Embarrass the target of influence

Embarrassment is a function of public self-consciousness and is typically produced when someone finds her or himself in a predicament or committing an act that may result in a poor social evaluation. Embarrassment promotes a response of striving to avoid it or escape it once it has occurred (Miller, 1996). It is this aspect that gives embarrassment its power to influence. For example, out of embarrassment, males are less likely to help a female who dropped a box of tampons compared to a

box of envelopes (Foss & Crenshaw, 1978), and everyone is less likely to help someone who has dropped a condom as opposed to a mitten (McDonald & McKelvie, 1992). As with guilt, embarrassment creates a

need to restore a self-image, and this can lead to compliance. Apsler (1975) had students perform a set of four embarrassing acts (e.g., sing the Star Spangled Banner, imitate a 5-year-old throwing a temper tantrum) in front of another student. Compared to controls, embarrassed students were more likely to consent to help another student with a class project regardless of whether the requester was the person who observed the embarrassing acts or someone who knew nothing about the incident. 

 

Jeer pressure

Ridicule and insults can increase compliance with a request. Steele (1975) found that insulting (name-calling) the target of a request increased the rate of completing a survey regardless of whether the insult was relevant (the target was uncooperative and selfish) or irrelevant (the target wasn’t a safe driver) to the request. More recently, Janes and Olson (2000) found that merely having a target observe another person being ridiculed increased the target’s rate of conformity. Such jeer pressure increases compliance because the target seeks to repair a self tarnished by the attack and hopes to avoid future ridicule by going along with the request. Abelson and Miller (1967) have identified one limiting factor for jeer pressure: an insult on a specific, previously-held belief (especially in a public setting) can result in a boomerang effect or an increase in the original opinion.

 

Flattery (ingratiation)

It is a widely-held belief that flattery is a powerful influence device (see Pratkanis & Abbott, 2004 for a review). There is a considerable amount of research showing that we like those that flatter us, as illustrated by Gordon’s (1996) meta-analysis of 106 effect sizes. However, only two experiments have looked explicitly at the effects of flattery on compliance with a direct request. Hendrick, Borden, Giesen, Murray, and Seyfried (1972) found that flattery (compliments on the goodness and kindness

of the target) increased compliance with a request to complete a seven-page questionnaire relative to a

control condition. Pratkanis and Abbott (2004) asked passersby on a city street to participate in a “stop junk mail” crusade after they were flattered about an article of clothing or asked the time of day. (control treatment). We found that flattery increased compliance by 10 percentage points over control. Interestingly, these effects were obtained regardless of whether the “stop junk mail” request was made by the flatterer or a different person (immediately after the flattery was given), indicating that in this study flattery was working primarily through intrapersonal (e.g., mood and disposition of the target) as opposed to interpersonal (e.g., liking of the flatterer) processes.

 

Empathy

Empathy consists of two aspects: a cognitive awareness of another person’s internal states

(thoughts, feelings, perceptions, intentions) and a vicarious affective response of concern and distress for another person. Empathy can be induced by instructions to “put yourself in another’s shoes” or assessed using standards measures (Davis, 1996). In general, empathetic concern for another person increases the likelihood of agreeing to requests to help that person (e.g., Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley, & Birch, 1981). For example, Archer, Foushee, Davis, and Aderman (1979) found that increased empathy with a defendant in a legal trial (e.g., imagine how you would feel if you were on trial) resulted in more favorable decisions for the defendant.

 

Norm of reciprocity

Every human society (and a few chimpanzee ones too) has a simple rule of reciprocity: If I do something for you, then you should do something for me in return. Invoking this rule triggers a feeling of indebtedness or obligation to the person who has given a gift or performed a favor. A tension state is thus created: Do I live up to my social obligation or not? The norm of reciprocity is one of the glues of primate society. It can be employed for influence purposes when the compliance agent supplies

a desired course of action for resolving the indebtedness tension state. For example, Regan (1971) staged an experiment where a confederate of the experimenter gave a subject a soft drink as a favor or provided no favor. The subject was more likely to purchase raffle tickets when a favor was rendered than when no coke was provided.

 

⇐ Предыдущая45678910111213Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: