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