Session 8: Compliance Techniques. Discuss the use of compliance techniques.

The Sociocultural Level of Analysis

Session 8: Compliance Techniques

Discuss the use of compliance techniques

Learning Outcome

What the command term means:

Discuss: Offer a considered and balanced

review that includes a range of

arguments,

factors or hypotheses. Opinions or

conclusions should be presented clearly

and supported by appropriate evidence.

What is compliance?

What is compliance?

Aronson (2007) “form of social influence involving direct requests from one person to another”

Conformity:•Occurs when

situation does not exert direct pressure to follow majority but pressure is perceived by individual

Compliance:•Result of

direct pressure to respond to a request.

Difference between conformity and compliance?

How might you persuade them?

You want your parents to let you go to a party

Cialdini (1993)

Leading researcher in psychology of persuasion

Outlined compliance techniques

Compliance Techniques

Compliance technique= ways to influence individuals to comply with request

Outlined 6 factors that influence likelihood that people will comply with a request:

1. Authority2. Commitment 3. Liking4. Reciprocity5. Scarcity6. Social Proof

Cialdini (1993)

People comply more with those in positions of responsibility

1. Authority

Once people have agreed to something, either by behaviour or statement of belief, they are likely to comply with a similar request

2. Commitment

People comply with requests from people they like

3. Liking

People often feel they need to “return a favour”

4. Reciprocity

Opportunities seem more valuable to people when they are less readily available

5. Scarcity

People view a behaviour as correct if they see others performing it

6. Social Proof

Factors that influence compliance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdCzN7RYbw

Compliance Techniques

http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/types-of-persuasion-techniques-how-to-influence-people.html#lesson

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

Foot in the Door Technique

Freeman and Fraser (1966)

These researchers arranged for a researcher, posing as a volunteer worker, to ask a number of householders in California to allow a big ugly public-service sign reading ‘Drive Carefully’ to be placed in their front gardens.

Only 17% of the householders complied with this request.

A different set of homeowners was asked whether they would display a small ‘Be a Safe Driver’ sign. Nearly all of those asked agreed with this request.

Two weeks later these same homeowners were asked, by a ‘volunteer worker’, whether they would display the much bigger and ugly ‘Drive Carefully’ sign in their front gardens.

76% of them complied with this second request, a far higher percentage than the 17% who had complied in the first condition.

Foot in the Door Technique

Freeman and Fraser (1966)

In a second study researchers first asked a number of householders to sign a petition in favour of keeping California beautiful, something nearly everybody agreed to do.

After two weeks, they send a new ‘volunteer worker’ who asked these homeowners whether they would allow the big and ugly ‘Drive Carefully’ sign of the previous study to be displayed in their front gardens. Note that the two requests relate to completely different topics, but nearly 50% of the homeowners agreed with the second request.

Again, this is significantly higher than the 17% of homeowners who agreed to display the sign in the absence of any prior contact.

Foot in the Door Technique

How could such findings be explained?

The answer, according to Cialdini (2009), lies in the twin notions of consistency and commitment.

Many psychologists have commented on our desire to be consistent with our beliefs, attitudes, and actions. It is crucial in the case of compliance to secure an initial commitment because people are more willing to agree to requests that are consistent with a prior commitment (Cialdini, 2009).

But, how could the findings of the second experiment be explained? According to Freeman and Frazer (1966), signing the petition changed the

view the homeowners had about themselves. As a result, they saw themselves as unselfish citizens with well-developed

civic principles. Agreeing, two weeks later, to display the ‘Drive Carefully’ sign reflected their need to comply with their newly-formed self-image. Not only do commitments change us but also, to use Cialdini’s own expression, they ‘grow their own legs’.

Foot in the Door Technique

Sherman (1980) called residents in Indiana (USA) and asked them if, hypothetically, they would volunteer to spend 3 hours collecting for the American Cancer Society. Three days later, a second experimenter called the same people and actually requested help for this organization.

Of those responding to the earlier request, 31% agreed to help. This is much higher than the 4% of a similar group of people who volunteered to help when approached directly.

Foot in the Door Technique

Dolin and Booth–Butterfield (1995) found that an FITD manipulation during a health fair at a shopping mall increased compliance with a request to schedule a gynaecological examination.

Using the FITD technique has also been shown to increase blood donations (Lipsitz et al,1989) and the willingness to be an organ donor (Girandola, 2002).

Foot in the Door Technique

Dickerson et al (1992) Conducted a field experiment where they

asked university students to conserve water in the dormitory showers.

Researchers first asked a group of students to sign a poster supporting shorter showers to save water.

Then they asked students to do a survey asking them to think about their own water usage.

Foot in the Door Technique

Dickerson et al (1992) Finally students’ shower time was

monitored.

Students who had signed poster/completed survey spent an average of 3.5 minutes less in shower compared to rest of students in the dormitory

Foot in the Door Technique

Dickerson et al (1992)

Could be other way around: maybe students signed poster and answered survey because they were already committed to water conservation

Foot in the Door Technique

People are more likely to comply if the person has previously done them a favour

Norm of Reciprocity

Social norm of reciprocity dictates that we treat other people the way that they treat us (Cialdini 1993)

People are socialised into returning favours and this powerful rule underpins compliance

Tiger and Fox (1971) suggest reciprocation could be a result of evolution. The feeling of future obligation has made important differences in human social evolution because it meant one person could offer something to another individual and be confident that they could expect something in return

Reciprocity

Lynn and McCall (1988) found that restaurants who offered a mint or sweet with bill received larger tips◦ 1 mint given- 3% increase◦ 2 mints given- 14% increase◦ 1 mint given initially then waiter says something

along the lines of “actually for you nice people I’ll give you two mints” – 23% increase

Reciprocity

Regan (1971)

Aim: to test whether participants who had received a favour from another would be more likely to help this person than if they had not received a favour

Procedure: One participant and a confederate asked to rate paintings Experimental condition: confederate left experiment and after a few

minutes returned with two bottles of coca cola and gave one to participant. Control condition: participant did not receive coke When all paintings had been rated experimenter left room. Confederate

told naïve participant that he was selling raffle tickets for a new car and the one who sold the most tickets would win $50.

Confederate asked participant if he would buy some tickets and said that even a small amount would help.

Reciprocity

Regan (1971)Results: Participants in experimental condition bought twice as many raffle

tickets than participants in control condition As a follow up to the experiment the researcher investigated how

much “liking” the confederate influenced the participants Participants were asked to fill out rating scales indicating how much

they liked the confederate. Researcher then compared this with how many raffle tickets the participant purchased in control condition.

Liking was associated with buying significantly more tickets in the control condition. In the experimental condition it made no difference whether the participant liked the confederate or not. Participants who received a coke who did not like the confederate bought just as many tickets as those who liked the confederate.

This shows the powerful influence of the rule of reciprocity. Even if a person doesn’t like a person, they will still return a favour.

Reciprocity

High degree of control. Possible to establish cause and effect relationship between independent variable (receiving a favour) and dependent variable (returning a favour).

Ethics: deception of participant. Unaware of confederate or true aim of study.

Reciprocity

Ting-Toomey (1986) compared reciprocity in 3 individualist cultures (Australia, USA and France) with 2 collectivist cultures (Japan and China).

Found that reciprocity is universal. This could support the argument that reciprocity has

an evolutionary basis. However, reciprocity is displayed differently in the two

types of culture In individualist reciprocity is voluntary so people are

free to choose if they wish to return a favour In collectivist cultures obligatory reciprocity is the

norm. It is seen as a moral failure if reciprocity is not honoured.

Is reciprocity universal?

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

Door in the Face technique

Cialdini et al (1975)

Aim: To see if participants were more likely to agree to a small request after declining a larger initial request

Method: Posed as representatives of the “County Youth Counseling

Programme” Researchers stopped students around university campus and

voluntary activities related to programme Experimental condition: Participants first asked to sign up to

work for 2 hours per week as counselors for a minimum of 2 years (nobody agreed to volunteer) then asked to accompany some juvenile delinquents to the zoo for a day trip.

Control condition: Asked to chaperone group of juvenile delinquents on a day trip to zoo (no big initial request)

Door in the Face technique

Cialdini et al (1975)

Results: Control group: 83% of participants refused

to volunteer for the day trip Experimental group: Approximately 50% of

participants agreed to act as chaperones on day trip to the zoo.

Door in the Face technique

Practical applications: can be used for pro-social purposes (to recruit volunteers, blood donors etc)

Evaluation

Design a field experiment to test the effectiveness of these compliance techniques

Your aim is to see if people are more likely to donate to the Animals Fiji Appeal if you use these techniques

Group Activity & Links with CAS