What is reverse psychology, history and examples from life

1. What is reverse psychology
2. Reverse psychology as a manipulative technique
3. When and for whom does reverse psychology work and not work?
4. How to use reverse psychology
5. How to Avoid Falling for Reverse Psychology Tricks

Almost everyone has encountered such a phenomenon as reverse psychology Corresponding examples can often be found in business and trade, in particular in advertising, sales, etc. In this incarnation, this phenomenon of our psyche is used mainly as a manipulative technique. We will talk in more detail about the features of reverse psychology, how it can be used and how not to succumb to manipulation if someone uses such psychology on you.

What is reverse psychology

Reverse psychology is reverse psychology or, as they say in scientific circles, paradoxical intervention. This is a series of psychological techniques that completely contradict the purposes of their use.

According to the techniques of reverse psychology, it is necessary to approve and reinforce those actions of a person that he wants to get rid of. And this reinforcement is considered the most effective way to change behavior. In the process of work, a paradox appears. The client is encouraged to behave in the same way as before, but to become better. Interesting, isn't it?

Paradoxical interference is an aspect of reverse psychology. During the session, the specialist offers a way to solve the patient’s problem, which, in theory, is not at all suitable for this situation. For example, for a person who is terrified of disgracing himself, a psychologist advises failing at something. Or for people who put everything off until later or procrastinate, he recommends setting aside 1 hour a day for procrastination.

The Backfire Effect: Why We Persist in Our Delusions

We tend to consider ourselves open-minded and think that we are ready to accept new information regardless of whether it contradicts our worldview. But the paradox is that when new facts refute our most cherished beliefs, faith in them only strengthens. In psychology, this phenomenon is called the rebound effect. Journalist David McRain examines the phenomenon using scientific research as an example and explains why we selectively perceive the truth and persist in our delusions.

Wired, The New York Times, Backyard Poultry Magazine—it happens to everyone.
Sometimes they make mistakes and get the facts wrong. And then, be it a well-known printed newspaper or an online news resource, the editors admit their guilt. If a news publication needs to maintain its good reputation, the editors publish corrections. Most of the time, this technique works, but what news outlets don't consider is that correction can further distance readers from the truth if the false report matches their beliefs. In fact, those pithy notes on the back page of every newspaper draw our attention to one of the most powerful forces influencing the way we think, feel and make decisions - the mechanism that prevents us from believing the truth. In 2006, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler of the University of Michigan and Georgia State University wrote several articles about key political events. The contents of these articles confirmed widespread misconceptions about some controversial issues in American politics. To begin with, the subject was offered a false article, and then another, which refuted the message of the previous one. For example, one of the articles said that the United States had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The next one said that the US never found him, which was true. Pacifists or adherents of liberalism generally rejected the first article and agreed with the second. The militarists and conservatives agreed with the first article and categorically did not accept the second. This reaction is not surprising. What was truly unexpected was the reaction of conservatives when they learned the truth. They admitted that after reading the material that in fact no weapons were found, they were even more convinced that in fact there were weapons in Iraq and that their initial beliefs were correct.

“Being confused, you strengthen your beliefs even more, instead of challenging them. When someone tries to correct you, to dispel your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens your confidence."

The experiment was repeated, this time focusing on stem cell research and tax reform, and again it was found that corrections actually reinforced the misconceptions of study participants if the corrections contradicted their beliefs. People on different sides of the political fence read the same articles and the same corrections, and if new information went against their beliefs, they began to defend their point of view with redoubled tenacity. The corrections unexpectedly led to the opposite results.

When a thought becomes part of your worldview, you try to protect it from outside influences. This happens instinctively and unconsciously as soon as the brain encounters information that is incompatible with its attitudes. Just as the mechanisms of justificatory thinking protect you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect protects you when the facts come to you, attacking where you are most vulnerable. In your confusion, you strengthen your beliefs even more, instead of challenging them. When someone tries to correct you, to dispel your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens your confidence. Over time, thanks to the rebound effect, you begin to look less critically at the facts that allow you to continue to consider your beliefs true and legitimate.

In 1976, when Ronald Reagan was on the presidential campaign trail, he often told voters about a Chicago con artist who made her living by scamming insurance companies. Reagan said the woman had 80 names, 30 addresses and 12 Social Security cards, which she used to receive food stamps and benefits from health insurance companies. The future president said that the woman drove around in a Cadillac, did not work and did not pay taxes. He talked about this woman, whom he never named, in every small town, and the story infuriated his listeners. Thanks to her, the concept of the “Social Security Queen” entered the American political lexicon and influenced not only the political discourse of America for the next 30 years, but also the government’s social policy. But this story was just a canard.

Of course, there have always been people who stole from the government, but no one who fit the description of Ronald Reagan actually existed. The woman who many historians suspect may have served as the model for the presidential heroine was an actress-con artist who used four false names and moved from place to place, changing her appearance each time, not some housewife mother surrounded by a pack of whiners. children.

Despite the fact that the story was publicly refuted and a lot of time has passed, it is still alive. The fictional lady who wallows in luxury and languishes over mountains of meal tickets while hard-working Americans go on strike is still a fixture in online newspapers these days. The mimetic stability of the word is impressive. Some version of the story appears weekly in blogs and magazine articles about legal violations, although it only takes a couple of clicks to find out it's false.

“When evidence confirms beliefs, people tend to see what they expect to see and draw conclusions that are consistent with their expectations.”

Psychologists call such stories narrative scenarios - these are stories about exactly what we want to hear, confirming our beliefs and giving us the right to adhere to the opinions we have already formed. If belief in safety net queens protects your worldview, you accept the myth and move on with your life. You may have found Reagan's tale disgusting or laughable, but without question you believed stories like these about medical companies interfering with research, or warrantless searches, or the benefits of chocolate. You watched a documentary about the dangers of... something you don't like, and you probably thought it was about the soul. For every Michael Moore "absolutely true" documentary, there are exactly the same documentary with the exact opposite content, in which the champions of the idea argue that their version of the truth is better.

A great example of selective disbelief is Literallyunbelievable.org. Its creators publish comments from Facebook users who believe in articles from the satirical magazine The Onion. Articles about Oprah Winfrey inviting a select few to be buried with her in a luxurious grave, news about the construction of an abortion center for hundreds of millions of dollars, or NASCAR's announcement about awarding bonuses to drivers for homophobic statements - users leave outraged comments on such news in full seriously. Psychologist Thomas Gilovich wrote: “When evidence confirms beliefs, people tend to see what they expect to see and draw conclusions that correspond to their expectations. If the conclusion matches our attitudes, we ask ourselves, “Can I believe it?”; if the conclusion disappoints us, then we ask ourselves, “Should I believe it?”

That is why particularly ardent critics who believe that Barack Obama was not born in the USA will never believe the hundreds of facts that clearly prove the opposite. When the President's administration released the full text of his birth certificate to the public in April 2011, the reaction of Obama's opponents was exactly what the backfire would suggest. They carefully studied the date of issue of the document, its appearance, its form - and as a result they gathered on the forum and ridiculed it. Their confidence increased even more. This has always been the case and will always be the case when it comes to conspiracy theories or any other incredible facts. A refutation will always only strengthen a person’s belief in the opposite. It is always considered part of a conspiracy, and the lack of facts is attributed to concealment of the truth.

This explains how strange, outdated and downright crazy beliefs survive the fight against science, common sense and facts. However, the truth of the phenomenon lies deeper, because none of us considers ourselves crazy. We do not believe that lightning is sent by a deity who wanted to launch a couple of charges into the ground. You don't wear special underwear to protect your libido from the moonlight. Your beliefs are rational, logical and factual, right?

Fine. Let's talk, for example, about corporal punishment. Is it good or bad? Harmless or harmful? Can corporal punishment be considered a lack of love or, conversely, a manifestation of parental care? Science has its answer, but we'll get to that later. Now try to realize how you feel about this, and you will understand that you yourself want to fall under the influence of others, you passionately want to be enlightened about a great many issues, but you avoid some topics.

The last time you got into or witnessed an online argument with someone who was convinced they knew absolutely everything about health care reform, gun control, gay marriage, sex education, drug wars, Joss Whedon, or whether the number 0.9999, repeated ad infinitum, is equal to zero - remember how it all happened? Have you taught your opponent a valuable lesson? Have you been thanked for helping to understand all the intricacies of a controversial issue after cursing your opponent for his past ignorance? Has a virtual hat been taken off to you for making a better person?

“It is impossible to win an argument on the Internet. When you start throwing around facts and names, hyperlinks and quotes, your opponent actually becomes even more confident that he is right than before you started the argument."

Most likely no. Most online battles unfold according to the same scenario: each side rushes to attack and fishes out more and more evidence from the depths of the Internet to strengthen its position until one of the parties, disappointed, decides to go all in and gets personal . If you are lucky, the comments will be deleted, and you will have time to preserve your honor and dignity, or some third-party commentator will help set a pack of indignants against your opponent.

Research into the backfire effect shows that it is impossible to win an argument online. When you start throwing around facts and names and hyperlinks and quotes, your opponent actually becomes even more confident that he is right than before you started the argument. When he starts contradicting you, the same thing happens in your mind. The reverse effect causes both of you to become even more locked in the belief that you are right.

Have you ever noticed a strange feature: we practically do not pay attention to praise addressed to us, but any criticism strikes us on the spot? Thousands of positive reviews may go unnoticed by us, but one single remark like “sucks” can stick in our heads for several days. One hypothesis to explain why this happens and why the backfire effect works is that we actually spend much more time thinking about information with which we disagree than we do about information that is close to us. Information that confirms our beliefs fades from our consciousness, but when we encounter something that challenges the truth of our beliefs, something that contradicts previously acquired knowledge about how the world works, we stop and Let's take note of this. Some psychologists argue that the explanation for this lies in the theory of evolution. Our ancestors paid more attention to negative stimuli than to positive ones, because negative events need to be responded to somehow. Those who could not adequately respond to a negative stimulus could not survive.

In 1992, Peter Ditto and David Lopez conducted an experiment in which subjects had to dip a small strip of paper into a cup of saliva. The paper was completely ordinary, but the psychologists told half of the participants that it would turn green if a person had serious problems with the pancreas, and the other half that this would happen if they were completely healthy. Both groups were told that the reaction would take about 20 seconds. Typically, people who were told that the piece of paper would turn green if they were healthy waited much longer for the result than the 20 seconds they were warned about. If the color did not change, 52 percent tried again. In another group, where green was supposed to mean bad news, people were mostly content with 20 seconds, with only 18 percent trying to put the paper in the bowl again.

When you read a negative comment, when someone trashes something you love, and when your beliefs are challenged, you scrutinize the information, looking for weaknesses. Cognitive dissonance blocks your thinking until you can cope with the situation. In the process, you form more neutral connections, construct new memories, and generate some effort—and when you finish thinking about the subject, your original beliefs are stronger than ever.

Psychologist and New York Times columnist Dan Gilbert observes the opposite effect in the fight against excess weight: “It happens that the number on the bathroom scale goes off scale. Then we get off and stand back up again to make sure we see the result correctly and don't lean too heavily on one leg. If we are satisfied with the result, we go into the shower with a smile. Without any further questions, we accept on faith the number that we like, and try again and again if we don’t like the result, thereby, as if unobtrusively, tipping the scales on our side.”

The backfire effect continually rearranges your beliefs and memories, swaying you to one side or the other through a process psychologists call assimilation bias. Decades of research into various types of cognitive distortions have shown that people typically perceive the world through a thick lens of faith, clouded by attitudes and worldviews. In 1996, scientists showed a group of subjects the Bob Dole-Bill Clinton debate and found that before the debate, everyone believed their candidate had won. In 2000, when scholars began studying Clinton supporters and opponents through their reactions to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, they found that Clinton supporters tended to view Lewinsky as an untrustworthy home-wrecker and had difficulty believing that Clinton had lied under oath. Of course, the president's opponents experienced exactly the opposite feelings. Fast forward to 2011, when Fox News and MSNBC were vying for cable territory, each promising a message that would never challenge the beliefs of any given segment of the population. That's biased assimilation in action.

Biased assimilation does not only work in relation to modern events. A group of academics conducted a 2004 study asking liberals and conservatives to weigh in on the 1970 Kent State University shooting, in which National Guard soldiers opened fire on anti-Vietnam War demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine. .

As is usually the case with any historical event, the details of what happened at the University of Kent began to become distorted within a few hours. Years later, books, articles, broadcasts and songs wove an impenetrable web of reasons and motivations, conclusions and assumptions, in which every opinion was somehow justified. In the weeks following the shooting, psychologists surveyed Kent State University students who witnessed the events and found that 6% of liberals and 45% of conservatives believed the National Guard had been provoked. Twenty-five years later, they surveyed the then-students again. In 1995, 62% of liberals said that soldiers committed murder, while only 37% of conservatives agreed with this statement. Five years later, students were given the questionnaire again, and the researchers found that conservatives were still inclined to say that protesters had overstepped their bounds in relation to the National Guard, while liberals saw the soldiers as aggressors. Strikingly, the more people surveyed said they knew about events, the stronger the strength of their beliefs. That is, a person supported the National Guard or protesters the more vehemently the more he knew about what happened. People who were only generally aware of what happened were less likely to experience backlash when evaluating events. The same effect caused those more knowledgeable to deliberately ignore controversial details.

“The mind of man does everything to support and agree with what he has once accepted, either because it is an article of faith or because he likes it. Whatever be the force and number of facts to the contrary, the mind either overlooks them, or neglects them, or rejects them by means of distinctions with great prejudice, so that the certainty of those former conclusions remains unimpaired." - Francis Bacon

In 1997, Geoffrey Munrow and Peter Ditto released a series of false articles. One study said that homosexuality is most likely a mental disorder. Another argued that any sexual orientation is natural and normal. The subjects were then divided into two groups: some considered homosexuality a disease, while others did not. Each group was given fake articles with fictitious facts and evidence, claiming that their point of view was incorrect. After both groups read materials that refuted their beliefs, no one said they suddenly saw the light, realizing that they had been wrong all these years. On the contrary, everyone began to argue that the solution to such problems was beyond the reach of science. When the subjects were later given other topics to discuss, such as spanking and astrology, the same people said they no longer trusted science or its ability to establish truth. Instead of reconsidering their beliefs and facing the facts, people chose to dismiss all science altogether.

Science and literature once painted the future in which we now live. Books, movies and comics of the past depicted cyberpunks surfing the endless expanses of information, and personal communications devices enveloping a person in a cloud of beeps and calls. The stories and midnight chatter on the radio predicted a time when the sum of human knowledge and artistic production would be continuously available on demand and millions of human lives would be interconnected and visible to all who wanted to be seen. And now the very future has arrived, in which we are surrounded by computers that can tell us everything that humanity knows, explain how to perform any task, teach us anything and reveal the essence of any phenomenon on earth. So one day a fictional life became everyday life for us.

And if this promised future has already arrived, why don’t we live in the kingdom of science and reason? Where is the most socio-political and technical utopia, empirical nirvana, the abode of the gods of analytical thought (only without overalls and neon headbands), where everyone knows the truth?

Among the many prejudices and misconceptions that block our path to the realm of microprocessors and skinny jeans, lives a huge monster of our psyche - the reverse effect. He was always there, always influenced the way we and our ancestors saw the world, but the Internet unleashed the beast, greatly increased its persuasiveness, and over the years we have not become any wiser.

As social media and advertising evolve, it will become increasingly difficult for us to overcome people's desire to confirm information that aligns with their beliefs and the counterproductive effect. A person will have more opportunities to choose from the general flow exactly the information that fits into his vision of the world, and, in his opinion, reliable sources that will supply him with such information. To top it off, advertisers will continue to adapt, not only by creating ads based on what they know about a person, but by generating advertising strategies based on data about what has or has not already worked for a person. The advertising of the future will be distributed not only based on your preferences, but also on who you voted for, where you grew up, what mood you're in, what day or year it is - any information about you that can be measured. In a world where everything you want is available, your beliefs will never be questioned.

Three thousand spoilers were tweeted hours before Barack Obama ascended to his presidential pulpit and told the world that Osama bin Laden was dead. A Facebook page, get-rich-quick sites, and millions of emails, text messages, and instant messages announcing the terrorist's death preceded the official announcement on May 1, 2011. Stories and comments poured in one after another, search engines went white-hot. Between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m. on the first day, Google searches for bin Laden increased by 1 million percent compared to the previous day. Videos of Toby Keith and Lee Greenwood performing on YouTube took the leading positions in the ranking. Unprepared news sites were scrambling to write news at full speed to supply the insatiable public with more and more informational food.

“In a world where new knowledge flourishes, where scientific discoveries are made every day, illuminating seemingly all aspects of human life, we, like most people, still perceive information very selectively”

It was a stunning demonstration of how the world of information exchange has changed since September 2001, but one thing was predictable and, apparently, inevitable. Within a few minutes after the publication of the first materials about the Seal Team Six special forces, tweets about the shooting of bin Laden and the hasty burial of his body at sea, conspiracy theories bloomed in full bloom in the fertile soil of our prejudices. A few years later, when it became clear that photographic evidence of the incident would not be provided, the conspiracy theories took shape into complete and irrefutable facts.

And although information technology does not stand still, the behavioral patterns that a person uses when it comes to faith, indisputable facts, politics and ideology seem to remain the same. In a world where new knowledge flourishes, where every day scientific discoveries are made that illuminate seemingly every aspect of human life, we, like most people, still perceive information very selectively, even if the fact is supported by scientific data and is based on centuries of research.

Well, what about corporal punishment? After you've read all this, do you think you're ready to find out what science has to say about this topic? A secret source reports that psychologists are still studying this phenomenon, but it is already known that regular spanking makes children under seven years of age more docile if it is not done in public and only by hand. And now attention - a small correction: other methods of influencing behavior: positive reinforcement, symbolic savings, free time, and so on - can also be effective and do not require cruelty.

So, you read these lines and they most likely evoked a strong emotional response in you. Has your opinion changed now that you know the truth?

Examples of using reverse psychology

Interestingly, even ordinary people use reverse psychology techniques. Most often this happens at the subconscious level. Remember how many times you forbade your child to do something? And he, showing all his stubbornness and independence, did the opposite? A wise move by mom and dad. After all, in the end, children still do what their parents needed.

Another example can be taken from romantic relationships. Imagine a woman who wants a man to marry her. It does not act directly, but comes from the opposite. He tells his partner that he doesn’t want to get married. And she doesn’t really need relationships, because they oblige and burden her with something. And at this very moment the owner’s instinct awakens in a man. Now he will do everything to make his woman change her mind. Wouldn't a real man allow her to enjoy such freedom?

Reverse psychology is found in cinema and books. Let's say a person is tired of life and wants to commit suicide. If others begin to dissuade him, he only becomes more confident in the correctness of his decision. In some situations you need to act differently. Depending on a person’s psychotype, you can give him evidence that his life is really insignificant, he will not be able to achieve or change anything. This is where his stubbornness can come into play. A potential suicide will suddenly begin to convince his interlocutor that he is not what they say about him. That he will solve all problems. As one might expect, in this case suicide is put on the back burner.

However, it is important to understand that not all people will fall for such tricks. Before you use reverse psychology with a potential suicide, you should make sure that it will work on him.

Trade workers know firsthand what reverse psychology is. Who better than them can manipulate the minds of customers? Reverse psychology helps sell the right product. There are several methods used here:

1. Anyone will want to buy a product that is currently unavailable.
2. Ask the buyer to rate the product. He will immediately find many useful properties in it. It turns out that he is advertising for himself.

And sellers often express doubts that a person has enough money to make a purchase. Trying to prove the opposite, the buyer is 100% likely to purchase the most expensive product.

Paradoxical Marketing

Have you ever noticed the radical difference between a product marketing campaign and an awareness campaign? The difference, say, between a fast food ad where every element of the ad is carefully chosen to saturate your brain with happy thoughts, and a drug awareness campaign that leaves you feeling uncomfortable due to the dark nature of the ad.

However, there is a widespread belief that anti-advertising of tobacco, drug and alcohol products becomes their real advertising. And all this is due to the phenomenon of reverse psychology. Anti-smoking activist and writer Allen Carr, in his book “The Easy Way to Quit Smoking,” writes that on Freedom from Smoking Day, smokers smoke twice as much, and demonstratively. This is where the child's rebellious essence manifests itself in all its glory.

Also, paradoxical marketing is applied in the following way: there is no advertising of the product, no points where you can buy it, there are also no mentions on the Internet (except for strange and mysterious ones) - people like it because such a product is almost impossible to find. Additionally, our natural curiosity comes into play here.

History of development

The theory of reversibility in psychology appeared in the 70s of the last century. Its creators are psychologists M. Apter and K. Smith. They published their research and conclusions in two works:

• “Subjective experience of motivation”;
• “Beyond personality traits. Reversible theory of motivation."

The main purpose of such psychology was the treatment of children suffering from schizophrenia. According to Apter, the theory he created helps to understand the duality of man. He cannot wish to perform two contradictory actions at the same time. Would you be willing to be in the desert and thirsty and give a bottle of water to a stranger who asked for help?

To force a person to do the right thing, to get the right reaction from him, you should follow 2 tips:

1. First: conditions should be created in which it will be as convenient as possible to manipulate.
2. Second: you need to create a plan of action that will encourage a person to move into a state suitable for manipulation and make a predetermined decision.

Transcription of the word

[r'iv'irs'ivnas't']

Letters: 13 Sounds: 12

Who is amenable to reverse psychology methods?

According to psychotherapist Janet Raymond, the effectiveness of reverse psychology is influenced by a person's character and personality type. But relationships are not the least important. It is easier to work with those people who are ready to defend independence, freedom, and equality. They initially want to do what is prohibited. Who is most affected? There are 3 groups of people:

1. children, teenagers;
2. rebels by nature;
3. those who suffer from low self-esteem.

Paradoxical intervention will not work on those people whose main character traits are calmness, straightforwardness, and conservatism. They are accustomed to acting as a person who is authoritative to them says. And therefore they will easily do what the manipulator says. But not the other way around.

When is reverse psychology effective?

As stated above, reverse psychology methods are applicable in many areas. Let's look at some of them.

With kids

In this case, doing the opposite, of course, is not the best way to educate. But often you can’t do without it. This is especially true for adolescence. Children are stubborn, rebel, and deliberately do what their parents forbid. There are no threats, no caresses, no promises of reward here.

By showing independence in this way, children not only refuse to carry out instructions from mom and dad, but they also do the opposite. This is where reverse psychology comes into play. Suffice it to say that you will do everything yourself. The child will begin to get even angrier. After all, he understands that disobedience becomes even stronger. Therefore, only out of stubbornness will he do what adults need.

Between man and woman

Over time, problems appear in relationships. Most often they are associated with everyday life. Surely you are familiar with the situation when a wife unsuccessfully once again asks her husband to do some work. This continues for several days, then months. Quarrels and scandals follow.

Reverse psychology helps correct the situation. Don't get angry, don't throw out negative emotions. Calmly say that you understand the reasons for what is happening. Therefore, we decided to make our partner’s day easier by using the services of a specialist. Almost always, a person in this case feels guilty for his irresponsibility and does what he promised.

Sales

How to unobtrusively encourage a person to buy this or that product has already been discussed above. Consultants undergo special training, during which they learn to subtly manipulate the consciousness and emotions of a potential buyer. For example, when you are about to leave, they tell you casually that they have already wanted to buy this item. You have several feelings at once, including competition and greed. The seller's task is completed.

In business relationships

The focus here is on self-esteem. In order to motivate an employee to be more active, the manager can point out his shortcomings and downplay his positive character traits. This will be a kind of impetus to move forward. The person will try to prove that he is actually not so bad.

Declension of the word "Reversibility"

Methods of confrontation

It's not easy to avoid falling for the tricks of reverse psychology. To do this, you must learn to control your emotions. If you suddenly realize that, guided by them, you are making a completely logical decision, stop. Perhaps you are simply being taken “weakly”.

It’s also worth thinking about if you have the feeling that you are acting in spite of someone’s words, requests, or suggestions. Put off making a decision until later. Wait for the emotions to subside. Only after this, reconsider all the pros and cons and make a choice.

If you have felt the effects of reverse psychology on yourself, do not rush to label your interlocutor as a manipulator. Remember that this behavior may be unconscious. But still stay alert.

Books about reverse psychology

The books of the creator of reverse psychology, M. Apter, have already been mentioned above. There are other works:

1. E. Bern, "People who play games." The plot is based on the relationship in the triangle: adult – child – parent. The author argues that at different periods of time, each participant changes the role. Understanding this helps to build harmonious relationships with people around you.
2. E. Berne “Games People Play.” Unusual edition. More than 100 games are presented to the reader that people will play with you throughout their lives. You will not only learn the rules. The author will help you successfully get out of the influence of a manipulator.

Books like these will only help if you apply the advice from them in life. Otherwise, knowledge will be useless.

How to avoid falling for the tricks of manipulators?

One of the influence techniques is based on psychological resistance - the “deficit principle”. A shortage or something inaccessible automatically appears more valuable to a person and only increases his desire to obtain the scarce item. Marketers use this. For example, they announce discounts for first buyers, short-term promotions, or “only for their own” offers. It has been noticed that buyers are more willing to buy a product if they know that its quantity is limited.

The main task of the manipulator is to evoke violent emotions in the opponent and destabilize his emotional state, in which he begins to act irrationally . Therefore, advice for those who want to learn to resist manipulation is complex and simple at the same time: do not give in to emotions. Although it seems easier said than done. How to proceed?

The first and most important thing is to take your time . The manipulator throws a hook and waits for the opponent’s reaction - as soon as he enters into dialogue, the game already goes to the manipulator’s field. And the best way to escape from being hit is to take a break. Don’t answer, don’t argue, don’t expose yourself to the next blow, but take a break and give yourself time to think about everything. You can do this elegantly and discreetly in different ways:

Distract yourself from everyday details with phrases:

• I got something in my eye.
• I have a sore throat, I’ll drink some water now.
• Something is blowing, I’ll close the door now and continue the conversation.

Physically leave the interaction space:

• Drastically change your position: stand up, walk, bend over to tie a shoelace.
• Start looking in your bag, pocket or on the table for papers, a phone, a pen - whatever.
• Say that you urgently need to respond to an SMS or message on your communicator.