Bio for JonRobert Tartaglione, Ph.D.
Founder & Principal Consultant at Influence 51 | Behavioral Scientist
Overview
Dr. JonRobert Tartaglione is a behavioral scientist, speaker, and executive advisor specializing in the psychology of human influence. As the founder of Influence 51, he translates research in social psychology and behavioral science into practical strategies for leaders, executive teams, and organizations seeking to shape attitudes, improve decision-making, and drive sustainable behavior change.
Key Expertise & Focus
Behavioral Science & Influence: Applies psychological frameworks to strategic communications, negotiation, and leadership development.
Leadership & Organizational Change: Helps teams reduce cognitive resistance, earn trust, and align organizational culture with identity-driven motivation.
Keynotes & Workshops: Delivers interactive sessions on persuasion tactics, decision-making biases, and strategic influence.
Education & Credentials
Ph.D. in Psychology – University of Cambridge
Client Experience
Dr. Tartaglione has advised leading corporate, non-profit, and professional organizations across diverse sectors, including:
Corporate & Tech: Visa, Nintendo, Texas Instruments, Cognitiv, McDonald’s
Legal & Financial: DLA Piper, Fox Rothschild, Northwestern Mutual
Non-Profits & Community: Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Big Brothers Big Sisters, Ronald McDonald House Charities
Engineering & Professional Services: Garver, Turner, Wallace Engineering, Vizient, SMPS
Talking Points: The Physics of Persuasion
Research-backed principles of influence, framed through the laws of motion
Framing the Metaphor
Persuasion behaves less like magic and more like mechanics. People at rest tend to stay at rest; pushing hard produces pushback; small forces applied consistently build momentum; and messages travel farther when they match the receiver’s natural frequency. The physics is metaphor, but each principle below is anchored to peer-reviewed behavioral research. Use the metaphor for accessibility; use the citations for credibility.
1. Inertia: Objects at Rest Stay at Rest (Status Quo Bias)
Samuelson and Zeckhauser (1988) demonstrated experimentally that people disproportionately choose whatever option is framed as the current state, even when alternatives are objectively better — the status quo bias. This is a primary empirical source and one of the most replicated findings in decision science.
• Your audience is not neutral; they are at rest. The default option always has a head start, so expect to overcome inertia, not just present merit.
• The most efficient persuasion often changes the default rather than arguing against it; make the desired path the pre-set path.
• Leadership application: when proposing change, quantify the cost of the status quo explicitly. Inertia survives on the illusion that staying put is free.
2. Friction: Reduce Resistance Before Adding Force
Berger (2020) synthesizes research showing that persuasion fails less from weak arguments than from unaddressed barriers and that removing friction (reactance, endowment, distance, uncertainty) outperforms pushing harder. Note: this is a practitioner synthesis by an academic, not a single empirical study; it is best cited as a framework organizing primary findings.
• Before adding another argument, ask: what is stopping them? More fuel on a braked car burns the engine, not the road.
• Shrink the ask. Uncertainty is friction; pilots, trials, and reversible first steps lower it.
• Leadership application: in stakeholder resistance, diagnose the specific brake fear of loss, fear of blame, unclear process, and release it before re-pitching.
3. Newton’s Third Law: Push Hard, Get Pushback (Psychological Reactance)
Brehm (1966) established reactance theory: when people perceive their freedom to choose is threatened, they are motivated to restore it — often by doing the opposite of what is demanded. Primary theoretical and empirical source, with a large replication literature since.
• Pressure produces an equal and opposite reaction. Hard sells trigger the very resistance they try to crush.
• Preserve autonomy explicitly: “the decision is yours” and genuine choice architecture reduce reactance and, counterintuitively, increase compliance.
• Leadership application: with senior or skeptical audiences, present options with a recommendation, not a single demand. People defend a corner they are pushed into.
4. Momentum: Small Commitments Compound (Foot-in-the-Door)
Freedman and Fraser (1966) showed that people who agreed to a small request were dramatically more likely to later agree to a much larger related request the foot-in-the-door effect, driven by self-perception and consistency. Primary empirical source; effect sizes vary across replications, but the direction is robust.
• A body in motion stays in motion. Secure a small, genuine yes before the large one; commitment builds its own momentum.
• Sequence matters: agreement on the problem, then the criteria, then the solution. Each yes lowers the activation energy of the next.
• Leadership application: in change initiatives, design an early, visible, low-cost win. Momentum is a resource you manufacture, not luck you wait for.
5. Mass: Credibility Bends Trajectories (Source Effects)
Hovland, Janis, and Kelley (1953) launched the empirical study of source credibility, showing that the same message changes more minds when delivered by a source perceived as expert and trustworthy. Primary foundational research; the expertise-plus-trustworthiness structure has held up across decades of replication.
• The messenger has mass. Identical arguments travel different distances depending on who carries them; invest in who delivers, not only what is delivered.
• Borrowed mass works: endorsements, data provenance, and credible allies add weight your own position may not yet carry.
• Leadership application: for women whose expertise is discounted in the room, pre-position credibility end the record ahead of you, and enlist validators before the meeting, not during it.
6. Resonance: Match the Receiver’s Natural Frequency
Feinberg and Willer (2015) found that political arguments reframed to match the audience’s own moral foundations were significantly more persuasive than arguments delivered in the speaker’s preferred frame. Matz et al. (2017) extended the logic at scale: ads matched to recipients’ psychological profiles outperformed mismatched ones. Both are primary empirical sources (the Matz et al. dataset drew ethical criticism regarding targeting practices — worth acknowledging if pressed).
• Systems driven at their natural frequency amplify; driven off-frequency, they dampen. Argue in their values, not yours.
• Translation is the skill: the same proposal is “growth” to one listener, “risk control” to another, “legacy” to a third.
• Leadership application: map the room before the meeting. One deck, multiple frequencies — tune the framing per decision-maker.
7. Potential Energy: Losses Weigh More Than Gains (with a Caveat)
Kahneman and Tversky (1979) proposed in prospect theory that losses loom larger than equivalent gains, and loss framing became a persuasion staple. Flag for accuracy: Gal and Rucker (2018) argue the evidence for loss aversion is weaker and more context-dependent than commonly claimed. The “losses hurt about twice as much as gains” figure is widely repeated but empirically contested; do not present it as settled.
• Framing what is at stake as a loss can raise urgency but treat it as a context-dependent tool, not a law.
• Credibility application: acknowledging the contested science, briefly, positions you as a rigorous source and inoculates against a well-read skeptic.
Source Quality Summary
• Primary empirical: Samuelson & Zeckhauser (1988); Brehm (1966); Freedman & Fraser (1966); Hovland et al. (1953); Feinberg & Willer (2015); Matz et al. (2017); Kahneman & Tversky (1979).
• Practitioner/synthesis: Berger (2020); Cialdini (2021) — useful organizing frameworks resting on primary literature.
• Contested: the magnitude and universality of loss aversion (Gal & Rucker, 2018).
References
Berger, J. (2020). The catalyst: How to change anyone’s mind. Simon & Schuster.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
Cialdini, R. B. (2021). Influence, new and expanded: The psychology of persuasion. Harper Business.
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2015). From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1665–1681.
Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 195–202.
Gal, D., & Rucker, D. D. (2018). The loss of loss aversion: Will it loom larger than its gain? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(3), 497–516.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. Yale University Press.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., & Stillwell, D. J. (2017). Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(48), 12714–12719.
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59.
Thank you Mandy Ohman, Sacred Storylines 🎨, Diane, A. Eevie Bateman BethAlli Acorn 🇺🇦🇬🇱🇺🇸🦩, and many others for tuning into my live video with Dr JonRobert Tartaglione! Join me for my next live video in the app.
