Demonstrate-A-Concept Blog

Compliance techniques are often used by salesmen in order to sell their products. They are tricky ways of getting people to do things they wouldn't otherwise have done. Compliance is when a person changes his or her behavior and agrees to do something as a result of another person's request. That is, when a person directly asks someone else--whether it be a friend, family member, or stranger--to do something for them, they attempt to get the other person to comply and carry out their request, sometimes using the following methods.

One compliance technique, often used by salesmen, is called the Foot-in-the-Door Technique. This is the idea that people are more likely to agree to a large request if they had previously agreed to a smaller one. When using this technique, the requester will present the unsuspecting victim with a small request--something that would be simple to complete--in order to set the stage for a much larger request, which they are more likely to agree to simply because they already did the first one (Fraser & Freedman 1966). This could be due to Self-Perception, in which people determine their true feelings by watching their own behavior. That is, if people see themselves agree to the first request, they determine that they must be open to the requester and therefore are more amenable to the second, larger request, if only to be consistent in their behavior (Burger, 1999).

The video I posted to demonstrate the Foot-in-the-Door Technique stars my friend Amber, whom I asked to get a drink for me, which was a small request because she was getting up to get a drink anyway. However, I then asked her to get me a cup after she came back with my drink. This was a larger request because she had already sat back down and gotten settled in, so it was more of a sacrifice for her to get up the second time than the first time. However, because she had already done the first favor for me, she completed the second one as well in order to ensure her behavior was consistent. Perhaps she observed herself getting me a drink and determined that was a common favor that she didn't mind doing for her friend. Because of this, maybe she did not mind doing a second favor, simply because she had done the first one already and maybe she therefore enjoyed doing favors for people.

Another compliance technique is called the Door-in-the-Face Technique, which involves an unreasonably large request followed by the true request that was really wanted in the first place (Cialdini et. al., 1975). That is, first the requester asks something really big of someone, and when the other person refuses, he/she then asks for something smaller in hopes that the other person will be more open to the second request, as it is smaller in comparison to the large one (a theory called "perceptual contrast"). Another explanation for why this technique works is because of "reciprocal concessions", which is related to the reciprocity norm--that you should pay back someone if they've done something for you (Gouldner, 1960). That is, the requester made the concession of backing down from the large request to a smaller one, so the other person feels that they should return the concession by complying to the second request. The person may also feel guilty for not agreeing to the first request, prompting them to complete the second one to make up for their first rejection (O'Keefe & Figge, 1997).

The second video, featuring my roommate Lori, illustrates the Door-in-the-Face Technique. In the video, I ask her to make me a sandwich (something that would be too much trouble for her to do when I can do it myself), and when she says no, I ask her to get a drink for me instead. She feels bad about rejecting my first request, so she figures the least she can do is get me a drink, because that's an easy thing for her to do.

As you can see, compliance techniques are very effective, whether you are trying to sell a product or simply get something to drink.

Gouldner, A. W. (1969). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.

O'Keefe, D. J., & Figge, M. (1997). A Guilt-Based Explanation of the Door-in-the-Face Influence Strategy. Human Communication Research, 24:1, 64-81.

Burger, J. M. (1999). The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: A multiple-process analysis and review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 303-325

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.

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, 64, 206-215.

Tricks of the Sketchy Magazine Trade

Salespeople are the masters of social psychology tricks for compliance. They take advantage of these in order to get people to buy their products, which I have witnessed far too many times. Living in the apartments at SU, I have had magazine salesmen (who are far too grungy and sketchy looking to trust) knock on my door to sell me subscriptions.They are confident, friendly and first start up a conversation with whoever answers the door, which leads them to the Foot-in-the-Door Technique (which they take literally!). This technique involves the salesperson first requesting something small of the customer in order to set the stage for a much larger request that he asks later. If the person agrees to the first request, he/she is much more likely to agree to the second, larger one (Cialdini, 2007). This may be due to self-perception--that is, if we see ourselves complying to the smaller request, we realize that we must be open to the salesperson and therefore continue to comply to be consistent.

To apply this back to the magazine salesmen, they first ask to be invited in (or invite themselves in!) in the hopes that, by letting them in, the customer will be receptive to his larger request of buying a magazine subscription. After all, they already let him in, and why would they have done that if they were not interested? Even if they were not intending to buy a magazine, the potential buyers may rationalize the fact that they let a strange, sketchy person into their apartment by thinking to themselves that they might actually be interested in subscribing to a magazine.

The salesmen also use the That's Not All Technique, for which he makes a large request (a high-priced magazine, for example), and then decreases its apparent size by throwing in a bonus or reducing the price, thus making it more appealing to the buyer because they would be getting a deal (Burger, 1986). Thus, in order to sell magazines, they show the buyer a list of all the different magazines he/she could subscribe to, most of which have inflated prices listed. Then, before the buyer can say no, the salesman offers a lower price for a magazine that the buyer is interested in, or else he offers to include an extra one for a low price. These salesmen use all the social psychology tricks in the book, never taking no for an answer and never backing down until the customer finally kicks them out.

Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: HarperCollins.

Burger, J. M. (1986). Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that's-not-all technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 277-283.

Austin or Boston?

I have had to make many difficult decisions in my life, including deciding where to go to college. This decision-making process involved cognitive dissonance, or the idea that when our behaviors and our beliefs are inconsistent, we feel uncomfortable and are driven to reduce the dissonance, usually by changing our beliefs (Festinger, 1957). This theory applies to making decisions because people try to reduce any dissonance they feel about the choice they made, especially when the alternatives were equally attractive. That is, they tend to overemphasize the positives about their choice and the negatives about their non-choice in order to reduce any tension or anxiety they feel about their decision. People want to make themselves feel confident that their choice was the right one and eliminate any dissonance between their choice and their feelings about it (Brehm, 1956).

This cognitive dissonance that leads people to justify difficult decisions definitely applies to my college decision-making process. My first choice was Dartmouth, because it was such a great school and I could have played on their golf team. The golf coach pretty much told me that he could get me in, but apparently he didn't pull the right strings and I got rejected. However, I realized afterward that I didn't like the school itself any more than any other school--it was just because it was Dartmouth, such a prestigious school, that I decided I wanted to go there. I actually convinced myself afterward that I wouldn't have liked it anyway because it is out in the middle of nowhere in New Hampshire, and I would be bored and freezing the whole time.

After my rejection to Dartmouth, I was deciding between Southwestern and Boston University. I went to visit BU and I looooved the city. I love being in cities in general, and Boston was an especially great one. On the other hand, Southwestern was such a great choice because it was closer to home, smaller, and liberal arts--a great fit for me. I had such a hard time deciding--both choices had such great things about them that attracted me. I thought about it until I absolutely had to decide. I ultimately chose Southwestern (obviously) because I thought it was the safe choice--close to home and small, which was perfect for my first time away from home. When I think back on it, I think I made the right choice. I think about the positives of Southwestern--I have made great friends here and am involved in great organizations that I couldn't have otherwise been a part of, and I love the small school atmosphere. On the other hand, if I had chosen BU, I wouldn't have been able to go home as often and it would have been hard to move my stuff back and forth. And I can always move to the city after graduation!


Brehm, J.W. (1956). Post-decision changes in desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 384-389.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Psychological Resistance and Telemarketers

A few years ago, I received a phone call that perfectly illustrated a "sneak attack" argument that attempts to combat psychological resistance. This theory is the idea that, when people are forewarned about a speaker trying to persuade them or change their minds, they tend to react against such threats to their freedom of choice by asserting themselves (Brehm, 1981). We often take this theory to the extreme, moving our attitudes in the opposite direction than those of the speaker, even if the speaker's arguments are in line with our own! "Sneak attacks" are utilized in some advertisements. That is, if we know at the beginning of an ad what product is being sold and how the advertisers are trying to persuade us to buy the product, we often make up our minds about it and tune it out immediately. Therefore, many companies utilize a strategy that prevents the audience from knowing that they are seeing an advertisement so that they actually listen to arguments, and then they spring the actual product on them unexpectedly.

As anybody who has ever received an obnoxious telemarketing call knows, we often try to get off the phone with the salesperson as soon as possible, even if that requires hanging up on them (if it is a machine). I got a telemarketing call a couple of years ago that was specifically recorded to avoid this customer rejection and psychological resistance that goes along with it. When I picked up the phone, I heard a man's voice on the other end of the line. He started playing on my sympathies, talking about how he had lost his job and how he started a new company and how I should really try it to help support his new life. Of course, I couldn't interrupt the man during his sob story--the least I could do was listen to what he had to say after all he had been through. He had a lot to say...it was a full ten minutes before "he" said something to reveal he was actually a recording and that they were really trying to sell me a product!

Of course, I was so mad that I had wasted ten minutes of my life that I immediately hung up the phone, after which I realized that the company's scheme was, although deceptive, very clever. They pulled a great "sneak attack", avoiding the pitfalls of psychological resistance by not revealing their true purpose until they had already made persuasion attempts to get the listener to buy the product.

Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Dr. G's lecture, March 8, 2010

Participant Observer Blog-IAT

Stereotypes are a negative aspect of group relations that often result in harmful beliefs about other people. They are beliefs that associate an entire group of people with certain traits. These traits can be positive or negative, but they often affect the ways in which we interact with the people they are associated with. Sorting people into groups is an automatic process that we, as perceivers, participate in every day. Doing so and having stereotypes available about groups saves us time and effort by allowing us to use people's group memberships to make inferences about them. However, we often underestimate the differences between people in another group, leading us to apply sometimes negative connotations to a group as a whole and therefore behave as such.

The Implicit Associations Test (IAT), developed by Greenwald et al. (1998), explores unconscious stereotypes that we hold without even realizing when they are activated or how they affect our behavior (Bargh, 1997). That is, there are implicit association and stereotypes that are activated automatically, even in those who claim to not be prejudiced. The IAT measures these implicit stereotypes for many factors, such as race, sexual orientation, weight, and political affiliation. It does so by presenting positive and negative words as well as stimuli associated with the factors to be measured, and associating the stimuli in various ways. For instance, during the IAT test on race, positive words are first grouped with pictures of European-American people, and negative words are grouped with African-American people. Then, the groups are reversed (European-Americans are associated with negative words and African-Americans are associated with positive words). The test taker has to press a certain key when a stimuli from one group is presented and press a different key when a stimuli from the other group is presented. The IAT determines the user's implicit associations by measuring how quickly he or she responds to stimuli based on how they are grouped. That is, a person who may prefer European-Americans to African-Americans may be faster at associating European-American stimuli with positive words and African-Americans with negative words, and pressing the corresponding keys, than vice versa.

I personally did the Race and Sexual Orientations IATs because I thought race in particular would be interesting after reading about racism in our last chapter. The test results on the race IAT were actually the opposite of what I expected, while the results of the sexual orientation IAT were just what I predicted. I think the results may have been different than I had expected for the race test because of the order the stimuli were presented in. That is, the second groupings presented may have been affected by the fact that I had already associated the races presented with the opposite word categories. This may have also affected the sexual orientation test that I took.

I think that the IAT is showing my "true" attitude. That is, the associations that I am not even aware that I have are brought to light by the fact that it is easier for me to associate certain groups with either positive or negative words, indicating my inherent preference for one group over the other. The IAT made me think about preferences very differently. That is, it made me realize that we have inherent preferences that we ourselves are not even aware of. These can affect our behavior and attitudes about others, which is why it is important that we are aware of our preferences so that we can try to address and even change them to create more positive group relations.

I went back and retook the sexual orientation IAT to analyze how the results changed if I were to alter my responses. I decided to make quick responses when positive words were associated with straight people and delayed responses when negative words were associated with gay people. This is to test the theory that we are quicker to associate positive ideas than negative ideas with things we like. The results were consistent with this theory, stating that I had a strong preference for straight people over gay people. This, along with my true results, indicates that the IAT is a strong indicator of our implicit stereotypes.

Bargh, J. A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Ed.), The automaticity of everyday life: Advances in social cognition (Vol. 10, pp. 1-61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Implicit Association Test. (2010, March 4). Retrieved from Project Implicit website: https:// implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/takeatest.html