Discuss the use of compliance techniques

Comply or die; Winner of 1998 Grand National

What is compliance?

The modification of behaviour in response to a direct request, even though the person

making the request has no power to enforce compliance

• “It is easiest to study compliance techniques through the behaviour of compliance professionals and then generalize the knowledge to understanding how humans exert social influence over each other in everyday life.” – Robert Cialdini & Brad Sagarin (2005)

Three compliance techniques

• Foot-in-the -door• Door-in-the-face• Low-balling

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)

• Aim:• Hypothesis:• Research method:• Design:• IV:• DV:• Possible controls:

Why it works: Self Perception Theory, Bem, (1972);

• We perceive from the first request that we are the type of person who gives help in this type of situation and our future behaviour is guided by this.

• FITD only works if the initial request is big enough to gain some sense of commitment to the cause which is attributed by the individual to dispositional (internal) factors

• Well supported by research

Why it works:Perceptual contrast hypothesis: Cantrill

and Seibold (1986)

• The first request acts as an anchor (baseline) against which subsequent requests are compared

• Second request not seen as so burdensome as first request has already ‘prepared the ground’; it doesn’t seem so great

• Not supported as well as Bem’s theory

Hornik (1988)

• The Israeli Cancer Society• Pps asked to hand out leaflets for the society• In return given a given a sticker which either:

– emphasised continued commitment to the Israeli Cancer Trust

– implied that they had fulfilled their obligation• When phoned the next week for a

contribution to the society, those in the first group were more likely to oblige!

Limitations of FITD

• Requests must be socially acceptable• Perception of the cost/benefit of both

requests– FITD didn't work well when trying to

persuade people to become blood donors (Cialdidni and Ascani, 1976)

– This said FITD has been used effectively to encourage people to become organ donors

– Why might this be so?

How can FITD be made even more effective?

• Adding interim requests (graduated commitment) can increase the likelihood of a person agreeing to a high cost request (Arthur Walker, Milgram )

Door-in-the-face technique

• A compliance technique in which a large request is made first and is then followed up by a small one

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

• this is 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; again most said no

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

Results• Large request only: 0%• Small request only: 25%• Told about but not asked big request then small request made: 16.7% • DITF group: 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%,

• Also found that two equivalent requests did not improve compliance (33%)

Evaluating DITF• Many studies support its effectiveness• Evidence suggest it is more effective then 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

– NoR stronger than overall liking for the person making the request

– The more concessions made, the more likely the compliance, (Goldman and Creason, 1981)

Other explanations for DITF

• Perceptual contrast hypothesis; evidence is inconclusive

• Worthy person hypothesis, (Foehl and Goldman, 1983): guilt is induced by refusing a worthy cause (most studies have made requests to give to charity etc)

“Even a penny would help”

• Cialdini and Schroeder, (1976): – Giving to American Cancer Charity increased when this

line was added to the pitch– people didn't want to appear cheap; – they were more likely to give when even very small

donations were legitimised; – they would appear very mean if they gave nothing at all– Very few actually gave a penny! The line just helped them

to make the decision to give (as opposed to not give)

Low-balling: To good to be true!

• That’s because its not!• A compliance technique in which an unreasonably

low offer is made, and when commitment is elicited, 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 with their manager and then get back to you saying it they have to offer a slightly higher price

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 most Pps refused

• Experimental group: When asked whether they would participate in an psychology experiment, most Pps agreed; later they were told that it started at 7 am and given the chance to drop out if they wanted, turned up as promised.

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 a 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)

Which method is most effective

• DITF is more effective than FITD (Brownstein et al 1976)

• Combined FITD and DITF work better than either one their own (Goldstein, 1986)

• 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, LW, control): LB was most effective; the others were all similar