Discuss the use of two compliance techniques Social Influence Discuss the use of two compliance techniques

Objectives CONFORMITY COMPLIANCE Conformity, Compliance, Obedience Evaluate research on conformity to group norms. Discuss factors influencing conformity COMPLIANCE Discuss the use of compliance techniques Conformity, Compliance, Obedience Evaluate the role of social influence on behavior

Social Influence Definition Categories of Social Influence A change in behavior caused by real or imagined pressure from others Social persuasion: change in private attitudes and beliefs but NOT behavior change Categories of Social Influence Conformity Compliance Obedience ***Social pressure increases***

Compliance Changing one’s behavior in response to a direct request “C’mon, have a beer and forget studying” “Please wash your hands before leaving” Requester need not be physically present

Conformity Changing one’s behavior to match the actions of others, or fit in with those around us How do you decide what to wear to a party? What will make you decide to go home and change once you got there?

Obedience Changing one’s behavior in response to a directive from an authority figure Boss says you need to work overtime Teacher tells you that you need to be quiet What would you do if someone on the street told you that you need to be quiet?

COMPLIANCE

Compliance Definition: Two steps Responding favorably to an explicit request by another person Without authority With authority  obedience Two steps Directed at the mind Reason-based Compliance Directed at the heart Emotion-based compliance

Reciprocal Favors Hare Krishna Society (Eastern Religious Sect) Most do not know what their beliefs are BUT they received $$$$$ in donations in the 70s Give you a flower  ask for a donation  reciprocity encourages donations Businesses “free gifts” Servers in restaurants

Reason-based Compliance Norm of Reciprocity A norm dictating that people should provide benefits to those who benefit them Compliance Techniques Door-in-the-face technique AKA  Reciprocal concessions technique That’s-Not-All Technique Foot-in-the-door technique Lowballing

Regan 1971 Method: Participant Observation AIM: Norm of reciprocity impacts compliance Procedure Two Groups Confederate brings back a coke for the participant Experimenter gives participant a coke Measurement: buying a raffle ticket from confederate Results Bought twice as many raffle tickets

Ting-Toomey, 1986 AIM: culture and norms of reciprocity Reciprocity is universal Cross cultural procedure: collectivist  Japan & China Individualistic  Australia, US and France Results Reciprocity exists in all cultures but the REASON is different Collectivists  obligation, moral failure Individualists  voluntary Implications Reciprocity is cross-cultural but “why” is determined by social norms

1. Reciprocal Concessions Technique/ Door-in-the-face technique (RCT) Definition: Ask someone for a LARGE favor and follow-up with a small favor Small favor seen as a concession Person may feel compelled to honor

Research, Cialdini et al. 1975 Method: Participant Observation AIM: RCT Groups (2) College Students ASU Chaperone a day trip to the zoo for Social Delinquents (Control) Ask to mentor for 2 years (all refused) follow with a concession  Zoo day trip Results No concession  83% refused Concession  50% refused

2. That’s-Not-All Technique Definition: Adding something to an original offer, which is likely to create some pressure to reciprocate Add-on viewed as a gift Burger, 1986 Environment  Bake Sale $0.75 for a cupcake Before they walked away, were told it included two medium cookies Result  40-73% increase in sales

3. Foot-in-the-Door Technique Definition for FITD: Initial small request Nearly everyone complies Followed by a larger request involving the real behavior of interest

Lowballing Similar to FITD: Example: Why does it work? BUT…changes to a less desirable outcome Example: Sign a good car deal and then the salesman changes the terms to make it a worst deal Why does it work? Commitment had grown it’s own legs

Research, Freedman & Fraser, 1966 Method: Field Experiment Procedure Asked to put a large, unattractive sign on lawn Asked to put a small window sign “Be a safe driver” Later asked to put the same LARGE sign on lawn Results Control Group  17% compliance Experimental Group  76% compliance Implications Connection with Milgram  Step-by-step Nature Administering 160 volts takes away the reason to refuse to shock 170 volts

Dickerson et al, 1992 Method: Field Experiment HYPOTHESIS: If the real request (large) is preceded by a small one, compliance increases (FITD) Procedure: Asked dorm students to conserve water Smallest Request  sign a poster Small request  take a survey about water usage Actual request  conserve water Results Students who had completed the other requests spent 3.5 minutes less in the shower

Evaluation of FITD Is it really about commitment? People who say “yes” may perceive themselves as being committed Behave consistently Need for self-consistency Works with pro-social requests more Works if 2nd request is an extension of 1st Most powerful when it relates to self-image Request needs to connect with what the person cares about Connect to emotion-based techniques

Create a business plan Create a business plan for one of the assigned compliance techniques 2-3 sentences explaining the plan Drawing representing the plan

Emotion-Based Approaches Positive Mood Feeling good makes people more likely to agree to a request Negative Mood Some bad moods are more likely to increase compliance

1. Positive Mood Why does it work? Research Moods color how we interpret events Request for favors may be viewed as less intrusive and threatening if we are in a good mood “Mood Maintenance” One way to sustain a good mood is to do something for another person Opposite: self-recrimination Research Isen, Clark & Schwartz, 1976 Isen and Levin, 1972

Isen and Levin, 1972 Aim: Positive mood increase compliance Procedure: Control: Not given a cookie Experimental: Given a cookie Variables Variables IV: Given a cookie DV: Rate of compliance to be a confederate (Asked by a different person) Help the true participant OR hinder the true participant Results Cookie increased compliance on the HELP but not the Hinder

Isen, Clark & Schwartz, 1976 Hypothesis: Positive mood increases compliance Procedure Received a call asking them to relay a message because they had used their dime Experimental  Given a free sample of stationary good mood Results 10% compliance vs. 100% Compliance BUT, time was a factor

2. Negative Mood GUILT Negative State Relief Hypothesis Research Example: Call your girlfriend/boyfriend on their excessive flirting Strongest link with compliance Negative State Relief Hypothesis Definition: The idea that people engage in certain actions, such as agreeing to a request, in order to relieve negative feelings and to feel better about themselves Research J. Regan 1971 Cialdini, Darby and Vincent, 1973

J. Regan, 1971 Negative Mood (Guilt or harm to others) Condition Watch a voltage meter for two weeks to make sure it didn’t change (109-110). Experimenter watched from another room. Rat was shocked and then asked for a donation Groups Control (watch, asked to donate) Watch, experimenter shocks rat when participants watches the rat, not the meter. Experimenter implies not watching led to the shock. Cancel’s experiment and asks for donation. (GUILT) Watch, random shock that is attributed to a glitch, not the participant. Cancels experiment and asks for donation Results Group 2 and 3, donated three times as much money Implications  witnessing harm and guilt

Cialdini, Darby and Vincent, 1973 Built on Regan’s Research Topic: Negative State Relief Hypothesis Conclusion: Guilt shows stronger results than positive mood (praise and money)

Cialdini, Darby and Vincent, 1973

Cross Cultural Research Morris, Podolny, Ariel, 2001 Multinational bank…Citibank Measured employees willingness to comply voluntarily with a request from a coworker for assistance on a task SURVEY

United States (market-based) Reciprocity determined whether the individual would help China (family based) Ingroup/outgroup norms. Special emphasis on leaders within their own group Spain (friendship based) Loyalty to ones friends, regardless of position or status Germany (system-based) Norms and rules determined behavior

“go along to get along” Three factors effect whether an individual will go with the flow Approval Collectivism vs. individualism rebelliousness

Approval Strickland & Crowne, 1962 Step1 Personality test to see if the participants had a high need for approval Step 2 Put participants in an Asch like test to see if they conform to the group Result Higher social approval need, more likely to conform Individual will even adopt tone of voice and intensity

Positive Aspect of Approval Could we live in groups without it? Approval and agreeableness Warmth, trust and helpfulnees Do we need these for our society to function?

Collectivism vs. Individualism Why do some people respond to personal norms rather than personal preference? Definition of self Define your self RIGHT NOW!! Finlay, 1996 Define yourself in collective or individual terms Outdoors person vs. Sierra Club Member

Culture and Self Bond & Smith, 1996 Using Asch line-judging test Cultures differ in the extent to which they are individualistic or collectivistic Using Asch line-judging test Collectivistic societies in the East conform to a greater extent than do citizens of the more individualistic West

Research Regan 1971  Norm of Reciprocity Ting-Toomey, 1986  Culture and Reciprocity Cialdini et al. 1975  Door in the Face (RCT) Freedman & Fraser, 1966  Foot in the Door Dickerson et al, 1992  Foot in the Door

Regan 1971 Method: Participant Observation AIM: Norm of reciprocity impacts compliance Procedure Two Groups Confederate brings back a coke for the participant Experimenter gives participant a coke Measurement: buying a raffle ticket from confederate Results Bought twice as many raffle tickets

Ting-Toomey, 1986 AIM: culture and norms of reciprocity Reciprocity is universal Cross cultural procedure: collectivist  Japan & China Individualistic  Australia, US and France Results Reciprocity exists in all cultures but the REASON is different Collectivists  obligation, moral failure Individualists  voluntary Implications Reciprocity is cross-cultural but “why” is determined by social norms

Cialdini et al. 1975 Method: Participant Observation AIM: (RCT) Door in the Face Groups (2) College Students ASU Chaperone a day trip to the zoo for Social Delinquents (Control) Ask to mentor for 2 years (all refused) follow with a concession  Zoo day trip Results No concession  83% refused Concession  50% refused

Freedman & Fraser, 1966 AIM: Foot in the Door technique increases compliance Method: Field Experiment Procedure Asked to put a large, unattractive sign on lawn Asked to put a small window sign “Be a safe driver” Later asked to put the same LARGE sign on lawn Results Control Group  17% compliance Experimental Group  76% compliance Implications Connection with Milgram  Step-by-step Nature Administering 160 volts takes away the reason to refuse to shock 170 volts

Dickerson et al, 1992 Method: Field Experiment AIM: If the real request (large) is preceded by a small one, compliance increases (FITD) Procedure: Asked dorm students to conserve water Smallest Request  sign a poster Small request  take a survey about water usage Actual request  conserve water Results Students who had completed the other requests spent 3.5 minutes less in the shower