitude toward people and the avoidance of intimacy in relationships.

E. L. Dotsenko and E. V. Sidorenko see the main reason for the origin and spread of manipulation in modern man's discovery of«ingenious ways of overcoming external forces and creative methods of increasing his own attractiveness» [Dotsenko, 1996, p. 65]. Many of these methods are developed in childhood.

Causes of Manipulation[Sidorenko, 2002]

Weakness

Many people develop a tendency toward manipulation because they have lost hope of achieving anything through direct methods.

Many of them lost this hope in early childhood. Imagine two adults talking to each other about something important and interesting to them. A child standing between them will not be heard until they start shouting. Their words will be perceived as an interference, an annoying noise. Having lost hope of being heard, the child finds a way to make the adults pay attention on their own. They might fall down, twist an ankle, get sick, and so on. Such methods of pseudo-compensation for a feeling of one's own inadequacy were described by A. Adler as «flight into illness». Where one cannot take something by force, one can take it by cunning, putting forward weakness as one's strength.

Disbelief in the Effectiveness of Requests. The Prohibition on Requests and Desires

In childhood, many of a child's wishes go unfulfilled, partly because they are unrealistic. At the same time, the child learns both that requests are ineffective and that some of their wishes are unrealistic. In many cultures, the irrational idea «never ask for anything» is deeply ingrained.

Disbelief in the Effectiveness of Persuasion

Disbelief in the effectiveness of rational arguments is likewise rooted in childhood experience. No matter how reasonably a child argues, for example, that a particular item needs to be bought for them, their parents may not even bother offering a counterargument, simply responding with an unmotivated refusal.

The Drive for One-Sided Gain

The Russian national mentality has an inherent tendency toward one-sided gain. The urge to outplay or «outmaneuver» the other person reflects a Russian irrational idea. E. L. Dotsenko, having analyzed the Russian folk tales «The Kolobok», «The Little Cockerel», «Prince Ivan and the Grey Wolf», and others, concludes that they express «a favourable attitude toward tricks and cunning», which are «elevated to the rank of encouraged behaviour». «But the main value turns out to be winning, victory, for the sake of which all these tricks are invented» [Dotsenko, 1996, p. 66].

Habit

Many people manipulate simply because they are used to it, while every other way of dealing with people feels unfamiliar or even alien to them.

The psychology of influence continues to debate whether manipulation can be ethically justified. In the view of E. L. Dotsenko, manipulation is warranted in many situations: “For some reason it is taken for granted that manipulation is bad. Do you remember why the beautiful Scheherazade told stories to her fearsome ruler night after night? Through manipulation, for almost three years she saved not only herself but also the most beautiful girls in her country… Not only in the days of the tales of “1001 Nights”, but in our everyday life too, manipulation serves as a means of gentle defence against the tyranny of rulers, the excesses of superiors, the bad temper of colleagues or relatives, and the unfriendly attacks of those one happens to have to deal with” [Dotsenko, 1996, p. 11].

In Leo Tolstoy's well-known stories for children, adults constantly manipulate the children. For example, in the story “The Bone”, a father used manipulation together with an “innocent” deception to frighten his son and extract an involuntary confession from him. The manipulation succeeded, and the boy was mocked for his fear and his confession. His forced honesty was punished. Next time the child will be more cunning: he has now learned the pattern of manipulation and will be able to use it himself. The father will have to “reap” what he “sowed”.

On the other hand, manipulation may turn out to be preferable to coercion or attack, since their effects are even more destructive.

Whether to use manipulation, and how to use it – that is a matter of each person's individual ethical choice. Every time, a person must make the decision themselves and bear responsibility for it.

5.2. Constructive Psychological Influence

Constructive influence conforms to the rules of conduct and etiquette accepted in society, and to a given person's own subjective criteria of morality, fairness and nobility. It is carried out on the basis of respect, attention and deference toward other people, and therefore requires a high level of psychological culture. In the literature, constructive influence is also referred to by synonymous terms: “civilised”, “developmental”, “person-centred”, “friendly”, and so on.

Constructive influence – is influence exercised above all through words, open and openly addressed to a person's intellectual capacities. Constructive influence helps preserve and develop the matter at hand, working relationships, and the personal integrity of the participants. This kind of influence is free of coercive or deceptive techniques, and therefore does not provoke emotional outbursts, anxiety or fear in people. A distinctive feature of constructive influence is that it is built on voluntary agreement.

The methods of exercising constructive psychological influence are:

• argumentation;

• counter-argumentation;

• self-promotion.

Argumentation

Argumentation – is the statement and discussion of reasons in favour of a proposed decision or position, aimed at forming or changing the other person's attitude toward the matter in question.

Necessary conditions for argumentation

1. The purpose of the argumentation must be clearly recognised by the initiator of the influence and openly stated to the addressee, for example: “Allow me to prove to you that it would not be advisable to hire this person”.

2. You must secure the addressee's agreement to hear the arguments out, for example: “Do you agree to hear my opinion?” If refused, any further attempts at argumentation will be perceived by the other person as coercion.

3. An emotionally balanced state, clarity of mind. This calls for a great deal of preliminary work. The focus should be not so much on the logic of one's own proof as on the psychology of interacting with the addressee. One must be convincing for that particular person, and persuasiveness arises in the process of interaction.

General rules of argumentation

1. Politeness and correctness

Whatever the partner's response, the person arguing must remain polite. Remarks that belittle the other person are unacceptable. Comments such as “And here I thought you did well in school” are manipulations that upset the emotional balance during discussion of the problem.

1. Simplicity and clarity of statements

All statements should be simple, understandable, and free of pretentious

expressions or rarely used and specialised terms. For instance, a formulation such as “Let us approach the problem ontologically and set aside its etiological aspect for now” is unlikely to succeed. Better to use something like: “Let's deal with the substance of the problem; right now it doesn't much matter how it arose”.

1. A common language

In argumentation it is important to use language that both partners understand.

4. Brevity

To hold the listener's attention, speech should be as brief as possible. Forcing someone to listen – that almost always amounts to doing violence to that person. Brevity – is one expression of politeness and respect for the other person.

5. Visual clarity

When arguing for one's idea it is useful to employ visual aids:

- drawings, charts;

- objects, product samples, and the like;

- figurative comparisons.

All of these aids should be understandable, accessible to viewing and imagination, and, where possible, to touch as well.

6. Avoiding excessive persuasiveness

Excessive persuasiveness can take the form of directly pointing out to the addressee his

mistake: “Well, do you see now where you went wrong?” A direct pointer or remark of this kind challenges a person's sense of self-worth and therefore triggers a defensive reaction of resistance.

Another form of excessive persuasiveness – an excessive number of arguments.

Excessive proof arouses suspicion.

Techniques of argumentation

1. Socrates' method of positive answers – a sequential proof of the solution to a problem or task proposed by the initiator. Each step of the proof begins with the words: “Do you agree that…”.

If the addressee answers affirmatively, that step can be considered passed and one moves on to the next. If the partner answers negatively, the initiator continues with the words: “I'm sorry, I did not phrase the question very well. Do you agree that…” and so on, until the addressee has agreed with every step of the proof and with the proposed solution as a whole.

N o t e. It is not recommended to ask any question other than “Do you agree…”. Especially dangerous are questions such as: “And why don't you agree?” or “Why are you objecting to obvious things?”.

2. The two-sided argumentation method – the open presentation of both the strong and the weak sides of a proposed solution, which lets the addressee see that the initiator is aware of that solution's limitations.

The partner is given the chance to weigh the arguments “for” and “against” for themselves.

Counter-argumentation

Counter-argumentation – is a system of statements and reasons built on analysing and searching out contradictions in the partner's arguments, aimed at forming or changing that person's attitude toward the problem under discussion.

Counter-argumentation – is a more common occurrence than argumentation, especially when discussion of a topic drags on for hours, days, or even months.

Techniques of counter-argumentation

1. The method of reworking the partner's arguments – tracing, together with the partner, the course of the solution to the problem or task they proposed, until a contradiction is found that demonstrates the validity of the opposite conclusions.

N o t e. It is recommended to follow the logic of the other person's solution scrupulously, rather than offering your own.

V a r i a n t (a): Hearing out the partner's proof.

V a r i a n t (b): Repeating aloud the proof the partner has offered.

V a r i a n t (c): Tracing the logic of the partner's proof with the help of visual aids.

The height of mastery in performing this technique: helping the partner arrive at the realisation “We were both wrong”.

Even greater mastery: helping the partner arrive at the realisation “Well, you see, I did find the right solution after all”.

N o t e. It is not advisable to be “murderously” convincing or to stress that the partner made a mistake or a contradiction.

2. The method of unfolding the argumentation – presenting the partner with new arguments they were not previously aware of.

N o t e. This can be used only after work has already been done with the arguments the partner has already put forward; otherwise the new arguments simply will not be heard.

3. The method of separating out arguments– dividing the other person's arguments into correct, doubtful and mistaken ones, and discussing them by the following formula:

1) “I agree with you that…” (the corresponding argument is then restated);

2) “Although, I must admit I'm less sure that…” or “I can't quite shake a certain doubt that…” (the doubtful argument is then restated).

N o t e. This kind of opening helps the partner feel that, in principle, you are prepared to agree with them too. Expressing doubt helps the partner feel that you are prepared to weigh all the arguments thoughtfully and honestly.

3) “Now, as for (the mistaken argument follows here), alas… (a refutation follows, using the method of positive answers, reworking, or unfolding the argumentation).

N o t e. The work done at stages 1 and 2 helps the partner accept your disagreement at stage 3 and rationally weigh your counter-arguments and evidence.

Self-promotion

Self-promotion – is the open presentation of evidence of one's own competence and qualifications, so as to be properly appreciated and, through this, gain an advantage in the selection of candidates, appointment to a position, and so on.

Self-promotion differs from self-praise in that the initiator of the influence does not merely make claims about themselves, but backs those words up with real deeds or facts – evidence of actual accomplishments.

EXAMPLE

“A psychologist needs creativity”, - says a psychology lecturer, turning to the board. It turns out there's no chalk. Without a second thought, the lecturer picks up a rag and draws the diagram with the damp rag” (from the experience of university colleagues).

N o t e. If you cannot back up your abilities with real actions, then at the very least do not contradict them with your own actions.

Techniques of self-promotion

1. Real demonstration of one's abilities.

2. Presenting certificates, diplomas, official references, patents, publications, products, and the like.

3. Presenting charts, calculations, diagrams.

4. Disclosing one's personal goals.

5. Stating one's own requests and terms.

N o t e. The paradox of self-promotion is that truly competent people are marked by a reduced need to proclaim their own competence. As the writer B. Shaw observed,“a clever man does not notice his own intelligence, just as a man accustomed to dressing well does not notice his own suit”.

Self-promotion, like argumentation, needs to be deliberately developed and reinforced. It also requires the ability to demonstrate one's competence and, therefore, to know and remember exactly what that competence consists of.

In essence, self-promotion – is also a form of argumentation. It is a demonstration of facts that are perceived as arguments.

5.3. Ambiguous Forms of Influence

Ambiguous influence – influence that is beneficial in some cases and harmful in others. It cannot be classified unambiguously as either a constructive or a destructive form of influence.

The ambiguous forms of influence include:

• suggestion,

• emotional contagion,

• prompting imitation,

• fostering goodwill,

• request,

• ignoring.

In many cases such forms of influence occur unconsciously. They can be compared to a kind of “psychological radiation” that emanates from certain people, sometimes against their own will. However, once a person becomes aware of their capacity to exert influence, they can also use it quite consciously, with a definite intention. That is why this chapter will examine not only the means but also thefactors of influence.

Table 5 Ambiguous forms of influence, according to E. V. Sidorenko

Suggestion and Emotional Contagion

The line between suggestion and emotional contagion is not clear-cut.

Suggestion differs from contagion in that, in the first case, the initiator of the influence remains in one state while producing a different one in the addressee. As the Russian psychologist B. D. Parygin put it, suggestion – is a kind of “one-sided contagion”. Contagion implies that the initiator is themselves in the state that they reproduce in other people. According to B. D. Parygin, suggestion also differs from contagion in that it is a one-way directed influence. Moreover, suggestion, as a rule, is verbal in nature, whereas contagion can also make use of non-verbal means [Parygin, 1999, pp. 399-400].

Suggestion and contagion can have either constructive or destructive consequences for the target of the influence. Positive formulas of suggestion might be, for example: “You can do this”, “You will succeed!”, and so on. Such influence lifts the other person's mood and helps build self-esteem and confidence in their own abilities. Suggestion can also be negative: “You won't manage this”, “You're going to have serious difficulties”, “You're unlikely to make the deadline”, and so on. This kind of influence produces the effect of a “negative self-fulfilling prophecy”. A person thrown off emotional balance genuinely performs worse, makes more mistakes, and is dogged by failure.

Both positive and negative formulas of suggestion are close to manipulative influences that touch the “strings of the soul”. Moreover, negative formulas of suggestion are also akin to the formulas of destructive criticism and destructive pronouncements.

The most effective psychological means of suggestion and contagion are:

• speech addressed to another person;

• personal example.

Suggestion and contagion also have other powerful means of dissemination, among them the printed word.

Personal factors that ensure the effectiveness of suggestion and contagion include“personal magnetism”, “charm”, “charisma” and others.

Charisma – a person's psychological attractiveness, the ability to inspire in others a commitment to one's goals and enthusiasm for achieving them.

The concept of personal charm is closely related to that of charisma.

Personal charm – enchantment, an attractive force.

According to the social psychologist G. Le Bon's definition, personal charm “is the possession of only a few individuals, and it endows them with a kind of magnetic charm that acts upon those around them… This dominance paralyses all of people's critical faculties and fills their souls with wonder and reverence… The feeling it evokes is inexplicable… Charm is the most powerful cause of all dominance; gods, kings and women could never have ruled without it” [Le Bon, 1995, p. 245]. Why, then, are some people endowed with this ability and others not? There is no consensus among researchers as to the causes of charisma and personal charm. In the traditional view, charisma and personal charm were seen as a miracle, a gift from God, a divine spark. As S. Moscovici observes, “the word “charisma” refers to a sacred person. It defines the dogmas of religion and is bound up with grace, which eases suffering; with the light that descends on the tormented consciousness of the believer; with the living word of the prophet, which touches the heart; and, finally, with the inner harmony between teacher and pupil” [Moscovici, 1999, p. 409].

Other authors hold that charisma and personal charm have a social origin. In Max Weber's view, their sources are:

• success;

• recognition by one's subordinates.

A charismatic leader motivates and guides followers above all by cultivating in them a strong emotional commitment to his ideas and values.

Such a leader displays the following traits:

1) constantly emphasises the importance of his values and ideas;

2) focuses on building in his followers a sense of identity and belonging: “who we are” and “what we stand for”;

3) sets a personal example of commitment to his goals and values, and shows a willingness for self-sacrifice for their sake;

4) projects strength: creates an impression of self-confidence, physical and social courage, decisiveness, optimism and innovation.

According to a number of foreign researchers, charisma exists only when five interrelated features are present:

1. there is a person of extraordinary qualities and gifts;

2. there is an evident social or organisational crisis, or a situation of hopelessness;

3. this person (a potential leader) puts forward a radically new vision and ideas that promise to overcome the crisis;

4. there is a group of followers drawn to the gifted individual, convinced of his exceptional abilities;

5. in attempting to overcome the crisis being experienced, the leader is consistently accompanied by success, which confirms both his extraordinary gifts and the soundness of the vision of the future he proposes.

Prompting Imitation

Imitation is often regarded as one of the forms of contagion.

Imitation differs from contagion in that it involves copying patterns of behaviour rather than mental states. Then, in the course of reproducing someone else's model of behaviour, a person develops, in line with the well-known James - Lange law, the mental states associated with those behavioural patterns. The formula of this law is well known: “We run first, then feel afraid; we cry first, then feel sad; we laugh first, and only then does it strike us as funny.” By copying the behaviour of a confident person - squaring one's shoulders, moving in a measured way, speaking in a calm voice - we feel ourselves gradually gaining inner strength. Prompting imitation and the urge to imitate are different manifestations of the very same need to imitate, which is inherent in all people. It is precisely this need that accounts for, among other things, the powerful influence of fashion. Who, after all, would dare defy its power, whether it concerns opinions, ideas, literary works, or simply clothing? In this case the crowd is governed not by arguments but solely by examples.

Imitation has its limits.

In every era there exists a small number of people who inspire the crowd to certain actions, and the unconscious mass imitates them. But these individuals must not, all the same, stray too far from the ideas prevailing within the crowd, or else no one will imitate them. For this reason, people who stand far above their era have, in their lifetime, had no influence on it whatsoever. They were too far removed from it.

People imitate only those who themselves imitate no one.

People imitate, above all, living, real people, whose pattern of behaviour they can see and accurately absorb.

Imitation can be used either unconsciously or consciously.

G. Tarde formulated the laws of imitation: inferiors imitate superiors, the young imitate their elders, the poor imitate the rich, and so on.

Fostering Goodwill

This form of influence amounts to managing the impression that the initiator makes on the target person, with the aim of maintaining or strengthening their influence.

Various methods of self-presentation are used to foster goodwill. The most complete classification of self-presentation strategies was developed by E. Jones.

Table 6 E. Jones's Classification of Self-Presentation Strategies [Sidorenko, 2002]

The strategies described can be classed as manipulative. Some of them (intimidation, supplication) contain an element of suggestion. However, the strategies listed are only half manipulative, since they do not fully meet all of its criteria.

The only strategy that can be regarded as a constructive form of influence is self-promotion, which is why we examined it earlier, in section 4.2, devoted to constructive forms of influence.

Request

Is the very act of making a request itself a sign of weakness? In the list of an assertive person's rights formulated by the well-known psychologist K. Kelly, there is the right to ask for what one wants. This form of influence seems to be a fine line, from which it is easy to slip into either coercion or supplication.

A request is a constructive form of influence if it is phrased as a proposal. A proposal can be 1) accepted; 2) declined; 3) clarified or modified. Declining a proposal is not as emotionally charged as refusing a request.

The fundamental difference between a request and a proposal is that a request implies a one-sided favour, whereas a proposal implies mutual gain.

Sometimes it is quite difficult to turn a request into a proposal. For example, when it concerns a personal favour: doing someone's work for them, lending money, picking a child up from nursery, and so on. Partnership relations imply that we can make a “pure” request, one that carries no expectation of any “payment”, but that in return we too must later be prepared to grant someone else's request. The condition for a request to be constructive is an attitude: in exercising our own right to ask, we also allow for the other person's right to refuse to grant it. An honest refusal is, in its consequences, far more effective than a promise given but not kept. It allows the person asking to find another way out of their difficulty in good time. The character in one Eastern parable, refusing to lend money to his neighbour, advises him to treat the refusal not with resentment but with gratitude, because he (the one refusing) is not giving vague promises to help tomorrow or the day after, which allows the other person not to waste time but to go to someone else and borrow the sum he needs.

So as not to hurt the other person's feelings, a refusal should be delivered in a civilised way: 1) politely; 2) confidently, calmly, without aggression; 3) with reasons given.

In effective business relationships, a polite request serves as a substitute for a demand. A demand – is the extreme version of a request. It combines features of coercion and suggestion. Although it is clear to both the boss and the subordinate that the boss has the right to demand and the subordinate is obliged to comply, civilised human relations presuppose respect for the individual, and so what is required is a request being made (by the one side) and the request being fulfilled (by the other).

Ignoring

Ignoring can be either a manipulative or a perfectly constructive form of influence.

Ignoring a remark or communicative gesture made specifically for the partner (for example, a hand extended for a handshake) is perceived as humiliating. It is a silent yet nonetheless quite painful “pinch from below” on the string of self-regard, that is to say,manipulationorbarbarism.

Ignoring an impulsive remark or action, an expressive non-verbal display, when the person responsible for it wants it to go unnoticed (awkwardness at the table, trembling hands, hiccups, yawning, tears, an eye tic, a flushed face, and so on), is perceived as tact and delicacy. This is the partner's way of demonstrating their own civility, and thereforeself-promotion.

See Also

• [[b4271]]
• [[b11973]]
• [[b3188]]
• [[b1510]]
• [[b7144]]