Psychological Strategies: Mastering Compliance Techniques

Understanding Social Compliance Techniques

Introduction to Compliance Strategies

Foot-in-the-Door (FITD) Technique

• Getting someone to agree to a small request significantly increases the chance of agreement to a subsequent, larger request.

Door-in-the-Face (DITF) Technique

• A large, unreasonable offer is made which will surely be turned down; a second, more reasonable offer is then more likely to be accepted (often relying on the principle of reciprocity).

Lowballing (LB) Technique

• Offering a deceptively or unrealistically low bid.

• The initial offer is made at a lower price than is actually intended to be charged, and the price is subsequently raised after the target's commitment is secured, often increasing profits.

Dickerson et al. (1992): Foot-in-the-Door Study

Context: Conserving water by taking shorter showers.

• Aim: To support the effectiveness of the Foot-in-the-Door (FITD) compliance technique in promoting water conservation.

• Method:

  • The team wanted to see if they could get university students to conserve water in the dormitory showers.

  • To do this, researchers asked them to sign a poster that read: "Take a shorter shower. If I can do it, so can you!"

  • Then they asked them to take a survey designed to make them think about their own water usage and water wastage.

  • Shower times were subsequently monitored.

• Results:

  • It was found that those students who had signed the poster and completed the water survey (forcing them to think about their own water wastage) had average shower times of 3.5 minutes.

  • This was significantly shorter than the average shower times across the whole dormitory.

• Conclusion:

  • When participants signed the petition, they felt a sense of commitment to the cause, influencing their subsequent behavior.

• Connection to FITD:

  • This study demonstrated the use of FITD as participants were asked to sign a poster (the small request) and then take a survey (the larger request).

    • The FITD compliance technique was shown to be effective in making participants save water and take shorter showers.

Cialdini et al. (1978): Lowballing Study

Note: The initial context of chaperoning juvenile delinquents to the zoo is typically associated with DITF, but the following methodology describes the LB study.

• Aim: To demonstrate the effectiveness of the Lowballing (LB) technique in a university setting.

• Method:

  • Researchers asked a class of first-year psychology students to volunteer to be part of a study on cognition that would meet at 7:00 AM (Control Group).

  • A second group was asked the same, except they were not initially told the time (Lowball Group).

• Results:

  • For the first group (Control), 24% of students were willing to participate.

  • For the second group (Lowball), 56% agreed to participate. All participants in this group took part after later being told that the meeting was at 7:00 AM, despite being allowed to withdraw.

  • On the day of the meeting, 95% of students that agreed to participate showed up for the 7:00 AM meeting.

• Connection to Lowballing:

  • Cialdini's study shows the effectiveness of the LB compliance technique: 56% of students complied with participating in the study when LB was used, as opposed to 24% when LB was not used (Control Group).