1. Discuss the use of compliance
techniques
This example shows failure of the ‘door in the face’ technique.
2. What is compliance?
Compliance is the modification of behaviour
from direct pressure to respond to a request.
• The direct pressure may not always be
apparent to the individual.
• The person making the request has no power
to enforce it.
3. What are compliance techniques based on?
Reciprocity: People often feel they need to
“return a favour”. This example of a social norm
is based on the reciprocity principle.
Example:
•Door-in-the-face technique
•That’s not all technique
4. What are compliance techniques based on?
Commitment: Making people commit to
something means that they will encounter
personal and interpersonal pressure to behave
consistently with that commitment.
Examples:
•Low-balling
•Foot-in-the -door
•Hazing
5. 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 has proved to be far more
effective than asking straight out
for the same small donation.
6. Cialdini et al (1975)
• Control Group 1: Pps were approached
and asked to escort a group of juvenile
delinquents to the zoo; most refused.
• Control Group 2: Pps were approached
and asked to spend 2 hours per week
as a peer counsellor to juvenile
delinquent children for around 2 years;
all refused
• Experimental Group (the DITF): asked
to be peer counsellors and then asked
to escort children to the zoo.
7. Results
• Control Group 1: Posing as representatives of the “Country
Youth Counselling Program”, university students were asked if
they would be willing to chaperone a group of Juvenile
delinquents on a day trip to the zoo only 17% complied.
• Control Group 2: Students were asked to work as counsellors
(for the JD’s) for up to 2 hours per week for a minimum of
two years Group: When the above refusal was followed up
with the zoo trip request this time there was 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% complied.
8. Evaluating DITF
• Many studies support its effectiveness
• Evidence suggests 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
– Regan (1971) More people bought raffle tickets from a person
who had previously bought them a soft drink than from someone
who had not bought them a drink
– Norm of Reciprocity is stronger than overall liking for the person
making the request. People bought just as many raffle tickets
from a confederate that they didn’t like as those who liked him.
9. The ‘That’s not all’ technique
• A compliance technique in which extras are added to
an initial offer, often as apparently spontaneous
gestures of generosity
• Burger (1986) Field experiment
– 2 Experimenters manned a cupcake stall at a cake sale
– cupcakes were displayed without a price
– When Pps asked how much a cupcakes were they were
either told:
• “75cents and you get two free cookies” (40% bought cakes)
• or... “75cents “ and then the second experimenter whispered
something to the first who then said, “and you get two free
cookies” (73% bought the cakes)
10. Why does the TNA work?
• Norm of reciprocity but only if you perceive
the salesperson’s concessions to be
voluntary/spontaneous
• Perceptual contrast – initial offer (the cake)
acts as an anchor/baseline, against which we
compare the second offer (cupcake plus
cookies) which suddenly seems much more
impressive
11. The foot-in-the-door technique
• 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
12. Dickerson et al 1992
• University students were asked to conserve water in
the dormitory showers.
• First Request: to sign a poster supporting shorter
showers to save water.
• Second Request: take a survey designed to make
them think about their water wastage.
• Data Collection: Shower time was monitored
• Results:
• Participants spent an average of 3.5 minutes less
time in the shower than the control group (no
signature/survey).
13. Why it works:
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
• Well supported by research
14. Limitations of FITD
• Requests must be socially acceptable
• Perception of the cost/benefit of both
requests
– FITD didn't work well when trying to
persuade people to become blood donors
(Cialdidni and Ascani, 1976)
– This said FITD has been used effectively to
encourage people to become organ donors
– Why might this be so?
15. How can FITD be made
even more effective?
• Adding interim requests (graduated
commitment) can increase the likelihood of a
person agreeing to a high cost request (also
seen in Milgram’s obedience study)
16. Low-balling: To good to be true!
• That’s because its not!
• A compliance technique in which an low offer is
made, and when commitment is elicited, it is
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 they have to offer a slightly higher price
17. The 7a.m. Start, Cialdini et al (1978)
• Control group: When asked whether they
would participate in a psychology experiment
that started at 7 am only 24% complied
• Experimental group: When asked whether
they would participate in an psychology
experiment, but were not told a time, 56%
complied; later they were told that it started
at 7 am and given the chance to drop out if
they wanted, 95% of the 56% turned up as
promised.
18. Why does low-balling work:
Commitment
• 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)
19. Why does low-balling work:
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 an 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)
20. Which method is most effective
• Low-balling may be more effective than either
FITD or DITF (Brownstein and Katvez (1985)
– Pps asked to donate to a museum fund under four
conditions FITD, DITF, control): LB was most
effective; the others were all similar
