Discuss the use of compliance techniques Comply or

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 & Mc. Call 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 – No. R 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 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 7 a. 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