Discuss the use of compliance techniques

What is compliance?

Compliance is the modification of behaviour from direct pressure to respond to a request.

• The direct pressure may not always be apparent to the individual.

• The person making the request has no power to enforce it.

What is a compliance technique?

This is a tactic used to persuade others to comply with a request

What kind of techniques do shops use to get people to buy stuff?

What kind of techniques do shops use to get people to buy stuff?

COGNITIVE OVERLOAD

Robert Cialdini

Cialdini’s 6 factors

Cialdini found 6 factors that influence whether a person will comply with a request

• Authority• Commitment• Liking• Reciprocity• Scarcity• Social proof

Authority

We feel a sense of duty or obligation to people in positions of authority. This is why advertisers of pharmaceutical products employ doctors to front their campaigns, and why most of us will do most things that our manager requests.

Authority

Authority

Commitment

We have a deep desire to be consistent. For this reason, once we've committed to something, we're then more inclined to go through with it.

Example: Foot-in-the-door

Example: Low-balling

Liking

Cialdini says that we're more likely to be influenced by people we like. Likability comes in many forms – people might be similar or familiar to us, they might give us compliments, or we may just simply trust them.

Liking

Reciprocity

Reciprocation recognises that peoplefeel indebted to those who dosomething for them or give them a gift.

Due to social norms people will return a favor when one is granted to them.

Reciprocity

3%

3%

14%

3%

14%

23%

3%

14%

23%

Give firstPersonalisedUnexpected

Study by Strohmetz et al, 2006

Scarcity

The less there is of something, the more valuable it is. The more rare and uncommon a thing, the more people want it.

Scarcity

Social proof

Social proof

"safety in numbers." We're particularly susceptible to this principle when we're feeling uncertain, and we're even more likely to be influenced if the people we see seem to be similar to us.

So much stuff!

What will we focus on?

According to Cialdini, what are compliance techniques based on?

Commitment: Making people commit to something means that they will encounter personal and interpersonal pressure to behave consistently with that commitment.

Examples:•Foot-in-the –door•Low-balling•Hazing (only very briefly)

The foot-in-the-door technique• A compliance technique

whereby a small request is made first and is then followed up with a larger one

• If asked to sign a petition first then more likely to comply when next asked to make a donation

Dickerson et al 1992• University students were asked to conserve water in

the dormitory showers.• First Request: to sign a poster supporting shorter

showers to save water.• Second Request: take a survey designed to make

them think about their water wastage.• Data Collection: Shower time was monitored• Results: • Participants spent an average of 3.5 minutes less

time in the shower than the control group (no signature/survey).

Commitment

Freedman and Fraser’s 1966

Low-balling

• A compliance technique in which a lower offer is made than is actually intended to be charged, and when commitment is elicited, it is replaced with a higher offer on the pretence that the lower one could not be honoured.

• Used by salespeople, who say they have to check the offer made to you with their manager and then get back to you saying they have to offer a slightly higher price.

Why does low-balling work?: Commitment

• Once a commitment has been made you are likely to follow through with it even if the conditions change somewhat

• Commitment to an individual seems more important than committing to the behaviour;

• if the ‘sales-manager’ takes over the negotiating , the customer is more likely to pull out than if the original salesperson continues with the deal (Burger and Petty 1981)

Why does low-balling work: Cognitive dissonance

• Having made a decision to purchase something (following the low offer), we justify the decision to ourselves; we are not just being rash because it seems like a bargain, we actually do need this item!

• If the item is then re-offered at a higher price, we will experience an uncomfortable state called cognitive dissonance if we then decide to pull out (suggesting that we did only want the item because it was a bargain)

• We are more likely to continue with the deal, making our behaviour consistent with our attitude (we really do need this item)

The 7a.m. Start, Cialdini et al (1978)• Control group: When asked whether they would

participate in a psychology experiment that started at 7 am only 24% complied

• Lowballing group: When asked whether they would participate in an psychology experiment, but were not told a time, 56% complied; later they were told that it started at 7 am and given the chance to drop out if they wanted, 95% of the 56% turned up as promised.

According to Cialdini, what are compliance techniques based on?

Reciprocity: People often feel they need to “return a favour”. This example of a social norm is based on the reciprocity principle.

Example:•Door-in-the-face technique

Reciprocity

• Lynn and McCall (1998)When restaurant customers are given a mint or

sweet with their bill, the size of the tip increases.

• Regan (1971)Participants who received a perceived favour

would be more likely to help them

• Reciprocity does not always involve giving gifts. It can also be because one feels that the other person has already compromised on what they wanted. This compromise should be acknowledged with some behaviour.

Door-in-the-face technique

• A compliance technique in which a large request (which is expected to be turned down) is made first and is then followed up by a more reasonable request

Example

• Someone calls asking for a large donation to a charity which is likely to be refused, they then ask for a smaller donations;

• This has proved to be far more effective than asking straight out for the same small donation.

Cialdini et al (1975)• Control Group 1: Pps were approached

and asked to escort a group of juvenile delinquents to the zoo; most refused.

• Control Group 2: Pps were approached and asked to spend 2 hours per week as a peer counsellor to juvenile delinquent children for around 2 years; all refused

• Experimental Group (the DITF): asked to be peer counsellors and then asked to escort children to the zoo.

Results• Control Group 1: Posing as representatives of the “Country Youth

Counselling Program”, university students were asked if they would be willing to chaperone a group of Juvenile delinquents on a day trip to the zoo only 17% complied.

• Control Group 2: Students were asked to work as counsellors (for the JD’s) for up to 2 hours per week for a minimum of two years. No one complied!

• DITF Group: When the above refusal was followed up with the zoo trip request this time there was 50% compliance.

• Also tested whether the two requests needed to be done by the same requester in order to achieve compliance. With two different requesters only 10.5% complied.

Evaluating DITF• Many studies support its effectiveness• Evidence suggests it is more effective than FITD• Why does it work?

– The norm of reciprocity– The lion with the thorn in its foot– Help those who help you; – cultural conditioning: salesman makes concession, you feel

compelled to do the same– Regan (1971) More people bought raffle tickets from a person

who had previously bought them a soft drink than from someone who had not bought them a drink

– Norm of Reciprocity is stronger than overall liking for the person making the request. People bought just as many raffle tickets from a confederate that they didn’t like as those who liked him.

This example shows failure of the ‘door in the face’ technique.

Finally! The ‘That’s not all’ technique

• A compliance technique in which extras are added to an initial offer, often as apparently spontaneous gestures of generosity

• Burger (1986) Field experiment– 2 Experimenters manned a cupcake stall at a cake sale– cupcakes were displayed without a price– When Pps asked how much a cupcakes were they were

either told:• “75cents and you get two free cookies” (40% bought cakes)• or... “75cents “ and then the second experimenter whispered

something to the first who then said, “and you get two free cookies” (73% bought the cakes)

Why does the TNA work?

• Norm of reciprocity but only if you perceive the salesperson’s concessions to be voluntary/spontaneous

• Perceptual contrast – initial offer (the cake) acts as an anchor/baseline, against which we compare the second offer (cupcake plus cookies) which suddenly seems much more impressive

Which method is most effective

• Low-balling may be more effective than either FITD or DITF (Brownstein and Katvez (1985)– Pps asked to donate to a museum fund under four

conditions FITD, DITF, control): LB was most effective; the others were all similar