Compliance Gaining Techniques
Compliance-gaining research focuses on choices people make about what to say when trying to persuade
others to behave in predetermined ways. Marwell and Schmitt (1967) brought together techniques suggested
by persuasion researchers and created a questionnaire to elicit people's tendencies to use particular power
bases to gain compliance in interpersonal relationships.
Compliance-gaining techniques (CGTs) (Marwell & Schmitt, 1967) do not formally constitute a scale or
an index but exist as a format for creating one. Marwell and Schmitt identified 16 power-based compliancegaining techniques-promise, threat, positive expertise, negative expertise, liking, pregiving, aversive
stimulation, debt, moral appeal, positive self-feeling, negative self-feeling, positive altercasting, negative
altercasting, altuism, positive esteem, and negative esteem-and asked people how likely they would be to use
each in four different situations (job, family, sales, and roommate). Factor analysis resulted in five
dimensions: Rewarding Activity, Punishing Activity, Expertise, Activation of Impersonal Commitments, and
Activation of Personal Commitments. Most researchers view these factors as descriptive and continue to use
all 16 techniques (or multiples of 16) rather than just those that constituted the five Marwell/Schmitt
dimensions.
In using CGTs, a scenario is presented to respondents, who are asked to indicate their degree of
likelihood of using each of 16 compliance-gaining strategies (created to reflect the techniques) on a 6-point
scale, ranging from definitely would use to definitely would not use. Respondents spend less than 4 minutes
on each scenario. Dillard (1988) explained that responses to the 16 messages can be summed to create a
unidimensional variable (see Hunter & Boster, 1987), factor-analyzed (Baglan, LaLumia, & Bayless, 1986),
or multidimensionally scaled (e.g., Cody & McLaughlin, 1980; Hertzog & Bradac, 1984) to reduce the 16
CGT to fewer dimensions (items are summed or averaged for the dimensions), or used separately as 16
different variables (deTurck, 1985; Sillars, 1980). Cluster analysis (Miller, Boster, Roloff, & Seibold, 1977)
and confirmatory factor analysis (Cody, Woelfel, & Jordan, 1983) have also been used to identify strategy
dimensions.
Numerous variations on these procedures exist. Miller et al. (1977) used eight-interval Likert-type scales,
ranging from extremely likely (1) to extremely unlikely (8) and most research has adopted this procedure.
Hample and Dallinger (1987) created another variation. They wanted to find out why people choose not touse
a particular technique, so they gave subjects three messages for each of the 16 CGTs and asked subjects to
indicate which ones they would use; for those not used, subjects indicated why they would not use them by
choosing one of eight reasons (e.g., not effective and treats other as too negative).
CGTs have generated numerous research investigations in many areas of communication: organizational
(Lamude & Lichtenstein, 1985), media (Ragland, 1987), cross-cultural (Neuliep & Hazleton, 1985),
educational (Kearney, Plax, Richmond, & McCroskey, 1985), and health (Burgoon et al., 1987). But most
research has used interpersonal scenarios (e.g., Dillard, 1988; Hample & Dallinger, 1987; Miller et aI., 1977;
Sillars, 1980; Tracy, Craig, Smith, & Spisak, 1984; Wiseman & Schenck-Hamlin, 1981).
RELIABILITY
Few researchers have examined the internal consistency of CGTs (mainly because they use the 16 items as
single-item indicators). However, Lamude and Lichtenstein (1985) found a Kendall's Coefficient of
Concordance of.89 across the four scenarios used. Boster and Levine (1988) found a .81 coefficient alpha for
the Miller et ai. (1977) "move to the Southwest" scenario and .92 for their "used car" scenario. And Baglan et
al. (1986) found two main dimensions of strategies: Antisocial (with an alpha of .76) and Prosocial (with a .51
alpha).
Evidence of test-retest reliability also exists. Burleson et ai. (1988) reported test-retest (24 days)
reliabilities ranging from .31 to .66 (average of.5 3) for "likelihood of use" ratings for four situations; the testretest correlation for grouped data (across the four situations) was .99. Hample and Dallinger (1987) found a
test-retest (6 weeks) correlation of .66 for the nine option totals they used.
VALIDITY
Compliance-gaining research has focused on discovering antecedent variables that might help predict strategy
selection. Williams and Untermeyer (1988) varied the size of the request in an interpersonal setting. Miller et
al. (1977) varied the interpersonalness and long- versus short-term consequences of the situation. deTurck
(1985) used episodes varying in context interpersonalness, relational consequences, and target gender to see
sequences of strategies once subjects are told that their first (and second) choices failed. And Boster and
Levine (1988) looked for personality variables that might influence strategy choice. One study produced
evidence of construct validity: Neuliep (1987) found that Theory X managers preferred antisocial CGTs such
as deceit and threat, while Theory Y managers preferred esteem and ingratiation strategies.
COMMENTS
Compliance-gaining techniques make up a highly controversial system (see Wheeless, Barraclough, &
Stewart, 1983). Criticism has revolved around the "selection," "checklist," or "frequency of use" procedures
(see "Measures of Instructional Communication" for a discussion of these issues). In particular, some claim
that the Marwell-Schmitt scheme lacks content validity, lacks external validity, contains a social desirability
bias, and is too reactive to the scenarios used.
Wiseman and Schenck-Hamlin (1981) first suggested that the Marwell-Schmitt list was not exhaustive or
representative of the strategies persuaders would actually encode if left to themselves. They added five
strategies-ingratiation, guilt, direct request, explanation, and deceit-and argued that their inductive technique
produced a superior list of strategies. Boster, Stiff, and Reynolds (1985) created strategies from the
WisemanSchenck-Hamlin data and found the list complemented the MarwellSchmitt list; they suggested
using a combined 24-item strategy list in future research. Cody, Mclaughlin, and Jordan (1980) found that a
large number of CGTs were not used by respondents in their study. They also claimed an inherent social
desirability bias and argued that persuaders would not actually use the pro-social ones that they selected.
Prosocial strategies are chosen more often than antisocial strategies (e.g., Baglan et al., 1986; Ragland, 1987).
Burleson et al. (1988) (like Boster et al., 1985, and deTurck, 1985) found that need for social approval is not
significantly related to strategy "likelihood of use," but ratings of social appropriateness of the strategies were
related to use.
Some have argued that the scenario produces differences in responses (Boster & Levine, 1988; Dillard &
Burgoon, 1985) and that number of strategies might be reduced, depending on which scenario is used (Miller
et al., 1977). Hertzog and Bradac (1984) analyzed compliance-gaining situations and found five main types;
this could very well explain why results are different for different scenarios.
All in all, the Marwell-Schmitt (1967) CGTs have been used in numerous research studies. Researchers
should familiarize themselves with the issues involved in scale use and with the procedural options available
in the. literature.
LOCATION
Marwell, G., & Schmitt, D. R. (1967). Dimensions of compliance-gaining behavior: An empirical analysis.
Sociometry, 30,350-364.
Miller, G., Boster, F., Roloff, M., & Seibold, D. (1977). Compliance-gaining message strategies: A typology
and some findings concerning effects of situational differences. Communication Monographs, 44,37-51.
REFERENCES
Baglan, T., LaLumia, J., & Bayless, O. L. (1986). Utilization of compliance-gaining strategies: A research
note. Communication Monographs, 53,289-293.
Boster, F. J., & Levine, T. (1988). Individual differences and compliance gaining message selection: The
effects of verbal aggressiveness, argumentativeness, dogmatism, and negativism. Communication
Research Reports, 5, 114-119.
Boster, F.J., Stiff,J. B., & Reynolds, R. A. (1985). Do persons respond differently to inductively-derived and
deductively-derived lists of compliance gaining message strategies? A reply to Wiseman and SchenckHamlin. Western Journal of SPeech Communication, 49, 177-187.
Burgoon,J. K., Ffau, M., Parrott, R., Birk, T., Coker, R., & Burgoon, M. (1987). Relational communication,
satisfaction, compliance-gaining strategies, and compliance in communication between physicians and
patients. Communication Monographs, 54, 307-324.
Burleson, B. R., Wilson, S. R., Waltman, M. S., Goering, E. M., Ely, T. K., & Whaley, B. B. (1988). Item
desirability effects in compliance-gaining research: Seven studies documenting artifacts in the strategy
selection procedure. Human Communication Research, 14,429-486.
Cody, M.J., & Mclaughlin, M. L. (1980). Perceptions of compliance-gaining situations: A dimensional
analysis. Communication Monographs, 47, 132-148.
Cody, M.J., Mclaughlin, M. L., & Jordan, W.J. (1980). A multidimensional scaling of three sets of
compliance-gaining strategies. Communication Quarterly, 28(3), 34-46.
Cody, M. J., Woelfel, M. L., & Jordan, W. J. (1983). Dimensions of compliance gaining situations. Human
Communication Research, 9, 99-113.
deTurck, M. A. (1985). A transactional analysis of compliance-gaining behavior: Effects of noncompliance,
relational contexts, and actors' gender. Human Communication Research, 12, 54-78.
Dillard, J. P. (1988). Compliance-gaining message-selection: What is our dependent variable?
Communication Monographs, 55, 162-183.
Dillard,). P., & Burgoon, M. (1985). Situational influences on the selection of compliance-gaining messages:
Two tests of the predictive utility of the CodyMclaughlin typology. Communication Monographs, 52,
289-304.
Hample, D., & Dallinger,). M. (1987). Individual differences in cognitive editing standards. Human
Communication Research, 14, 123-144.
Hertzog, R. 1., & Bradac,).). (1984). Perceptions of compliance-gaining situations: An extended analysis.
Communication Research, 11, 363-391.
Hunter, J. E., & Boster, F.). (1987). A model of compliance-gaining message selection. Communication
Monographs, 54, 63-84.
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey,). C. (1985). Power in the classroom III: Teacher
communication techniques and messages. Communication Education, 34, 19-28.
Lamude, K. G., & Lichtenstein, A. (1985). The effects of motivational needs and rights situational dimension
on compliance gaining strategies. Communication Research Reports, 2, 164-171.
Neuliep,). W. (1987). The influence of Theory X and Theory Y management styles on the selection of
compliance-gaining strategies. Communication Research Reports, 4, 14-19.
Neuliep,). W., & Hazleton, V., Jr. (1985). A cross-cultural comparison of Japanese and American persuasive
strategy selection. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9, 389-404.
Ragland, R. A. (1987). How mayor candidates seek endorsements in New Mexico. Journalism Quarterly, 64,
199-202.
Sillars, A. L. (1980). The stranger and the spouse as target persons for compliance gaining strategies: A
subjective expected utility model. Human Communication Research, 6, 265-279.
Tracy, K., Craig, R. T., Smith, M., & Spisak, F. (1984). The discourse of requests: Assessment of a
compliance-gaining approach. Human Communication Research, 10,513-538.
Wheeless, L. R., Barraclough, R., & Stewart, R. (1983). Compliance-gaining and power in persuasion.
Communication Yearbook, 7, 105-145.
Williams, M. L., & Untermeyer, N. K. (1988). Compliance-gaining strategies and communicator role: An
analysis of strategy choices and persuasive efficacy. Communication Research Reports, 5, 10-18.
Wiseman, R. L., & Schenck-Hamlin, W. (1981). A multi-dimensional scaling validation of an inductivelyderived set of compliance gaining strategies. Communication Monographs, 48, 251-270.
Compliance-Gaining Techniques
Copyright 1977 by the Speech Communication Association. Reprinted by permission.
[Editors' note: Presented here is only one of Marwell and Schmitt's (1967) four situations; some researchers
have used fewer than four scenarios and others have used more than four. Instructions were recreated
following
Marwell and Schmitt's guidelines and those provided by Miller, Boster, Roloff, and Seibold (1977). The
techniques and their meanings are presented here prior to the actual message (in quotation marks). Normally,
only the messages are given; however, Miller et al. indicated they included descriptions of the techniques as
well. The 8-point response options are presented after each message.}
Instructions: This booklet contains four situations in which persons might find themselves. Every situation
has something in common. They are all situations in which one person is trying to induce another to do
something. That is, they are situations in which one person is trying to influence, or gain the compliance of,
another. Imagine that, in each situation, you are the individual who is trying to persuade the other.
A list of the methods which persons commonly use to get another to do something will follow each
situation. For each situation, rate how likely you would be to use each of the 16 message-oriented behaviors
to gain compliance from the other hypothetical person described in that situation. Use the following scale and
circle the number that best represents your position.
Extremely likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Extremely unlikely
Situation B (Family): Your teen-age son, Dick, who is a high school student, has been getting poor grades.
You want him to increase the amount of time he spends studying from 6 to 12 hours a week.
How likely are each of the following messages for you?
1. Promise-If you comply, I will reward you.
"You offer to increase Dick's allowance if he increases his studying."
2. Threat-If you do not comply I will punish you.
"You threaten to forbid Dick the use of the car if he does not increase his studying."
3. Positive Expertise-If you comply you will be rewarded because of "the nature of things."
"You point out to Dick that if he gets good grades he will be able to get into a good college and get a
good job."
4. Negative Expertise-If you do not comply you will be punished because of "the nature of things."
"You point out to Dick that if he does not get good grades he will not be able to get into a good college
or get a good job."
5. Liking-Actor is friendly and helpful to get target in "good frame of mind" so that he will comply with
request.
"You try to be as friendly and pleasant as possible to get Dick in the 'right frame of mind' before
asking him to study."
6. Pregiving-Actor rewards target before requesting compliance.
"You raise Dick's allowance and tell him you now expect him to study."
7. Aversive Stimulation-Actor continuously punishes target making cessation contingent on compliance.
"You forbid Dick the use of the car and tell him he will not be allowed to drive until he studies more."
8. Debt-You owe me compliance because of past favors.
"You point out that you have sacrificed and saved to pay for Dick's education and that he owes it to
you to get good enough grades to get into a good college."
9. Moral Appeal-You are immoral if you do not comply.
"You tell Dick that it is morally wrong for anyone not to get as good grades as he can and that he
should study more."
10. Positive Self-Feeling-You will feel better about yourself if you comply.
"You tell Dick he will feel proud if he gets himself to study more."
11. Negative Self-Feeling- You will feel worse about yourself if you do not comply.
"You tell Dick he will feel ashamed of himself if he gets bad grades."
12. Positive Altercasting-A person with "good" qualities would comply.
"You tell Dick that since he is a mature and intelligent boy he naturally will want to study more and
get good grades."
13. Negative Altercasting-Only a person with "bad" qualities would not comply.
"You tell Dick that only someone very childish does not study as he should."
14. Alttuism-I need your compliance very badly, so do it for me.
"You tell Dick that you really want very badly for him to get into a good college and that you wish he
would study more as a personal favor to you."
15. Positive Esteem-People you value will think better of you if you comply.
"You tell Dick that the whole family will be very proud of him if he gets good grades."
16. Negative Esteem-People you value will think worse of you if you do not comply.
"You tell Dick that the whole family will be very disappointed (in him) if he gets poor grades."