Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Interpersonal Influence Techniques & case study, overall avergae of…
Interpersonal Influence Techniques & case study
main concepts
disrupt-then-reframe (DTR)
deliberately confuse with disrupted message then reframing message in clearer way to reduce confusion
intended to reduce counterarguments & close sale
Need for cognitive closure (NFCC)
dislike of ambiguity & uncertainty and a preference for definitive answers to questions
individual differences exist
Kardes et al 2007
STUDY 1 (F)
General info
Stand selling Christmas candy in European supermarket & 5 confederates acted as sellers
'as Christmas is approaching these boxes of Christmas candy are on special offer today'
sample" 147 customers (104 F : 33 M) independent measures design, random allocation
Procedure
Customer response observed - adding 1 or more boxes of candy to cart = complying with sales request
DTR condition
'the price is now 100 euro cents (2s pause) that's 1 euro. It's a bargain
65% of DTR bought candy
Control condition
'the price is 1 euro. It's a bargain'
44% control bought candy
STUDY 2 (F)
General info
sample: 155 participants (59% F) - randomly allocated
Procedure
male confederate on Dutch uni campus asked students to join student interest group for 3 euros
DTR condition: 'You can now become a member for half a year for 300 euro cents (2s pause) that's 3 euros. That's a really small investment'
Control condition: 'You can now become a member for half a year for 3 euros. That's a really small investment'
then asked to complete 20-item scale measuring NFCC
Results
average 22% agreed to become member overall - 30% DTR & 13% control
compliance increased as NFCC increased
43% DTR & 17% control had high NFCC
DTR works for goods & less tangible things
STUDY 3 (L)
General info
137 American undergraduates, randomly allocated
Procedure
all watched video of male actor stating research is essential to quality of university education & money necessary for research then complete NFCC scale + other scales
'Student advocacy council is arguing for an increase in tuition of..'
DTR - '7500 pennies (2s pause) that's $75, It's a small investment'
Reframe only: '$75 It's a really small investment'
Disrupt only - '7500 pennies'
all deceived - told study was about 'campus issues' & they were in 'video communication' condition
Questionnaires
Attitudes - 9-point scale
e.g., very negative - very positive, very foolish - very wise, very unpleasant - very pleasant
Perceived ambiguity
3 scales --> 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree)
'Right now I would describe myself as indecisive', 'I feel uncertain about what to do.'
Behavioural
told participants researchers will be looking for students to phone & inform other students of this information
asked how much time they would give from 1 (no time) to 9 (36-40 minutes)
asked to rate willingness to vote for this increase from 1 (definitely against) to 9 (definitely in favour)
Results
when NFCC is low, DTR manipulation had no effect on perceived ambiguity
when NFCC is high, disrupt-only increased ambiguity & reframe-only decreased ambiguity
when NFCC is high, most favourable attitudes were formed by DTR - reframe-only - disrupt only
when NFCC is low, DTR is no more effective
Overall conclusions
DTR more effective when NFCC is high
Disruption motivaes customers to accept reframed message that aids closure through reducing ambiguity
Hypotheses
1 - DTR should increase compliance with monetary request present in commercial context
2 - DTR should be more effective as consumers NFCC increases
3 - DTR effect should be mediated by perceived ambiguity
Issues & Debates
Determinism vs Free-will
disruptive messages determines our need to gain closure using reframe but also individual differences
Reductionism vs Holism
reductionist - ignore social & biological factors
Situational vs Individual
DTR more effective in individuals with higher NFCC - interaction between situational & individual facotrs
Nature vs Nurture
interactionist: DTR is nurture & NFCC could be nature
Useful applications
make high NFCC consumers more compliant with sales requests
Cultural bias
only western participant
Evaluation
Strengths
results consistent in lab & field experiments
different data collection methods - observation, self-report -> reliability
large samples - high generalisability, representative
high ecological validity in experiment 1 & 2 - reduce demand characteristics -> validity
Weaknesses
ethics of using psychological tricks to sell products
independent groups design - individual differences affect cause-effect relationship
students used as participants - low generalisability, less representative
scales used are subjective (experiment 3)
overall avergae of 54% of customers bought candy