Powerpoint III: Compliance Flashcards
Cialdini’s 6 Compliance Principles
Liking
Reciprocity
Authority
Scarcity
Social Proof
Commitment & Consistency
Principle of Authority
The principle that people are more likely to comply with requests made by a person of prestige or high authority
How do people perceive information from authority figures?
They perceive the information as particularly accurate
Factors influencing authority and compliance
- Professional status
- Organizational affiliation
- Clothing
Famous example of authority effects
Milgram obedience studies
Wilson (1968) - authority effects findings (height estimates x professor)
Estimates of height were 2.5 inches higher in the professor condition
Higham & Carmen (1992) - authority effects findings (heigh estimates x politician)
Estimates of politicians heights were higher after winning elections than before winning elections
Authority Effects x Advertising Campaigns
Stress expertise of manufacturer
- Stress amount of time business has made product
- Hire actors to portray authority figures (doctors & scientists)
Bickman (1974) Authority & Compliance Study: request for money in street clothes vs security guard uniform
Street clothes: 42% compliance
Security guard: 92% compliance
Authority & Compliance: J-Walker Study (Lefkowitz et al., 1955)
3.5x as many people followed a j-walker into traffic wearing a business suit than casual clothes
Authority & Compliance: Nurse Study
- What was examined?
- What were the results?
Study examined level of nurses’ compliance to a potentially dangerous request from an unknown doctor
95% compliance
Limitations to Authority Research
- Not always clear if effects are compliance or obedience
- Small number of studies
- Processes are unclear
What is the difference between compliance and obedience?
Compliance: a change in behaviour elicited by direct requests
Obedience: changes in behaviour produced by the commands of an authority figure
Why are the processes used in authority research unclear?
- Does not specify if the conditions under which compliance occurs are thoughtful or non-thoughtful
- Does not distinguish between normative or influence
Normative influence
influence that produces conformity because a person feats negative social consequences of appearing deviant
Informational influence
influence that produces conformity because a person believes others are correct in their judgments
Principle of Social Proof
The principle that people determine what is correct by finding out what others think is correct
What is the main tenet of Fester’s (1954) social comparison theory?
People are motivated to evaluate themselves
What type of cues do people like to use to evaluate themselves?
Objective cues (if available)
If objective cues are unavailable, how do people evaluate themselves?
Engage in social comparison
Who do people prefer to compare themselves to when engaging in social comparison?
Similar others
2 real world examples of social proof
- Salting tip jars (putting money in the tip jar)
- Car dealers target next-door neighbours of recent customers
- Advertisers provide testimonials and statements of popularity regarding products
What is the difference between compliance and obedience?
Compliance: a change in behaviour elicited by direct requests
Obedience: changes in behaviour produced by the commands of an authority figure
Social Proof x Compliance: Reingen (1982) studies using lists as social proof
Explain the results of both studies
Experiment 1: money donation
- Finding: people were 18% more likely to donate money when provided a list of names of previous donors
Experiment 2: blood donation
- Finding: people were 27% more likely to donate blood when provided a list of names of previous donors
How does list size (as social proof) affect compliance?
Longer lists produce more compliance than short lists
Social proof x compliance: lost wallet study (Horstein, Fisch, & Holmes, 1968)
Subjects: native speakers of american english
1/2 of participants found a lost wallet with a letter written in standard american english
1/2 of participants found a wallet with a letter written in broken english
Findings:
- People were more likely to comply in the standard american english condition (by 37%)
What does the lost wallet study demonstrate about social proof?
Social proof of similar others particularly matters
Limitations of social proof studies
- not many social proof x compliance studies
- underlying processes are unclear (thought conditions & type of influence)
Principle of Scarcity
The principle principle that things are seen as more valuable if they are less readily available to us
2 main types of scarcity
- Time
- Amount
Reasons for scarcity effect
- Scarcity and value
- Scarcity and free choice
How does free choice relate to scarcity?
when something is scarce, it is closing down our opportunities for free choice, and potentially taking away our self-control and autonomy (reactance theory)
Scarcity X Compliance study: Imported beef (Knishinsky, 1982)
- Offered purchases of beef to supermarket
Control: normal sales pitch
Scarcity condition: limited supply & info is not widely known
Finding: purchases were 6x higher in the scarcity condition
Scarcity X Compliance - Worchel & Arnold finding about banned information
People want to obtain banned information more than information that has not been banned
What is a way to manipulate scarcity other than limiting the amount or time?
Uniqueness of opportunity
Scarcity X Compliance: Uniqueness of opportunity in a series of experiment 1 of 3 by Burger & Caldwell (2011)
Students contacted by phone to participate in study
control: no questions on eligibility
Common condition: told eligibility for study based on common characteristics
Uncommon condition: told eligibility for study based on uncommon characteristics
Findings: mean compliance was greater for the uncommon condition and significantly different from control and common condition
–> the opportunity to participate in this is unique
Scarcity X Compliance: Uniqueness of opportunity in a series of experiment 2 of 3 by Burger & Caldwell (2011)
Students asked to participate in second study
Control: no mention of eligibility
Common condition: told score on eligibility test was common
Uncommon condition: told score on eligibility test was uncommon
Results
- Compliance highest in the uncommon condition
Scarcity X Compliance: Uniqueness of opportunity in a series of experiment 3 of 3 (mugs) by Burger & Caldwell (2011)
Students who from the second study are given opportunity to buy a mug
Control: no mention of eligibility
Common condition: rigged “random draw” for eligibility to buy mugs with 1 in 2 chance
Uncommon condition: rigged “random draw” for eligibility to buy mugs with 1 in 6 chance
Results
- Uncommon compliance was significantly higher –> triple the base rate
What is the traditional assumption of scarcity effects?
That scarcity effects are non-thoughtful use of a simple heuristic of “scarce is better”
Which Scarcity x Compliance experiment challenged the traditional assumption of scarcity effects?
Brannon & Brock’s Taco Bell Study
What did the Taco Bell Study challenge? What did they argue instead?
the notion that scarcity works as a result of low thought processes
argued that scarcity increases attention to information
Describe the Taco Bell scarcity study
Purpose: examine scarcity compliance techniques in getting people to purchase cinnamon twists
Scarcity conditions:
High: special recipe for today
Low: special recipe for the year
Argument quality:
Strong: “great with mexican food”
Weak: “not really mexican food”
result:
- High scarcity/strong argument produced the greatest percentage of compliance
What do the effects of the taco bell study suggest?
Suggest enhanced scrutiny of information is relevant to the request
Does the pattern of finding fit well with the heuristic explanation? Why?
No
The heuristic view suggest that scarcity should enhance compliance regardless of the argument quality (which is not the case here)
What are the levels of thoughtfulness that determine mechanism of scarcity & what model are they based on?
Moderate
Low
High
Based off the elaboration likelihood model
How does moderate thoughtfulness function as a mechanism of scarcity?
Scarcity increases thinking (Brannon & Brock / Taco Bell view)
How does low thoughtfulness function as a mechanism of scarcity?
Low thoughtfulness = low ability or motivation
Scarcity serves as a simple cue or heuristic (Cialdini view
How does high thoughtfulness function as a mechanism of scarcity?
High thoughtfulness = high ability & motivation
Scarcity biases people’s thinking about the request, the reason something is scarce will matter and determine if bias is positive or negative
Scarcity X Compliance: Describe Grant et al. (2013) study skills program
Participants receive information about a university study skills program
Thoughtfulness:
- Low thought: perform memory task
- High thought: no memory task
Scarcity:
High: program offered for one week
Low: program offered for the next two years
What are the results and implications of Grant et al. (2013) scarcity study about a study skills program?
under low thought conditions, intentions to participate were significantly higher under high scarcity
Under high thought conditions, the high scarcity produced less compliance than low scarcity
implications
- low thought condition provides evidence for scarcity acting as non-thoughtful heuristic
- high though condition provides evidence that scarcity can influence behaviour via THOUGHTFUL means by biased the valence of thoughts
- high thought condition provides evidence that the reason something is scarce matters
What might scarcity be confounded with?
Social proof
