11/6/07 WEEK 11: COMMITMENT AND COMPLIANCE

Discussion Leader: Brad

An Overview

Cialdini, R. B. (1993).  Influence:  Science and practice.  Chapter 3 (“Commitment and Consistency:  Hobgoblins of the mind”).

The Foot-in-the-Door:  An Early Illustration

Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure:  The foot-in-the-door technique.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195-202.

The Foot-in-the-Door:  Not as robust as once presumed

Burger, J. M., & Guadagno, R. E.  (2003). Self-concept clarity and the foot-in-the-door procedure. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 79-86.

Guadagno, R. E., Asher, T., Demaine, L., & Cialdini, R. B. (2001). When saying yes leads to saying no: Preference for consistency and the reverse foot-in-the-door effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 859-867.

Taxonomy of compliance tactics

Pratkanis, A. R. (2007). Social influence analysis: An index of tactics. In A. R. Pratkanis (Ed.). The science of social influence: Advances and future progress. New York: Taylor & Francis. (Chapter 2)

In reading these papers, consider the following questions and be ready to discuss them in class:

1.  Consider the “Critical Thinking” questions listed on page 97 of the “Hobgoblins” chapter by Cialdini (2001)

2.  It was reported in a segment of the TV show “20-20”  that a social scientist who advised the defense in the William Kennedy Smith rape trial (and is reputed to be the best in the business) asked all potential jurors, “If you were the only person who believed in my client’s innocence, could you withstand the pressure of the rest of the jury to change your mind?”   Why (by which principles of influence we have studied) would it be likely that this question worked in favor of the defense?

3. What does the saga of the Foot-in-the-Door tell you about research on compliance? Are there implications for your own research? If yes, what?

Visit to the car sales lot due today

Back to main page