It is not a long step from Pavlov’s classic demonstration to Razran’s
luncheon technique. Obviously, a normal reaction to food can be
transferred to some other thing through the process of raw association.
Razran’s insight was that there are many normal responses to food be-
sides salivation, one of them being a good and favorable feeling.
Therefore, it is possible to attach this pleasant feeling, this positive atti-
tude, to anything (political statements being only an example) that is
closely associated with good food.
Nor is there a long step from the luncheon technique to the compli-
ance professionals’ realization that all kinds of desirable things can
substitute for food in lending their likable qualities to the ideas,
products, and people artificially linked to them. In the final analysis,
then, that is why those good-looking models are standing around in
the magazine ads. And that is why radio programmers are instructed
to insert the station’s call-letters jingle immediately before a big hit song
is played. And that is even why the women playing Barnyard Bingo at
a Tupperware party must yell the word “Tupperware” rather than
“Bingo” before they can rush to the center of the floor for a prize. It
may be “Tupperware” for the women, but it’s “Bingo” for the company.
Just because we are often the unaware victims of compliance practi-
tioners’ use of the association principle doesn’t mean that we don’t
understand how it works or don’t use it ourselves. There is ample
evidence, for instance, that we understand fully the predicament of a
Persian imperial messenger or modern-day weatherman announcing
bad news. In fact, we can be counted on to take steps to avoid putting
ourselves in any similar positions. Research done at the University of
Georgia shows just how we operate when faced with the task of com-
municating good or bad news. Students waiting for an experiment to
begin were given the job of informing a fellow student that an important
phone call had come in for him. Half the time the call was supposed to
bring good news and half the time, bad news. The researchers found
that the students conveyed the information very differently, depending
on its quality. When the news was positive, the tellers were sure to
mention that feature: “You just got a phone call with great news. Better
see the experimenter for the details.” But when the news was unfavor-
able, they kept themselves apart from it: “You just got a phone call.
Better see the experimenter for the details.” Obviously, the students
had previously learned that, to be liked, they should connect themselves
to good news but not bad news.^25
A lot of strange behavior can be explained by the fact that people
understand the association principle well enough to strive to link
Robert B. Cialdini Ph.D / 147