Summary of Invisible Influence
From THE INVISIBLE INFLUENCE: THE HIDDEN fORCES THAT SHAPE BEHAVIOR by Jonah Berger. Copyright © 2016 by Jonah Berger. Reprinted by permission of Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Suchen Sie das Buch?
Wir haben die Zusammenfassung! Erfassen Sie die Kernaussagen in nur 10 Minuten.
Jonah Berger, a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, presents a basic primer about the forces of “social influence” and peer pressure. He explains how other people shape your thoughts, purchases and actions. Berger brings the right credentials; on his own and with partners, he has run studies to gauge the influence of social forces. He writes with a clear, straightforward style, packs in a lot of information, and simplifies complex ideas, as if trying to serve both marketing professionals and his marketing students. As in a classroom, he poses rhetorical questions. Berger covers a wide range of influence scenarios, showing great passion for his field. getAbstract recommends his text to marketing students and professors and to marketers as a reminder of how malleable human behavior can be.
About the Author
Jonah Berger, who also wrote the bestseller Contagious, is a marketing professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. His work has appeared in The New York Times, Science and the Harvard Business Review.
Comment on this summary
1 year agoRead something Amazing like this after a long time. Wonderful stuff.
2 years agoI agree with the earlier comments in that there is no clear direction what one must do to improve their acceptability in the society. 'Optimally different' seems like an interesting concept although insufficiently addressed in the summary - not certain if it is better detailed in the book.
3 years agoWow...love it
4 years agoI read the summary and thought "So What?" Lot's of description but no actions or adjustments suggested.
4 years agoThe summary is quite repetitive: both similarity and difference matter. I would not like to dispute the point. But it is unclear what it can predict, as it will describe every moderate situation. Some statements sound scientific, but it remains unclear how they were validated: "Most siblings share no more qualities or attitudes than any two people randomly picked from the population". Some statements seem nonsense without context: " If you bicycle next to someone, his ore her presence makes you go faster." I guess it might work for competitive cycling, but not for recreation or cycling as transport.