Week 25

Compliance techniques
30 March 2016

25.01 Compliance Techniques

Read pp. 116-119 of your Crane and Hannibal textbook, Section 4.2:
Sociocultural level of analysis: social and cultural norms.
Read pp. 22-23 of the Pamoja Supplementary eText, The Sociocultural Level of
Analysis: Section 3, Social Norms: B. Compliance techniques.

4.2 pg. 116-119

SCLOA: social and cultural norms
Compliance: the result of direct pressure to respond to a request
Compliance techniques: ways in which individuals are influenced to comply
with the demands or desires of others.
6 factors that influence people to comply to a request
o Authority
o Commitment
o Liking
o Reciprocity
o Scarcity
o Social proof
Reciprocity
o Reciprocity principle: the social norm that we should treat others the
way they treat us
a person must try to repay what another person has provided
sign of a future obligation that enables development of various
kinds of relationships and exchanges
Lynn and McCall (1998) even found that when restaurant
customers are given a mint or sweet with their bill, the size
of the tip they leave increases.
o Door-in-the-face technique:
this compromise should therefore be acknowledged with some
behaviour
more likely to accept the second request because they feel that
the person has already lowered the request in order to
accommodate them
Cialdini et al. (1975). Posing as representatives of the County
Youth Counselling Program, he and his team stopped university
students on campus and asked them if they would be willing to
chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a day trip to the zoo
83 per cent refused to volunteer. Another time they stopped
students and first asked if they would be willing to sign up to work
for two hours per week as counsellors for a minimum of two years
no one agreed to volunteer. But when they followed up the
students refusal with the request to take the juvenile delinquents

o
o
o

to the zoo, approximately 50 per cent of students agreed to serve

as chaperones.\
Commitment
being consistent with previous behaviour.
Cialdini argues that once people make a choice or take a stand, they will
encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently
with that commitment
Goal gradients
Kurt Lewin 1951
Motivate behavior
The longer people commit themselves to something, the less
likely they are to abandon the goal
Foot-in-the-door technique
Dickerson et al. (1992)
By getting people to agree to sign their name, it is hoped
that they will then support that cause in upcoming elections
see if they could get university students to conserve water in the
dormitory showers
sign a poster that said, Take shorter showers. If I can do it,
so can you!
take a survey designed to make them think about their own
water wastage
average shower times of about 3.5 minutes
Low-balling technique
Cialdini et al. 1974
They asked a class of first-year psychology students to
volunteer to be part of a study on cognition that would
meet at 7 a.m.
Only 24 per cent were willing
2nd group was not assigned a time
56 per cent agreed to take part
When told 7, no one backed out of the commitment
95 per cent of the students who had promised to come
showed up for their 7 a.m. appointment
o Hazing
a series of initiation rites in order to join an exclusive group
participant must rationalize that this is worth it in order to be part
of the group
sense of accomplishment, proving loyalty
Youngs 1963 study of 54 tribal cultures found that those with the
most dramatic and stringent ceremonies were those with the
greatest group solidarity
Aronson and Mills (1959)
asked female college students to join a sex discussion
group
severely embarrassing initiation, others joined with no
ceremony

meeting was made up of confederates who were trained to

be as boring and uninteresting as possible
women who went through the initiation ceremony reported
that they found the meeting extremely valuable, whereas
those who did not have any initiation recognized that the
meetings were worthless and uninteresting
Gerard and Mathewson (1966)
women received electric shocks
endured pain as part of their initiation were more likely to
find their group interesting, intelligent, and desirable

SCLOA pg. 22-23

Section 3: social norms
B: compliance techniques
Compliance refers to the act of responding favourably to an explicit or implicit
request by others
Reciprocity
o you feel more obliged to do something for them
Commitment
o make a small commitment, then we are more likely to commit to
something larger in the future
Manipulating people to comply
o enhanced by a number of situational manipulations
Foot-in-the-door
Door-in-the-face
Low-ball
Ingratiation
technique in which the persuaders get their target person
to like them first, through flattery and presenting
themselves as like their target, and then attempting to gain
compliance with some request
Grant et al. (2010)
o test if compliments work as a compliance tactic and to explore whether
liking could account for their effectiveness
o compliments increased compliance relative to a control condition
o this increased liking was not responsible for enhanced levels of
compliance
o challenged the assumption that this is because an increased liking for the
person paying the compliments induced compliance

25.02 Blog Post: Compliance Techniques

Compliance can be defined as the result of direct pressure to respond to a request

Review pp. 116-119 of Course Companion eText and pp. 22-23 of the Pamoja
Supplementary eText.
Decide how you would like to present the following information to your classmates:

A description of three compliance techniques

A description and evaluation of one study investigating each of the
techniques.
o Suggestions:
Make a Voicethread presentation
Or
Make a Prezi presentation
Or
Make a graphic organizer.
Submit the link of your Voicethread or Prezi presentation to your blog or copy and
paste the graphic organizer into your blog.
o
o

https://prezi.com/xexk7pezfoxa/edit/#1

25.03 Summative ERQ: Social Identity Theory

Extended Response Question:

Evaluate social identity theory with reference to relevant studies.

The social identity theory is a concept proposed by Tajfel in order to

better understand group processes and intergroup relations. Both a
persons personal and social identities formed increase ones selfesteem and self-image. This theory is based on three main concepts,
including social categorization, social identification, and social
comparison/ positive distinctiveness, which develop the identification
within the in-group. Categorization is attaching labels to people and
things to better understand and organize thinking. Social norms of
specific groups also shape the expected behavior of the corresponding
members. Social identification is accepted your labels, adopting the
group identity, and conforming to the appropriate behavior. Social
comparison is then used to promote self-esteem and positive behavior
by competing for identities and resources between rival groups. Two
studies which investigated this theory were Tajfels study of 1971 and
Cialdini et al. of 1976.
In 1971, Tajfel aimed to investigate the effects of social categorization
and the social identity theory (SIT) on human behavior at the SCLOA.
Participants, which included forty-eight 14 and 15 year-old boys from
Bristol, United Kingdom, were asked to choose their favorite painting
by either artist, Klee or Kandinsky, and were told that their preference
would determine which group they would become a member of. The
second part of the experiment involved the distribution of virtual
money, knowing only the code number and membership of each boy.
Results showed that the boys favored their own group when

distributing the money because it increases the status of the group,

which increase self-esteem for the individual. This created a maximum
difference between the in-group and the out-group and showed that
even random categorization enhances a situation of favoritism of ingroup members and discrimination of out-group members.
There were many methodological considerations of this experiment.
First, simple economic self-interest could have been the focus of the IV,
but similar studies used symbols, which gave the same result.
Categorization was ecologically valid, as it was similar to a school
experience. Participants could have given demand characteristics by
responding with what the researcher wanted to hear, but it was unclear
as to how the two parts of the experiment were related making
researcher bias more difficult. Results show favoritism of the in-group,
but not much prejudice against the out-group. Ethically, deception was
used in order to make the boys think they had a similarity with the
other boys in his group, although this ethical error was necessary and
explained afterwards. Also, the results cannot be generalized because
participants only included 14 and 15 year-old English males.
In 1976, Cialdini et al. conducted an study which represents the social
identity theory through social categorization and comparison amongst
college football supporters. Participants were observed to wear more
college insignia and clothing after a success than a loss. These findings
suggest that the intergroup comparisons create a positive self-bias, so
one can relate more positively with what their group represents. Tajfel
referred to this concept as the establishment of positive
distinctiveness in 1978. The second part of this experiment involved
researchers calling participants to interview them about their schools
performance during the previous game. Results shows that most
participants used the pronoun we after a win and they after a loss.
This experiment supports the social identity theory that people strive
for a positive self-image and that their social identity is impacted by
their group, which affects the behavior of the individual member.
One positive consideration was that the experiment was ecologically
valid, as the it involved observing and interviewing in a natural setting.
However, it may not have been completely ethical because there may
have been slight deception of feelings during interviews by having
distraction tasks or providing feedback. These concerns should have
been explained to all participants at the end of the experiment. Also,
participants only included students at American universities regarding
football, which means the results cannot be generalized.
Its interesting to think that being randomly assigned to a group causes
members to relate to having similar attitudes and behavior, which

forms a bond amongst the group members. These in-groups are shown
favouritism while the out-group is discriminated against in order to
promote and maintain the individuals self-esteem in social
comparison. There are thought to be benefits of belonging to the ingroup rather than the out-group. These intergroup behaviors are based
on the social identities which are explain social phenomenon, such as
ethnocentrism, favouritism, stereotyping, and conforming.
The social identity theory also has its limitations. First, there is no way
it can predict human behavior, but it is able to simply describe it in
certain circumstances of different groups and the social norms showing
the appropriate behavior of the members of that group. The theory
also disregards the environment which is interacting with the
individual. SIT suggests that group identity controls behavior, but there
is also a role of cultural expectations, as this research was done at the
SCLOA, which stands for sociocultural, including both social and
cultural explanations.
However, the SIT is restricted by the methodological limitations,
unrepresentative samples, and hypothesis about self-esteem which
void this theory as a whole, as personal identity does not change
according to group superiority and the short-term effects increased
self-esteem has on that personal identity. Also, there is little evidence
using dispositional factors in empirical studies.
In conclusion, the social identity theory states that the in-group will
compare themselves to the out-group by showing favoritism and
discrimination in order to increase their own self-esteem and enhance
their own self-image. Social categorization, social identity, and social
comparison are the main concepts supporting the SIT. Two studies
which investigated this theory are Tajfels study of 1971 and Cialdini et
al. of 1976. These experiments help to show that the SIT explains
group and individual identities, in relation to the in-groups and outgroups, as wells as a reasoning as to why it is human nature to show
prejudice.

Level of Analysis

Investigator/s

Date

SCLOA

Tajfel

1971

Description (Aim, Type of study, Participants, Procedures, Findings

Conclusions):

This study aimed to investigate the effects of social categorization and the
social identity theory (SIT) on human behavior. Participants, which included
forty-eight 14 and 15 year-old boys from Bristol, United Kingdom, were asked
to choose their favorite painting by either artist, Klee or Kandinsky, and were
told that their preference would determine which group they would become a
member of. The second part of the experiment involved the distribution of
virtual money, knowing only the code number and membership of each boy.
Results showed that the boys favored their own group when distributing the
money because it increases the status of the group, which increase selfesteem for the individual. This created a maximum difference between the ingroup and the out-group and showed that even random categorization
enhances a situation of favoritism of in-group members and discrimination of
out-group members.
Evaluation
Methodology
Considerations

Ethical Considerations

Gender/Cultural
Considerations

Simple economic selfinterest could have been the

focus of the IV, but similar
studies used symbols,
which gave the same result.
Categorization was
ecologically valid, as it was
similar to a school
experience.
Participants could have
given demand
characteristics by
responding with what the
researcher wanted to hear,
but it was unclear as to how
the two parts of the
experiment were related
making researcher bias
more difficult.
Results show favoritism of
the in-group, but not much
prejudice against the outgroup.

Deception was used in

order to make the boys
think they had a
similarity with the other
boys in his group,
although this ethical
error was necessary and
explained afterwards.

The results cannot

be generalized
because participants
only included 14 and
15 year-old English
males.

Study #2

Level of Analysis

Investigators

Date

SCLOA

Cialdini et al.

1976

Description (Aim, Type of study, Participants, Procedures, Finding,

Conclusions)
This laboratory experiment represents the social identity theory through social
categorization and comparison amongst college football supporters.
Participants in a large lecture hall at 7 different universities were observed on a
Monday, after a football match. Results of this method showed that there was a
tendency to wear more college insignia and clothing after a success than a
loss. These findings suggest that the intergroup comparisons create a positive
self-bias, so one can relate more positively with what their group represents.
The second part of this experiment involved researchers calling participants to
interview them about their schools performance during the previous game.
Results shows that most participants used the pronoun we after a win and
they after a loss. This experiment supports the social identity theory that
people strive for a positive self-image and that their social identity is impacted
by their group, which affects the behavior of the individual member.

Evaluation
Methodology
Considerations

Ethical Considerations

Gender/Cultural
Considerations

Ecologically valid, as
the experiment is
observing and
interviewing in a
natural setting

There may have been

slight deception of
feelings during interviews
by having distraction
tasks or providing
feedback

Participants only included

students at American
universities regarding
football, which means the
results cannot be
generalized

-Description of theory
-Supporting research (described and evaluated)
-limitations of SIT

Evaluate the study - form an argument

o The social identity theory is a reliable statement which accurately describes
human behavior on the sociocultural level of analysis
Strengths and limitations of the theory

The social identity theory was first suggested by Henri Tajfel after his study of 1971. The
concept states that groups give humans a sense of belonging and social identity in
relation to self-esteem.

in -group idenetity is created by three main concepts: social

categorization, social identification, and social comparison
People are put into groups social groups through social categorization
and then accept those group labels openly thorugh social
identification, which can then be compared between the in-groups and
the out-groups.
Social norms of specific groups also shape the expected behavior of
the corresponding members. We conform to the appropriate behavior
of our group after identifying with it. Social comparison is then used to
promote self-esteem and positive behavior by competing for identities
and resources between rival groups. Two studies which investigated
this theory were Tajfels study of 1971 and Cialdini et al. of 1976.
Henri Tajfel 1971
investigate the effects of social categorization and the social identity theory (SIT)
on human behavior
forty-eight 14 and 15 year-old boys from Bristol, United Kingdom
Klee or Kandinsky, and were told that their preference would determine which
group
Distribution of virtual money
boys favored their own group
Increases group status
increase self-esteem for the individua
maximum difference between the in-group and the out-group
random categorization enhances a situation of favoritism of in-group members
and discrimination of out-group members.
evaluation:
Ecologically valid
Possible demand characterisitcs, however, difficult to know
Results show favoritism of the in-group, but not much prejudice against the outgroup.
Deception
Cant be generalized
Cialdini et al. 1976
social categorization and comparison

lecture hall at 7 different universities were observed on a Monday, after a football

match.
tendency to wear more college insignia and clothing after a success than a loss.
intergroup comparisons create a positive self-bias, so one can relate more
positively with what their group represents.
second part of this experiment involved researchers calling participants to
interview them about their schools performance during the previous game.
pronoun we after a win and they after a loss.
supports the social identity theory that people strive for a positive self-image and
that their social identity is impacted by their group, which affects the behavior of
the individual member.
Evaluation:
Ecologically valid (natural setting)
Slight deception
Cant be generalized
Its interesting to think that being randomly assigned to a group causes
members to relate to having similar attitudes and behavior, which
forms a bond amongst the group members. These in-groups are shown
favouritism while the out-group is discriminated against in order to
promote and maintain the individuals self-esteem in social
comparison. There are thought to be benefits of belonging to the ingroup rather than the out-group. These intergroup behaviors are based
on the social identities which are explain social phenomenon, such as
ethnocentrism, favouritism, stereotyping, and conforming.
The social identity theory also has its limitations. First, there is no way
it can predict human behavior, but it is able to simply describe it in
certain circumstances of different groups and the social norms showing
the appropriate behavior of the members of that group. The theory
also disregards the environment which is interacting with the
individual. SIT suggests that group identity controls behavior, but there
is also a role of cultural expectations, as this research was done at the
SCLOA, which stands for sociocultural, including both social and
cultural explanations.
the SIT is restricted by the methodological limitations,
unrepresentative samples, and hypothesis about self-esteem which
void this theory as a whole, as personal identity does not change
according to group superiority and the short-term effects increased
self-esteem has on that personal identity.
In conclusion, the social identity theory states that the in-group will
compare themselves to the out-group by showing favoritism and
discrimination in order to increase their own self-esteem and enhance
their own self-image.

reasoning as to why it is human nature to show prejudice

The social identity theory is a reliable concept first suggested by Henri Tajfel after his
1971 study. This idea states that humans receive their sense of belonging and selfidentity from the groups from which they belong, in relation to their own self-esteem.
The three main concepts which promote the social identity theory are social
categorization, social identification, and social comparison. Once one receives a label
from the group they are categorized with, they eventually conform to the expected
attitudes and behaviors of that group, or the social norms. The accepted identities
are then compared between the in-groups and the out-groups through favoritism with
those with similar interests and discrimination against any opponents. This socialcomparison promotes the self-esteem of the individual through the benefits of their
in-group.
One study which investigated the social identity theory was one led by Henri Tajfel
himself in 1971. He conducted an experiment which looked at the effects of social
comparison and the social identity theory on the behavior of humans. Participants
included forty-eight boys in Bristol, United Kingdom, all between the ages of fourteen
and fifteen. Each participant was asked to choose his favorite artist, either Klee or
Kandinsky. He was told that his decision would decide which group he would be
placed in. After being split into groups, the boys were asked to distribute virtual
money between the two groups, knowing only the codenames of each participant and
which group he was placed in. The findings showed that most boys gave more money
to the boys in their own group, showing favoritism for their social group. They
seemed to believe that the group with more money would have an increased group
status, which in turn, increased their personal self-esteem. Even though the
categorization was randomized, this experiment shows that humans show favoritism
for the in-group and discriminate against the out-group.
However, there were some issues with this study. First, it was unethical to deceive the
boys into thinking that the groups were based on the art style, rather than telling
them that they were truly random, but this was explained in the end.
Methodologically, it was ecologically valid, as it was a situation similar to a school
group, and the participants may have show demand characteristics, but it is unlikely
because they did not truly know what the researchers wanted because of the
deception. Also, the results showed obvious favoritism for the members of the ingroup, but not as much prejudice against the out-group participants. Finally, the
results cannot be generalized due to the participants being English teenage males.
Another researcher, Cialdini et al., also supported the social identity theory in a 1976
study. The aim of this experiment was to see the effect social categorization and
comparison has on the behavior of college football supporters. The observation
technique was used in seven large lecture halls in different colleges on a Monday
after a football match. First, they were categorized based on which university they
attended and then whether they were a winner or a loser. It was found that more
students tend to represent their university through their clothing after a win than a
loss. Then, they were compared as being better or worse than the out-group, which is
known as an inter-group comparison. After a win, there seemed to be a positive selfbias of the supporters because their group had won. Researchers also called
participants and noted which pronouns they used when describing the team's
preformance. Results showed that they tended to use "they" after a loss and "we"
after a success. This study also supports the social identity theory, in which people
want the best self-image of themself, which is effected by the self-identity and
behavior, which are impacted by their social groups.

Similarly to the Tajfel's study, this experiment was ecologically valid, as it was in a
natural setting, but the resuls from these students cannot be generalized. There was
also slight deception used in the second part of the experiment when the researched
phoned the participants and asked them about the previous football match.
Thus, the two studies, Tajfel 1971 and Cialdini et al. 1976, both support the social
identity theory and I do believe that humans do majorly receive their self-identity
from the social groups to which they conform, which influences their self-esteem.
Social categorization seems to bond members of the in-groups through similar
interests and attempt to increase their personal self-esteem and self-image through
social comparison. Humans do not tend to care too much about putting other groups
down, as long as their group still looks good, otherwise known as favoritism of the ingroup and discrimination of the out-group.
A limitation to the social identity theory is that it states that these identities are
influenced purely by the group to which one belongs, however, there are other
factors that contribute, such as the personal environments and cultures of each
individual. Also, the theory simply describes the behavior of groups, but has no way
of predicting it. Methodological limitations and unrepresentative samples, as stated in
the evaluations of the studies above, also limit the social identity theory. However,
there are too few restrictions to the social identity theory to say it is completely
wrong. The theory states that groups will compare themselves with favoritism and
discrimnation to increase personal self-esteem, provides a reason for prejudice
behavior, which is quite a reliable statement based on the research conducted.

25.04 Understanding the End of Year Exam Format and

Administration

Term Grade 3 - Student Self Reflection Report

For each question below you should write at least a sentence, your report as a whole
should be between 80 -140 words in total.

Engagement: Have you spent enough time in the course and on the set
work to be successful?
Learning: Tell us about what you have learned in your subject? What has
been the most useful and interesting part of the course for you so far?
Essential Skills: How are you enjoying online learning in this subject?
(Please consider your self-management, communication and interaction).

Here is an example:
I feel that I have spent plenty of time moving through the course areas but that I
might need to spend further time thinking through the specific course content. This is
partly due to the learning curve for figuring my way around the course and the
technology.
I have very much enjoyed the interactions with my peers from all over the world! It is
fun to be in such a global classroom. Psychology has helped me to understand people
a bit more already and I am looking forward to further study.
I have found online learning in Psychology to be very interesting and very
challenging. I am motivated to learn the subject content but am to adjust to being

responsible to stay constantly engaged. I like the various forms of communication

and interaction, especially the conferences.

I believe I have spent an efficient amount of time on my psychology work. To be

successful, I should begin to prioritize it more so I can memorize all the theories and
detailed studies and apply the content.
Psychology has been one of my favorite subjects. Ive found the connections between
subjects quite interesting. For example, I wrote a paper on the witchcraft of the Azande
studied by E.E. Pritchard and later that day I read about the attribution theory. Its
intriguing how some people attribute different causes to specific events.
Online learning has been a bit more difficult than I originally believed, however, because
I enjoy the topic I am motivated to learn more. My self-management and communication
have been good, for the most part, but I should interact more, possibly through the live
lessons.