Final Flashcards
(105 cards)
1
Q
How do nonverbal influence & liking affect
attitudes & behaviour?
A
-they can serve as simple heuristic cues (attractiveness, height, hand gestures
-we are more influenced by sources that we like
-bias the valence of thoughts (smiling source will make us associate their message with positivity)
-can serve as ‘evidence’ or an argument for a message (hot person selling beauty products)
-can be determinant of processing route, heuristic when we focus on things like appearance, objectification aka not systematic
2
Q
what 2 factors predict liking?
A
attractiveness and similarity
we tend to like sources that exemplify this and are more influenced by them in turn
3
Q
ingratiating
A
a person attempts to influence another person by becoming more likable to their target
pretending to like the band of the girl you like so she will talk to you
4
Q
physical attractiveness as a social factor
A
-they are treated more positively
-income and attractiveness are positively correlated
-they tend to be more liked, leading to greater influence
5
Q
Why does physical attractiveness
increase liking?
A
we find their company inherently rewarding, like seeing a beautiful landscape- pleasure areas of the brain activate
6
Q
halo effect
A
what is good is beautiful stereotype
-we associate beauty with other good qualities
- attractive people are judged to be smart, successful, confident, etc… these are assumed positive attributes
- self-fulfilling prophecy that perpetuates itself
7
Q
what are some examples of the influence of physical attractiveness?
A
hot models can enhance consumer evaluations of a product, people are more likely to imitate their behaviors, they tend to receive more help and cooperation from others
8
Q
Similarity
A
we tend to like people that are similar to us in terms of demographic, attitudes, personality, attractiveness, experience, clothing, politics, etc.
similarity is enforcing to one’s own self concept, they validate our view of the world
In romantic relationships, similarity between partners in SES, education, age, religion, physical attractiveness, intelligence, & others predicts higher marital satisfaction
9
Q
behavioral mimicry
A
a small pro social way that someone can appear more ‘similar’ when building rapport
10
Q
Similarity and context
A
things like clothing can indicate a lot, similarly dressed sources are more persuasive
in more formal settings it is better to also be more well dressed, but better to be more casually dressed when trying to persuade someone at a bus stop
similarity can also backfire when someone is very self-critical and you share a trait with them-rather than being more persuaded-they may have a lower opinion of you
11
Q
familiarity and positive contact
A
we tend to like things that are familiar to us
-such as taking the same route to work/brands that we are familiar with and have bought before
-we prefer the mirrored images of ourselves but the true image of friends, each of which are the more familiar stimuli
12
Q
mere exposure effect
A
the more often people are exposed to a stimulus, the more
positively they evaluate that stimulus
-Even subliminal presentations of a stimulus show the mere exposure effect
-such as liking the people you sit next to in class more, or liking a song more after frequent exposure
13
Q
do opposites attract?
A
at a higher level, there is little evidence
-the least important factor in terms of similarity being personality, like an introvert and an extrovert will work out, rather than something like conflicting political beliefs
14
Q
what degree of similarity is needed?
A
not much, even trivial measures of similarity can have an effect, and this happens at an unconscious level
like a 4 digit code being close to your birthday
-similarity between the names “Kriza” and “Kirti” may have been enough for me to perceive her as similar and more likable
15
Q
self-essentialist beliefs
A
beliefs that oneʼs attributes are caused by an underlying essence, like their aura, religion, spirituality, etc…
individual differences in self-essential beliefs amplify the effects of trivial similarities and liking
- the higher it is, the more trivial attributions can matter, more likely to undergo attributional processing
ex: the whole story of my name
16
Q
subliminal presentations of stimuli (in relation to the mere exposure effect)
A
-this is something like briefly flashing images during an online activity, participants presented with the image in a set of other random images prefer the image they were unconsciously exposed to
the exposure should be a neutral-positive experience
high conflict situations such as constantly seeing a coworker you hate will not make you like them more
17
Q
social ties and familiarity
A
the strength of social ties between the requestor and the target are a significant predictor of compliance likelihood
- random people from high school peddling their MLM are unlikely to illicit much compliance, but more than a complete stranger
- confederates that made requests with people they talked to prior elicited more compliance than confederates that had no prior contact
18
Q
Why does familiarity increase liking?
A
it reduces uncertainly and is associated with safety, you have been exposed to this same thing without experiencing any negative consequences
as familiarity increases, perceived risks tend to decrease
novel stimuli are seen as more risky, they have an unknown level of danger
- this is why media exposure to more diverse demographics is important
19
Q
perceptual fluency
A
the ease with which a stimulus is processed
familiar stimuli are easier to process and interpret-like watching a movie for a second time
perceptual fluency is positively valanced
the reverse is also true, familiarity can even be inferred from ease of process
- easy to process stimuli seen as more familiar, such as easy to read font
20
Q
fluency heuristic
A
when people infer truth/accuracy from ease of processing
- easy to process/fluent statements are rated as more true, and are more easily retrieved from memory
- disfluent speech markers lower perceptions of truth, such as “um” and “uh”
21
Q
rhyme as reason effect
A
rhyming statements seem more true than non-rhyming ones, example of perceptual fluency
“no pride in genocide”
vs
“birds of a feather flock conjointly”
easier to process AND more memorable, rhyming ad slogans increasing people’s willingness to engage
22
Q
compliments/people who already like us
A
we tend to like those who like us back (reciprocal liking)
we tend to like people that flatter us, even when we know that is not true, but there is a limit before this can become abrasive
servers and hair stylists getting more tips after giving compliments
23
Q
mechanisms of compliments increasing compliance?
A
similarity-the compliment implies that they approve of us and have something in common
norm of reciprocity- compliment seen as a small act of kindness that activates the norm
- compliance increasing even more when the norm is made salient
24
Q
eye contact/direct eye gaze
A
signal of liking, but can also signal dominance when it is direct and consistent
people engage in it more when concerned tier their relationship goals with the subject or trying to be persuasive/ingratiate themselves
we pick up emotions better when making eye contact
the concept is also linked to ostracism, the lack of eye contact making people feel excluded or can be done to signal unwillingness to interact
25
eye contact and compliance
sources that make eye contact are more persuasive and elicit greater compliance- people accepted more leaflets, made more charitable donations, and were more willing to do a small favor
sources that made eye contact were seen as more trustworthy, likable, and attractive
26
eye contact: emotional vs informational ads
for informational ads: direct eye gaze gave the speaker more credibility and people reported more positive attitudes
for emotional ads: there were no differences with credibility, but there were more positive reacting for article when subject was looking away
- likely because it ‘matches’ the mood of the ad, chill vibes
-and narrative transportation, seeing yourself in the cafe too
27
source’s eye gaze
can influence what we may pay attention to
gaze cuing effect/joint attention
- babies do this a lot but so can adults
stronger effects when emotional expressions are used
- more likely to follow someone’s gaze if they are having a reaction to it
28
speech rate
sources that speak fast are seen as more attractive, confident, trustworthy, and knowledgeable
also increases greater compliance and persuasion
- there is a limit to this and we prefer varied speech rather over fast and constant
but there is some evidence suggesting that it can undermine elaboration
- this can be intentional to activate people’s heuristic processing, so it good for weaker arguments (ben shapiro)
29
vocal pitch
lower vocal pitch is associated with higher confidence
also leads to higher elaboration, which leads to more systematic processing
the underlying reasons may be social (men having lower pitches and patriarchy yk) or it might be related to the fact that adults tend to have lower pitched voices than children- lower pitch denoting lived experience
30
vocal volume
speakers more persuasive when they speak at a higher volume and vary their volume
greater perceived confidence
31
vocal pleasantness
associated with persuasiveness
fluent speech seen as more credible and persuasive, less interrupted and hesitant
greater pitch variety enhances perceived competence, character, and sociability
32
physical proximity
closer proximity can convey dominance, invasion of personal space
moderate to close proximity increases perceived credibility
ideal distance can be very context dependent, such as your relationship with the person but generally
Moderate: 4-5ft
too close: 1-2 ft
These 2 elicit systematic processing
too far: 14-15 ft
33
expressiveness
Affirmative head nods, greater facial expressiveness (smiling), gesturing, less postural rigidity, & moderate relaxation associated with greater persuasiveness
comfort level also matters a lot, no processing if the target is only thinking “this person is too close and creepy”
random body movement also has an impact
- hand gestures vs fidgeting are seen differently
34
nonverbal cue alignment-regulatory-focus theory
Written persuasive messages that fit recipientsʼ regulatory focus are more persuasive
theory of goal pursuit and motivational orientation
2 focuses
promotion and prevention focus
when the delivery matches the the target’s motives, increased persuasion
35
promotion focus
representing goals as hopes and aspirations, prefer eager, advancement strategies of engaging with tasks
focused on gains & accomplishments
associated with cues like open hand gestures and leaning forwards
seeing what you have to gain, goals as additive achievements
36
prevention focus
representing goals ad duties and obligations, prefer vigilant, cautious strategies of engaging with tasks
focused on safety and security, loss aversion
cues like leaning back, closed hand movements/keeping hands together
seeing goals as preordained tasks that NEED to be completed- like how getting mu license and degree are not achievements but just kinda things i have to do, not achievements
37
liking via conditioning and association
both can increase liking and persuasion
participants more persuaded when message is accompanied by pleasant music or portrayed in front of a pleasant background
- ex: more persuasive if you bring your client to a nice coffee shop rather than infront of a dumpster
38
Killing the messenger
blaming the bearer of bad news
opposite of “basking in the reflected glory” which is basically taking celebrating a cool successful thing that another person or group did as if it were you that achieved something
- such as sports fans being very happy when their team wins
39
luncheon technique
food increases the effectiveness of persuasion
- greater opinion change when participants were eating while reading a persuasive message
-more favorable rating for political statements shown while eating
we are hard wired to enjoy food so presenting it with a message associates that message with positivity
40
credibility
a source’s perceived expertise and trustworthiness
highly credible sources tend to be more persuasive
41
expertise
perceptions that source is capable of making correct assertions
Ability, knowledge, intelligence
can be context dependent-i trust katie to teach me psych but not physics (idk she could secretly be goated)
42
Trustworthiness
perceptions that assertions made by source are ones the source considers valid
Willing to report what they know truthfully without compromise
I trust that katie isn’t lying to me about what she knows about social influence and will admit when she does not know things
43
what can undermine credibility?
the overt desire to persuade, people don’t trust sources that are deliberately trying to change their views
advocating a self serving position, people like it when you are not going against their own position
both of these undermine credibility by undermining trustworthiness
- suggesting that there is an ulterior motive and you are going against their interests or trying to change their attitudes
44
nonverbal cues and credibility
confident body posture, direct eye contact, rapid and loud delivery
all these things can increase the perception of credibility
45
mechanisms of credibility
- can operate as a peripheral cue or heuristic, you are more likely to just take an expert’s word for something
-bias thoughts, i am more likely to listen to katie for social psych things rather than my parents, bias for her
-serve as a piece of evidence, seeing that a credible source has the same beliefs as you can back up your own opinion
-influence confidence that people have in their thoughts, more confident if a credible source affirms my attitudes
-determine processing route, less likely to systematically process something if a credible source has thought about something extensively
46
credibility and message discrepancy
Credibility effect is greater when message is highly discrepant from sourceʼs initial position
With highly credible sources, increasing message discrepancy increases persuasion
-attributional processing: they know more than me so i should trust them
With less credible sources, moderate discrepancy is most persuasive
47
Credibility & timing of source identification
When the source is perceived as highly credible, introducing source at the outset or in the middle of the message is more persuasive
When source identified at end of message, may be no credibility effects
- knowing prior to a panel that person is credible
- learning who they are once in they have said a few things
- only learning who they were after the fact
48
credibility sleeper effect
Sleeper effect: a delayed increase in the persuasive impact of a noncredible source
Source becomes dissociated from the message in memory
-immediately after, credible sources more persuasive, after 4 weeks they were equally persuasive
persuasion decreases overtime, this can be bad for credible sources but good for non-credible ones, you forget where you learned the info and just remember the info
- like my conservative amygdala fact
this is more effective when the communicator holds the same position as the recipient already does
49
discounting cues
Discounting cue: suppresses initial attitude change in response to persuasive communication, more effective the sooner someone hears about them (before, during, after)
-“Note to the reader” at the end of message, labelling the message as false, fucking freud
-Warning label from consumer protection agency, hey this shit causes cancer
-Fact-checking label on social media post, ‘readers added context’ stuff on twitter
-Negative comments on online news article
50
sleeper effect and other discounting cues
Sleeper effect also seen with other discounting cues
Sleeper effect stronger when discounting cue received after the message
sleeper effect usually disappears if reminded of cue, but then over time the sleeper effect occurs and we forget about or ‘lose’ the discounting cue (such as forgetting that info came from a non credible source)
51
acceptance cue
opposite of discounting cue
can increase initial attitude change, such as seeing positive comments under an article that support it
52
Power
perceptual variables that involves the POTENTIAL for influence or control over others’ resources or outcomes
- may or may not be manifested behaviorally (the exertion on control)
- context dependent, parents have control over their kids but not their boss
- independent of status or prestige- Danielle smith has power but that does not mean that people see her as prestigious
- interpersonal (1-on-1) vs intergroup (one group having power over another)
53
Bases of power
what gives people power, context dependent, and can have multiple/go together
reward power, supervisor CAN give you a raise
coercive power, punishment, supervisor can fire you
legitimate power, holding a high-position status (authority)
referent power, others admire you and want to emulate/rolemodel
expert power, expertise, profs in uni
54
need for power
Individuals differ in extent to which they are motivated to control/influence others
it is a personality trait
55
Psychological experience of power
Occupying positions of power affects power holders' cognitive, behavioral, and emotional processes, power influences the holder. after primed for power, people:
- more inclined to act, close window in public
- Risky behaviors perceived as less risky
- Context-dependent informational processing, sort out relative info from the background and process what relevant systematically
56
Context-dependent informational processing
- Stereotype-based impression formation, evaluating people off gender and race stereotypes
- Derogation of subordinates, see others as inferior
- Greater self-interest, less importance on the interests of others, your own interests are more important
57
Intergroup power
one group having power over another
it predicts bias and discrimination against out groups, when people are primed for power, more discrimination
58
minimal groups paradigm
the minimum amount of conditions needed to form groups and group norms and dynamics
even arbitrary randomly assigned groups is enough to cause discrimination after being primed for power
59
does power corrupt?
to an extent, yes
it leads to greater self importance, and reveals/enables any preexisting desires
- so a charitable person would just be more charitable if given power
60
Dominance
“Acting on power” the behavioral component of power, it’s excretion can be context dependent and is a trait
-One individual/groupʼs assertion of control is met with acquiescence from another
-Dynamic state
-Dominance linked to credibility & persuasiveness
Nonverbal cues can signal dominance:
-Direct eye contact, speaking fast & loudly, interrupting others more, taking up more physical space, closer physical proximity, clothing (e.g., uniform, formal clothing)
61
Obedience
Change in behavior as a result of a command from another person
- Most research focused on danger of blind/destructive obedience to authority figure
- Aimed at understanding wide-scale atrocities like Holocaust, why people engage with things that they believe are wrong
62
Milgram’s obedience studies
2/3 people administered lethal shocks when encouraged by an “authority figure” (man in lab coat)
the learner was instructed to express discomfort as the shocks ‘increased’ and the experimenter would only let the teacher stop after they expressed discomfort 4 times
63
Less obedience in milgram variations
-when orders came from confederate posing as participant or after experimenter ‘left’, there was no legitimate authority, so no power commanding obedience
-when study conducted in a run down building instead of yale, less than half went all the way, broke ties to academia
-male friend variation, they posed as the learner, only 3% went all the way, obedience was the lowest and people felt responsible
64
fundamental attribution error and milgram study
people over estimate the influence of individual character traits, rather than external factors
but people attribute their own negative actions to external factors, and positive actions with their character
65
Explaining Milgram's obedience studies: legitimate authority
-experimenter’s legitimate authority, affiliation with the experiment, yale, and science. people want to help science progress
we are socialized to obey authority, authority doesn’t need to be charismatic, the position itself is powerful
experimenter seen as an “expert”, and we differ blame and judgement to them
66
Explaining Milgram's obedience studies: gradual increase in size of demand
- there were 30 switches that increased by 15 volts each time, boiling frog analogy
-desire for consistency, we want our self image to be consistent, it’s hard to draw the line between 170 and 185 volts
-the most common stopping points have qualitative features, such as when the learner asked to stop and goes silent.
-this validates the choice to stop while maintaining internal consistency
People that got to 150 typically went all the way
67
Explaining Milgram's obedience studies: novel situation
-people have limited info in a novel situation, they had little involvement with psych experiments, and saw the experiments as an ‘expert’
-while i’m no expert, i’m familiar with the field so I know that I have the right to refuse and what is ethically allowed
-when other experimenters and ‘teachers’ expressed concern or refused to participate there was much less obedience
68
Explaining Milgram's obedience studies: diffusion of responsibility
Diffusion/absence of responsibility
- Experimenter explicitly said he was responsible for any harm
people were motivated to assign the blame to someone else
personal responsibility is predictive of harmful behaviour a, people that went all the way were just “following orders”
69
Explaining Milgram's obedience studies: Identification-based followership
these people volunteered to participate because they identified with the experimenter’s goals and wanted to help them
the participants have competing demands:
-wanting to give the experimenter results
-but they also want to sympathize with the learner - which is why they identified more with whoever they were physically closer too, experimenter or learner
70
Identification-based followership
participants read the 15 milgram study variants and rated how much each one would cause people to identify with the experimenter as a scientist and the greater academic community OR the learner and the general public
the more people identified with the experimenter, the more obedience there was
people are not just blindly obedient to authority, but engaged follower-ship, wanting to help the experimenter and science
71
Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today?
- max voltes 150, since ppl that reached this mark would typically go all the way, similar to the original, 70% went all the way, so this was not a quirk of the 60s
-no demographic was more or less obedient
-people with high empathetic concern and desire for control expressed more reluctance but were just as likely to go all the way
72
leadership
Leadership: a process of social influence through which an individual enlists & mobilizes the aid of others in the attainment of a collective goal
- Leaders play critical role in defining collective goals
- More of a group process than interpersonal process
there is assigned and emergent leadership
73
Assigned leadership
Leadership based on occupying a particular position
- Team leaders, Generals, Department heads, Directors
there is an extensive process to attain these positions, not just anyone can claim them
74
Emergent leadership
Individual perceived by others as the most influential member of group/team/organization regardless of title
- Emerges over time, like the key leaders in persuasion wars, someone just kinda ends up taking charge, which was unfortunately me
75
Trait theories
First scientific approach to studying leadership
Case analyses of famous leaders to identify lists of traits/qualities/personality characteristics they shared
From this perceptive, leadership is innate
but is unlikely that there is any innate trait/personality aspect at play
76
Criticisms of trait theories
there is no definite list of leadership traits
it does not take situation effects into account, leadership is context dependent, diff leaders for different situations (i would not be a leader in a math context)
these theories are still persistent:
-fundamental attribution error- the idea that external behavior is due to internal traits alone, rather than developing traits due to the needs of a leadership position
-leaders also stand out from the background and command attention, so it’s a very salient topic
77
Approaches to studying leadership: Behavioural approach
there are 2 broad dimensions that describe day to day leadership behaviors (which are most effective together)
1. Initiating structure / task behaviours
- Defining & structuring roles of followers for goal attainment
-the leader assigns work/deadlines/ project management tasks (trump and plan 2025)
2. Consideration / relationship behaviours
- Creating relationships characterized by mutual trust, respect, & consideration of followers
- E.g., building camaraderie (Tim Waltz my goat)
78
Approaches to studying leadership: Transformational/charismatic leadership
Transformational leadership:
- A pattern of behaviours that inspires followers to commit to a shared vision that provides meaning to their work and sets the leader up as a role model who helps followers reach their potential
- Followers focus on collective good more than just short-term self-interests
- Leaders “transform” the way followers view their work
- Followers perform beyond expectations
inspirational, intellectually stimulating, idealized influence, individualized consideration, A leader that wants all of their followers to do better for themselves (katie my goat)
79
Transformational/charismatic leadership mechanics
Idealized Influence (charisma)
- Emotional component, followers idealize these leaders and want to identify with and emulate them, referent power
Inspirational motivation
-Fostering enthusiasm for and commitment to shared vision of the future, wanting more people to have human rights
Individualized consideration
- Empowering or developing followers, giving them special attention for their own needs
Intellectual stimulation
- Challenging followers to be innovative and creative
- Questioning assumptions and reframing old situations
- we deserve more than the status quo, colonization was bad
80
Transformational/charismatic leadership: what makes a leader charismatic?
- Using metaphors- perceptual fluency so people understand them
- Communicating with emotions, both negative and positive as appropriate, proper emotion at proper time
- Image building strategies (e.g., posting pictures of someone taken from a low angle) dominant/imposing angle
- Speaking about the future- the vision you will achieve together
- Setting high goals- something to aspire to so people don’t just kinda let the hype die, yayayay change
81
Transformational/charismatic leadership: what makes a leader appear charismatic?
- leading though a crisis (ex: george bush post 9/11 appeared more charismatic afterwords)
- Transformational leader behaviours generally effective
Stronger relationship with follower satisfaction than objective performance (e.g., sales, profit)
- follower’s motivation is more important than objective success (just look at the trump voter base)
82
Approaches to studying leadership: Leader decision-making styles
Leaders vary in how much control is retained by leader, and how much control is given to followers
ordered from high follower control-high leader control
Delegative-Facilitative-Consultative-Autocratic
83
Delegative Style
democracy
the leader hands off decision making to their followers, they just serve as a representative of what the people want
84
Facilitative Style
the leader guides follower decision making (kinda like a parent urging their kid out of choosing theatre as a major)
85
Consultative style
listens to their followers but makes their own decisions
like a parent that asks what you want to do for your birthday but will still do what they want (but maybe they will get you the gift you want)
86
Autocratic style
my call, get out of the way
my parents
87
Autocratic leadership
autocratic is NOT authoritarian, that has more emphasis on domination
the leader has high control compared to the followers, power centralized in one person
making decisions unilaterally, without consultation from followers
88
Views of autocratic leaders
In certain situations it can be a most effective leadership style, E.g., insignificant decision, low importance of subordinate commitment, high likelihood of subordinate commitment, high leader expertise- like a manager ordering food for the team by themselves since they already know what everyone likes
Autocratic leadership tends to be viewed unfavourably by subordinates/followers
- Less support for leader
- Less trust for leader
89
negative group influences from autocratic leadership
- Negative emotional reactions (anger, disappointment)
- Lower satisfaction with the group- less work satisfaction
- Demoralizing effect on team climate- disconnection, loss of interest
- Increase feelings of being undervalued- feeling wronged after being ignored/not allowed to contribute
- Impair psychological safety when there is competition within the team- less mutual trust for other group members
- People more likely to leave the group
90
Autocratic leaders and Uncertainty
Uncertainty elevates need for and importance of leadership
- Greater support for leaders who are typically seen as undesirable because they want to reduce their feelings of uncertainty
higher uncertainty=higher support for undesirable leaders, they get blinded to their bad qualities
economic uncertainty predicts preference for dominant leaders, shit economy leads to - feeling like there is a lack of personal control, so they want dominant leader
91
How autocratic leaders lessen uncertainty
Autocratic leaders especially well-equipped to reduce followersʼ uncertainty
- Seen as capable decision-makers
- Seen as willing to make tough calls, that others shy away from
- Make firm, unambiguous decisions that provide desired clarity
- Construct clear vision of the group, what they stand for and what the group is
- Provide structure, protection
92
Why do certain people lean more to democracy?
Participants primed with certainty
- Strong association between democratic leadership & success on IAT
Participants primed with uncertainty:
- Stronger association between autocratic leadership and success
- Effect seen primarily among participants with lower self-esteem
uncertain people feel less capable to male themselves feel certain/reduce uncertainty
93
Norm of reciprocity
We should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided us
- Universal social norm, across cultures and contexts
- Creates indebtedness, future obligation
- Endurance into the future depends on size of favor/gift
smaller favors elicit about a week of indebtedness
we even have terms for people that violate the norm: mooch, rat, freeloader
94
explanations of reciprocity
-it is adaptive and likely has evolutionary roots, enables division of labor, interdependence, and cooperation
-humans as social animals, share resources without feeling a ‘loss’
95
reciprocal altruism
if i help you when you need it, i believe gay you will help me when i am in need
both people better in the long run
96
reciprocity as a tool of social influence
it is stronger in casual relationships, they are more transactional, 1:1, tit for tat, violation tanking relationship outcomes
compared to closer relationships where people assume that things will even out in the long run
it is strong enough to overpower other influences such as liking- elicits higher compliance because people feel like they owe something
97
Benefactor-before-beggar strategy
a person does a favor then begs for a request
lolol when i lent mom and dad 2k then went to evo
98
norm of reciprocity and motives
will people comply with someone who did them a favor even if the initial favor giver will not know that the recipient reciprocated?
yes- we do not just reciprocate out of fear of judgment
99
Mutual favor exchanges
Even after returning a favor, people may be more vulnerable to subsequent requests
a ‘friendship heuristic’ is triggered, exchanging favors changes the way that people think of themselves- “i am kind, someone that does favors
there is a need to be internally consistent
retuning a favors does not reduce the advantage of the first unsolicited favor
100
Reciprocal concessions
Norm of reciprocity applies to more than just favors/gifts, can be making sacrifices, lowering prices/size of request
Also holds for concessions, E.g., in bargaining/negotiation
People tend to match the number of concessions a negotiation opponent makes, self-disclosure of what is on the table to make things more fair/firm
101
Door-in-the-face technique
sequential request tactic where the influence agent presents a large request they expect the target to reject, then concedes & makes smaller request
- Also known as rejection-then-retreat
it invokes reciprocal concessions
also applies a contrast effect, the contrast seeming even larger in succession
but can backfire if initial request is too extreme-sense of manipulative intent
102
Door-in-the-face technique
When is it more or less effective?
more effective: verbal behavioral compliance, when same person makes 1st and 2nd request, more effective when the 2nd request is more difficult (if it were just asked as an initial request
less effective after a long delay (ex: more than a day), but no less effective when the delay is smaller
103
That’s-not-all technique
The influence agent offers the target a product at a specific price
- Then, before the target can respond, the influence agent “sweetens” the offer, with something liked adding a free gift or lowering the price
it invokes reciprocity-favor in exchange of the deal being sweetened
104
how the That’s-not-all technique can backfire
Backfires if initial request is too large
- Less effective for expensive products (in final price)
systematic processing overrides heuristics, something fishy is going on
○ Sometimes called reverse thatʼs-not-all effect
○ May prompt immediate rejection
- this reduces compliance past control and can elicit a negative emotional reaction
105
That’s-not-all vs. door-in-the-face
Primary differences
DITF
-2nd request is appears more preferable
-verbal: people agreeing to something
large request -> rejection -> smaller request
TNA
-request ‘sweetened’
-behavioral: getting someone to do something like buying
-Large request-> sweeten deal-> concession
