Automatic Responding: taking advantage of

peoples tendency to respond to particular cues in

predictable ways.

Positive Moods: make a request in a situation in

which the target is in a good mood.

Friendship/Liking: we are more likely to comply to

the requests of friends or other liked individuals
- ingratiation: flatter someone so they like us
and they are more likely to
comply to a request if
they like us
- similarity

Perceptual Contrast

Foot-in-the-Door
Freedman & Fraser (1966)

small sign ( Be a Safe Driver)

large sign (Drive Carefully)

Control
(No initial request)

20%
compliance

Experimental
(Got initial
request)

55%
compliance

Explanation:
Consistency/Commitment/Self-Perception

Door-in-the-Face
Explanations:

Perceptual Contrast

Reciprocity
Hare Krishnas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qse_wf57tZM

Trivializing a Request
Framing the Request
- Even a penny will help
- pique technique
- unit-asking

Low-Balling
Explanations:
Consistency/Commitment
Impression Management

Thats-Not-All
Explanations:
Reciprocity
- Role of mindlessness

Consistency Based Tactics

Foot-in-the-Door
Low-Balling

Reciprocity Related Tactics

Door-in-the-Face
Thats-Not-All

Reactance

Scarcity
- deadline technique
- limited numbers

Authority

Milgrams Obedience
www.stanleymilgram.com
Studies
Baseline rate: 65%
Situational Factors that influenced the level of obedience:
Prompts and experimenter takes responsibility?
Proximity of victim and experimenter?
Learner in same room: 40%
Place leaners hand on shock plate: 30%
Experimenter absent: 20.5%
Prestige of Yale?
Bridgeport office building: 47.5%

Gradual escalation?

When conformity pressures and obedience combine?

Peers go along and peer administers shock: 92.5%
Two peers rebel: 10%

Women subjects?
All women version: 65%

Would people act the same way today?

- Burgers replication