The best film ever made, Superbad,
has a great scene about persuasion and compliance.
Seth and Evan are trying to
convince their friend Fogul to use his fake I.D. to buy all the alcohol for a
party they’ve been invited to. Fogul, who at first was confident in his fake
I.D. becomes distressed upon learning the precise amount he has to purchase and
subsequently feels less inclined to follow the request. This in itself seems to
be an example of failed low-balling; Fogul agreed to use his I.D. under the
impressions he would be buying drinks just for his group. Once they actually
arrive at the store it becomes apparent his role is much more important and he
begins to become uncompliant. Seth and Evan are then placed in the position of
needing to persuade Fogul back on-side.
Seth’s immediate reaction is to begin
chastising and insulting Fogul. Steele (1975) found that calling people names
increases their compliance with your demands. It seems that the majority of
Seth and Fogul’s interactions centre on this sort of behaviour. When that seems
to have little effect, Seth ups the ante and begins to threaten Fogul with
violence. Over-the-top, hyperbole violence. Deturk (1987) found that males are
much more likely to resort to violence against uncompliant targets in a last
effort to get them to comply than females.
In contrast to this Evan begins a ‘good
cop’ routine to Seth’s ‘bad cop’. Contrast itself is useful; compared to the
raging Seth, Evan’s simple proposals and encouragements make it much more
likely that his requests will be complied with. However, when this is combined
with Evan’s flattery, “You’re a hero”, there’s a double-whammy effect of
persuasion.
Fogul also inadvertently triggers
his own ‘expert snare’. By declaring and making salient the notion that he is
the only one with a fake I.D. (which will only work for him despite Seth’s
suggestion of surgery) he comes to realise that it really is all resting on his
shoulders; he is the expert in the situation.
This scene appeals greatly to me as
I feel many people can empathise with the boy’s situation and will have gone
through many of the routines and tactics shown here to reach a similar goal.
References
Low-Balling
Cialdini, R. B., Cacioppo, J. T.,
Bassett, R., & Miller, J. A. (1978). Low-ball procedure for producing
compliance: Commitment then cost. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 36 (5), 463.
Insulting
Steele, C. M. (1975). Name-calling and
compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 (2), 361.
Males resort to violence against a
non-compliant targets
Deturck, M. A. (1987). When communication
fails: Physical aggression as a compliance‐gaining strategy. Communications Monographs, 54 (1), 106-112.
Helpful Labelling
Strenta, A., & DeJong, W. (1981). The
effect of a prosocial label on helping behavior. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 142-147.
Flattery
Hendrick, C., Borden, R., Giesen, M.,
Murray, E. J., & Seyfried, B. A. (1972). Effectiveness of ingratiation
tactics in a cover letter on mail questionnaire response. Psychonomic
Science, 26(6), 349-351.
Expert Snare
Pratkanis, A. R., & Uriel, Y. (2004).
The Expert Snare as an Influence Tactic: Surf, Turf, and Ballroom
Demonstrations of the Compliance Consequences of Being Altercast as an Expert. Unpublished manuscript, University
of California, Santa Cruz.
James Ulke
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.