Is it going to happen again? Have you ever found yourself purchasing something you didn’t need, such as a lava lamp, simply because the sales clerk persuaded you to? Maybe you gave to a nebulous cause after being approached on the street? Maybe perhaps you were coerced into signing a gym contract you didn’t want in the first place?
If that’s the case, you’ve probably been duped by a compliance expert, who understands just how to manipulate you by pushing the right buttons and pulling the right strings to get you to agree with their demands.
You’re lucky, since Robert B. Cialdini, the author, has gone through it all. He’s always felt like a scapegoat, someone who can be easily duped and used. And it’s for this reason that he’s devoted his whole career to understanding why individuals comply with others’ wishes.
He’s performed various trials on the subject, but he’s also obtained information through interviewing compliance specialists and observing them work.
So, how exactly does this assist you?
These flashcards will cover six basic concepts of manipulation as well as the most common persuasive strategies used by compliance experts. You’ll not only be able to protect yourself against deception after reading them, but you’ll also be able to utilize these strategies yourself if you want to stretch your persuasive muscle.
You will also learn
- What are the key phrases for skipping a line;
- Why you should be suspicious of those who give you favors without your permission; and,
- how to turn sun worshipers into true justice fighters.
Chapter 1 – Shortcuts appeal to our brain, and they may be utilized to influence us.
Turkey women are excellent mothers who love, protect, and nurture their children.
However, if you look carefully, you’ll notice that this compassion is only held together by a single thread. The mother will tenderly care for a chick who makes the characteristic “cheep-cheep” noise. If the girl does not comply, the mother will dismiss it or maybe murder her!
The “cheep-cheep” sound is so convincing that even a toy of the turkey’s arch-enemy, the polecat, would elicit loving care from the mother turkey if it cheeps loudly enough.
The voice is a simple bypass for the mother turkey that allows her to swiftly and, in most circumstances, successfully recognize her chicks, prompting maternal instincts.
We, humans, prefer to think of ourselves as intelligent, which is why the mother turkey’s shortcut may appear to us to be so dumb.
However, we all adopt psychological shortcuts that are remarkably similar.
This is due to a basic necessity: the world is a complicated place where we can’t possibly consider all of the implications of every action we make. As a result, we take fast shortcuts, which work well for us most of the time.
One example of a shortcut is that if someone gives us a reason – any reason – we’re considerably more likely to do them a favor.
In order to better understand this behavior, a researcher asked individuals in wait for a copy machine whether they might bypass the line. She discovered that if she supplied a justification, she could get away with it. – 94% of those she asked complied with her request.
Only 60% of people obeyed if she didn’t give an explanation.
Surprisingly, even if she presented a stupid excuse – “May I bypass the queue because I need to make copies” – 93 percent of them still followed through. People appear to have a mental shortcut that considers any justification to be acceptable for granting a favor!
Worse, just as scientists may deceive a turkey into parenting a plush polecat, so-called compliance specialists such as advertisers, salesmen, and scam artists can deceive us into abusing our shortcuts. They frequently do this to persuade us to meet their requests, such as purchasing a product.
The overused “price denotes quality” shortcut is one example. People generally think that expensive things are of greater quality than inexpensive items, and while this assumption is sometimes partially correct, a shrewd marketer might use it against us. Did you know that souvenir stores frequently sell out-of-fashion items by rising rather than dropping their costs?
Because coping with life’s complexity necessitates the use of shortcuts, we must recognize and protect ourselves against manipulators who would lead us astray by convincing us to use those shortcuts incorrectly, lest we wind up appearing as dumb as the unfortunate mother turkey.
Reciprocity, scarcity, consistency, social evidence, liking, and authority are six essential psychological concepts that humans employ as shortcuts and that can be abused for persuasion in the blinks that follow.
Chapter 2 – People have an insatiable need to repay favors.
Have you ever received something from a stranger on the street, such as a flower or a free sample of something? Do waiters usually deliver extra sweets with your bill at restaurants?
These gestures, as harmless as they may appear, are actually pretty easy methods to affect your behavior. The law of reciprocation is the basic psychological premise of persuasion: we feel obligated to reciprocate benefits.
This concept underpins all communities because it permitted our forefathers to share resources with the assurance that they would be returned later.
And we experience a psychological weight if someone performs us a favor and we do not reciprocate it. This is partly due to our society’s contempt for individuals who do not return favors; we label them as moochers or ingrates, and we are afraid of being labeled as such ourselves.
You could wonder how strong the impulse to reciprocate is.
It can be evident, for example, in long-term bilateral relations. Consider that in 1985, Ethiopia was likely one of the world’s worst countries, plagued by poverty, famine, and sickness. Despite this, the country’s Red Cross gave $5,000 to earthquake victims in Mexico City that year.
Why would this extremely poor country give money to another country so far away?
Quick and easy: when Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935, Mexico offered help to the nation, and now was the time to repay the favor.
People are so eager to be free of the weight of reciprocity that they will frequently provide far greater favors in exchange for minor ones.
In a 1971 study by psychologist Dennis Regan, for example, a researcher named “Joe” pretended to be a fellow participant and bought test-takers a ten-cent Coke as a favor. Joe afterward revealed that he need a favor: he was attempting to sell as many raffle tickets as possible in order to win a reward. Would the subjects be willing to assist him by purchasing some?
The respondents who had gotten the uninvited Coke bought 50 cents worth of tickets on average, which was twice as much as if no Coke had been offered. Even though some of the participants claimed they did not like Joe, the feeling of obligation seemed to override likeability: several of the participants bought Joe’s raffle tickets despite their claims that they did not like him.
Clearly, this was a case of misusing the reciprocity principle, because Joe was the only one in the circumstance who had true freedom of choice: he not only placed debt on the subjects by purchasing them a Coke, but he also picked the method of reciprocation.
The Krishna group in the United States adopted this strategy to great extent in the 1970s. They gave flowers to passers-by on the street, and despite being upset, individuals frequently made gifts to the charity to satisfy their need to repay the flower present.
So, what are your options for retaliation?
As previously said, reciprocity is essential to the functioning of civilizations and social connections, hence it is impossible to ignore the idea totally. You can, however, learn to recognize and resist intentional attempts to exploit it.
Begin by asking yourself if the benefits you get are genuine or whether they are an attempt to influence you. Consider if you truly want to contribute your money to that charitable organization or whether you feel obligated to do so because you were given a gift on the street.
And don’t worry about not returning “favors” that are actually just disguised manipulation tactics; benefits get favors, but tricks don’t.
Chapter 3 – In negotiations, making a ridiculous proposal and then backing down might result in compromises.
When we’re bargaining with someone and they make a compromise, we’ll sense obligated to reciprocate just as we want to repay favors. The rejection-then-retreat method is what it is called.
When a Boy Scout approached him on the street to sell him tickets to the annual Boy Scout circus, the author witnessed this firsthand.
After the author declined to buy the five-dollar ticket, the youngster requested if, since he wasn’t purchasing any tickets, he would at least buy a dollar’s worth of chocolate bars.
As a result, the author found himself purchasing two to match the “compromise” made by the youngster when he “retreated” to hawking the lesser items.
What makes rejection-then-retreat such an effective persuasive strategy is that, in addition to eliciting our desire to reciprocate concessions, it also makes use of the contrast principle: when two objects are offered to us one after the other, the difference between the first and the second is emphasized. As a result, the boy’s one-dollar chocolate bar appeared disproportionately inexpensive in comparison to the more costly circus ticket.
The principle is simple: if you want something particular from a negotiating partner, start with an offer they are almost certain to refuse. Then back away from your first offer and focus on what you truly desire. This will most likely be perceived as a concession by your opponent, who will feel obligated to make a comparable one.
Labor negotiators frequently use this tactic, beginning with extreme views and gradually retreating while getting concessions from the opposing side.
Nevertheless, experts have determined that there is a limit to how far you can go with your starting position: if it’s too outlandish, you’ll be perceived as a bad-faith negotiator, and further concessions will not be returned.
Presidents have been brought down by the rejection-then-retreat tactic, as shown in the historic Watergate episode. In 1972, President Richard Nixon’s reelection appeared likely, but a man named G. Gordon Liddy managed to persuade the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP) to grant him $250,000 to break into the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters.
Liddy utilized the rejection-then-retreat technique, which was a ridiculously dangerous venture. He began by proposing a $1 million plot that included abduction, robbery, and prostitution. The CRP felt they had to “give Liddy something” for his concessions from his initial scheme, even if his subsequent second and third suggestions were still scandalous and horribly ill-conceived. In addition, the 250,000-dollar idea involving “minor” burglary no longer seemed as awful as the first absurd $1 million suggestion.
As you are probably aware, the burglars were apprehended, and the ensuing scandal pushed Nixon to resign.
Chapter 4 – As opportunities grow increasingly scarce, we become more desirous of them.
“Only for a short time!” “This is your last opportunity!” “The sale will finish in two days!”
There’s a reason why advertisers highlight that a deal won’t continue forever: the scarcity principle says that if something is hard to come by, we’re more likely to buy it. We, humans, value opportunities more when their supply is restricted, and this appears to be because we despise losing out.
Research conducted by one of Cialdini’s students in 1982 found that when customers were advised of a limited-time meat offer, they purchased three times more than if there was no time constraint. This effect was amplified when people were told that only a few people were aware of the sale. Customers who were uninformed of either limit bought six times more meat as a result of the scarcity of both the offer and the information!
Therefore, when does scarcity start to have a significant impact on our decision-making?
There are two requirements that must be met:
For starters, we are more likely to want something if its availability has lately been reduced rather than if it has been constant throughout time. This is why revolutions are more likely to occur when living conditions degrade suddenly rather than gradually; the rapid decline enhances people’s yearning for something better, prompting them to take to the streets.
Second, competitiveness makes our hearts beat faster. Whether it be in auctions, romances, or real-estate transactions, the prospect of losing something to a competitor typically causes us to become overconfident. This is why, whether true or not, real estate brokers frequently inform purchasers that numerous other bids are also interested in a certain home.
Even among seasoned negotiators, a competitive scenario might produce a “feeding frenzy” for a limited item. Consider the case of Barry Diller, a TV network executive who was regarded as a mogul due to his success in the entertainment business. Later, in 1973, he paid 3.3 million dollars for the right to broadcast The Poseidon Adventure on television — only once. This was the greatest sum ever paid for a single screening of a film, and ABC later calculated the transaction would cost them a million dollars.
So, why did Diller pay such a large sum of money?
Straightforward: it was the first time the privileges were sold to networks in an open-bid auction, with competing bidders’ bids visible to one another. This sparked an insane bidding war among the purchasers, and when the dust settled, ABC’s rivals were actually happy they hadn’t “won.” Meanwhile, Diller was certain that ABC would never engage in another auction.
To counteract the illogical desire to acquire something due to scarcity, we should always assess whether we want the object because of its utility to us (for example, its flavor or function), or just because we want it. When scarcity is utilized against us, the latter is frequently the case.
Chapter 5 – Making something illegal makes it incredibly appealing.
People only desire what they can’t have, according to the old proverb. There is some truth to that, to be sure. Parents, for instance, frequently witness this effect in their children: if a youngster is officially barred from playing with a toy, it becomes significantly more appealing.
This impact exists in the adult world as well, which is why censorship is such a double-edged sword: when knowledge is prohibited, it is valued higher than if it were freely available.
For instance, research done at the University of North Carolina in the 1970s found that when college students were told that a lecture opposing co-ed dorms would be canceled and prohibited on campus, they were more favorable to the notion — even before hearing a single word of the speech!
Likewise, courtroom research suggests that “censored” information has an impact on juries. When jurors know that the insurance will pay the cost, they are more likely to give plaintiffs bigger damages. Surprisingly, if the court specifically instructs them to disregard the fact that the defendant has insurance, they award even larger damages. The “banned” knowledge appears to be more significant to them, causing them to overreact, much as a forbidden item appears to any youngster to be extremely attractive.
This is true for more than just information. Consider the case of Florida’s Dade County. People began smuggling and storing large quantities of phosphorus laundry detergents after it was deemed illegal. They also began to consider phosphate-based detergents as superior to before.
The Romeo and Juliet effect is called from the fact that parents who create obstacles to prevent their children’s romantic connections sometimes succeed only in deepening the lovers’ affection. When parents sought to interfere with their children’s relationships, sentiments of love and desire for marriage only became stronger, according to a study of Colorado couples. When the interference was reduced, love sentiments tended to diminish as well.
The Romeo and Juliet phenomenon, like scarcity, arises from the reality that people despise missing out on chances.
Chapter 6 – We want to keep our word.
Assume you’re resting on a beach, taking advantage of a well-earned day off. It’s a scorching day, and you’re itching for a cool plunge in the pool. What will you do with your wallet and keys, though? Is it possible to conceal them? Alternatively, ask a nearby sun-worshipper to keep an eye on them.
According to research conducted by psychologist Thomas Moriarty, asking someone is usually a better idea than you would believe.
Only 20% of persons on a beach who observed a faked robbery of radio from an adjacent blanket reacted, according to his findings. If the owner of the towel had first requested that people “please monitor my items,” 95% of their neighbors would have become near-vigilantes, even pursuing down the thief and forcibly reclaiming the radio.
Simply put, we humans are driven by a strong need for consistency: we want our behaviors to match what we’ve stated. As the study revealed, this desire is so powerful that it appears to outweigh worries about our own safety.
This urge for consistency derives mostly from the fact that it makes life easier: we don’t have to select how to respond to each scenario that arises if we can just stick to our previous decision. This type of automation aids us in navigating an increasingly complicated world.
What, on the other hand, determines consistency? The answer is straightforward: dedication. According to research, once we make a verbal or physical commitment to something, we want to stick to it.
And the most potent driver of all is a public commitment.
For example, following the Korean War, Chinese intelligence officers used this method to persuade American prisoners of war to collaborate. First, they urged them to make little compromises, such as penning and signing phrases like “America isn’t flawless.”
When these words were read out in front of the whole prison camp, the prisoner was frequently called a “collaborator” by his fellow inmates. Surprisingly, the prisoner began to regard himself as a participant as well, becoming more cooperative with the Chinese interrogators as a result. He was able to successfully change his self-image to match what he had previously put down. And obtaining the “promise” in writing was also crucial in this process; there is something undeniably strong about signing one’s own written words.
The well-known “foot in the door” sales strategy capitalizes on how even minor commitments impact our self-image. Salespeople’s initial aim is to persuade prospects to make a little transaction that isn’t even meant to create a profit. Rather, it is a little commitment that transforms the prospect’s perspective of themselves into that of a customer, making them far more receptive to a larger sale down the road.
Chapter 7 – The more effort it takes to obtain something, the more valuable it becomes.
When a new member is initiated into a group, initiation ceremonies typically entail suffering, humiliation, and even death, from African tribes to college fraternities in the United States. Efforts to stop the violent practices are invariably met with obstinate opposition. But why is it the case?
Simply put, the organizations performing these rituals understand that when individuals go to great lengths to obtain something, they are more likely to cherish it. Members become more dedicated to the group as a result of the work required to get a membership.
However, strangely, other groups, such as college fraternities, have rejected efforts to turn their initiations into community work, such as changing bedpans in hospitals.
This is basically because they just want people to make an internal decision to engage in the degradation rather than using explanations like “This was for the welfare of the community,” which would allow them to justify their actions with an external reason.
To make the inner decision, they’ll have to persuade themselves that it’s worthwhile, which will require boosting their opinion of the organization they’re joining. Indeed, research has shown that such internal decisions are more likely to result in long-term inner change than those made under duress.
The lowball method, for example, can be used by compliance professionals such as salesmen to try to induce inner change in us. A car salesman may make such an unbelievable low offer on a vehicle that we quickly opt to purchase it. The salesperson is well aware that during the test drive, we would invent various additional reasons to buy the automobile aside from the price, such as its good mileage or attractive color.
The first fantastic offer is revoked at the last minute due to a “bank error” or some other bogus explanation, and we are given a higher fee. We usually finish up buying the automobile for reasons we managed to come up with on our own. Another part of our drive for stability is this.
To counteract this deception, simply ask yourself if you would have made the transaction if you had known the actual price beforehand. You should leave if the answer is no.
Chapter 8 – When we’re unsure, we seek social confirmation.
Have you ever thought about why laugh recordings are so common in sitcoms?
In reality, studies show that laugh tracks help us laugh for longer and more frequently, particularly at lousy jokes.
This is related to the social proof principle, which claims that we frequently decide what is the best course of action by seeing others’ actions. Even fake laughing, in the case of the laugh track, can persuade us that others find the jokes amusing, implying that we should as well.
This dynamic is also employed by church ushers, who “salt” collection baskets with a few bills prior to the service in order to make it appear as if everyone is contributing. It’s why corporations regularly market items with phrases like “best-selling” or “fastest-growing” Because it gives buyers the impression that they’re not alone in their purchases.
When we are faced with uncertainty, social proof has a very significant impact.
Consider the instance of Kitty Genovese, who was fatally murdered outside her New York apartment building in 1964. The young woman’s calls for aid were heard by several neighbors, but no one interfered or contacted the cops. Outrage was sparked when the media claimed that the neighbors were cruel and careless about their neighbors.
Although it was later revealed that some neighbors had cried out their windows or contacted the cops, the case is still being researched as a great example of bystander inactivity, in which people are less inclined to aid a victim in an emergency if others are around.
According to psychologists, the bystander effect is mostly caused by two factors:
Firstly, when a large number of individuals are participating, each participant’s sense of personal responsibility is diminished. Is it possible that someone else will contact the cops?
Secondly, it might be difficult to recognize a true emergency, especially in a city. Is the man on the sidewalk in need of medical treatment, or has he simply had too much to drink? Is this the cry of a murder victim or a fan of a great football game?
When faced with ambiguity, individuals turn to the actions of others for direction. People were trying to sneak a peek out their windows in the Kitty Genovese case, thus this may have signaled to others that inactivity was the best course of action.
Now, let’s imagine you’re in the middle of a throng and have an emergency. How can you properly seek assistance?
The safest bet is to seek out one person from the group and make a specific request for assistance: “You, in the green shirt, phone an ambulance.” In this manner, the individual won’t be able to avoid taking on the obligation and won’t need to seek help. As a consequence, they’ll nearly definitely be of assistance.
Chapter 9 – People that are similar to us might have a significant impact on our decisions.
People, as we’ve just seen, often seek others for advice on how to act. And so this propensity is highest when the individual is viewed as similar to ourselves, as seen by how vulnerable teens are to their classmates’ judgments and fashion choices.
Our inclination to imitate others also results in a fairly sobering statistic: when suicide is widely reported in the media, the number of individuals killed in airline and vehicle disasters skyrockets the following week.
This appears to be a perplexing phenomenon at first look. What may be the cause?
The solution appears to be that after reading about suicide in the newspaper, some people decide to commit themselves in order to resemble the victim. Some people decide to make their deaths appear accidental for a variety of reasons, and some of them will do it while driving or (frighteningly) flying. As a result, there is a rise in inexplicable crashes.
Unfortunately, they aren’t people who would have died by suicide anyway: according to studies, every front-page suicide story effectively kills 58 people who would otherwise live.
The Werther effect is named after an eighteenth-century novel that inspired a wave of suicides across Europe, ostensibly in imitation of the protagonist.
This impact appears to be highest for persons who are comparable to the person whose suicide was covered by the media: when young people read about another youngster’s death, they are more likely to attempt suicide themselves, but older people are more inclined to respond to news of senior suicides.
This relationship is also why marketers frequently utilize adverts incorporating (usually fictitious) interviews with “ordinary folks on the street” who praise a product in a less dramatic situation. Ordinary people make up the greatest potential market for any product, and they value a recommendation from someone who looks like them.
Make a deliberate decision to be on the lookout for such phony social proof to avoid falling into this trap. Because the language is obviously written, you’ll be able to recognize the fakes most of the time. When you do find them, you should shun all of the company’s products in the future, as they deserve to be punished for attempting to deceive you using bogus social proof.
Chapter 10 – We cooperate with individuals we like, and certain people make it simple for us to like them.
Have you ever attended a Tupperware get-together? If you go, make careful to notice how well the company model uses compliance tactics to its advantage. The concept is wonderfully developed, from reciprocity, where each attendant receives a present before the buying begins, to social proof, where each transaction enhances the perception that similar individuals are also buying the product.
The biggest deception, however, is that the party invitation did not come from the Tupperware presenter, but from someone who every invitee likes: a friend.
Why is this such an effective ruse?
We are, on average, more obedient to persons we like.
And, like Tupperware, savvy compliance specialists know how to turn on the right switches to make us feel like a human.
For one thing, they’re aware that we’re suckers for flattery and gravitate toward people who are similar to us in some manner. This is why salespeople constantly compliment us and say that we have something in common: “Wow, that’s a wonderful tie, and blue is one of my favorite colors as well!”
Another aspect that influences whether or not we like someone is their physical attractiveness. Attractiveness causes the so-called halo effect, in which we perceive attractive people to be intelligent, kind, and honest. Worryingly, we are even inclined to vote for candidates who are more beautiful in elections!
Another important aspect in like someone is working together for the same objective, or perceiving them as “on the same team.” This element is employed to great effect in the notorious good cop/bad cop interrogation method: when a suspect is verbally assaulted by the bad policeman, the compassionate and understanding good officer defends the subject, appearing to be a friend and trusted confidant – and thus frequently getting a confession.
Lastly, the things we identify with people have an important role in determining their likability. Weather forecasters, for example, have received death threats just because they are connected with bad weather. When we hear about something while eating excellent food, on the other hand, we tend to correlate the topic with the favorable sentiments generated by the meal.
To guard against likability manipulation, consider if we have developed abnormally strong feelings for someone or something in a short period of time. If that’s the case, it’s possible that you’ve been duped, and you should be concerned.
Chapter 11 – We blindly obey authorities, and simple symbols of power might already compel us to comply.
We are trained from childhood to always obey those in positions of power, whether they be teachers, physicians, or police officials. Unfortunately, we don’t ponder or dispute perceived authority figures before obeying them since this instinct to accept authority is so engrained and powerful.
In the 1960s, prominent psychologist Stanley Milgram performed research that revealed that volunteers will give potentially dangerous electric shocks to others solely because they were commanded to by an authorized person. Despite the fact that no one was hurt, the experimenters were taken aback by the results.
Consider a nurse who received written instructions from a doctor — an authoritative figure – to treat a patient with a right earache: “Administer the medicament in R ear.”
She continued to place the drops in the patient’s anus, and neither she nor the patient paused to consider how this may help him with his earache. This is due to the fact that authority stifles individual thought.
If we don’t have any accurate evidence of another person’s authority, we approximate it using symbols of authority. Titles, for example, are extremely strong tools that have a significant impact on how we see others. When confronted with a professor, for example, we not only become more polite and receptive to their beliefs, but studies reveal that we also perceive them to be physically taller!
Clothes and props may also be used to convey authority. The authority figure’s white lab coat and clipboard were important in persuading volunteers to follow them and “torture” their colleagues’ research subjects in Milgram’s experiment. Con artists make full use of these symbols’ potency by dressing up in uniforms, suits, and even priest’s robes if necessary.
Of course, there are some authoritative persons to whom we should pay attention, such as judges or certain doctors.
But how can we avoid those who take advantage of our deeply entrenched need to respect authority?
Being conscious of authority’s power is already the first line of resistance. And we should ask ourselves two questions to swiftly and simply determine whether or not an authoritative person should be obeyed:
First and foremost, is this individual a genuine authority figure or only posing as one? Is it true that their credentials are valid in this situation? For example, from 1969 to 1976, actor Robert Young was known for playing the eponymous doctor in the TV drama Marcus Welby, M.D. He also became the face of Sanka-Coffee in a number of commercials, which were incredibly successful since many mistook Young for a doctor – and an authority figure – despite the fact that he had only portrayed one on TV. Simply inquiring if his credentials for endorsing Sanka-Coffee were authentic would have exposed him as a phony expert.
When presented with an apparent authoritarian figure, the second question to be asked is: how honest can we expect this authority to be in this situation? Are they looking out for our or their own best interests? A server, for instance, might be an expert in a restaurant’s wine selection, but he or she may also profit by recommending more costly wines.
So there you have it: the techniques experts use to sway you. Reciprocity, scarcity, consistency, social evidence, like, and authority are the six main elements of persuasion that you should be aware of in order to protect yourself from them.
Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini Book Review
We, humans, are able to use predictable shortcuts to guide our actions in various instances to avoid thinking about how we should behave. Advertisers, con artists, and salesmen, for example, make use of these preprogrammed human impulses to elicit the response that is optimal for them, not for us. They use the concepts of reciprocation, scarcity, consistency, social evidence, like, and authority in particular. Because we won’t be able to stop utilizing these helpful shortcuts, we’ll have to learn to defend ourselves against the manipulators who take advantage of them.