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 Correlation between liking and compliance Regan, 1971

Liking & compliance Condition# complying# refusing Control1028 Interaction1920 Mere exposure1819 Burger et al., 2001

Liking & compliance Condition% complyingLiking Similar Neutral Dissimilar 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 ConditionExperiment 1Experiment 2Experiment 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 ConditionExperiment 1Experiment 2Experiment 3 Small request only Rejection, then moderation Exposure control25 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 ConditionExperiment 1Experiment 2Experiment 3 Small request only Rejection, then moderation Exposure control25 Two requester control 10 Equivalent requests33 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 IssuesSimilarDifferent 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 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 ConditionControl Condition # who helped113 # who didn’t help917

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 SmilingNot Smiling % helping29.5%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 CivilianGuard 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 SimilarDifferent First name $2.07$1.00 SimilarDifferent 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 favor60%93%94% Large favor24% 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?