# Influence psychology framework Human Guide

## What This Is For
Apply the seven principles of ethical persuasion (reciprocity, commitment, social proof, authority, liking, scarcity, unity) to product design, copy, and sales. It gives the agent a clearer input/output frame for influence psychology framework: what context to ask for, what decisions to make, and what usable artifact to return.

Use this as a human-readable version of the Influence psychology framework agent skill. It is meant for marketers, operators, founders, and other non-coders who want the workflow without reading agent-specific implementation instructions.

## When To Use This
- Use this when you need a repeatable process for influence psychology framework.
- Use this when the task needs judgment, examples, constraints, or a clear output format rather than a one-off prompt.
- Use this when you want to hand an AI assistant enough context to produce a usable marketing artifact.

## When Not To Use This
- Do not use this when you only need a quick factual answer.
- Do not use this when the work depends on private data you cannot share with the assistant.
- Do not use this as a replacement for legal, compliance, financial, or medical review.

## What You Need Before Starting
- The goal or business outcome you want.
- The audience, customer segment, or market context.
- Any source material the assistant should respect, such as notes, briefs, examples, URLs, or brand guidance.
- Constraints such as tone, length, channel, deadline, region, or approval requirements.
- A clear definition of what a good final answer should look like.

## Step-By-Step Workflow
1. State the job clearly: "Use the Influence psychology framework guide to help me with..."
2. Add context: audience, goal, offer, channel, source material, and constraints.
3. Ask the assistant to identify missing inputs before producing the final output.
4. Have the assistant follow the skill-specific guidance below.
5. Review the result against the final checklist and ask for revisions where needed.

## Skill-Specific Guidance
- **9-10** — Multiple principles deliberately layered; every claim truthful; users can reverse the decision; passes the transparency test (still works if the user knows the strategy); safe for vulnerable users.
- **7-8** — Principles deliberately layered and honest, but one gap (e.g. weak reversibility, or a single principle where layering was possible).
- **5-6** — One principle present but generic, or leverage left on the table.
- **<=3** — No principle deliberately designed (relying on luck), OR any tactic is deceptive/coercive. Any fabricated proof, fake scarcity, or hidden-cost dark pattern caps the score at 3 regardless of other strengths.
- The gift must come first (before the request)
- Unexpected, personalized gifts beat expected, generic ones
- Even small gifts create obligation
- "Here's a gift for you..." (before asking)
- "As a thank you for signing up..."
- "We noticed you needed help with X, so we..."
- Small initial commitments lead to larger ones (foot-in-the-door)
- Public > private; written > verbal; active (user-generated) > passive

## Decision Points And Nuance
The original skill emphasizes: Core Principle, Scoring, The Seven Principles of Influence, Reciprocity, Commitment & Consistency, Social Proof, Authority, Liking, Scarcity, Unity.

Use these questions to steer the work:
- What is the intended audience or buyer?
- What source material must be preserved?
- What should the assistant optimize for: clarity, persuasion, accuracy, speed, creativity, or conversion?
- What examples represent the desired quality bar?
- What should the assistant avoid?

## Common Mistakes
- **Why it works:** Humans are wired to avoid being indebted — the obligation to repay can overpower personal preference, and the return favor often exceeds the original gift.
- The gift must come first (before the request)
- **Why it works:** When uncertain, we use others' behavior as a guide — "if everyone's doing it, it must be right."
- Negative social proof backfires ("9 out of 10 don't...")
- "Don't take our word for it. Here's what [users] say..."
- See [references/scarcity.md](references/scarcity.md) when adding urgency or waitlists — five scarcity types, each with an "ethical when" line and the dark patterns to avoid.
- | **Fake social proof** | Destroys trust when discovered | Use real data or don't use it |
- | **Inconsistent authority** | Undermines credibility | Don't claim expertise you lack |

## Copy-And-Paste Prompt
```text
Use the Influence psychology framework human guide.

My goal:
[Describe the business outcome]

Audience:
[Describe who this is for]

Context and source material:
[Paste notes, examples, links, or existing copy]

Constraints:
[Tone, length, channel, timeline, must-include items, must-avoid items]

Before producing the final output, ask me for any missing information that would materially improve the result.
```

## Final Checklist
- [ ] The output matches the original goal.
- [ ] The audience and context are reflected in the answer.
- [ ] Important constraints and source material were preserved.
- [ ] The assistant made the relevant decisions explicit.
- [ ] The final artifact is ready to use, review, or hand to the next person.

## Source
This guide was generated from the wondelai/skills skill entry for `influence-psychology`.

## Source Skill Notes
These notes preserve the nuance from the original skill. Use them as supporting reference when the workflow above feels too generic.

# Influence Psychology Framework

Apply six decades of persuasion science — Cialdini's research into why people say "yes" — to product, copy, and sales, ethically.

## Core Principle

**People don't make decisions rationally — they use mental shortcuts (heuristics) that can be triggered to influence behavior.** These shortcuts evolved because they're usually reliable, but they can also be exploited. Understanding them lets you design products, messaging, and experiences that align with how people actually decide.

## Scoring

**Goal: 10/10.** When reviewing or creating persuasive elements (features, copy, flows, campaigns), run the Quick Diagnostic, then score against the bands below and apply the ethics gate. Always report the current score and the specific change needed to reach 10/10.

- **9-10** — Multiple principles deliberately layered; every claim truthful; users can reverse the decision; passes the transparency test (still works if the user knows the strategy); safe for vulnerable users.
- **7-8** — Principles deliberately layered and honest, but one gap (e.g. weak reversibility, or a single principle where layering was possible).
- **5-6** — One principle present but generic, or leverage left on the table.
- **<=3** — No principle deliberately designed (relying on luck), OR any tactic is deceptive/coercive. Any fabricated proof, fake scarcity, or hidden-cost dark pattern caps the score at 3 regardless of other strengths.

## The Seven Principles of Influence

### 1. Reciprocity

**Core concept:** People feel obligated to give back to those who have given to them first.

**Why it works:** Humans are wired to avoid being indebted — the obligation to repay can overpower personal preference, and the return favor often exceeds the original gift.

**Key insights:**
- The gift must come first (before the request)
- Unexpected, personalized gifts beat expected, generic ones
- Even small gifts create obligation

**Product applications:**

| Context | Reciprocity Trigger | Example |
|---------|---------------------|---------|
| **Free trials** | Full access first, then ask to pay | Spotify Premium trial → subscription |
| **Content marketing** | Value upfront (guides, tools) | HubSpot free CRM → paid tools |
| **Referral programs** | Reward both referrer and referee | Dropbox: both get extra storage |

**Copy patterns:**
- "Here's a gift for you..." (before asking)
- "As a thank you for signing up..."
- "We noticed you needed help with X, so we..."

See [references/reciprocity.md](references/reciprocity.md) when building free trials, lead magnets, or referral rewards — gift tiers, email templates, day-by-day reciprocity-stacking, and A/B variables.

### 2. Commitment & Consistency

**Core concept:** People want to be consistent with their past statements, beliefs, and actions.

**Why it works:** Inconsistency is psychologically uncomfortable; once we take a stand, personal and interpersonal pressure pushes us to behave consistently with it.

**Key insights:**
- Small initial commitments lead to larger ones (foot-in-the-door)
- Public > private; written > verbal; active (user-generated) > passive
- Self-perception: we infer our attitudes from our behavior

**Product applications:**

| Context | Commitment Trigger | Example |
|---------|-------------------|---------|
| **Onboarding** | Easy yes, then larger asks | Duolingo: "Can you commit to 5 min/day?" |
| **Goal setting** | User publicly states a goal | Strava: "I want to run 50km this month" |
| **Habit formation** | Track streaks publicly | Snapchat streaks, GitHub contributions |

**Copy patterns:**
- "What's your biggest challenge with X?" (commitment to a problem)
- "How much would you like to save per month?" (numerical commitment)
- "You said you wanted to achieve X. Let's start with..."

**Onboarding sequence:** micro-commitment ("What brings you here?") → small action (click, choice) → public/written commitment (goal) → reinforce ("Based on what you told us...").

**Ethical boundary:** Make every commitment freely chosen and easily reversible — no trick opt-ins or locked-in defaults the user can't undo.

See [references/commitment-consistency.md](references/commitment-consistency.md) when designing onboarding or goal-setting flows — foot-in-the-door sequences and public-commitment tactics.

### 3. Social Proof

**Core concept:** People determine what's correct by finding out what others think is correct.

**Why it works:** When uncertain, we use others' behavior as a guide — "if everyone's doing it, it must be right."