We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Attempting to reconnect
Plain-language definitions of the persuasion techniques Bouncer detects. Every definition is grounded in published research from rhetoric, social psychology, and media studies.
Presenting an extreme number or claim first so everything after seems reasonable by comparison. The first piece of information becomes your reference point — even when it's arbitrary or deliberately inflated. Works even when you know the anchor is irrelevant.
Tversky & Kahneman's anchoring heuristic (1974)
Citing an expert or institution to support a claim, substituting their credibility for evidence you can evaluate yourself. Legitimate when the authority is relevant; manipulative when they aren't qualified or when the citation is vague.
Argumentum ad verecundiam (Locke, 1690); Cialdini's Authority principle (1984)
Overwhelming you with a rapid stream of claims — too many to fact-check in real time. Each individual claim may be weak, but the sheer volume creates an impression of comprehensive evidence. By the time you've debunked one point, ten more have been asserted.
Named by Eugenie Scott (1994); Brandolini's principle
Pairing a new idea, product, or person with something you already feel positively or negatively about. The goal is to transfer your existing emotional response without any logical connection. It works below conscious awareness.
Evaluative conditioning (Pavlov); IPA 'Transfer' technique (1937)
Pressuring you to adopt a belief or behavior because it appears to be gaining momentum. 'Everyone is switching,' 'don't get left behind.' Combines social proof with urgency — not only is everyone doing it, but the window to join is closing.
IPA bandwagon technique (1937); information cascades (Bikhchandani et al., 1992)
Reducing a complex person to one defining trait — hero, villain, genius, fool — stripping away nuance that would complicate the narrative. Once someone is labeled, everything they do gets interpreted through that lens.
Fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977); Propp's narrative archetypes (1928)
Using guilt, fear, or obligation to pressure you into compliance. The message is: "If you were a good person, you would do this." It bypasses rational evaluation by making refusal feel like a moral failure.
Forward's FOG model (1997) — Fear, Obligation, Guilt
Selectively presenting information that confirms what you probably already believe. Content that matches your existing worldview requires almost no mental effort to accept — it just feels obviously true.
Wason (1960); Nickerson's confirmation bias review (1998)
Creating a deliberate gap between what you know and what you want to know, triggering curiosity as an almost physical itch. Headlines like "You won't believe..." are engineered to exploit this. The content rarely delivers on the promise.
Loewenstein's Information Gap Theory (1994)
Deflecting criticism by pointing to someone else's wrongdoing instead of addressing the original issue. "What about when they did X?" changes the subject and puts the critic on the defensive. A specific form of the tu quoque fallacy.
Tu quoque fallacy; associated with Soviet propaganda technique (Nimmo, 2015)
Explicitly telling you what to do — subscribe, donate, vote, share. Unlike subtler techniques, it works through clarity and urgency. Most effective when preceded by emotional buildup that makes the action feel like a natural next step.
Compliance literature (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004); foot-in-the-door (Freedman & Fraser, 1966)
Using vivid personal stories to make you feel what a specific person is experiencing. By focusing on one individual's struggle, it overrides your ability to evaluate the broader situation objectively. A single compelling story can be more persuasive than statistics about millions.
Batson's empathy-altruism hypothesis (1981); identifiable victim effect (Schelling, 1968)
Presenting a vivid threat and then offering a specific action as the way to avoid it. Always structured as: "Something terrible will happen unless you do X." Most effective when the threat feels personal and the action feels achievable.
Witte's Extended Parallel Process Model (1992)
Presenting two things as equally valid when they aren't. By giving equal weight to a well-supported position and a fringe one, it manufactures the appearance of legitimate debate. Feels like fairness — "hearing both sides" — even when one side has overwhelming evidence.
Boykoff & Boykoff (2004) on media false balance
Taking one or a few specific examples and presenting them as proof of a widespread pattern. A single story becomes "this is what always happens." Concrete examples are vivid and memorable, so the leap to a general rule feels natural but is often unjustified.
Hasty generalization fallacy; Kahneman & Tversky's representativeness heuristic (1972)
Leveraging your tendency to automatically trust information from "our people" and distrust outsiders. Once groups are established, people apply different standards of evidence depending on who is speaking.
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979); Cialdini's Unity principle (2016)
Inflating the importance, drama, or shock value of information using superlatives, alarming framing, and emotional language. Once your alarm system activates, you stop evaluating proportionality.
Cultivation theory (Gerbner, 1969); availability heuristic (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973)
Using emotionally charged words where neutral ones would be more accurate. Calling the same policy 'reform' vs. 'gutting,' or the same people 'freedom fighters' vs. 'terrorists,' triggers different reactions to identical facts. The word choice does the persuading.
Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action (1949); Lakoff's framing (2004)
Presenting a complex issue with genuine tradeoffs as a simple choice between right and wrong. Once something is framed as a moral issue, compromise feels like complicity and disagreement feels immoral rather than reasonable.
Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory; Lakoff's framing research (2004)
Provoking a sense that something is deeply unfair or wrong, activating a feeling that demands action — sharing, protesting, punishing — before you've fully evaluated the situation. It's one of the most viral emotions online because it combines anger with righteousness.
Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory (2004); Brady et al. (2017, PNAS)
Leveraging the one-sided emotional bond you form with creators you watch regularly. Because you feel like you "know" them, their opinions carry the weight of a friend's advice rather than a stranger's. Creators can monetize this by blurring genuine sharing with paid promotion.
Horton & Wohl's parasocial interaction theory (1956); Reinikainen et al. (2020)
Appealing to your emotions — fear, joy, anger, sadness — to make an argument feel compelling. Rather than persuading through evidence, it works by putting you in an emotional state where you're more receptive. The emotion becomes the proof.
Aristotle's Rhetoric; Kahneman's System 1 processing
The deliberate construction of "realness" — confessional tone, casual filming, strategic vulnerability — designed to lower your guard. When someone appears unpolished and honest, you evaluate their claims less critically. The spontaneity is rehearsed.
Goffman's dramaturgy (1959); Audrezet et al. (2020) on performed authenticity
Reframing a situation so the person who caused harm appears to be the real victim, and the actual victim appears responsible. It forces observers to reconsider who deserves sympathy, distracting from the original wrongdoing.
Freyd's DARVO framework (1997) — Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender
Attributing a complex outcome to a single cause, ignoring the web of contributing factors. A clean explanation is more satisfying and easier to act on than a complicated one. Especially effective when the proposed cause is something you already dislike.
Fallacy of the single cause; Kahneman's WYSIATI principle
Threatening exclusion or disapproval if you don't conform. Unlike social proof ("everyone is doing it"), social pressure adds a consequence: "and if you don't, you'll be left out." It exploits the deep human need for belonging.
Asch conformity (1951); normative social influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955)
Presenting the popularity or consensus of an opinion as evidence that it's correct. When you see many others have endorsed something, it feels safer to follow. This shortcut can be manufactured — fake reviews, inflated counts, and cherry-picked polls all simulate consensus.
Cialdini's Social Proof principle (1984); Asch conformity experiments (1951)
Leaving claims vague enough that different audiences each hear what they want. By never committing to a specific, falsifiable position, the speaker avoids accountability while supporters project their own preferred meaning.
Eisenberg (1984); dog whistling research (Mendelberg, 2001)
Creating artificial time pressure to force a decision before you can think it through. 'Only 3 left!' 'Act now!' The technique works because genuine scarcity is a real signal, so the urgency feels rational even when it's manufactured.
Cialdini's Scarcity principle (1984); dark patterns research (Mathur et al., 2019)
Dividing the world into two camps — people like us (good, trustworthy) and people not like us (dangerous, wrong). It exploits a deep human tendency to favor our own group. Once you accept the division, information from "them" gets automatically discounted.
Tajfel's Social Identity Theory (1979); Minimal Group Paradigm
Knowing about these techniques makes them visible, not powerless. The ones that work best on you are the ones that match beliefs you already hold.