Saturday, February 1, 2014

4.2 Reciprocity: Foot in the door, Door in the face, Low-balling, Hazing

Reciprocity

Reciprocity is a compliance technique. The reciprocity principle is that "we should treat people the way that they treat us". Reciprocity is a way of creating confidence among people in that what is given to another is not lost but rather a sign of a future obligation that enables development of various kinds of relationships and exchanges. The rule of reciprocity is so common and universal that it can be used to one's advantage, and often is.

When someone does something very kind to you, you feel obliged to repay them in some way - perhaps by being kind to them, or offering a small gift as a sign of gratitude. When you don't reciprocate what has been done to you, you feel guilty. This feeling of guilt is how reciprocity can be used for manipulation in response to a request. 

Reciprocity does not always involve gifts. Reciprocity can occur when you feel that somebody has compromised on what he or she wanted for you, and you feel that you should not have them have to compromise for you once again. You feel as if the initial compromise should be acknowledged in some form or another.

1. Foot in the door technique (FITD)
A small request is used as an instrument to lead to the true, larger request. This technique is employed by getting someone to do something small, in the hopes that they will comply with even larger requests in the future. Dickerson et al (1992) found that the FITD technique was effective in promoting commitment: Dickerson et al wanted to see if they could get university students to conserve water in their dormitory showers. They first asked the students to sign a poster that said "take shorter showers. If I can do it, so can you". ( - This is the small request). Then, the researchers asked them to take a survey that was designed to make them reflect on their shower times and water wastage. Third, their shower times were monitored. The participants that had signed the petition and answered the survey had shorter shower times than the students who did not do the two things. 


2. Door in the face technique (DITF)
A large request that the asker is certain will be turned down is asked first. Then, the asker asks a smaller, more feasible request (which is the true request) in an attempt to exploit reciprocity within the subject. People are more likely to respond positively to the second request because they feel as if the asker has already had to compensate once, with the larger request. Cialdini et al (1975) studied the effectiveness of the DITF technique by pretending to be representatives of the "County Youth Counselling Programme" and asking college students if they were willing to chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a day trip to the zoo (a large, unfeasible request for college kids). 83% of the college students refused. To another group, Cialdini et al initially asked them if they would be willing to sign up to work for two hours a week as counselors for a minimum of two years (an unfeasible request). Nobody agreed to this task either. Then, the true request was made ( - and it seemed a lot more reasonable, in comparison to the first request!). The college students were asked if they would be willing to chaperone a day trip to the zoo for juvenile delinquents: 50% of the students agreed to chaperone. This experiment shows how effective the DITF technique can be, and thus how it can be exploited in real life.


3. Low-balling
Low-balling is a persuasion technique that is used when something that is very feasible is requested, but the request is later changed to a larger request that is harder to agree with. The concept is, that because the subjects already agreed to a project, that they would not refuse once the details were changed. Cialdini et al (1974) demonstrated the effect of low-balling in a class of first-year psychology students. He asked them to participate in a study on cognition, and that they would meet at 7:00 in the morning. Only 24 per cent of students were willing to participate due to the early time. Next, another group was told to meet, without being told the time. 56 per cent of students agreed to participate. It was only then that they were told the meeting time would be at 7:00 am. However, 95 per cent of those who already said that they would participate actually showed up, showing how effective it is to low-ball.


4. Hazing
Hazing is a controversial practice of reciprocity where a series of initiation rites that are performed in order for a person to join a certain exclusive social group. Hazing is similar to initiation rites that are seen in various cultures, such as in African tribes where there are initiation rites for young men to indicate that they have become adults. Hazing continues despite being painful, humiliating or dangerous because it is the individual's choice (initially) that he/she wants to join a group. At the time of decision, the individual is cognisant of the pain that he/she will have to endure to join the group, but resolves to join anyway. During the hazing, one has to rationalise that the pain, or the endurance of it, is "worth it" if they could become a part of the group. Once hazing is accomplished and the individual is accepted into the group, they are filled with a sense of accomplishment and ingroup favoritism. Young (1963) found that out of 54 tribal cultures, those that had the most stoic hazing rites were those that had the greatest group solidarity. 


No comments: