4.7 Discuss the use of compliance techniques

4.7 Discuss the use of compliance techniques

The norm of reciprocity

The social norm of reciprocity dictates that we treat other people the way they treat us (Cialdini, 1993). People are socialized into returning favours and this powerful rule underpins compliance. Lynn and McCall (1988) found that restaurants who offered a mint or a sweet with the bill received larger tips. Tiger and Fox (1971) suggested that reciprocation (mutual indebtedness) could be a result of evolution. The feeling of future obligation has made an important difference in human social evolution, because it meant that one individual cold offer something to another individual and be confident that he or she could except something in return.

Regan (1971)

Aim: To test whether participants who had received a favour from another would be more likely to help this person than if they had not received a favour.

Procedure: One participant and a confederate of the experimenter were asked to rate paintings. In the experimental condition the confederate left the experiment and returned after a few minutes with two bottles of coca cola. He had bought one for himself and one for the participant. In the control condition, the participant did not receive a coke. When all the paintings had been rated, the experimenter left the room again. The confederate told the naive participant that he was selling raffle tickets for a new car and that the one who sold the most tickets could win 50 dollars. He then asked the participant if he would buy some tickets and said that even a small amount would help.

Results: The participants in the experimental condition bought twice as many raffle tickets than participants in the control condition who had not received a favour first. As a follow-up to the experiment, the researcher investigated how much ‘liking’ the confederate influenced the participant. The participants were asked to fill out rating scales indicating how much they liked the confederate. The researcher then compared how many tickets the participants had purchased from the confederate in the control condition. Liking was associated with buying significantly more tickets from the confederate in this condition. In the experimental condition it made no difference whether the participants liked the person or not. Participants who received a coca cola who did not like the confederate bought just as many tickets as those who liked him. This shows the powerful influence of the rule of reciprocity. Even if people do not like a person they will return a favour.

Evaluation: This was a laboratory experiment with a high degree of control. It was possible to establish cause-effect relationships between ‘receiving a favour’ and ‘returning a favour’. This supports the principle of reciprocity. There may be issues of artificiality in the experiment as well as sample bias. This limits the possibility of generalization. The findings have been supported by observations in real life.

Foot-in-the-door technique (FITD)

With the FITD technique, the real (and large) request is preceded by a smaller one. The FITD technique has been used in fund raising and to promote environmental awareness. Dickinson et al. (1992) did a field experiment where they asked university students to conserve water in the dormitory showers. The researchers first asked a group of students to sign a poster supporting shorter showers to save water. Then they asked students to do a survey asking them to think about their own water usage. Finally, the students’ shower time was monitored. Students who had signed the poster and had done the survey spent an average of 3.5 minutes less in the shower compared to the rest of the students in the dormitory.

Evaluation of FITD

Compliance with a small request increases the likelihood of compliance with a second, much larger request. This can perhaps be interpreted in terms of commitment. Once people have said yes, they perceive themselves as committed and want to behave consistently with that commitment. Much research done in this area has used pro-social requests and it seems that such requests are generally more likely to be accepted with this technique. It is more likely to be successful if the second request is an extension of the first one instead of being something completely different. Such results could perhaps be linked to the principle of people’s need for self-consistency. The foot-in-the-door technique is most powerful when the person’s self-image is related to the request, i.e. a request needs to be kept close to issues which the person is likely to care about and support, such as helping other people or protecting the environment.

Cultural norms and reciprocity

Ting-Toomey (1986) compared reciprocity in three individualist cultures (Australia, the USA, and France) with reciprocity in two collectivist countries (Japan and China). She found that the principle of reciprocity is universal. This could support the evolutionary argument but reciprocity is displayed differently in the two types of culture. In individualist cultures, reciprocity is voluntary so people are free to choose if they want to return a favour. In collectivist cultures, obligatory reciprocity is the norm. It is seen as a moral failure if reciprocity is not honoured.