What you’ve just seen is a wonderful roommate who complies with my request. She is also a roommate who has fallen victim to compliance techniques. Compliance is a moderately explicit influence concept that occurs when someone of equal or lower status yields to a direct request. In this case, my roommate, my equal, has fallen prey to the two-step compliance technique known as door-in-the-face. Cialdini (2007) describes this technique as a simple technique, with major effectiveness (Cialdini et al, 1975).
An individual (in this case, me) makes a first request that he or she expects to be rejected. This initial request is a big, almost unreasonable request that is followed by a second request that is much smaller and more reasonable. In this case, I asked my roommate to go to my car, she quickly (and sounding rather annoyed, because I am just sitting on the couch) responds with a short and stern, “No.” When I then ask her to get me a glass of water, she responds (in what sounds like a forced) “yeah.” As you saw in the video above, she not only agreed, she also complied with my request. Affirming further the work of Cialdini &Ascani (1976) that states that the door-in-the face techniques does not elicit only empty promises. (I enjoyed my glass of water, it was refreshing after laughing hysterically at my roommate, the servant as she put it.)
I asked my roommate (once my laughter had ceased) why she had agreed to my request. She reasoned that I have given her a glass of water before and that she also goes out of her way to get me a glass a water whenever I thirst; an example of the norm of reciprocity, a norm by which we treat others how they have treated us as stated by Goulder (1960). I then explained to her what I had done (for the sake of this blog-I would never use such techniques to trick my roomie [hehe] ;-) and why, according to Cialdini et al. (1975) she had agreed and complied.
According to Cialdini and others (1975) two possibilities for the effectiveness of the door-in-the-face exists. Their work states that the concept of reciprocal concessions, a notion similar to the norm of reciprocity mentioned above, explains the compliance to the second request. The technique creates pressure to change a response in the negotiation. I, in this case, have lowered my request and my roommate, as a result, feels pressured to concede to my smaller request. Furthermore, perceptual contrast also helps explain compliance as a result of this technique; to my roommate, my first request seemed very large initially and in comparison, my second request seemed smaller and more doable. I also believe that emotions came into play to this compliance. My roommate, like others was seeking to reduce her feelings of guilt elicited by rejecting my first request (O’Keefe & Figge, 1997; Millar, 2002).
My Roomie and I at ACL 2009
Cialdini, R.B. (2007) Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: HarperCollins
Cialdini, R.B. & Ascani, K. (1976) Test of a concession procedure for inducing verbal, behavioral, and further compliance with a request to give blood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 295-300.
Cialdini, R.B., Vincent, J.E., Lewis, S.K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B.L. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206-215.
Goulder, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
Millar, M. (2002). Effects of guilt induction and guilt reduction on door in the face. Communication Research, 29, 666-680.
O’Keefe, D.J., & Figge, M. (1997). A guilt-based explanation of the door-in-the-face influence strategy. Human Communication Research, 42, 64-81.
No comments:
Post a Comment