influence-psychology by wondelai/skills
npx skills add https://github.com/wondelai/skills --skill influence-psychology基于六十年关于人们为何说“是”以及是什么让他们同意请求的研究,用于道德且有效地应用说服科学的框架。
人们并非理性地做决定。他们会使用可以被触发以影响行为的心理捷径(启发法)。这些捷径之所以演化出来,是因为它们通常是可靠的——但它们也可能被利用。
基础: 理解驱动人类顺从行为的心理触发因素,使你能够设计出与人们实际决策方式自然契合的产品、信息和体验。
目标:10/10。 在审查或创建说服性元素(功能、文案、流程、活动)时,根据对以下原则的遵循程度进行 0-10 分评分。10/10 意味着道德、有效地应用了影响力心理学;较低的分数表示错失机会或存在道德问题。始终提供当前分数以及达到 10/10 所需的具体改进措施。
核心理念: 人们觉得有义务回报那些先给予他们好处的人。
为何有效: 人类天生倾向于避免亏欠他人。回报的义务如此强烈,以至于可以压倒个人偏好或公平等其他因素。
关键见解:
产品应用:
| 情境 | 互惠触发点 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 免费试用 | 先给予完全访问权限,然后要求付费 | Spotify Premium 试用 → 订阅 |
广告位招租
在这里展示您的产品或服务
触达数万 AI 开发者,精准高效
| 预先提供价值(指南、工具) |
| HubSpot 免费 CRM → 付费工具 |
| 推荐计划 | 给予推荐人和被推荐人双方奖励 | Dropbox:双方都获得额外存储空间 |
| 新用户引导 | 临时解锁高级功能 | Grammarly:免费语气检测试用 |
| SaaS | 提供意外价值或支持 | 为新用户提供个性化设置电话 |
文案模式:
道德边界: 提供真正的价值。不要制造虚假的债务或利用义务感。
参见:references/reciprocity.md 了解互惠技巧和案例研究。
核心理念: 人们希望与自己过去的言论、信念和行动保持一致。
为何有效: 不一致会带来心理上的不适。一旦我们做出了选择或表明了立场,就会遇到来自个人和人际的压力,要求我们行为与那个承诺保持一致。
关键见解:
产品应用:
| 情境 | 承诺触发点 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 新用户引导 | 从简单的“是”开始,逐步提出更大要求 | Duolingo:"你能承诺每天 5 分钟吗?" |
| 渐进式信息收集 | 积累的小数据请求 | LinkedIn:添加照片 → 标题 → 经历 |
| 目标设定 | 用户公开陈述目标 | Strava:"我想这个月跑 50 公里" |
| 社会认同生成 | 在积极行为后请求评价 | Airbnb:良好住宿后的评价请求 |
| 习惯养成 | 公开追踪连续记录 | Snapchat 连续聊天,GitHub 贡献记录 |
文案模式:
新用户引导流程:
道德边界: 不要将用户锁定在他们并非自由做出的承诺中。允许轻松撤销。
参见:references/commitment-consistency.md 了解承诺策略和流程。
核心理念: 人们通过了解他人认为什么是正确的来确定什么是正确的。
为何有效: 当不确定时,我们会以他人的行为作为指导。"如果每个人都在做,那它一定是对的。"
关键见解:
社会认同类型:
| 类型 | 定义 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 大众智慧 | 许多人使用/购买 | "加入 50,000+ 营销人员" |
| 朋友智慧 | 你认识的人在使用 | "你的 3 个朋友在使用 Notion" |
| 专家 | 权威人士推荐 | "Y Combinator 推荐" |
| 名人 | 名人在使用 | "Elon Musk 使用" |
| 认证 | 第三方验证 | "SOC 2 合规","年度应用" |
| 用户 | 相似的人成功了 | "像您这样的初创公司增长了 10 倍" |
产品应用:
| 情境 | 社会认同实施 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 着陆页 | 用户数量、评价、徽标 | "受 10,000+ 公司信赖" |
| 注册流程 | 实时注册、热门计划 | "过去一小时有 23 人注册" |
| 功能采用 | 显示他人使用情况 | "85% 的团队使用此功能" |
| 紧迫性 | 有限供应 | "此价格仅剩 3 个名额" |
| 评价 | 评分、推荐信、案例研究 | G2 徽章、视频推荐 |
文案模式:
道德边界: 切勿捏造社会认同。真实的数字,真实的推荐。当证明经过筛选时需披露。
参见:references/social-proof.md 了解社会认同类型和实施模式。
核心理念: 人们会追随可信、博学的专家。
为何有效: 服从权威是根深蒂固的。当我们自身缺乏专业知识时,追随专家是一种高效的捷径。
关键见解:
权威来源:
| 类型 | 信号 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 证书 | 学位、认证 | "由斯坦福大学博士构建" |
| 经验 | 领域年限、过往记录 | "在网络安全领域 20 年" |
| 社会认同 | 奖项、媒体报道、排名 | "被福布斯、TechCrunch 报道" |
| 关联 | 可信赖的合作伙伴、投资者 | "由 Y Combinator 支持" |
| 内容 | 思想领导力、研究 | "基于对 10,000 名用户的研究" |
| 透明度 | 诚实地说明局限性 | "最适合 10-50 人的团队" |
产品应用:
| 情境 | 权威触发点 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 关于页面 | 创始人资历、团队专业知识 | "由前谷歌工程师构建" |
| 内容 | 原创研究、白皮书 | "[行业] 2026 年状态报告" |
| 产品界面 | 专业设计、数据引用 | 带有"来源:X 研究"的图表 |
| 支持 | 专家咨询、认证 | "与认证专家交谈" |
| 合作伙伴关系 | 集成徽章、安全认证 | "SOC 2 Type II","GDPR 合规" |
文案模式:
道德使用:
道德边界: 切勿伪造证书或捏造专业知识。只使用真实的权威。
参见:references/authority.md 了解权威建立策略。
核心理念: 人们更倾向于对他们喜欢的人说“是”。
为何有效: 我们更容易被我们喜欢、信任和感到有联系的人说服。喜好能创造心理安全感并减少阻力。
增加喜好的因素:
| 因素 | 机制 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 外表吸引力 | 光环效应:有吸引力 = 好 | 专业头像、精致设计 |
| 相似性 | 我们喜欢像我们的人 | "我也是像您一样的创始人" |
| 赞美 | 奉承有效(即使很明显) | "您对工具很有品味" |
| 合作 | 为共同目标努力 | "让我们一起构建这个" |
| 熟悉度 | 重复接触增加喜好 | 一致的品牌、再营销 |
| 关联 | 与积极事物关联 | 产品植入与向往的生活方式 |
产品应用:
| 情境 | 喜好触发点 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 品牌声音 | 友好、对话式、人性化的语气 | Mailchimp 俏皮的文案 |
| 团队页面 | 展示真实的人、个性 | 个人简介、爱好、照片 |
| 新用户引导 | 个性化欢迎、友好的用户界面 | "嘿 [姓名],欢迎!" |
| 支持 | 温暖、共情的回应 | "我完全理解那种挫败感..." |
| 社区 | 促进相似用户之间的联系 | 用户群组、Slack 社区 |
文案模式:
道德边界: 真诚地提供帮助并保持真实。不要制造虚假的融洽关系或操纵情感。
参见:references/liking.md 了解喜好技巧和语气指南。
核心理念: 人们更想要他们无法拥有或即将耗尽的东西。
为何有效: 损失厌恶比追求收益更强烈。害怕错过(FOMO)会触发紧迫感和欲望。
关键见解:
稀缺性类型:
| 类型 | 机制 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 数量有限 | 有限供应 | "仅剩 5 个座位" |
| 时间有限 | 截止日期压力 | "优惠周五结束" |
| 独家访问 | 并非每个人都能拥有 | "仅限邀请的测试版" |
| 独特性 | 独一无二 | "为您定制" |
| 竞争 | 其他人也在竞争 | "12 人正在查看此商品" |
产品应用:
| 情境 | 稀缺性触发点 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 定价 | 限时折扣 | "早鸟价 3 天后结束" |
| 功能 | 测试版访问、等待名单 | "加入 5,000 人的等待名单" |
| 活动 | 有限席位、RSVP 截止日期 | "仅剩 20 个名额" |
| 库存 | 库存水平 | "库存仅剩 2 件" |
| 紧迫性 | 倒计时器 | 截止日期的实时倒计时 |
文案模式:
道德边界:
稀缺性合乎道德的情况:
稀缺性不合乎道德的情况:
参见:references/scarcity.md 了解稀缺性策略和道德实施。
核心理念: 人们会对他们认为是"我们"(共享身份)一部分的人说“是”。
为何有效: 部落身份是根本性的。我们会为群体内的成员做出不会为陌生人做出的牺牲。
一致性与喜好:
一致性来源:
| 类型 | 机制 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 家庭 | 血缘关系、选择的家庭 | "我们是一家人" |
| 地点 | 家乡、地区、国籍 | "在旧金山构建,为创始人服务" |
| 经历 | 共同的困难或胜利 | "我们都曾为糟糕的 CRM 而挣扎" |
| 价值观 | 深层信念、使命一致 | "为重视隐私的人服务" |
| 部落 | 共同创造、运动 | "加入独立创造者社区" |
产品应用:
| 情境 | 一致性触发点 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 品牌定位 | 定义部落 | "为远程优先的团队服务" |
| 信息传递 | "我们"的语言、共同的奋斗 | "我们相信工作应该是灵活的" |
| 社区 | 促进共同创造 | 用户生成内容、论坛 |
| 新用户引导 | 身份确认 | "欢迎来到 [部落名称]" |
| 社交功能 | 启用一致性信号 | 个人资料徽章、群组成员资格 |
文案模式:
道德边界: 不要创造有害的内部群体或诋毁外部群体。一致性应该团结,而不是恶意分裂。
参见:references/unity.md 了解一致性建立策略。
最强大的说服力是多个原则结合使用。
示例:SaaS 着陆页
示例:推荐计划
在部署影响力策略之前:
说服与操纵之间的界限:
参见:references/ethics.md 了解全面的道德边界。
| 错误 | 为何失败 | 修复方法 |
|---|---|---|
| 虚假社会认同 | 被发现时会破坏信任 | 使用真实数据或干脆不用 |
| 过度使用稀缺性 | 变成噪音,失去效力 | 保留给真正的紧迫情况 |
| 不一致的权威 | 破坏可信度 | 不要声称你缺乏的专业知识 |
| 强制的互惠 | 感觉是交易性的,不真诚 | 给予而不立即要求回报 |
| 泛泛的一致性 | "每个人"不是一个部落 | 定义具体的共享身份 |
审计任何说服性元素:
| 问题 | 如果答案为否 | 行动 |
|---|---|---|
| 我使用了哪个(些)原则? | 你在依赖运气 | 明确地为影响力设计 |
| 这个声明/策略真实吗? | 你在操纵 | 删除或用真相替换 |
| 这对我有效吗? | 可能对别人也无效 | 用真正的价值重新设计 |
| 我组合了原则吗? | 缺少杠杆作用 | 叠加多个原则 |
| 用户可以轻松撤销吗? | 道德问题 | 添加明确的退出选项 |
此技能基于 Robert Cialdini 的研究和书籍。如需完整的科学依据、研究引用和扩展案例研究:
Robert B. Cialdini, PhD 是亚利桑那州立大学心理学和市场营销学荣休教授。他关于影响力心理学的研究被广泛发表和引用。《影响力》一书在全球已售出超过 500 万册,被认为是说服科学的基础文本。Cialdini 曾为财富 500 强公司、政府机构和非营利组织提供道德影响力策略方面的咨询。
每周安装次数
305
代码库
GitHub 星标数
255
首次出现
Feb 10, 2026
安全审计
安装于
opencode284
gemini-cli281
codex280
github-copilot278
kimi-cli276
amp276
Framework for applying the science of persuasion ethically and effectively. Based on six decades of research into why people say "yes" and what makes them comply with requests.
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.
The foundation: Understanding the psychological triggers that drive human compliance allows you to design products, messaging, and experiences that naturally align with how people actually make decisions.
Goal: 10/10. When reviewing or creating persuasive elements (features, copy, flows, campaigns), rate them 0-10 based on adherence to the principles below. A 10/10 means ethical, effective application of influence psychology; lower scores indicate missed opportunities or ethical concerns. Always provide the current score and specific improvements needed to reach 10/10.
Core concept: People feel obligated to give back to others who have given to them first.
Why it works: Humans are wired to avoid being indebted. The obligation to repay is so strong that it can overpower other factors like personal preference or fairness.
Key insights:
Product applications:
| Context | Reciprocity Trigger | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Free trials | Give full access first, then ask to pay | Spotify Premium trial → subscription |
| Content marketing | Provide value upfront (guides, tools) | HubSpot free CRM → paid tools |
| Referral programs | Give reward to both referrer and referee | Dropbox: both get extra storage |
| Onboarding | Unlock a premium feature temporarily | Grammarly: free tone detection trial |
| SaaS | Provide unexpected value or support | Personalized setup call for new users |
Copy patterns:
Ethical boundary: Give genuine value. Don't create artificial debts or exploit obligation.
See: references/reciprocity.md for reciprocity techniques and case studies.
Core concept: People want to be consistent with their past statements, beliefs, and actions.
Why it works: Inconsistency is psychologically uncomfortable. Once we've made a choice or taken a stand, we encounter personal and interpersonal pressure to behave consistently with that commitment.
Key insights:
Product applications:
| Context | Commitment Trigger | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Onboarding | Start with easy yes, build to larger asks | Duolingo: "Can you commit to 5 min/day?" |
| Progressive profiling | Small data requests that compound | LinkedIn: add photo → headline → experience |
| Goal setting | User publicly states a goal | Strava: "I want to run 50km this month" |
| Social proof generation | Ask for review after positive action | Airbnb: review request after good stay |
| Habit formation | Track streak publicly | Snapchat streaks, GitHub contributions |
Copy patterns:
Onboarding sequence:
Ethical boundary: Don't lock users into commitments they didn't freely make. Allow easy reversibility.
See: references/commitment-consistency.md for commitment tactics and flows.
Core concept: People determine what's correct by finding out what other people think is correct.
Why it works: When uncertain, we look to others' behavior as a guide. "If everyone's doing it, it must be right."
Key insights:
Types of social proof:
| Type | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Wisdom of crowds | Many people use/buy | "Join 50,000+ marketers" |
| Wisdom of friends | People you know use it | "3 of your friends use Notion" |
| Expert | Authorities endorse | "Recommended by Y Combinator" |
| Celebrity | Famous people use it | "Used by Elon Musk" |
| Certification | Third-party validation | "SOC 2 compliant", "App of the Year" |
| User | Similar people succeeded | "Startups like yours grew 10x" |
Product applications:
| Context | Social Proof Implementation | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Landing pages | User count, reviews, logos | "Trusted by 10,000+ companies" |
| Signup flow | Live signups, popular plans | "23 people signed up in the last hour" |
| Feature adoption | Show usage by others | "85% of teams use this feature" |
| Urgency | Limited availability | "Only 3 spots left at this price" |
| Reviews | Ratings, testimonials, case studies | G2 badges, video testimonials |
Copy patterns:
Ethical boundary: Never fabricate social proof. Real numbers, real testimonials. Disclose when proof is curated.
See: references/social-proof.md for social proof types and implementation patterns.
Core concept: People follow the lead of credible, knowledgeable experts.
Why it works: Obedience to authority is deeply ingrained. Following experts is an efficient shortcut when we lack expertise ourselves.
Key insights:
Sources of authority:
| Type | Signal | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Credentials | Degrees, certifications | "Built by Stanford PhDs" |
| Experience | Years in field, track record | "20 years in cybersecurity" |
| Social proof | Awards, press, rankings | "Featured in Forbes, TechCrunch" |
| Association | Trusted partners, investors | "Backed by Y Combinator" |
| Content | Thought leadership, research | "Based on research with 10,000 users" |
| Transparency | Honest about limitations | "Works best for teams of 10-50" |
Product applications:
| Context | Authority Trigger | Example |
|---|---|---|
| About page | Founder credentials, team expertise | "Built by ex-Google engineers" |
| Content | Original research, whitepapers | "State of [Industry] 2026 Report" |
| Product UI | Professional design, data citations | Charts with "Source: X Study" |
| Support | Expert consultations, certifications | "Talk to a certified expert" |
| Partnerships | Integration badges, security certs | "SOC 2 Type II", "GDPR compliant" |
Copy patterns:
Ethical use:
Ethical boundary: Never fake credentials or fabricate expertise. Real authority only.
See: references/authority.md for authority-building strategies.
Core concept: People prefer to say yes to those they like.
Why it works: We're more persuaded by people we like, trust, and feel connected to. Liking creates psychological safety and reduces resistance.
Factors that increase liking:
| Factor | Mechanism | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Physical attractiveness | Halo effect: attractive = good | Professional headshots, polished design |
| Similarity | We like people like us | "I'm a founder just like you" |
| Compliments | Flattery works (even when obvious) | "You have great taste in tools" |
| Cooperation | Working toward shared goals | "Let's build this together" |
| Familiarity | Repeated exposure increases liking | Consistent brand, retargeting |
| Association | Linked to positive things | Product placement with aspirational lifestyles |
Product applications:
| Context | Liking Trigger | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Brand voice | Friendly, conversational, human tone | Mailchimp's playful copy |
| Team pages | Show real people, personality | Personal bios, hobbies, photos |
| Onboarding | Personalized welcome, friendly UI | "Hey [Name], welcome!" |
| Support | Warm, empathetic responses | "I totally understand that frustration..." |
| Community | Facilitate connections among similar users | User groups, Slack communities |
Copy patterns:
Ethical boundary: Be genuinely helpful and authentic. Don't manufacture false rapport or manipulate emotions.
See: references/liking.md for liking techniques and tone guidelines.
Core concept: People want more of what they can't have or what's running out.
Why it works: Loss aversion is stronger than gain seeking. The fear of missing out (FOMO) triggers urgency and desire.
Key insights:
Types of scarcity:
| Type | Mechanism | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Limited quantity | Finite supply | "Only 5 seats left" |
| Limited time | Deadline pressure | "Offer ends Friday" |
| Exclusive access | Not everyone can have it | "Invite-only beta" |
| Unique | One-of-a-kind | "Custom built for you" |
| Competition | Others are competing for it | "12 people viewing this" |
Product applications:
| Context | Scarcity Trigger | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Limited-time discount | "Early bird pricing ends in 3 days" |
| Features | Beta access, waitlist | "Join 5,000 on the waitlist" |
| Events | Limited seats, RSVP deadlines | "Only 20 spots remaining" |
| Inventory | Stock levels | "2 left in stock" |
| Urgency | Countdown timers | Real-time countdown to deadline |
Copy patterns:
Ethical boundaries:
When scarcity is ethical:
When scarcity is unethical:
See: references/scarcity.md for scarcity tactics and ethical implementation.
Core concept: People say yes to those they consider part of "us" (shared identity).
Why it works: Tribal identity is fundamental. We make sacrifices for in-group members we wouldn't make for strangers.
Unity vs. Liking:
Sources of unity:
| Type | Mechanism | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Family | Blood relation, chosen family | "We're family" |
| Place | Hometown, region, nationality | "Built in San Francisco, for founders" |
| Experience | Shared hardship or triumph | "We've all struggled with bad CRMs" |
| Values | Deep beliefs, mission alignment | "For people who value privacy" |
| Tribe | Co-creation, movement | "Join the indie maker community" |
Product applications:
| Context | Unity Trigger | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Brand positioning | Define the tribe | "For remote-first teams" |
| Messaging | "We" language, shared struggle | "We believe work should be flexible" |
| Community | Facilitate co-creation | User-generated content, forums |
| Onboarding | Identity affirmation | "Welcome to the [tribe name]" |
| Social features | Enable unity signals | Profile badges, group membership |
Copy patterns:
Ethical boundary: Don't create toxic in-groups or vilify out-groups. Unity should unite, not divide maliciously.
See: references/unity.md for unity-building strategies.
The most powerful persuasion uses multiple principles together.
Example: SaaS landing page
Example: Referral program
Before deploying influence tactics:
The line between persuasion and manipulation:
See: references/ethics.md for comprehensive ethical boundaries.
| Mistake | Why It Fails | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Fake social proof | Destroys trust when discovered | Use real data or don't use it |
| Overuse of scarcity | Becomes noise, loses power | Reserve for genuine urgency |
| Inconsistent authority | Undermines credibility | Don't claim expertise you lack |
| Forced reciprocity | Feels transactional, not genuine | Give without immediate ask |
| Generic unity | "Everyone" is not a tribe | Define specific shared identity |
Audit any persuasive element:
| Question | If No | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Which principle(s) am I using? | You're relying on luck | Explicitly design for influence |
| Is this claim/tactic truthful? | You're manipulating | Remove or replace with truth |
| Would this work on me? | It probably won't work on others | Redesign with genuine value |
| Am I combining principles? | Missing leverage | Layer multiple principles |
| Can users easily reverse? | Ethical concern | Add clear opt-outs |
This skill is based on Robert Cialdini's research and books. For the complete science, research citations, and expanded case studies:
Robert B. Cialdini, PhD is Regents' Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Marketing at Arizona State University. His research on the psychology of influence has been published extensively and is widely cited. Influence has sold over 5 million copies worldwide and is considered the foundational text on persuasion science. Cialdini has consulted for Fortune 500 companies, government agencies, and nonprofits on ethical influence strategies.
Weekly Installs
305
Repository
GitHub Stars
255
First Seen
Feb 10, 2026
Security Audits
Gen Agent Trust HubPassSocketPassSnykPass
Installed on
opencode284
gemini-cli281
codex280
github-copilot278
kimi-cli276
amp276
程序化SEO实战指南:大规模创建优质页面,避免内容单薄惩罚
33,300 周安装