For example, relevance principle can unconsciously stimulate us to spend money.
The most interesting evidence about this conclusion comes from a series of surveys on the influence of credit cards on our consumption habits.
In modern life, credit cards, as a new thing, have a remarkable psychological feature: they allow you to enjoy products or services immediately, but you don't pay until several weeks later.
For this reason, we are more likely to associate credit cards and badges, marks and signs representing credit cards with the positive rather than negative aspects of spending money.
Richard Fernberger, an expert in consumer behavior, wants to know how credit cards and related things will affect our propensity to spend.
He did a series of experiments in Syracuse, Indiana, and got some very interesting and disturbing results.
The phenomenon revealed by this last discovery is the most disturbing and thought-provoking.
Although credit cards themselves are not used to donate money, their badges and the positive associations that come with them have provided enough catalysts for people to spend a lot of money.
This phenomenon has also been reproduced in experiments conducted in several hotels.
In these experiments, restaurants use two different plates to put customers' bills. One plate has a credit card badge on it, while the other one doesn't. As a result, they found that customers tip much more when there are credit card badges on the plates, even if they pay in cash.
Advertisers also use the relevance principle to associate celebrities with products.
Professional athletes can get a lot of money just by letting people associate themselves with things related to their roles (sports shoes, tennis rackets, golf balls) or irrelevant (soft drinks, popcorn, stockings).
It is important for advertisers to establish a connection. As long as this connection is positive, it doesn't matter whether it is logical or not.
We always take great pains to control the visibility of our relationship with winners and losers, show positive connections and cover up negative ones, so that onlookers can have a higher evaluation of us and like us better.
There are many ways to do this, but the simplest and most common is to use different pronouns.
For example, have you noticed that after the China football team won a game, fanatical spectators often crowded into the camera lens, held their forefinger high and cried, "We won! We are qualified! " Please note that they never say "they won" or even "our team qualified". The pronoun they use is "we", and they want to show a relationship that can't be closer to the winning team.
And once China's national football team loses, the subject of our media will become: They ...
In the management of interpersonal relationships, we often have such a mentality:
If this friend is awesome, we will say, I have a friend, how can we?
But if it is a failed case, we often try to distance ourselves from him in the sentence.
We have read that several factors that lead to preferences-such as physical attractiveness, familiarity and relevance-have a subtle influence on us, and it is not easy to be unaffected by these factors.
It seems that it is our only choice to change with the constant.
In other words, we should only rely on one method to neutralize and offset the negative impact of all the factors that lead to good feelings. So is there such a method? The answer is yes, and the key of this method is to seize the most effective opportunity to respond. Don't try to identify all the factors that lead to our good feelings and prevent them from working, but focus on the fact that you have already had too much good feelings for a compliant industry.
If we find that we love a follower more than we should under normal circumstances, it is time for us to be alert and protect ourselves.
Our approach should be a conscious effort: focus on this business.
When we make any decision, we should separate the person who made the request from the one who made it.
Whenever we have this impulse, we should remind ourselves to separate traders from transactions and make decisions only according to the latter.
If we always act according to this principle, we will be much more satisfied with the transaction between ourselves and the followers.
After learning this, you won't feel fond of the arowana edible oil endorsed by Lin Dan, because you have to separate traders from transactions.
That is to say, you should remind yourself that you like lindane, but the edible oil he endorsed has nothing to do with me.
Therefore, choosing what kind of edible oil is just a business. If it is only a business, then brand A, which is 20 yuan cheaper than it on the shelf next door, is more worth choosing.
With the deepening of reading, the routine is getting deeper and deeper, which is why the more we read the book Influence, the more we feel stupid.
Of course, we will continue to be stupid.
END.