Post on 30-Dec-2015
Compliance and Self-Persuasion
MAR 3503
February 9, 2012
The norm of reciprocity
• Favors lead to compliance
Favor (soda) No favor (no soda)
# raffle tickets purchased 1.8 .9
Correlation between liking and compliance .14 .46
Regan, 1971
Liking & compliance
Condition # complying # refusing
Control 10 28
Interaction 19 20
Mere exposure 18 19
Burger et al., 2001
Liking & compliance
Condition % complying Liking
Similar 77 17.9
Neutral 60 16.6
Dissimilar 43 15.2
Burger et al., 2001
Reciprocal concessions
• …aka the “door-in-the-face” technique
• This is based on the norm of reciprocity
• Ask for a big favor, and when the target refuses, ask for a small favor instead
Reciprocal concessions
Condition Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Experiment 3
Small request only
Rejection, then moderation
Cialdini et al., 1975
% saying yes to small request
Alternative explanations
• 1. Perceptual contrast: after hearing the big request, the small one seems less extreme
– Exposure control condition: Tell them about the big request, but don’t ask it of them
– Two requester control condition: The big request is made by a different person
Reciprocal concessions
Condition Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Experiment 3
Small request only 17 32 33
Rejection, then moderation 50 55 54
Exposure control 25
Two requester control 10
Cialdini et al., 1975% saying yes to small request
Alternative explanations
• 1. Perceptual contrast: after hearing the big request, the small one seems less extreme
• 2. People don’t like saying no in general– Equivalent requests control condition: the second
request is no smaller than the first
Reciprocal concessions
Condition Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Experiment 3
Small request only 17 32 33
Rejection, then moderation 50 55 54
Exposure control 25
Two requester control 10
Equivalent requests 33
Cialdini et al., 1975% saying yes to small request
Foot in the door technique
• Participants were initially asked to:– Sign a petition– Place a small sign on a car or in a window
• About two weeks later, they were asked to place a large sign on the same or a different issue on their front lawn
Freedman & Fraser, 1966
Foot in the door technique
Tasks
Issues Similar Different
Similar
Different
Baseline compliance: 16.7%
Freedman & Fraser, 1966% complying with second request
Foot in the door technique
• “He may become, in his own eyes, the kind of person who does this sort of thing, who agrees to requests made by strangers, who takes action on things he believes in, who cooperates with good causes” (p. 201)
Freedman & Fraser, 1966
What are others doing
• Cartwright (1949) examined the factors leading people to buy war bonds in the 1940s– “Buy a war bond” – 20% of people comply– “Buy an extra war bond” – 39% of people comply
• Suggests that others are already buying war bonds, and you should too
Social proof and compliance
• Descriptive norms tell you what people actually do• Injunctive norms tell you what people shouldn’t do
• Which works better to improve people’s behavior?
• Cialdini designed two signs for the Petrified Forest National Park, one with descriptive norm, one with an injunctive norm
Many past visitors have removed petrified wood from the Park, changing the
natural state of the Petrified Forest
Many past visitors have removed petrified wood from the Park, changing the
natural state of the Petrified Forest
Please don’t remove the
petrified wood from the Park, in order to preserve
the natural state of the Petrified Forest
Please don’t remove the
petrified wood from the Park, in order to preserve
the natural state of the Petrified Forest
Social proof and compliance
Cialdini et al., 2006
Scarcity
Scarcity & compliance
• Scarce items tend to be perceived as more valuable
• Why?– Valuable objects are rare, so the reverse must be
true, right?– When free choice is limited, we value the limited
things more, even if we didn’t value them much in the first place• FSU students and cafeteria food (West, 1975)• Toddlers and toys (Brehm & Weintraub, 1977)• Dade county residents and phosphates (Mazis, 1975)
Reactance
• Reactance theory (Brehm): People desire things they are told they cannot have– Romeo & Juliet– “All the girls get prettier at closing time”
But wait, there’s more!
• 40% of people agree to buy a cupcake and two cookies for 75¢ at a bake sale
• But 73% of people agree to buy a cupcake plus two free cookies for 75¢
• The initial price and object combination set a standard for what a reasonable price is
• The additional products then make it seem like a great value
Burger, 1986
Persuasive techniques
• Fear appeals
Channel factors
• Cartwright also found that war bond sales increased the more specific the appeals were (re: time, place, amount)
• Channel factors are aspects of the situation that make action particularly easy or likely (or vice versa)– These can be very small changes– Think of small changes in the landscape that can
lead to large changes in the channel a river takes
Channel factors
• Yale seniors were tested for compliance in getting tetanus shots– Some received appeals that were very scary
(graphic pictures, extreme symptoms) or that were rather mild (no pictures, neutral description of symptoms)
– Some were only told that the shots were available, while others were asked to think of when they would be available to take the shot, and were given a map of Yale with DUH circled
Channel factors
• 0% of a control group received a shot in the next month, while 3.3% of the low specificity group did, and 27.6% of the high specificity group did
• Fear had no effect on likelihood of getting the shot
Mood & compliance
• Participants were led to believe they broke a stranger’s camera (or not)
• They then encounter an opportunity to help another person
Regan, Williams, & Sparling, 1972
Guilt Condition Control Condition
# who helped 11 3
# who didn’t help 9 17
Positive moods and compliance
# who helped # who didn’t help
Found dime
No dime
Isen & Levin, 1972
Positive moods compliance
Mood & compliance
• Smiling at people you want to comply with your requests increases their compliance
• But even incidental smiles increase compliance
• One confederate smiled (or didn’t) at passersby, another right after dropped a package of diskettes
Smiling Not Smiling
% helping 29.5% 20. 3%
Uniforms and mindless compliance
• An experimenter walked down the street, dressed one of two ways:– As a neatly dressed civilian– As a security guard
• They ordered passersby to pick up a paper bag, or put a dime in a stranger’s parking meter, or move away from a bus stop (“No standing!”), and then left before they did so
% complying Civilian Guard
Predicted 50% 63%
Actual 42% 92%
Coincidence & compliance
• Participants are more likely to comply with a request if they share a superficial trait
• They give more money to charity
• They will help a stranger edit an essay
Similar Different
First name $2.07 $1.00
Similar Different
Birthdate 62.2% 34.2%
Uncommon thumbprint type 82.1% 48.3%
“Reasons” and compliance
• Strangers aren’t supposed to talk on the subway, and seats are first come, first served
• Experimenters approached people on the NYC subway and asked, “Excuse me. May I have your seat?”
• 15% of people surveyed beforehand thought they would give up their seat
• But 68% of people in real life gave their seats away
Mindless compliance• Request only: “Excuse me, I have 5 (20) pages.
May I use the Xerox machine?”
• Real information: “Excuse me, I have 5 (20) pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I’m in a rush?”
• Placebic information: “Excuse me, I have 5 (20) pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make copies?”
Mindless compliance
Request only Placebic information Real information
Small favor 60% 93% 94%
Large favor 24% 24% 42%
Data = % complying with request
Summary
• Compliance with requests can be increased through several routes:– Reciprocation– Previous compliance– Social proof– “Good” reasons to buy– Better mood– Superficial cues
Next time
• How do groups lead to attitude change?