Home Cialdini 2004 - Social Influence - Compliance and Conformity
Post
Cancel

Cialdini 2004 - Social Influence - Compliance and Conformity

Google Scholar Link

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual review of psychology, 55(1), 591-621.

Summary

Compliance is acquiescence to a request. Three main motivation drive compliance and conformity: to be accurate, to affiliate (see Baumeister 1995), and to maintain a positive self-concept.

Accuracy is strived for because it allows for appropriate responses, which facilitate goal achievement. Unconventional requests are more influenced by affect than are conventional requests. Affect is used as a cue for appropriate response. For example, fear-then-relief results in increased compliance. Another example that increases compliance is the that’s-not-all-technique, wherein a request is made, and then the”deal” is immediately sweetened, either by increasing the benefits or reducing the cost. Some believe this is a special case of a disrupt-then-reframe technique, which inhibits resistance rather than increasing desirability (this seems reminiscent of Langer’s 1978 Copy Machine Study / “because” experiments). Soft tactics rely on expert power and the internal influence of credibility. Harsh tactics rely on hierarchy-based power derived from an external social structure (like Milgram’s experiments). Finally, and especially during times of uncertainty, people use social norms to gauge the accuracy of their cognitions and actions.

Humans have a fundamental need to create and maintain social relationships. We are more likely to accede to those whom we like. Because of homophily (the tendency to like others who are similar to ourselves), we are also more likely to comply with requests from those who are like us. Ingratiation (e.g., remembering someone’s name) results in heightened compliance. Similarly, the norm of reciprocation drives compliance (i.e., they remembered my name, so I should comply). Another technique relying on reciprocity is the door-in-the-face technique. In this technique, the desired request is preceded (preferably immediately) by a more extreme, but still believable, request. This lowering of “ask” is seen as a concession, and the norm of reciprocity demands a concession in return (compliance).

Finally, people need to see themselves as consistent with previous behaviors and trait attributes (“maintaining a positive self-concept”). The foot-in-the-door technique makes use of this by first making a small request (which must result in compliance or attempted compliance), and then following it with a larger one. The target, in an effort to maintain consistency, is more likely to comply with the second request. Public commitments are “more persistent than private commitments.” This is exploited through the low-ball technique, wherein the cost of an arrangement is substantially increased after commitment has been secured.

Application

Compliance studies has significant applicability for managers, who are responsible for getting their inferiors to agree with their superiors. Sales techniques can also utilize many of these processes.

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.

Carver 1989 - Assessing Coping Strategies - a Theoretically Based Approach

DiMaggio 1983 - The Iron Cage Revisited - Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields

Comments powered by Disqus.