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

2. 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

3. 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***

4. 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

6. 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?

8. 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?

9. COMPLIANCE

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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 ( ).
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

30. 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)

31. Cialdini, Darby and Vincent, 1973

32. 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

33. 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

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

35. 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

36. 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?

37. 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

38. 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

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

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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