| name | pinf - Persuasion & Influence Analysis |
| description | Analyze how influence works in a situation. Maps influence channels, assesses ethical boundaries, and recommends strategy or defense. |
| output | {"format":"prose"} |
Persuasion & Influence Analysis
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Step 1: Identify the Influence Dynamics
Map who is influencing whom in the situation.
- Who are the actors? (people, organizations, groups)
- For each pair of actors, is there an influence relationship?
- What is the direction? (A influences B, mutual, or indirect through C)
- What is at stake? (what decision, behavior, or belief is being influenced)
ACTORS:
1. [actor A] — Role: [influencer / target / both]
2. [actor B] — Role: [influencer / target / both]
...
INFLUENCE MAP:
- [A] -> [B]: [what A is trying to get B to do/believe]
- [B] -> [A]: [what B is trying to get A to do/believe] (if mutual)
...
STAKES: [what is ultimately being decided or changed]
Step 2: Map the Influence Channels
For each influence relationship, identify which channels are active. Based on Cialdini's principles plus additional channels:
Core Channels
| Channel | Mechanism | Signal |
|---|
| Authority | Deference to expertise or position | Titles, credentials, uniforms, confident tone |
| Reciprocity | Obligation from receiving something | Gifts, favors, concessions, free samples |
| Social proof | Following what others do | Testimonials, popularity metrics, "everyone's doing it" |
| Scarcity | Urgency from limited availability | Deadlines, "only 3 left," exclusive access |
| Liking | Persuaded by those we like | Flattery, similarity, attractiveness, rapport |
| Consistency | Desire to align with past commitments | "You said before...", foot-in-the-door, public pledges |
Additional Channels
| Channel | Mechanism | Signal |
|---|
| Framing | Shaping how options are perceived | Anchoring, loss vs. gain framing, default options |
| Information control | Controlling what is known | Selective disclosure, timing of release, complexity |
| Emotional leverage | Using emotions to override reasoning | Fear, guilt, excitement, outrage |
| Structural power | Influence through position/access | Gatekeeping, agenda setting, resource control |
| Narrative | Embedding influence in stories | Origin stories, cautionary tales, identity narratives |
ACTIVE CHANNELS:
- [A] -> [B] via [channel]: [specific example from the situation]
- [A] -> [B] via [channel]: [specific example from the situation]
...
DOMINANT CHANNEL: [which channel carries the most influence]
Step 3: Assess Channel Effectiveness
For each active channel, rate how well it's working:
CHANNEL ASSESSMENT:
1. [channel] — Effectiveness: [HIGH / MODERATE / LOW]
Why: [what makes it effective or ineffective in this context]
Target awareness: [target knows / suspects / unaware]
2. [channel] — Effectiveness: [HIGH / MODERATE / LOW]
...
Key factors that affect effectiveness:
- Target awareness: Known influence is weaker (except authority)
- Channel match: Does the channel fit the target's psychology?
- Saturation: Overused channels lose power
- Credibility: Is the channel authentic or manufactured?
Step 4: Identify Ethical Boundaries
Assess the ethical dimension of each influence attempt:
| Test | Question |
|---|
| Transparency | Would the influence still work if the target fully understood the tactic? |
| Autonomy | Is the target free to say no without penalty? |
| Truth | Is the information being presented accurate and complete? |
| Benefit | Does the outcome genuinely serve the target's interests? |
| Reversibility | Can the target reverse the decision once the influence fades? |
ETHICAL ASSESSMENT:
- [channel/tactic]: [ETHICAL / GRAY / MANIPULATIVE]
Reasoning: [which tests pass and fail]
...
OVERALL: [ethical influence / mixed / manipulation]
Manipulation = influence that relies on the target NOT understanding what's happening. Ethical persuasion works even when transparent.
Step 5: Recommend Strategy
Based on the analysis, provide recommendations. The recommendation depends on the user's role:
If the user is the INFLUENCER:
RECOMMENDED STRATEGY:
1. Lead with: [most effective ethical channel]
2. Support with: [secondary channel]
3. Avoid: [channels that cross ethical lines or would backfire]
4. Key message: [the core persuasive message]
5. Timing: [when to make the attempt]
If the user is the TARGET:
DEFENSE STRATEGY:
1. Be aware of: [channels being used on you]
2. Counter [channel] by: [specific defense]
3. Create distance: [how to pause and evaluate independently]
4. Decision test: "Would I make this same choice if [influence] were removed?"
5. Seek: [independent information sources or advisors]
If the user is an OBSERVER:
OBSERVATION SUMMARY:
1. Primary influence dynamic: [what's happening]
2. Most powerful channel: [which and why]
3. Ethical assessment: [clean / concerning / manipulative]
4. Likely outcome if unchanged: [prediction]
5. Intervention point: [where the dynamic could be shifted]
Step 6: Predict Outcomes
Based on the influence analysis:
PREDICTIONS:
- If current dynamics continue: [likely outcome]
- If [recommended strategy] is applied: [likely outcome]
- Wildcard scenario: [unexpected shift that could change everything]
CONFIDENCE: [HIGH / MODERATE / LOW]
KEY VARIABLE: [the single factor most likely to determine the outcome]
Integration
Use with:
/per -> Design a persuasive communication based on this analysis/aex -> Check whether your read of the influence dynamics is biased/usrn -> Understand what the target actually needs (not just what they're being pushed toward)/spec -> Explore "what if" scenarios around influence outcomes
