Compliance and Self-Persuasion MAR 3503 February 9, 2012.

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


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



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



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


Tasks

Issues Similar Different

Similar

Different

Baseline compliance: 16.7%

Freedman & Fraser, 1966% complying with second request


• “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?

Compliance and Self-Persuasion MAR 3503 February 9, 2012.

Documents

Transcript of Compliance and Self-Persuasion MAR 3503 February 9, 2012.