Door in the face? Anytime!

Since I read Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive, I was already familiar with most of the compliance-inducing strategies Dr. G provided during lecture. However, the book failed to mention the “door in the face” technique (Cialdini et. al., 1975). According to Caildini and his colleagues, influencers need only ask a request that they have no intention of getting. Once you’ve been shot down, then you can make a concession, and ask for something a bit more reasonable. Works most of the time ;) Personally, I use this technique quite frequently. As an example, my father takes me clothes shopping whenever the seasons change, and upon entering the mall I plant my first persuasive seed. That is, as soon as my father parks the car I list the 10 stores “I CAN’T wait to visit!” After sadly agreeing that we probably won’t have enough time to visit all 10, I revise the number and inform him of the four that “I’d like to visit if we have time :).” Once we get into the mall I ramp it up a bit. I grab an excessive amount of clothes, disappear in the dressing room for 40 minutes, and return with about 10 outfits that I want. Of course, he refuses to buy all ten and I agree, instead I ask for the 4 outfits that I absolutely love.

Yay :) I win, since the reason we go shopping each season is to make sure I have everything “I need.” But, how exactly did this “victory” materialize (literally, in the form of clothes :P)? Well, for two reasons. First, my dad has an easier time agreeing to spend money on clothes he knows I don’t need when he can rationalize his behavior. Specifically, when he has been presented with two options (i.e. buy me 10 outfits and buy me 4 outfits) he is able to perceptually contrast the options (Cialdini et. al., 1975). But simply, buying 4 unnecessary outfits seems a lot more reasonable than buying 10 unnecessary outfits. Another reason the door in the face technique works is reciprocal concessions. When I make a concession and reduce my request (i.e. 10 outfits to 4 outfits), my dad feels pressured to reciprocate and make a concession by agreeing to the smaller request (Cialdini et. al., 1975). On a final note, I love this technique because it is sneaky and undetectable to those unaware of these strategies!

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.

Manipulating someone’s behavior as a means of changing their attitudes seems counter-intuitive, but it works. Aronson and Mills (1959) demonstrated its success in an experiment in which they randomly assigned female participants to undergo a severe, a mild, or no “embarrassing test” prior to their admittance into a group discussion about sex. Upon completion of the test, the females were given a taste of what the group was like. They were allowed to listen in on a “meeting,” which was in fact a tape recording of a boring discussion on sex behavior in lower animals. Interestingly, they found that the females who experienced the most embarrassing initiation test were the females that indicated they liked the discussion the most. This experiment exemplifies effort justification, or the tendency that the more you pay for something the more you will come to like it.

When we were talking about this concept in class I immediately thought of the Saw movies. I’m sure everyone is familiar with the movies, but the general idea behind them is that anyone who has to fight for their life will treasure and value their life more. The video clip I attached shows the opening scene of the second movie (I think) and includes Jigsaw telling the group of people what they’re going to have to do if they want to live. The clip concludes with Amanda arguing that although they’re being tested, he wants them to survive. Although this is an extreme example I think it demonstrates the concept of effort justification perfectly. After fighting for your life you’ll know what it would feel like to know you’re dying, and value everything you do that much more.

Perhaps unknowingly my dad has recently begun drawing on the principles underlying effort justification (in ways completely unrelated to Jigsaw’s). Although I’ve always been able to ask him for a little extra cash, he now responds to my requests with “Sure, how much would you like to borrow?” It makes me think twice about how much I really want whatever I was planning on using the money for. Rather than acquiring whatever it was without much effort, I have to go further into debt to my father (Southwestern is expensive enough!). Then, when I make money waiting tables I don’t get to spend it, instead I have to give it back to my dad receiving nothing in return. That effort ensures that I sure do love whatever I go through all that to get.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D90YBQ_lrRk

Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177-181.

Am I still a little kid at heart...Why can't I do what I'm told?

The topic of persuasion is discussed extensively in Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive (Goldstein et. al., 2010), the book I chose to read for my book project, so I found this chapter to be an interesting overview of what I’ve been learning over the past few weeks. However, one concept, psychological reactance, wasn’t specifically addressed in Goldstein and his colleagues’ book, and I found it that much more exciting. Perhaps more importantly, I was amused by this concept because it basically sums up who I am in two words...at least that’s what my roommate would say. Jack Brehm defined this theory as our desire for the freedom to think, feel, and act however we would like. Furthermore, he argues that when we get the vibe that our freedom is being threatened, we act to maintain and/or restore it (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). These ideas are very descriptive of my behavior because I absolutely hate and reject being told what to do, what to choose, or how to evaluate something. In fact, I probably unnecessarily engage in “negative attitude change” with startling frequency. Negative attitude change refers our movement in the opposite direction of that which we feel is being forced on us (Heller et. al., 1973). At times, I even contradict my own previously held opinions if I feel like they weren’t wholly grounded in my own decisions/thoughts. Anyone who is present while I’m getting ready to go out will understand exactly how these concepts influence my behavior. Although it is normal for girls to call their friends and ask advice about what to wear, it isn’t normal to completely ignore their advice. Oftentimes, I ask my roommate for advice about an outfit I’ve thrown together, and she provides extremely opinionated and specific feedback. For example, she’ll explain that the shoes I’m wearing don’t match because (insert reason here). If she’s really adamant about her opinion or says, “Don’t wear those two things together,” I have an overwhelming urge to wear those two things together, and I usually do. In these cases, even though I asked for her advice, I still feel restricted to choose what she advises and it drives me crazy enough that I usually reject her advice. I know it isn’t just me being stubborn because I never ask for her advice after I’ve already decided which course of action I’d prefer (e.g. I want to wear the black shoes, but I should see what she has to say). These days, when I ask her for her opinion about something, she begins by saying, “I know you’ll probably just do the opposite anyways, but...”

Going beyond psychological reactance, I want to talk about some individuals differences that affect the persuadability of one’s audience. It seems to me like there are a lot of factors that can create an extremely diverse audience. As an example, both one’s degree of self-monitoring (Snyder & DeBVono, 1985) and need for cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) influence his/her susceptibility to different types of messages (i.e. central, peripheral). Self-monitoring refers to the regulatory effects one’s concern with his/her public appearance has on their behavior, while need for cognition describes the amount individuals enjoy effortful cognitive activities. Although there are plenty of other variables, it is evident that these two fluctuate on an extremely wide continuum, creating audiences that must be impossible to persuade by exploiting one personality trait (e.g. high self monitors). Do messages take advantage of the research that shows that people high in need for cognition are more influenced by central messages, whereas those low in need for cognition are affected by peripheral messages? Personally, I don’t think it would be very effective to target any of these personality variables unless the messenger was sure that their audience was similar enough that the message wouldn’t persuade someone while un-persuading someone else...

References:

Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.

Goldstein, N. J., Martin, S. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2010). Yes! 50 Scientifically proven ways to be persuasive. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Heller, J. F., Pallak, M. S., & Picek, J. M. (1973). The interactive effects of intent and threat on boomerang attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 273-279.

Snyder, M., & DeBono, K. (1985). Appeals to image and claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of advertising. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 586-597.

Phew! I'm not racist after all...Results from the IAT

The Implicit Associates Test, developed by Greenwald and Banaji, consists of one simple task in which participants are instructed to sort words and pictures into categories. Specifically, the gender-career IAT instructs participants to sort names (e.g. Emily, John) into either the female or male categories, career related words (e.g. management) into the career category, and family oriented words (e.g. relatives) into the family category. The categories are then combined (e.g. female/family and male/career) and all of the words (i.e. names, career related words, and family oriented words) are flashed on the screen. The objective is to sort the words/names into the appropriate combined categories as fast as you can. Once completed, an IAT measures one’s unconscious attitudes toward and beliefs about certain groups of people. For example, the race IAT measures the participants “automatic preference” towards either African Americans, or Europan Americans. The weight IAT measures participants’ preferences towards fat people in relation to thin people (i.e. little to no preference for fat or thin people, slight preference for fat people compared to thin people).

I’ve always felt like I am moderately emotionally intelligent, and that I can decipher my attitudes about most issues fairly well, so I thought taking a few IATs would be an interesting opportunity to test my accuracy. I took the race, gender-career, weapons, and weight IATs. For the most part my results were consistent with my preconceptions about my beliefs and attitudes towards whites, blacks, women, men, fat, and thin people. Specifically, I’ve never really believed that I’ve had a specific bias towards European Americans people as opposed to African Americans, and the results of the race IAT I completed indicated that I showed “little or no” preference for European Americans over African Americans. I think I obtained these results because that is how I actually do feel. I don’t, consciously or unconsciously, associate blacks with “negative” words just as I don’t associate them with hostility, unintelligence, violence, or poor economic status (things that have often been used when describing African Americans). Seemingly in contrast to my assertion that I do not associate African Americans with “negative” thoughts, feelings, or issues, the weapons IAT I completed concluded that I showed a slight association of Black Americans with weapons compared to White Americans. I indeed expected this result, and argue that although weapons are often associated with violence, fear, and hostility, I demonstrated a tendency to associate weapons with Blacks because this is what our culture teaches us. I’ve been bombarded with images of African Americans holding guns, whereas probably the only images I’ve seen of Whites holding any sort of weapon in when they’re hunting for sport. I think the weapons IAT revealed a “true” attitude that I hold, and I am going to blame the media! :) Potentially the beliefs revealed by the information of this IAT could be changed, however I truly think that more Black Americans have more guns than White Americans. This could be completely false, but this is the impression I’ve received through the culture I live in!

I have strong opinions about genetic differences between men and women. That is, there are several very prominent and important anatomical differences which lead me to accept and endorse some of the more “traditional” gender roles that have been assigned to men and women. Specifically, I think that women exist to bear children, and men should provide for their families. I am not saying that I think women do not deserve equal opportunities in the work setting, or that if a woman doesn’t have children she is a “bad” woman. I would never suggest that all women need to stay at home, have babies, and cook and clean for their partners, but I do think that women were created so that they would be able to nurture their children and men were created in a way that would enhance their ability to fend for their children and give their genes a chance to survive long enough to be passed on again. For these reasons, I predicted I would associate male names with career related words and female names with family oriented words. My prediction was correct, I demonstrated a slight association of male with career and female with family. Thus, I think this IAT reveals a true attitude that I hold, one that I don’t really have any intention to change. In contrast, my results on the weight IAT surprised me, I do however believe that the test provided me with information about an attitude that I do probably have and one that I will now be trying to change. Specifically, the test suggested a “moderate automatic preference” for thin people compared to fat people. I think this preference may be due to the fact that my sister is extremely weight schematic. She always has a comment about everyone’s body, what they’re eating, and/or their appearance. I think that these comments may have primed me to notice fat people more and associate them with more negative attributes. I’m a bit disappointed about my results on the weight IAT. I predict that I will be more conscious of my preference for thin people, and that I will use this increased consciousness to change this preference.

Overall, I don’t think that completing the IATs prompted me to think about stereotypes and prejudice any differently than how I always have. I think that stereotyping and prejudice have always been issues that I’ve had strong opinions about, so I think my conscious thoughts and unconscious thoughts about these things are pretty much in sync. I think IATs are really interesting because they give people a way to understand some of the issues that have been used lately to define “modern racism.” I think the fact that they have the potential to uncover unconscious preferences that could lead to implicit racism is fascinating, and I think it could reshape a lot of people’s conceptions of contemporary racism.

Keeping my concern with the results I received from the weight IAT I took in mind, I took a second weight IAT. Before I took it I thought about my sisters possible influence on my previous results, and the fact that statistically there are probably the same number of nice or “good” fat people and thin people. I thought about these things in an attempt to eliminated the preference I showed for thin people compared to fat people. These thoughts did change my results, which suggested “little or no” preference between fat and thin people. :) Due to the fact that my results were successfully changed after thinking about equality between fat and thin people I conclude that the IAT can be influenced by priming. That is, the material participants are exposed to immediately prior to taking the IAT may play a role in momentarily shaping or eliminating unconscious “preferences” for certain groups.

Hass, R. G., Katz, I., Rizzo, N., Bailey, J., & Moore, L. (1992). When racial ambivalence evokes negative affect, using a disguised measure of mood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 786-797.

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