The second key is even more important if we want the desired behavior to be embedded in the person we are trying to influence–in other words, if we want the behavior, and underlying perceptions and decisions, to be internalized.  We offer only a minimal about of reward or threaten only a minimal amount of punishment.  When there is a minimal amount of coercion then the person being influenced must adjust their own mindset, given that there isn’t a sufficient amount of external reward or punishment to justify their action. They must find or manufacture an internal source of reward or punishment. Most importantly, they must reduce the cognitive dissonance—for neuro-physiologically this dissonance operates like a physical wound to the body). Thus, the motivation to perceive, decide and act in a new way is based in the internal processes of the “heart and mind” (or more precisely the interaction between the limbic system and prefrontal lobes of the brain). This is still a secular (and physiological) source of influence.

There is another way in which to conceive of this sequence of influence –we are engaging in an important shift in the locus of control within the person we wish to influence. Coercion requires an external locus of control. The receipt of our influence is looking outside themselves for direction and their motivation to do something resides in the external world. This is the world inhabited by the secular behaviorists who contend that we as human beings are driven primarily by the pattern of rewards and punishments in our environment. It has only a nodding acquaintance with spiritual influence.

As we move to identification and imitation, then the locus of control becomes mixed. There are still the external role models that we seek to emulate (or seek to not emulate in the case of negative role models and people who have been punished or ostracized for their behavior). However, there is also an internal locus of control. The person being influenced has now decided to engage in the desired behavior despite any immediate external reward or punishment. The soldier bravely charges out of his foxhole knowing that he might be killed, having seen the courageous act of his best buddy. The child insists upon playing with a new toy because his favorite character on a Saturday morning kids’ show endorses this toy. The churchgoer is inspired by a sermon delivered by someone who is admired. They make a commitment that is sustained past Sunday evening.

The internalization of the influence through not just observation but also minimal incentivization leads one to an internal locus of control. The decision is being made independent of any immediate external event or environment. I choose to be courageous because “it is the right thing to do.” A child chooses a specific toy because it seems to fit with their own interests — or they choose not to nag about getting this new toy. Better yet, they decide to set aside a small amount of their allowance so that this new toy (or food or health care) might be allocated to a child living in poverty. These are internalized processes, and they are likely to endure because the soldier or child has internalized a specific value system and is unlikely to change this value system despite shifts in the external environment. They are hovering on the edge of a domain of spirituality.