Ch. 7: Compliance & Obedience

Compliance

Surprise & Compliance You get MORE compliance when there’s an element of surprise Subway passengers gave up seat 28% of the time when warned beforehand Gave it up 56% of the time when they were caught off guard

Strategic Phrasing How you ask can be more important than what you ask Langer (1978) study showed that we mindlessly comply based on simple trigger words: “May I use the Xerox machine?” – 60% complied “May I use the Xerox machine because I’m in a rush?” – 94% complied “May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies?” – 93% complied

Reciprocity We treat others as they have treated us. Participants bought way more raffle tickets from a confederate if he had bought them a Coke.

Foot-in-the-Door An influencer sets the stage for the real request by first getting a person to comply with a much smaller request. This technique increases compliance by an average of 13%.

Low-Balling The influencer secures agreement with a request but then increases the size of that request by revealing hidden costs. Researchers asked students to participate in a study. If they were first told it would be at 7am, 31% signed up. If they agreed FIRST and THEN were told it would start at 7am, 56% signed up. You also feel a sense of commitment to the person.

Door-in-the-Face An influencer prefaces the real request with one that is so large that it is rejected. Volunteer at counseling center for juvenile delinquents for 2 hours a week for two years? No! Take juvenile delinquents on 2-hour trip to zoo? 17% said yes without the first question, 50% said yes with it. Second request “seems smaller” after first one – perceptual contrast. Reciprocal concessions – backing down from the big request is a concession that we should repay. Feelings of guilt.

That’s-Not-All The influencer begins with an inflated request, then decreases its apparent size by offering a discount or bonus. “These cupcakes are 75 cents.” – 44% bought them. “These cupcakes are $1. But I’ll give them to you for 75 cents.” – 73% bought them.

When DON’T These Work? If they are recognized as insincere We do not like to be hustled!

Obedience

Milgram Study Predicted: only 0.001% Actual: 65% of participants went all the way to 450 volts This was almost entirely due to the prodding of the authority figure. Most stopped early when they didn’t have the experimenter telling them to continue.

Factors that Reduce Obedience Less-prestigious location Normal person giving commands (not an authoritative figure) Commands given by phone (distance) Increased proximity to victim When you think you will be held responsible, rather than someone else

1995 Obedience Study Participants were asked to do something similar, but administering psychological abuse instead of physical. No one persisted if there was no prodding experimenter, but 92% did with a prodding experimenter.

Social Impact Theory Influence depends on: Strength: determined by status, ability, or relationship to target. More strength = more influence Immediacy: source’s proximity in time and space to the target. Closer = more influence Number: more sources = more influence