Compliance (psychology)

The following techniques have been proven to effectively induce compliance from another party. Foot-in-the-door In utilizing this technique, the subject is asked to perform a small request—a favor that typically requires minimal involvement. After this, a larger request is presented. According to "successive approximations", because the subject complied with initial requests, they are more likely to feel obligated to fulfill additional favors. Door-in-the-face This technique begins with an initial grand request. This request is expected to be turned down; thus, it is followed by a second, more reasonable request. This technique is decidedly more effective than foot-in-the-door since foot-in-the-door utilizes a gradual escalation of requests. Low-ball Frequently employed by car salesmen, low-balling gains compliance by offering the subject something at a lower price only to increase the price at the last moment. The buyer is more likely to comply with this price change since they feel like a mental agreement to a contract has occurred. Ingratiation This attempt to obtain compliance involves gaining someone's approval so they will be more likely to appease one's demands. Edward E. Jones discusses three forms of ingratiation: • flattery • opinion conformity and • self-presentation (presenting one's own attributes in a manner that appeals to the target) Norm of reciprocity This technique explains that due to the injunctive social norm that people will return a favor when one is granted to them; compliance is more likely to occur when the requestor has previously complied with one of the subject's requests. == Estimation of compliance ==

Research also indicates that people tend to underestimate the likelihood that other individuals will comply with requests—called the underestimation of compliance effect. That is, people tend to assume that friends, but not strangers, will comply with requests to seek assistance. Yet, in practice, strangers comply with requests more frequently than expected. Consequently, individuals significantly underestimate the degree to which strangers will comply with requests. == Personality Psychology and Compliance ==

In the study of personality psychology, certain personality disorders are characterized by traits that make individuals more prone to manipulating or coercing others into compliance: • Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD): Individuals tend to display a glibness and grandiose sense of self-worth. Due to their shallow affect and lack of remorse or empathy, they are well suited to con or manipulate others into complying with their wishes. • Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD): Those with HPD often crave to be the center of attention. The need for validation can lead them to form relationships to gain attention and influence others. However, they discard relationships once they no longer serve purpose. • Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD): People with NPD have inflated self-importance, hypersensitivity to criticism and a sense of entitlement that compels them to persuade others to comply with their requests. == Social Psychology and Compliance ==

In social psychology, compliance is viewed as a form of social influence. A process in which individuals adjust their behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs to reach goals and attain social or personal gains. Unlike personality psychology that concentrates on an individual's personality or characteristics (that may drive their actions), social psychology takes a broader perspective and examines how social context, group dynamics, and situational factors shape an individual's willingness to comply. Their gaining of or submission to compliance is frequently influenced by construals—i.e. an individual's interpretation of their social environment and interactions. • Construals and Interpretation: A person's construal, or interpretation of the social situation, affects whether they perceive the request in desirable outcome. In some cases they perceive it as a reasonable request in others it can be perceived as manipulative. These perceptions shape the willingness to comply. • Situational Factors: External circumstances such as presence of authority figure or perceived consequences. So, factors like power and authority also play a key role in driving compliance. • Group Dynamic: People are more likely to comply when they observe others doing so as well. When group pressure is present then others are more likely succumb to conforming. == Evolving theories of compliance ==

The study of compliance is often recognized for the overt demonstrations of dramatic experiments such as the Stanford prison experiment and the Stanley Milgram shock experiments. These experiments serve as a display of the psychological phenomena of compliance. In those instances, compliance frequently occurred in response to overt social forces. These types of studies have provided useful insight into the nature of compliance. However, today's researchers are inclined to concentrate their efforts on subtle, indirect, or unconscious social influences. Those involved in this modern social-cognitive movement are attempting to discover the ways in which subjects' implicit and explicit beliefs, opinions and goals affect information processing and decision making in settings where influential forces are present. Philosophy vs Social Psychology Philosophers view compliance in the context of arguments. Arguments are produced when an individual gives a reason for thinking that a claim is true. In doing so, they utilize premises (claims) to support their conclusion (opinion). Regardless of utilization of fallacy forms (e.g., apple-polishing, ad hominem) to get their point across, individuals engaged in philosophical arguments are overtly and logically expressing their opinion(s). This is an explicit action in which the person on the other side of the argument recognizes that the arguer seeks to gain compliance (acceptance of their conclusion). In studying compliance, social psychologists aim to examine overt and subtle social influences experienced in various forms by all individuals. Implicit and explicit psychological processes are also studied since they shape interactions. These processes explain how certain individuals can make another comply and why someone else succumbs to compliance. Strength The stronger and more important a group is to an individual—the more likely that individual is to comply with social influence. Strength refers to hierarchy, status, position of authority, and age in relation to social influence. Immediacy Immediacy refers to the closeness of the group to the individual at the time of an influence attempt. Immediacy includes proximity, distance, and buffers in regard to social influence. The proximity of the group makes an individual more likely to conform and comply with the group's pressures. These pressures are strongest when the group is closer to the individual and composed of people the individual cares about (e.g., friends, family) or authority figures. Displayed by the SIFT-3M model A theoretical approach uncommon in major psychology literature is David Straker's, SIFT-3M model. It was created to discuss mental functioning in relation to psychological decisions (e.g., compliance). Straker proposes that by gaining a greater understanding of how people make sense of the world, how they think and how they decide to act, people can develop the basic tools needed to change others' minds by gaining compliance. In inducing compliance, requestors must understand the 9 stages or levels: == Major empirical findings ==

Solomon Asch line experiments In Solomon Asch's experiment, 50 participants were placed in separate ambiguous situations to determine the extent to which they would conform. Aside from a single participant, the 7 other experiment members were confederates—individuals who understood the aim of the study and had been instructed to produce pre-selected responses. In the designated room, a picture of three lines of differing lengths was displayed. Each confederate was asked questions (e.g., which line is the longest, which line matches the reference line). In response, confederates gave largely incorrect answers. Results As a result, 1/3 of the participants gave the incorrect answer when the confederates produced unanimously incorrect answer(s). In accordance to the Goals of Social Influence, participants claimed that even when they knew the unanimous answer was wrong, they felt the group knew something they did not (informational social influence). Asch noted that 74% of subjects conformed to the majority at least once. The rate of conformity was reduced when one or more confederates provided the correct answer and when participants were allowed to write down their responses rather than verbally stating them. Results 100% of male participants delivered up to 300 volts ("Intense") to their assigned "student". 62% of participants administered 375 volts ("Strong Shock") and 63% participants shocked their "student" at the maximum level (450 volts). When these alterations to the original experiment were made, the rate of compliance was not reduced: • The victim claimed to have a heart condition • Subjects were told the experiment was being conducted for marketing purposes • Before the experiment began, the "student" extracted an explicit agreement from the "teacher" to stop on demand The rate of compliance was reduced when: • Two experimenters (conducting the experiment) disagreed about the "teacher" continuing • Fellow "teachers" refused to continue (in experiments with multiple "teachers") • Experimenter remained in a different room from the "teacher" • The "teacher" was instructed to hold the "student's" hand on a shock plate Results As the experiment progressed, participants assigned to guard positions escalated their aggression. Although guards were instructed not to hit the prisoners, they found ways to humiliate/disrupt them via systematic searches, strip searches, spraying for lice, sexual harassment, denying them of basic rights (e.g., bathroom use) and waking inmates from their sleep for head counts. Social and moral values initially held by the guards were quickly abandoned as they became immersed in their role. Due to the reality of psychological abuse, prisoners were released 6 days later, after exhibiting pathological behavior and nervous breakdowns. people were asked by a stranger to vandalize a purported library book. Despite obvious discomfort and reluctance of many individuals to write the world "pickle" in one of the pages, more than 64% complied with this vandalism request—more than double the requesters' prediction of a 28% rate of compliance. In such interactions, people are more likely to comply when asked face-to-face than when asked indirectly or by e-mail. Results At the end of the trials, 199 defendants were tried at Nuremberg. Of the 199 defendants: 161 were convicted with 37 being sentenced to death and 12 of the defendants were tried to by the IMT (International Military Tribunal). Although many involved in the trials were tried, some of the higher-ranking officials had fled Germany to live abroad with some even coming to the United States. An example of this was Adolf Eichmann who had fled and made refuge for himself in Argentina, He was later caught by Israel's Intelligence Service in which he was later tried, found guilty, and executed in 1962. Significance The information divulged during the event of the Nuremberg Trials suggest strong evidence in the power enforced over others from that of a higher authority. Many officials in the Nazi party pleaded to just have been following orders. == Applications ==

Person-to-person interactions The use of persuasion to achieve compliance has numerous applications in interpersonal interactions. One party can utilize persuasion techniques to elicit a preferred response from other individuals. Compliance strategies exploit psychological processes in order to prompt a desired outcome; however, they do not necessarily lead to private acceptance by the targeted individual. One individual can use such techniques to gain compliance from the other, swayed person. Other practical examples include: • A child asking for an allowance raise with the foot-in-the-door technique • A student using ingratiation (e.g., flattery) to ask for a raised grade • An individual doing someone a favor, hoping that the norm of reciprocity will influence that someone to lend a hand at a later date • A lawyer using ingratiation and their perceived authority to persuade a jury Marketing . Research has indicated that compliance techniques have become a major asset to numerous forms of advertising, including Internet shopping sites. Techniques are used to communicate essential information intended to persuade customers. Workplace safety Organizations need to create a safe and healthy work environment for their members. Nevertheless, despite organizations being primarily responsible to enforce workplace safety protocol, employees bear the responsibility for their own safety and safety of those around them. The failure to follow the guidelines can hinder the wellbeing of employees and the organizations. However, organizations must have a thorough understanding of contextual variables to support or hinder compliance of safety guidelines. Researchers showed that awareness of severe consequences positively affect motivation, whereas of mild consequences decreases perceived severity. In addition, in a survey conducted in 16 countries demonstrated that contextual variables (e.g. feeling caged) leads to a lower compliance behaviours (e.g. social distancing). == Controversies ==

While there is some debate over the idea and power of compliance as a whole, the main controversy—stemming from the subject of compliance—is that people are capable of abusing persuasion techniques in order to gain advantages over other individuals. Based on the psychological processes of social influence, compliance strategies may enable someone to be more easily persuaded towards a particular belief or action (even if they do not privately accept it). As such, the employment of compliance techniques may be utilized to manipulate an individual without their conscious recognition. A specific issue regarding this controversy has arisen during courtroom proceedings. Studies have shown that lawyers frequently implement these techniques in order to favorably influence a jury. For example, a prosecutor might use ingratiation to flatter a jury or cast an impression of his authority. In such cases, compliance strategies may be unfairly affecting the outcome of trials, which ought to be based on hard facts and justice, not simply persuasiveness. ==See also==