Nonverbal Behavior and Compliance Gaining Flashcards
1
Q
Snyder, Grether, and Keller study about hitchhikers
A
- Confederates gazed or did not gaze at passing motorists while hitchhiking
- The hitchhikers who gazed received significantly more offers for rides that those who did not gaze
2
Q
Effect of gaze on compliance
A
- On average the use of gaze increases compliance by about 15%
- 15% more people comply when gazed at vs. when gaze is averted
3
Q
Touch and compliance
A
- Kleinke had confederates lightly touch (or not touch) people while asking for a dime to make a phone call
- Significantly more people offered a dime in the touch vs. no touch condition
- Touch was confounded by distance
- 18” in touch condition, 3’ in no touch condition
4
Q
Touch effect still holds…
A
- In a study, confeds lightly touched upper arm of other person
- Eliminating the confound for space and touch
- Requested the person to sign petition
- Exp. 1: 81% vs. 55% (touch vs. no touch)
- Exp. 2: 70% vs. 40%
5
Q
Touch works with gaze
A
- Touch + gaze = even more effective
- Approached at a shopping mall by a confed. who touched and made eye contact, compliance rates (participating in a survey) were 86-92%
6
Q
Issues in touch-compliance research
A
- Force: most studies used a very light touch
- Body Region: most studies used touch to the upper arm or shoulder (“friendly touch”)
7
Q
Proxemics and compliance
A
- Confeds. stepped out of a phone booth and asked a passer-by for a nickel in exchange for five pennies
- NEAR: request was made when target was even with phone booth
- FAR: request was made when target was 4 ft. from the phone booth
- Compliance: 75% near, 44% far
8
Q
Speech rate
A
- Tape recorded message
- Volunteer to watch up to 5 half-hour tv shows
- Measured nonverbal decoding skill of subjects
- Fast speech rate increased compliance rates, but only for some subjects - good decoders of nonverbal communication
9
Q
Speech Volume
A
- Female confeds. approached pedestrians
- Bogus postcard technique - asked people to mail them
- Vocal intensity: soft, medium, loud
- Compliance highest in the medium condition (62%)
- Low in soft or loud conditions (both 49%)
10
Q
Apparel and compliance
A
- Confed. directed people passing by on the sidewalk to give a dime to another confed. who was “over parked” at the meter
- Clothing conditions: No authority (unshaven bum, work shoes, soiled baseball cap, greasy coveralls), status authority (two-piece business suit, white shirt, tie, dress shoes), role authority (uniform and badge)
- Results: 82% complies with “fireman”, 50% complied with “business man”, 45% complied with bum
11
Q
Clothing enhances effectiveness of touch
A
- Low (worn/dirty jeans, dirty t-shirt) med (clean jeans, t-shirt) and high (suit and tie) status clothes
- Touched or not touched
- Asked to fill out a survey on the street
- Few people complied with the request in the low status dress condition
12
Q
Ellsworth and Langer’s Demand Theory
A
- Certain nonverbal behaviors (e.g. gaze, touch, close space) provide arousal in others
- Because we are forced into interpersonal involvement with the actor
- Nonverbal behaviors can then function as a “demand” for something
- The easiest way to get rid of the arousal is to comply with the demand
13
Q
Patterson’s Arousal Labeling Theory
A
- Nonverbal behaviors (e.g. gaze, touch, etc.) can produce arousal in others
- People make attributions to explain their arousal
- In making these attributions we label our arousal
- If positive, we’ll comply, if negative we won’t comply
14
Q
Burgoon’s Nonverbal Expectancy Theory
A
- People have expectations for what is appropriate nonverbal behavior form others (e.g. gaze, touch, space, etc.)
- Violations of these expectations will produce arousal
- We label the arousal as positive or negative depending, in part, upon the reward value of the communicator
- Reward value = attractiveness, wealth attitude similarity, etc.
