Compliance
THE MODIFICATION OF
BEHAVIOUR IN RESPONSE TO A
DIRECT REQUEST, EVEN
THOUGH THE PERSON MAKING
THE REQUEST HAS NO POWER
TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE
Compliance vs Conformity
 Literature often uses the two terms interchangeably.
 COMPLIANCE: the surface behavioural response to a
request by another individual.
 CONFORMITY: the influence of a group upon an
individual that usually produces more enduring
internalized changes in one’s attitudes and beliefs
The Rule of Reciprocation
• Cialdini (1993): Argues that people are socialized into
returning favours so powerful rule underpinning compliance
• Anthropologists Tiger & Fox (1971) argue that reciprocation
(mutual indebtedness) is perhaps the result of evolution.
• Lynn & McCall (1988) found that restaurants who offered a
mint or sweet with the bill received larger tips.
The Rule of Reciprocation
Regan (1971)
•
Carried out a lab experiment to investigate if people who had received a free coke would
return the favour when asked to buy raffle tickets from the same person compared to a
control who had received no favour.
•
Questionnaires were given to rate the “liking” of the confederate to investigate the
effect of liking on doing a favour for a person.
•
Participants who had received a favour in the experimental condition bought a
significantly higher number of raffle tickets compared to participants in the control
condition.
•
“Liking” did not influence the number of raffle tickets bought in the experimental
condition. Those who did not like the confederate bought as many tickets as those who
said they liked the confederate; in the control condition they bought more tickets if they
liked the confederate.
•
Conclusion: the rule of reciprocity is very powerful – a strong sense of social obligation.
Cultural norms and reciprocity
Ting-Toomey (1986) anthropologist
• Carried out field research; compared the forms of reciprocity
in 3 individualist cultures (Australia, USA, France) with
reciprocity in two collectivist (Japan and China).
Results
• The rule of reciprocity appears to be universal – which
supports an evolutionary explanation) but
• Reciprocity displayed differently:
•
•
Individualist countries: voluntary reciprocity – free will in
returning favour
Collectivist countries: obligatory reciprocity the norm - moral
failure if reciprocity is not honoured
Compliance Techniques
Cialdini
 Authority
 Liking
 Social Proof
 Scarcity
 Reciprocity
 Consistency &
Commitment
Authority
 People are more willing to follow
the directions or
recommendations of a
communicator to whom they
attribute relevant authority or
expertise. One study showed that
3 times as many pedestrians
were willing to follow a man into
traffic against the red light when
he was merely dressed as an
authority in a business suit and
tie.
Liking
 Individuals are more likely
to buy a product from
someone they like (e.g., a
friend or relative having a
Tupperware party, or
people being more likely to
buy a product from people
who are similar to
themselves).
Social Proof
 One means used by individuals to determine what is
correct is to find out what others believe is correct.
People often view a behavior as more correct in a
given situation--to the degree that we see others
performing it.
 One researcher went door to door collecting for
charity and carrying a list of others in the area who
had already contributed. The longer the list, the more
contributions it produced.
Social proof is most influential under two conditions:
Uncertainty--when people are unsure and the situation is ambiguous
they are more likely to observe the behavior of others and to accept
that behavior as correct
Similarity--people are more inclined to follow the lead of others who
are similar.
Scarcity
 People find objects and opportunities more
attractive to the degree that they are scarce,
rare, or dwindling in availability. Even
information that is scarce is more effective. A
beef importer in the US informed his
customers (honestly) that, because of weather
conditions in Australia, there was likely to be a
shortage of Australian beef. His orders more
than doubled. However, when he added (also
honestly) that this information came from his
company's exclusive contacts in the Australian
National Weather Service, orders increased by
600%!
Reciprocity
 Individuals tend to reciprocate; if someone does
something for you (such as, lowering the price of their
product), then you feel more obligated to do something
for them (like buy the product).
 One of the most prevalent social norms directs us to
return to others favours, goods and services that they
offer to us.
 According to the American Disabled Veterans
organization, mailing out a simple appeal for donations
produces an 18% success rate; but, enclosing a small gift-personalized address labels--boosts the success rate to
35%
Consistency & Commitment
 If you make a small commitment, then you will be more
likely to commit to something larger in the future (e.g.,
just buy a single book, then you'll be more likely to buy
all the other books that the Time/Life company will
regularly send you).
Consistency & Commitment
 Good personal consistency is highly valued by
society.
 Consistent conduct provides a beneficial approach
to daily life.
 A consistent orientation affords a valuable shortcut
through the complexity of modern existence. That
is-- by being consistent with earlier decisions we
can reduce the need to process all the relevant
information in future similar situations. Instead,
one merely needs to recall the earlier decision and
respond consistently.
Consistency & Commitment
 Foot in the Door
 Door in the Face
 Lowballing
Consistency & Commitment
 Foot in the Door: 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
Consistency & Commitment:
Foot in the Door Technique
Freedman & Fraser (1966)
 Researchers arranged for a researcher posing as a volunteer
worker to ask a number of householders in California to allow
a big, ugly public service sign reading ‘Drive Carefully’ to be
placed in their front garden.
 Only 17% of householders complied with the request.
 A different set of householders was asked whether they would
display a small ‘Be a Safe Driver’ sign. Nearly all of those
asked agreed to this request.
 Two weeks later, these same homeowners were asked by a
‘volunteer worker’ whether they would display the much
bigger and ugly ‘Drive Carefully sign in their front gardens.
 76% complied with the second request – far higher than the
17% that complied with the first request.
Consistency & Commitment:
Foot in the Door Technique
Freedman & Fraser (1966)
 In a SECOND study, Freedman and Fraser (1966) first
asked a number of householders to sign a petition in
favour of keeping California beautiful, something nearly
everybody agreed to do.
 After two weeks, they sent a new ‘volunteer worker’ who
asked these homeowners if they would display the large,
ugly ‘Drive Carefully’ sign of the previous study to be
displayed in their front gardens.
 Note: the two requests relate to completely different
topics but nearly half of the homeowners complied with
the second request.
 Again – this is significantly higher than the 17% of
homeowners who agreed without prior contact.
Consistency & Commitment:
Foot in the Door Technique
Factors affecting FITD compliance
 Initial requests can’t be so large that people refuse to
do them (Burger, 1999).
 FITD requires delay between initial request and
larger one (Burger, 1999).
 When the same person makes the requests, it is
difficult to get compliance (Chartrand et al., 1999)
 People with a high degree of consistency show bigger
FITD effects (Cialdini et al., 1999)
Consistency & Commitment:
Foot in the Door Technique
WHY?
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
Consistency & Commitment:
Foot in the Door Technique
WHY?
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
Consistency & Commitment:
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.
Consistency & Commitment:
Door-in-the-Face Technique
Cialdini et al (1975)
 Control Group 1: Participants were approached and
asked to escort a group of juvenile delinquents to
the zoo; most refused.
 Control Group 2: Participants 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.
Consistency & Commitment:
Door-in-the-Face Technique
Cialdini et al (1975) - 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%)
Consistency & Commitment:
Door-in-the-Face Technique
Guéguen & Meineri (2011 ) tested whether the amount
of time between the first request and the second request
made a difference in the level of compliance.
In their study, waitresses were told to ask randomly
selected restaurant customers whether they wanted dessert
at the end of their meal.
There were then two conditions if the naive participant
refused. In the first condition, the waitress immediately
asked if the participant wanted tea or coffee.
In the second condition, they left and returned three
minutes later to ask if they wanted tea or coffee
Consistency & Commitment:
Door-in-the-Face Technique
Guéguen & Meineri (2011 )
The results showed that people were more likely to
order tea or coffee in the immediate condition, rather
than in the delayed condition.
Consistency & Commitment:
Door-in-the-Face Technique
DITF Evaluation
 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
 The more concessions made, the more likely the compliance, (Goldman
and Creason, 1981)
Consistency & Commitment:
Door-in-the-Face Technique
DITF Explanations
 Perceptual contrast hypothesis; evidence is
inconclusive
 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)
Consistency & Commitment:
Lowballing
 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
Consistency & Commitment:
Lowballing
Burger & Cornelius (2003)
 In this study, students were contacted by phone by a
female caller and asked whether they would be prepared
to donate $5 to a scholarship fund for underprivileged
students. There were THREE experimental conditions:
1. Lowball Condition: Students were told that those who
contributed would receive a coupon for a free smoothie at a
local juice bar. Students who agreed were then informed
that the investigator realised she had run out of coupons.
The students were asked if they would still be willing to
contribute. 76% agreed to make a donation in this
condition.
Consistency & Commitment:
Lowballing
Burger & Cornelius (2003)
2. Interrupt Condition: The caller made the same
initial request as in the Lowball Condition. However,
before the participants had a chance to give their
answer, the caller interrupted them to let them know
there were no more coupons left. 16% of the
participants made a donation in this condition.
3. Control Condition: Participants were simply
asked to donate the $5 without any mention of
coupons. 42% made a contribution in the Control
condition.
Consistency & Commitment:
Lowballing
Burger & Cornelius (2003) cont.
 The results support the view that the Lowball
technique is effective only when individuals have
made an initial public commitment. Once they have
made this commitment, individuals feel obliged to
act in accordance with it even when the conditions
that led to them making the commitment have
changed (Cialdini, 2009)
Consistency & Commitment:
Lowballing
Caldini (1974)
 Researchers asked a class of first year psychology
students to volunteer to be a part of a study on
Cognition that would meet at 7 am.
 24% of the College students were willing to get up at
that time of day and attend.
 In a second group, they were asked the same favour
– to be a part of the study on Cognition – but were
not told the time.
 56% agreed to participate without knowing the time.
Consistency & Commitment:
Lowballing
Caldini (1974) cont
 When subsequently told that it would mean being in
attendance at 7 am, nobody backed out of their
commitment.
 95% (of the 56%) showed up for the 7 am
commitment. That represents DOUBLE the 24% that
would have attended from the first condition.
Consistency & Commitment:
Lowballing
 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)
Consistency & Commitment:
Lowballing
WHY? 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)
Consistency & Commitment