Discuss the use of compliance techniques

This example shows failure of the ‘door in the face’ technique.

What is compliance?

Compliance is the modification of behaviour from direct pressure to respond to a request.

• The direct pressure may not always be apparent to the individual.

• The person making the request has no power to enforce it.

What are compliance techniques based on?

Reciprocity: People often feel they need to “return a favour”. This example of a social norm is based on the reciprocity principle.

Example:•Door-in-the-face technique•That’s not all technique

What are compliance techniques based on?

Commitment: Making people commit to something means that they will encounter personal and interpersonal pressure to behave consistently with that commitment.

Examples:•Low-balling•Foot-in-the -door•Hazing

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 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; all refused

• Experimental Group (the DITF): asked to be peer counsellors and then asked to escort children to the zoo.

Results• Control Group 1: Posing as representatives of the “Country Youth Counselling

Program”, university students were asked if they would be willing to chaperone a group of Juvenile delinquents on a day trip to the zoo only 17% complied.

• Control Group 2: Students were asked to work as counsellors (for the JD’s) for up to 2 hours per week for a minimum of two weeks, 0% agreed.

• Experimental Group: When the above refusal was followed up with the zoo trip request this time there was 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% complied.

Evaluating DITF• Many studies support its effectiveness• Evidence suggests 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

– Norm of Reciprocity is stronger than overall liking for the person making the request. People bought just as many raffle tickets from a confederate that they didn’t like as those who liked him.

“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)

The ‘That’s not all’ technique

• A compliance technique in which extras are added to an initial offer, often as apparently spontaneous gestures of generosity

• Burger (1986) Field experiment– 2 Experimenters manned a cupcake stall at a cake sale– cupcakes were displayed without a price– When Pps asked how much a cupcakes were they were either

told:• “75cents and you get two free cookies” (40% bought cakes)• or... “75cents “ and then the second experimenter whispered

something to the first who then said, “and you get two free cookies” (73% bought the cakes)

Why does the TNA work?

• Norm of reciprocity but only if you perceive the salesperson’s concessions to be voluntary/spontaneous

• Perceptual contrast – initial offer (the cake) acts as an anchor/baseline, against which we compare the second offer (cupcake plus cookies) which suddenly seems much more impressive

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• University students were asked to conserve water in

the dormitory showers.• First Request: to sign a poster supporting shorter

showers to save water.• Second Request: take a survey designed to make

them think about their water wastage.• Data Collection: Shower time was monitored• Results: • Participants spent an average of 3.5 minutes less

time in the shower than the control group (no signature/survey).

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

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 (also seen in Milgram’s obedience study)

Low-balling: To good to be true!

• That’s because its not!• A compliance technique in which an low offer is

made, and when commitment is elicited, it is 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 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 only 24% complied

• Experimental group: When asked whether they would participate in an psychology experiment, but were not told a time, 56% complied; later they were told that it started at 7 am and given the chance to drop out if they wanted, 95% of the 56% 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 an 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

• 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, control): LB was most effective; the others were all similar