The science of likability, 60 evidence-based methods to radiate charisma, make a powerful impression, win friends, and trigger attraction, written by Patrick King, narrated by Russell Newton. Why do some people instantly like us while others seem to be offended by our very existence? Is hitting it off and becoming friends with people purely a roll of the dice, or is there something more we can do to control our chances of connecting with people? For many people, likability does seem to be a game of chance. If you happen to sit next to someone who is similar to you, and who also happens to share a hobby or hometown, then you will have something to connect over. But statistically, that can’t happen with every new friend we make, so things aren’t quite adding up. As we saw from Little Albert and Pavlov’s dog, we are more influenceable than we might assume. People who see likability as completely organic and natural are somewhat misguided because cultivating a feeling of likability around yourself is just like any other emotion—it can be triggered, summoned, eliminated, and ultimately engineered. If we want to make someone angry with us, we certainly know what to do and how to adjust our behavior. If we want to make someone cry, we also know how to create that feeling.

Likability is not much different; we push psychological buttons, but for a far more desirable outcome. We all have specific and subtle triggers that influence the way we view others and how they view us. Most of them are minuscule, subconscious, and mired in the minutiae—but these are the details that actually make the difference. If you went into a restaurant and saw only one cockroach hiding in the corner, well, it might be minuscule but still quite important. The first chapter of the book focuses on the small details that comprise our first impressions, an integral part of likability. First impressions run deep, are not subject to change, and are your first opportunity to be likable, so this is as good a place to start as any. Context-Dependent Memories. Memories have long been found to be context-dependent, first by Godden and Baddeley in 1975 in their breakthrough publication “Context-Dependent Memory in Two Natural Environments - On Land and Underwater,” which means memories are heavily linked to the environment, events, sounds, feelings, and even smells that were present during the formation of the memory. The researchers found that either being on land or underwater led subjects to recall different sets of memories.

We can see this in our everyday lives. For instance, this is why so many of us fall into bouts of nostalgia when we hear certain songs—the song is information that is linked to much more than the song itself. This is why smelling a whiff of a buttercream pie takes us back to our grandmother’s homes when we were children. This means memory is not a flat representation of a set of events—it’s a holistic, three-dimensional snapshot of everything that was happening at that exact moment in time. Whatever else you were experiencing at the time is linked to the memory and can be used to bring it back up. Our brains act as sponges, not focused lasers, and absorb both consciously and subconsciously. Obviously, we don’t always realize this because, by nature, the subconscious is beyond our awareness. But you might recall the feeling when you walk into your old school and suddenly memories come flooding into your brain as if on cue. But in fact, a 1994 study by Eich, Macauley, and Ryan titled “Mood Dependent Memory for Events of the Personal Past” found that memories were also mood-dependent.

In other words, the mood we had when the memory was formed is also part of the memory. The information is in there somewhere, and Eich and his associates found that appealing to those hidden aspects of memories allows you to influence people’s moods for the better. The researchers created situations to put the participants in either good or bad moods. Then the subjects were given neutral words and asked what type of memories the neutral words evoked. Participants who were in good moods typically recalled positive memories while participants who were in bad moods typically recalled negative memories. And of course, the subsequent memories recalled served to further increase the moods they were in—misery and happiness both grew. Memory and mood are closely linked, and influencing one can influence the other. In other words, if we think about happy memories, our mood rises, and if we think about dreadful memories, our mood plummets. By itself, it’s not a huge revelation.

If you think about puppies and kittens racing toward a bowl of food, you are likely to smile and laugh and get cheered up. But never before had it been shown that our moods can be so intimately tied to memories. It also works in reverse; thus, if we can conjure up memories from a mood, we can use memories to conjure up a mood—and remember that memories are both explicit and subconscious. By understanding this relationship, we can sneakily become more likable. We can’t control people’s moods directly, but we can control the memories that they are thinking about to do it indirectly. This is the first step in becoming a presence that people start to crave; if you either (1) directly talk about positive memories or (2) indirectly evoke elements that were present at the time of that positive memory (recall how holistic and three-dimensional memory is), people will slip into the mood they were in during that memory. For instance, suppose you know your friend Dorothy’s happiest moment in life was when she got married to her beloved beau Brian. Her wedding was in a garden with lots of balloons, pillows, and flowers. She had a themed wedding where everyone wore black and silver as a tribute to her favorite band, KISS. Presumably she was in a good mood that day.

So what would you do to improve Dorothy’s mood? You could of course mention her wedding and talk about how amazing it was and how beautiful she looked. But that’s something you already know and don’t need research to teach you. Instead of that, you would indirectly display or reference things that would remind her of that day. You might play KISS music in the background, you might talk to her outside in a garden, and you might wear a black and silver shirt. You might even bring up a wedding you were at recently, since she has such a fond memory of weddings. Maybe none of these things in isolation would impact Dorothy’s mood, but taken together, these are powerful, indirect reminders and cues for one of her best memories. She will pick up on that and her mood will perk up—though she may not understand why. One more time for posterity - because our memories comprise everything our five senses can absorb, including our moods, directly or indirectly referencing that memory can lead to an improvement in mood.

How can we wield this information? If you get a hint that someone is in need of a mood boost, you can talk about things, people, and events that were present when they were in fabulous moods. Reference their greatest triumphs or fondest memories. If you want to amplify someone’s good mood to elation, then do the same thing. Talk to people in terms of what makes them happy, and it will make them happier. It’s not a radical notion, and you didn’t necessarily need a scientific study to demonstrate this commonsensical approach. But now you know why it works, which allows you to be more intentional about it. For instance, if we want to improve someone’s mood, our first inclination might be to simply make a joke or create a distraction like an entire pizza and quart of ice cream. Those approaches are attempting to distract from the poor mood while referencing memories is a direct means of changing it.

Take advantage of your knowledge of someone and pull them out of the doldrums by triggering their greatest hits. If you know James had a blast the last time he went skiing, bring up a story he’s told about it. Become his cheerleader. Have him retell it to you. Ask him about the logistics and whether or not he would recommend that particular ski lodge. Talk about the games he played that weekend. Casually reference a video of skiing tricks. Likewise, if James loved biking, you could mention his greatest biking adventure, his longest ride, his favorite bike, his biking buddies, or his latest gear purchase. It makes sense that people like to discuss their favorite topics, but now there is a deeper psychological understanding of why and what it does to someone.

Like Pavlov’s dog, this isn’t a process that we are fully aware of until we reach the end result of suddenly salivating. Eich’s study was about influencing people’s moods, not necessarily improving them. In the context of likability, the only way you should be influencing people’s moods is positively, but this subconscious superpower can be used to take people’s moods in any direction you wish. It just won’t necessarily give you a pleasant outcome and subsequent association. No one is drawn to the person that reminds them of the last funeral they went to. The Power of Association. There is an additional benefit to improving someone’s mood repeatedly - the power of association. If you play your cards right, people will subconsciously start associating their happy moods with you. You become part of their pleasant memory, and they begin to be drawn to you without a conscious understanding of why.

When you are successful in creating a happy mood or dragging someone out of the dumps consistently, they will begin to associate you with those positive feelings. As you’ll discover, one of the running themes of this book is that human beings may appear complex and nuanced, but often we make choices that are incredibly straightforward and predictable—for instance, we will almost always make the decision to avoid pain and seek pleasure. You can come up with many theories about the motivations people have for certain things, but it’s a very streamlined decision-making process the vast majority of the time. So we tend to gravitate toward people who make us feel good and away from things that hurt us. We also gravitate toward people and things associated with the people who make us feel good, and this is called classical conditioning. Remember Pavlov’s dog? He would salivate in the presence of positive reinforcement and eventually was conditioned to salivate to only the sound of a bell. Byrne and Clore in 1970 with their reward/need satisfaction theory expanded on Pavlov’s findings and discovered that if people are nearby when we feel good, even if they were not involved in creating the positive feelings, eventually we begin to feel good whenever they are around. When people subconsciously begin to associate you with positive moods and emotions, you are going to be the bell that makes people smile without realizing why.

Creating or being present during people’s great moods is one way to become associated with their happiness and for them to want you around. It’s like if you’re a baker and you need a rare kind of flour for your favorite cake. If you see the rare flour, you know you are going to have a chance to bake your favorite cake. It’s not about the flour, and it’s not about you. It’s what you represent and are associated with. The Positivity Spreader. There are two other main ways through which we can take advantage of being liked because others associate us with great feelings - positivity and compliments. The cliché stands true - positivity pays off. In our modern world, there are a lot of unpleasant people, and most people are too absorbed in their own muck to be cheerful to others.

You’d be surprised how effective staying in a good mood, putting on a happy face, praising others, and acting positive is. In fact, there is a term for the contagious power of positivity - emotional contagion. This was discovered by Stanley Schachter in 1959 and describes how emotions spread from person to person, both good and bad. Emotions spread like germs or yawns; when you’re happy, people around you become happy. We all infect each other with our emotions if we’re not careful. And of course, people enjoy being happy, so they will naturally want to be around the causes of their happiness. They would rather not be dragged into other people’s problems and have to listen to various personal tragedies. People will associate positive feelings with you and subconsciously want to spend time around you—it’s the brain’s way of telling them to continue producing endorphins. For instance, suppose you brought donuts to every meeting you attended in the office.

People will quickly begin to welcome your presence regardless of the meeting, and they won’t even realize that it may be because of the food instead of your shining personality. Eventually, they’ll just want you around, period. There’s nothing wrong with that as long as that’s where it ends, and they use the donuts as an opportunity to discover your charm and wit. Second, we all know that compliments make us more charming. Most people don’t receive compliments on a daily or even weekly basis. By giving someone even a shallow or cursory compliment, you might be 100% of their compliments for the entire week. This isn’t something that will go unnoticed. Compliment them on something shallow (if you must), their personality, or their opinion. Pay attention especially to compliments you can pay in recognizing something that someone has put effort into.

Just put someone in a position to say thank you. But there’s a deeper level beyond mere flattery that benefits you even more. It’s called spontaneous trait transference. John Skowronski in 1998 coined this term and argued that people will associate to you the compliments and positive adjectives you give to them. If you call someone generous and kind, they will associate you with those traits as well. No, there is no logical connection, just a simple unconscious association. So give compliments more, and it’s a win-win situation for you. Shut Up and Let ’Em Talk! The final piece of the puzzle in creating a subconscious longing for your presence is the age-old piece of advice, likely popularized by Dale Carnegie and his famous book How to Win Friends and Influence People.

Much of his advice is now derided as common sense, even though the very reason it’s deemed so obvious is because of his book. Perhaps one of his best pieces of advice was simply to get people to talk, or even brag, about themselves, because this will make them enjoy conversing with you. He was quoted as saying, “You can make more friends in two months by becoming interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to get other people interested in you.". Consequently, this is one of the most bandied about pieces of conversation advice. It turns out that Carnegie was correct, right down to the biological level. A 2012 study conducted by neuroscientists Diana Tamir and Jason Mitchell at Harvard University entitled “Disclosing Information About the Self is Intrinsically Rewarding” found that our urge to share personal information with others is one of the most fundamental and powerful parts of being human. Brain images showed that sharing information about ourselves triggers the same sensations in our brains that we experience when we eat food and have sex—two behaviors that we are biologically compelled to do. Thus, it seems we are biologically compelled to share and communicate our thoughts. One method that the researchers used to determine how much the participants valued being able to talk about themselves was to offer a modest financial incentive to anybody who would answer questions about other people instead.

Some of the questions involved casual subjects about hobbies and personal tastes while others were about personality traits, such as intelligence, curiosity, or aggression. The researchers found that many of the participants were willing to pass up on the money, preferring the rewarding feelings of self-disclosure over financial gain. In fact, the average participant willingly gave up between 17% and 25% of their possible earnings just so that they could reveal personal information. Then they used a functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner (fMRI) to observe what parts of the brain were most excited when the subjects were talking about themselves. Again, they found a correlation between self-disclosure and heightened activity in brain regions belonging to the mesolimbic dopamine system—again, the same region that’s associated with the rewarding and satisfying feeling we get from food, money, and sex. It even happens when we speak about ourselves without anyone listening to us. That means that each party in a conversation or social setting is highly incentivized to talk about themselves from a neurochemical perspective. Dale Carnegie was in fact correct. How can we utilize this knowledge for our social success?

Talking about yourself to some extent is natural, both biologically and within the flow of a conversation. It’s estimated that some 40% of what we say relates to expressing our own thoughts and feelings, and that’s because it is highly rewarding to do so. So change that ratio. The most important step for most will be to start imposing limits on themselves. Yes, it feels good to talk about yourself as the studies have shown, but when you do so, you are depriving others of the space and time to talk about themselves. And in the end, the goal is to make yourself more likable, not necessarily to feel better about social interaction. Be curious about others, ask them questions that give them the opportunity to brag, and generally let the conversation focus on them. Concentrate on their strengths and assist them in painting themselves in a positive light. Be a good listener and encourage them to continue talking about themselves.

When’s the last time you asked someone five questions in a row without interrupting or interjecting with your own anecdote? What about ten questions? This is the exact type of interaction that feels good to people that we routinely deny them because we can’t resist our own pleasure of sharing. Takeaways - •Most people tend to rely on luck or happenstance to strike up friendships and be likable. They are passive and waiting. This is the wrong approach because it undermines your own abilities and limits you unnecessarily. The power is in your hands, especially when armed with subtleties and nuances in this book, to influence our likability and charm. •One way we can make people crave our presence is through memory’s context-dependent nature. This means that a memory is a three-dimensional snapshot of everything present at the time the memory was formed, including your emotional mood.

Thus, to improve someone’s mood, we can directly or indirectly reference happy memories. •Eventually, after being present for people’s great moods, you yourself will become part of the positive memory. This is through the process of association, and it functions like the bell making Pavlov’s dog salivate. You will become that bell over time. •Positivity makes a bigger impact than you realize. People like being around other happy people, sure. But through the process of emotional contagion, your positivity will quite literally infect others. You will literally be the source of people’s happiness if you act the part. •We all inherently know that compliments and flattery will get you just about anywhere.

But there’s another way that it benefits you and makes your presence important—spontaneous trait transfer. This is the phenomenon where whatever traits or adjectives you are using to compliment others will be applied to you. No, it’s not logical and it doesn’t really make sense, but that’s how our brains subconsciously make connections sometimes. •Finally, the art of disclosing feels as good as sex and food—to our brains. People like to talk about themselves and they derive a lot of pleasure from it. So encourage this. Ask questions, listen well, and keep the focus on other people. Make sure that you shut up from time to time. Chapter 2. How to Create the Foundation of Friendship.

It’s rude to look at your friendships and evaluate them based on how much you are benefiting from them. In essence, are your friendships and relationships purely transactional? Nobody likes to think this way—at least not out loud. We would love to imagine that we are friends with our friends because they suit us the best, we enjoy their company, and they know us inside and out. We all inhabit a special place in each other’s hearts because of our unique sensibilities and emotional bonds, right? It sounds nice to say, and it’s the politically correct version of how to describe friendships, new and old. But in reality, people subconsciously evaluate their relationships based on how much value they receive. It’s important to mention that value is subjective and doesn’t necessarily have to be in the form of any material or financial gain. Of course, we do value people who are valuable connections based on their wealth or status, but we also value people if they make us laugh, make us feel good, or act as our emotional crutches.

We must be getting something out of it if we want to preserve or grow it. Most value and exchange in a friendship or relationship is usually measured in emotional terms. If people make us feel positive emotions, they have value to us, and we want them around because of their emotional value proposition. If they make us feel negative emotions, then we might not want them around, no matter how much they would be able to help our careers. So it’s fair to say relationships are inherently a bit transactional. We get what we want from people in some form or fashion, and our friends get what they want from us in a similar fashion. If you spend time with someone whose company you don’t enjoy, but these events always occur on their private yacht, it might be acceptable because you’re hanging out on a yacht. But remove the yacht, and what are you getting in this transaction? Here’s the thing about transactions - they only feel good if they are relatively equal.

We all put a certain amount of effort in, and we have expectations about the matching return. One-sided deals or relationships feel bad. Emotionally, we’re happiest when the give and take, or cost and benefit, are roughly equal. You wouldn’t sell someone your car for $2 because it would be spectacularly one-sided and you’d feel ripped off. You also wouldn’t buy someone’s car for $2 because you’d feel guilty and immoral. However, you would sell someone your car for a fair price or trade them for the motorcycle you’ve always wanted. If a transaction is one-sided, we feel used and taken advantage of or predatory and vicious. If you always give someone a ride to work and they never return the favor or acknowledge your effort, you aren’t going to feel good about the relationship anymore because the transaction is unbalanced. It seems cold to categorize relationships thusly, but this is just a prerequisite of being a good person, much less being likable or a good friend.

People pay close attention to what they put in versus what they get out, and it contributes to an overall impression we have about others. A study showed that people both subconsciously and consciously keep track of the exchange of favors in their relationships—and those are the happiest relationships. You can use this knowledge to your advantage in becoming a more likable person, as well as one who never gets taken advantage of. Equity Within Relationships. Walster, Walster, and Berscheid proposed the theory of equal relationships in 1978. They investigated how relationships rife with inequity functioned and found that the best and happiest relationships have an internal score sheet as to who is sacrificing and serving more. In these relationships, both sides sought to keep it equal. More broadly, the study helped define what came to be known as equity theory—the tendency for humans to compare what they have or receive in relation to what others have or receive. As mentioned, people don’t like to feel like predators or prey.

Rather, they prefer to feel like respected equals, even though this contrasts with our natural inclination to attain as much as possible. This can range from monetary (“I’ll pay for tonight if you pay for tomorrow”) to emotional tradeoffs (“I’ll be your shoulder to cry on if you do the same for me at some point”). They found people are often driven by a sense of equality, and if someone gets too much or too little, even according to the set rules of engagement, tension and distress are created in the person’s mind. The greater the inequality in a relationship, the greater tension and distress. Therefore, one of the foundations of friendship is a feeling of equality. Without it, you will never even have the opportunity to bond. Suppose you are sitting at a table with one friend and there is a small pizza on the table. You both love pizza, so we both want as much as possible. Yet we also know that the pizza should be split in half to acknowledge the other person and show goodwill and consideration toward them.

But it’s our favorite type of pizza, and we want all of it and could easily eat it. What would happen if you accidentally took an extra slice? You would feel guilty and your friend would probably show restrained annoyance and anger. What about if you took an extra slice on purpose? You would probably feel like a heel, and your friend would be supremely unhappy. This is the case even if our friend were to tell us, “I love this pizza, but take as much as you want.". We wouldn’t want to upset the balance, and most people would still split the pizza in half. Anything else just feels greedy and inconsiderate. What does equity theory mean for us?

Should we seek to pull out a scorecard and annotate every time a debt is incurred? Surprisingly, yes. If not physically, at least mentally or figuratively. Keeping score as to the equality of your relationships will make you more likable. When you externally acknowledge equity theory and make it known you are fighting your human tendency to take as much as possible, people will appreciate your willingness to think about their desires. If you can keep yourself accountable and actively seek to even the score, you become more likable. It doesn’t necessarily have to be so direct as, “You bought me coffee last time, so I will buy it today.". Remember, the transactional nature of a relationship doesn’t solely concern finances or material possessions—it is subjective. To keep the score even, you should also consider emotional support - listening, time, attention, focus, and any and all other aspects that you value.

If someone listens to you for an hour, remember that, in some nebulous way, you owe them a degree of emotional support at another time. Underlying everything is the fact that people hate feeling guilty (when they take too much) and also hate feeling taken advantage of (when they give too much). If there is inequality in any measure, both parties will feel one of those emotions. This point basically boils down to being considerate of others’ needs, which is a lesson that many of us need to retake. Understand what they want, know what they want to avoid (giving too much and taking too much), and deliver that to them. Unfortunately, compassion and empathy aren’t second nature to most of us. If you see any situations where you benefit more, call them out publicly and make sure to rectify them as soon as possible. This makes the other person know that you pay your debts as soon as possible and are trustworthy and that you actively care about them and don’t want to cheat them. Of course, this also removes the burden of feeling taken advantage of from their head.

For example, you can eliminate some resentment and injustice when you call out, “I can’t believe that you gave me a ride to the airport and I haven’t repaid you yet! Dinner’s on me.". Eliminating guilt on the other person’s behalf is trickier because it’s difficult to say something like, “Hey, I got you last time we had dinner. Want to even that score?". You must tread carefully, because this can sound offensive and entitled. If you feel that you are suffering an injustice, it’s a matter of giving people a chance to set things right. If they don’t seize the opportunity, they are failing at creating the foundations of friendship and likability, and they might not be the type of person you want to remain friends with. People are looking for win-win relationships, and you are proactively creating them. They can’t help but feel that you are somebody who will stand up for your rights and that you are not a pushover or someone easily taken advantage of.

That’s pretty likable, right? Equality and equity is one of the first foundations of friendship. The second foundation of friendship is similarity. Similarity Breeds Liking. To many, bonding with others is a process that occurs over time or as a function of the passage of time. But you can be in a dentist’s chair and undergoing a root canal, thereby spending a good amount of “alone time” with your dentist, and this is far from bonding. To quicken the pace of your bonding (also perhaps known as friendship chemistry, which we will cover later) and become more instantly likable, focus on similarity and familiarity. You’ve probably heard that a mix of the two breeds liking, and it’s so true that this is something we instinctually do already. For instance, what are among the first questions we might ask upon meeting a stranger?

· Where are you from? · Where do you live? · Where do you work? · Where did you go to school? We’ve all experienced the phenomenon where we ask someone where they went to school and then discover they went to school where three of your acquaintances went. The next question out of our mouths will inevitably be some version of, “Oh, my friends went there. Jane Smith, Bob Dinn, and John Sane. Do you know them?". The question may disregard the fact that it was a giant school and they weren’t the same age, year, or major.

Why do we do this? Yes, it is an easy source of small talk because we get to learn the broad strokes of someone’s identity and background. But what do we do with that alone? Nothing. We do this because we are instinctually seeking out similarities and common ground. We want to find a connection and point of reference from which to evaluate other people as quickly as possible so we know whom we are talking to. We make judgments on people very quickly, and if they are similar to us, our judgments will tend to be more positive. In 1971 in “Interpersonal Attraction and Attitude Similarity” (the first on many studies on the topic), Donn Byrne found that we are more drawn and attracted to people who show greater degrees of similarity to us. The relationship was found to be nearly linear—the more similarity, the more affection or attraction.

He conducted a simple experiment that asked participants to fill out a questionnaire on their personal traits. The participants were shown fake profiles of people that had been manipulated to be similar or dissimilar to them, and the more similar the traits of the profiles, the more attractive the participants marked them. We like similarity, and not just because we tend to have a positive opinion of ourselves and can transfer those opinions into assumptions about the other person. We like ourselves, after all, so we should naturally like people similar to us. We also like similarity because it allows us to put our guards down and relax into a state of comfort rather than evaluation. For instance, let’s say you were born in a small town in South America that has a population of roughly 3,000 people. Now you live in London, which has a population of roughly nine million people. How excited would you be at the prospect of meeting someone else from that same small South American town? Very.

Now, what additional assumptions would you make about them? · You share the same values. · You have a similar worldview. · They automatically “get you” in a way that others may not. · You are similar in personality. · You can make inside jokes that no one else will understand. · You immediately understand the type of person they are. All of these assumptions are positive. They might even be true in most instances, but that doesn’t matter.

You think you suddenly have a point of reference through which to view your new friend, which is comforting. You think you aren’t working with a blank slate anymore, and you generally will know this person’s thought process. The more obscure, rare, or unique the similarity, the more we like the person who shares that with us because the more special and exclusive it becomes. These are all important factors in likability. We like people who are similar to us in background, attitude, and opinions. Just like in a previous chapter, you can’t wait for the possibility to present itself, such as randomly seeing a university’s mascot in someone’s office and then realizing you went to the same college. This means we should always be searching for similarities or creating them. They both take effort and initiative. We can search for similarities by asking probing questions of people and using their answers as the basis to show similarity, no matter how small.

Ask questions to figure out what people are about, what they like, and how they think. Then dig deep into yourself to find small commonalities at first, such as favorite baseball teams or alcoholic drinks. Through those smaller commonalities, you’ll be able to figure out what makes them tick and find deeper commonalities to instantly bond over. Just as you’d be thrilled to meet someone from that small South American town, you’d be thrilled to meet someone who shared a love of the same obscure hobby as you. It doesn’t take months or years, and it doesn’t take a special circumstance like going through boot camp together. It just requires you to look outside of yourself and toward the universal human experience and realize that people share common attitudes, thoughts, and emotions—you just have to find them. We can create similarities by mimicking people’s body language, posture, voice tonality, rate of speech, and overall manner of appearance. These are all relatively superficial and surface-level, but they have been proven to work. This is known as the chameleon effect, or unintentional mirroring, and it comes from a 1999 study by Chartrand and Bargh titled “The Chameleon Effect - The Perception-Behavior Link and Social Interaction.".

They recorded increased rates of liking by roughly 10% when even small aspects of people’s physical behavior were subtly mimicked such as a light touch here or there or foot wagging. They tended to feel more connection and rapport with more mimicry. It doesn’t sound significant or particularly noticeable, but it still has quite a large effect in likability for something that required little to no effort. The chameleon camouflages and changes its colors to suit its environment, and we are met with more social success when we do the same. When you sit across from someone, sit how they sit and arrange themselves. If you are standing, adopt their same posture and foot stance. Meet people where they are and match their emotional tone—if they are excited, try to get to that level, and if they are tired, restrain yourself to that level. Become the chameleon and blend in and meet people’s physical and emotional tones. It seems that any semblance of familiarity, similarity, and appearing nonthreatening allows us to take our shields down and let out a deep breath of relief—a more relaxed and comfortable state overall.

Sometimes we know we are seeking something similar, but it’s mostly a subconscious signal for us to allow ourselves to open up and relax. Suffice it to say, it’s probably difficult for likability and friendship to occur if people can’t yet feel comfortable enough to let their guard down. If you can cultivate feelings of similarity and combine them with an air of equity in your friendships right off the bat, the foundations for friendship will have been laid. Three Stages of Friendship . The third foundation for a real friendship is to understand what we are actually looking for in our relationships. Most friendships are tentative or probationary. You get put on some sort of outer circle of friendship until you prove yourself, at which point you get moved into an inner circle of intimacy. Other friendships are purely out of convenience, and both parties seem to know it. Sometimes we confuse acquaintances for friends and assume we are closer than we really are.

Whatever the case, it’s clear people tend to create unofficial tiers of friends in their lives. In the inner circle are your dearest friends and family members. In the circle further away from that are your other friends you might see four times a year. Outside of that circle might be your acquaintances, faded friendships, or business contacts you would only call upon if you had a clear reason to. Outside of that circle might be everyone else you know and don’t devote any thought to at all. Suppose people have those same four concentric circles of friends. It’s clearly easy to get into the first two levels—and even the third level, where you are a friend that is occasionally seen. But what about that elusive inner circle? How can you reach that level of friendship quickly and reliably with new and old friends?

In 1970, Bernard Murstein put forth one of the prevailing theories on friendship acquisition called the stimulus-value-role model. The model describes the three stages of friendship, how we select the people that inhabit each stage, and what is required for someone to make it to your inner circle. There are specific elements that are important at each stage but may lose relative importance for deeper stages of friendship and relationships overall. The three stages act as a series of gates - only if you pass one gate are you granted passage to the next. If you understand which stage you’re currently in, you’ll be able to move ahead more easily because you’ll know what you need to do.Intentionally going through these steps can, at first glance, seem a bit like you are presenting a fake image of yourself in order to get closer to someone. But as you go through the steps, you’ll realize that we unconsciously do these things anytime we seek to build rapport and most notably whenever we are dating or trying to create a romantic connection. The first stage of friendship is the stimulus stage, and in this stage of friendship we are primarily concerned with evaluating people based on their physical attributes and superficial traits. Think of this stage like the eye test—if by looking at two people you would assume they are friends, that’s the standard people subconsciously use. We seek people who are attractive but also of a similar age, appearance, and perceived status.

This stage of friendship is shallow and is more about whom we want to be friends with. If an impoverished 90-year-old is close friends with a rich 20-year-old, we would consider this an unlikely friendship because it doesn’t appear to pass the stimulus stage. Often, if someone doesn’t fit into the stimulus stage, we will never pursue a friendship with them because it seems too unlikely. We just dismiss people as “not our type” and move on with hardly a second thought. The second stage of friendship is the value stage, and in this stage, we are concerned with finding people that share our thoughts and morals. We are seeking people with similar worldviews and senses of right and wrong. In essence, compatibility is the main emphasis here. For an extreme example of a group that concerns itself highly with the value stage, look no further than Habitat for Humanity, a charity organization that travels to foreign countries to perform acts of service and volunteering. It is clearly built upon a specific set of beliefs that bonds the members together.

We are similarly looking for people who think like us and whom we can ultimately relate to. We might tolerate being acquaintances with someone who possesses a belief that is vile to us, but we will never be good friends with them. The more similar values line up, the more there is to discuss and bond over. The final and deepest stage of friendship, the inner circle, is the role stage. This stage of friendship is based on how people will complement us in working toward a shared goal. This means the deepest friendships function in a sense like business relationships—there has to be ultimate compatibility and a sense of benefit for each party. It’s about reliability and trustworthiness. There has to be a willingness of roles, duties, and obligations and an implicit understanding of the terms of engagement. People understand each other, help with weaknesses, and utilize each other in a beneficial manner.

You can work out conflict and generally be compatible in tough situations. Friendships don’t often occur with people who butt heads over the smallest matters—instead, they assume more complementary roles. Think about how a married couple must learn to resolve conflict peacefully and come to an agreement on budgeting and finances or how you can learn to coexist with a roommate who doesn’t match your preference for cleanliness. These are all ways in which a working relationship is necessary to be fully compatible for the inner circle. Now that you know which factors are immediately important in becoming good friends with someone, you can change your actions and emphasize different aspects of your personality to seamlessly flow from stage one to stage three. Note that this is about emphasizing different aspects and not becoming a chameleon (in the worst sense) and creating a fake persona for yourself. Let’s suppose you want to befriend John, an enthusiastic soccer fan. To gain entry into the first stage, your task would be to appear as if you belong. As I mentioned, if someone took a picture of you two together, would it appear that you would be friends?

At the outset, it would be beneficial to wear a soccer jersey or at least sporty attire and emulate his general style and appearance. First, look the part, and John will be open to you. Otherwise, he may not think that you have anything in common. Next, your task would be to gently and subtly probe for John’s values about the world, what he sees as right and wrong, and his general life philosophy. Emphasize what you agree with and downplay what you don’t. At this point, you have shown yourself to look and think the part. Finally, to enter the inner circle and pass into the role stage, you would want to show that you share similar activities and you possess the ability to work together without any conflict. Meeting up for lunch or coffee doesn’t demonstrate an ability to work together, but for instance, helping John organize a soccer tournament would. If during the planning you differ on too many aspects and argue, you probably aren’t going to pass the role stage.

But if you can successfully plan together and navigate conflict, which are no small feats, you are well on your way to the inner circle and mutual respect. The three stages of the stimulus-value-role model of friendship are important to understanding how you should act with people. It may start with simple physical mirroring or attraction, but it ends with the ability to coexist on multiple levels. You can make the argument this point is to recognize the working relationship as an integral part of any close friendship. Takeaways - •Equity and feelings of fairness play a large part in the foundation of friendship. That is to say, people don’t like the negative feelings associated with either side of unfairness. They don’t like feeling like they are being used, nor do they like feeling like they are cheating someone. Therefore, emphasize fair play and equity in terms of the value (which is subjective and can vary widely) you are putting into a relationship or friendship. •Similarity is another large aspect of the foundation of friendship.

We instinctively like those who are similar to us. These days, we take similarity to mean a higher chance of bonding and matching worldviews and positive traits. •Humans are more similar to each other than not. We all bleed and put our pants on one leg at a time. Therefore, it is up to you to either search for or create similarities. You can search for similarities by becoming comfortable with questions and finding similarities to bond over, and you can create similarities using the psychological phenomenon of the chameleon effect—both physically and emotionally. •Finally, the stimulus-value-role model of social interaction states that to get to someone’s inner circle, you have to show three levels of compatibility - stimulus, value, and role. To use this model, you have to first understand which stage you are currently at with someone, and then you can understand what you need to do before moving into the next stage. The deepest level is role - working together, collaborating, and resolving conflict.

This has been The Science of Likeability. 60 evidence-based methods to radiate charisma, make a powerful impression, win friends, and trigger attraction. Written by Patrick King, narrated by Russell Newton. Copyright 2019 by Patrick King. Production Copyright by Patrick King.