FROM PERSUASION TO RISK: CIALDINI’S PRINCIPLES OF INFLUENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF CORPORATE SECURITY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/cusu-psy-2026-1-3Keywords:
social influence psychology, corporate security, Dark Triad personality, learning asymmetry, moral licensing, organizational riskAbstract
The article presents a theoretical and analytical examination of the psychological principles of social influence in the context of organizational corporate security. The aim of the study is to identify the mechanisms through which scientifically grounded influence tools may transform from neutral means of communication into sources of latent organizational risk. The theoretical framework integrates Cialdini's principles of influence, contemporary approaches in organizational psychology, and research on the Dark Triad of personality. The method employed is conceptual analysis, involving a systematic decomposition of the phenomenon into its constituent mechanisms and their subsequent integration into a unified explanatory model.
The concept of learning asymmetry is introduced to describe unequal individual capacities to acquire, interpret, and apply knowledge of social influence. It is argued that, when combined with Dark Triad dispositions, this asymmetry creates internal inequalities of social competence and increases the likelihood of instrumental influence use. Moral licensing is examined as a cognitive mechanism that facilitates the normalization of informal and "grey" organizational practices without explicit rule violations. The effects of reduced vigilance and the displacement of responsibility from formalized procedures to individual intuition are also analyzed as consequences of the systematic application of influence principles in organizational settings.
An integrative conceptual model ("risk formula") is proposed, suggesting that organizational vulnerability increases when high individual influence skills coexist with weak or merely formalized process controls. Organizational blind spots that impede the timely detection of such risks are identified. The findings have practical implications for the development of preventive corporate security measures, the symmetrization of influence training programs, and the formation of ethical governance policies for managing influence within organizations.
References
Ashforth B. E., Anand V. The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2003. Vol. 25. P. 1–52. DOI: 10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25001-2
Arango-Kure M., Garz M. Manipulation: An integrative framework of unethical influence in marketing. Journal of Business Research. 2025. Vol. 189. Art. 115476. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115476
Bockius H., Gatzert N. Organizational risk culture: A literature review on dimensions, assessment, value relevance, and improvement levers. European Management Journal. 2024. Vol. 42, № 4. P. 539–564. DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2023.02.002
Cialdini R. B. Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New and expanded ed. New York : Harper Business, 2021. 592 p.
Dillon R., Tinsley C. How near-misses influence decision making under risk: A missed opportunity for learning. Management Science. 2008. Vol. 54, № 8. P. 1425–1440. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1080.0869
Dürst N. How to conduct effective risk culture assessments. Journal of Management Control. 2025. Vol. 36, № 3. P. 269–314. DOI: 10.1007/s00187-024-00374-x
Halttu K., Oinas-Kukkonen H. Susceptibility to social influence strategies and persuasive system design: Exploring the relationship. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2022. Vol. 41, № 12. P. 2705–2726. DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2021.1945685
Hutchinson B., Dekker S., Rae A. Audit masquerade: How audits provide comfort rather than treatment for serious safety problems. Safety Science. 2024. Vol. 169. Art. 106348. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106348
Jonason P. K., Webster G. D. A protean approach to social influence: Dark Triad personalities and social influence tactics. Personality and Individual Differences. 2012. Vol. 52, № 4. P. 521–526. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.023
Kim W., Min J., Sutherland I., Kim B. The effect of corporate ethical level and ethical efforts on corporate performance: Evidence of a corporate moral licensing phenomenon. Sustainability. 2025. Vol. 17, № 21. Art. 9784. DOI: 10.3390/su17219784
Klotz A. C., Bolino M. C. Citizenship and counterproductive work behavior: A moral licensing view. Academy of Management Review. 2013. Vol. 38, № 2. P. 292–306. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2011.0109
Lin X., Loi R. Punishing the perpetrator of incivility: The differential roles of moral identity and moral thinking orientation. Journal of Management. 2019. Vol. 47, № 4. P. 898–929. DOI: 10.1177/0149206319870236
Madan P., Bamel U., Mendiratta A., Mohapatra M. 'The dark side of ethical leadership': How Machiavellianism and moral licensing encourage knowledge hiding? Global Business Review. 2025. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1177/09721509251404238
Mitnick K. D., Simon W. L. The art of deception: Controlling the human element of security. New York : Wiley, 2002. 352 p.
OECD. LOGIC: Good practice principles for mainstreaming behavioural public policy. Paris : OECD Publishing, 2024. DOI: 10.1787/6cb52de2-en
Pauer S., Rutjens B. T., Brick C. et al. Is the effect of trust on risk perceptions a matter of knowledge, control, and time? Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2024. Vol. 15, № 8. P. 1008–1023. DOI: 10.1177/19485506241263884
Pavitra G. How do informal norms affect rule compliance: Experimental evidence. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. 2022. Vol. 96. Art. 101795. DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2021.101795
Pelster M., Hofmann A., Klocke N., Warkulat S. Dark Triad personality traits and selective hedging. Journal of Business Ethics. 2021. Vol. 182, № 1. P. 261–286. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-021-04985-z
Searle R. H., Rice C. Trust, and high control: An exploratory study of counterproductive work behaviour in a high security organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2025. Vol. 34, № 3. P. 392–402. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2024.2344870
Spain S. M., Harms P. D., LeBreton J. M. The dark side of personality at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2014. Vol. 35, № S1. P. S41–S60. DOI: 10.1002/job.1894
Srivastava S., Rao M. K. The influence of organizational culture on organizational resilience and employee performance through the mediation of high-performance work systems. Discover Psychology. 2025. Vol. 5. Art. 170. DOI: 10.1007/s44202-025-00496-4
Taussi T. Behavioural risk work beyond formal controls: Co-producing and managing insidious risks at the client interface. Accounting and Business Research. 2025. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1080/00014788.2025.2579305
Bazerman M. H., Tenbrunsel A. E. Blind spots: Why we fail to do what's right and what to do about it. Princeton : Princeton University Press, 2011. 191 p.
Van Marcke H., Le Denmat P., Verguts T., Desender K. Manipulating prior beliefs causally induces under- and overconfidence. Psychological Science. 2024. Vol. 35, № 4. P. 381–392. DOI: 10.1177/09567976241231572
Welsh D. T., Ordóñez L. D., Snyder D. G., Christian M. S. The slippery slope: How small ethical transgressions pave the way for larger future transgressions. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2015. Vol. 100, № 1. P. 114–127. DOI: 10.1037/a0036950
Yin C., Zhang Y., Lu L. Employee-oriented CSR and unethical pro-organizational behavior: The role of perceived insider status and ethical climate rules. Sustainability. 2021. Vol. 13, № 12. Art. 6613. DOI: 10.3390/su13126613
Zhao H., Peng Z., Zhang H., Chen X. Research on the relationship between managerial pro-social rule breaking and employees' workplace deviant behavior from the broken windows effect perspective. Behavioral Sciences. 2025. Vol. 15, № 3. Art. 275. DOI: 10.3390/bs15030275
