Discuss the use of compliance techniques

Comply or die; Winner of 1998 Grand National

What is compliance?

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

Have you ever bought something you didn’t really want?

• Tell the person next to you why this may have happened?

What kind of techniques do shops use to get people to buy stuff?

Robert Cialdini

• “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)

Cialdini’s 6 factors

• Cialdini found 6 factors that influence whether a person will comply with a request

Cialdini’s 6 factors

• Cialdini found 6 factors that influence whether a person will comply with a request

• Authority

Cialdini’s 6 factors

• Cialdini found 6 factors that influence whether a person will comply with a request

• Authority• Commitment

Cialdini’s 6 factors

• Cialdini found 6 factors that influence whether a person will comply with a request

• Authority• Commitment• Liking

Cialdini’s 6 factors

• Cialdini found 6 factors that influence whether a person will comply with a request

• Authority• Commitment• Liking• Reciprocity

Cialdini’s 6 factors

• Cialdini found 6 factors that influence whether a person will comply with a request

• Authority• Commitment• Liking• Reciprocity• Scarcity

Cialdini’s 6 factors

• Cialdini found 6 factors that influence whether a person will comply with a request

• Authority• Commitment• Liking• Reciprocity• Scarcity• Social Proof

Read pages 116-117 of the Course Companion

• In their (1998) study, Lynn & McCall found that when restaurants gave their customers a complimentary mint or sweet with their bill, they were more likely to leave bigger tips.

• Why might this be the case?

Three compliance techniques

• Door-in-the-face

• Foot-in-the -door• Low-balling

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%)

Other explanations for DITF

• 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)

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)

Time to make notes

• Now make notes on:

• The importance of reciprocity in compliance• The door in the face technique• Cialdini et al’s (1975) field experiment

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

Now read pages 123-124 of Pearson

• Read about and make notes on Freedman and Fraser’s 1966 study

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 )

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