We're organ donors, aren't you?

Leaving a piece of you behind:
For our project, we decided to focus on the topic of organ donation. According to the NHS, in 2016 there were 6362 people who needed organs and only 3529 donors. This discrepancy leads to many lives lost that could have been prevented. The UK is currently an opt-in country, meaning that people need to declare themselves donors rather than declaring their preference not to be. Other countries use an opt-out system, which Abadie and Gay (2006) found had a positive and large effect on organ donation rates. Petitions to the government to make the UK an opt-out country were met with a resounding no. People are generally not overly aware or enthusiastic about organ donation (Manninen & Evans, 1985). Thus, instead of petitioning the government, we wanted to influence people to sign up to become organ donors on the NHS website.

We created a 1:19 minute stop-motion video. The video titled ‘Leave a piece of you behind’ focused on the idea that when you die and donate an organ, a part of you is left behind and lives on inside another person. This idea of leaving yourself behind has become popular in recent news, with prevalent stories about parents hearing their children’s hearts in those who received them. The videos and news articles show how much of an impact the organ donation has had on both the families who gave and received. 

We also wanted to positively influence people to do so, by showing them through an optimistic animation what their effect can be. This was because positive advertising has been shown to have better effects than negative advertising (Malloy & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2016). Thus, we wanted to keep the video light-hearted, showing the good effects of organ donation rather than focusing on negative advertising such as blaming or shock tactics. Our video was posted to a Facebook page that we created: ‘We’re organ donors, aren’t you?’ 

Views and engagements:

The page itself received 35 likes but our focus was on the video which reached 5300 people. We decided that we would quantify behaviour change and our impact by measuring how many people clicked on the link to sign up. The insights page showed the 388 people clicked the link to the NHS organ donation page. Our video was shared 20 times, reaching more people each time. We also used views to help measure the success of our video, with a total of 823 people watching the video at the time of this blog post. 

The debate:

In addition to our video being watched and shared, it sparked a fierce debate between an anti-organ donor and a pro-organ donor in the comments of one Facebook share. The anti-organ donor believed that organ donation should be monetized while the pro-organ donor believed that it should not. In addition, several other people pitched in with their views on the matter. We felt that this debate challenged and encouraged people to engage with the topic, perhaps influencing them to sign up as a result of consistency and commitment to organ donation (Bem, 1972; Cialdini, 2001). This would not have occurred if the video that we created had not been shared and affected these people so deeply. 

Message from ITV show producer:

About a month after we posted the video and created the Facebook page, we were contacted by an ITV show producer through the page. This was in the hopes that we would be able to connect her with someone who was looking to donate organs or bone marrow to a family member. This shows that our video looked efficient and professional enough to be worth contacting. Unfortunately, we were unable to help, as we did not know anyone currently going through this process. We were glad, however, to learn that our video had reached and impacted a wide audience. 

Just ask:
‘Sign up to donate’. The Just Ask principle posits that in order to change behaviour, you just have to ask. Clark and Hatfield (1989) illustrated this technique by finding that 75% of males would agree to go to bed with a female confederate if they just asked. The ultimate goal of our project was to get people to sign up to be an organ donor, so by asking this question directly, it is hoped that more people would complete this action. People want to please others, so rarely say no to requests, especially when it is not a common question with a pre-prepared answer such as becoming an organ donor.

Mere exposure:
Zajonc’s (1968) mere exposure effect is the phenomena whereby individuals prefer things that they have had more exposure to, and are therefore more familiar with. Goetzinger (Zajonc, 1968) found that the more exposure students had to a black bag, the more pleasant they perceived it to be. Due to our video having multiple shares and likes on Facebook, other users will have had a lot of exposure to the video as it will be presented to them every time their ‘friends’ engage with the video. As a result it is hoped that the topic of organ donation will be seen more positively after our project, and ultimately lead to more organ donors. This is because the topic will be perceived as more of an important issue than before, which has the potential to save many lives.

Availability:
Tversky and Kahneman (1973) propose that if we are able to retrieve something from memory easily, (i.e. when we have experienced something frequently) then we perceive it as being more important or true (Schwarz et al. 1991), leading to people accessing that issue more. By creating a video on the topic of organ donation we have increased its availability as a topic. People have encountered the subject recently, so should be able to retrieve it more easily, and thus perceive it as more important. By using Facebook as a medium for distribution we were able to use this as agenda setting theory; exposing people to the topic of organ donation, and emphasising them. Each time the video was shared on Facebook, friends of that person encountered organ donation again, therefore increasing availability further. As people are only directly asked if they want to be a donor when receiving their driving licence, this is not an issue which people often consider, this is why making organ donation relevant and available is so important.

Commitment:
By sharing the video to your Facebook page you are making a public statement in support of organ donation. Bem’s self-perception theory of attitudes (1972) suggests that your behaviour determines your attitudes, as we want to be consistent with our own behaviour in the past.  This is because we are uncomfortable with inconsistencies and conflicts in our own belief systems. Therefore if you have behaved as if you support organ donation (sharing or liking our video) you are more likely to be consistent and become an organ donor in the future.

Messenger:
Hovland, Janis and Kelley (1953) suggested the Yale Attitude Change approach, citing the source, message and messenger as important aspects of persuasion. The source’s authority was important in influencing people to change their behaviour and attitudes. We used the NHS link and banner, linking our page and video to a reliable and authoritative source. A successful message contains humorous and emotional content, appealing to system one. Our video used stop-motion cartoon style drawings, which were intended to be cute and funny. However, it also contained the emotional content of someone who was very sick finally receiving the organ they needed from a donor who then lives on inside of them. Hovland and Weiss (1951) suggested the attitude of the audience towards the communicator is essential and a younger audience is more easily influenced. The use of social media (Facebook) to spread our message targets 18-25 year olds. This age is more easily influenced, making social proof stronger.

Social proof and similarity: 
Social proofing was done through the page title ‘We’re organ donors, aren’t you?’ Social proofing suggests people cue their actions based those before them (Cialdini, 2009). They emulate others in order to exhibit the correct behaviour for the situation. By saying we are organ donors and asking why the audience is not, we are acting in favour of organ donation so others act the same way. They think what we are doing is the correct behaviour for the situation and copy it. When people are liking and sharing our video, those who have not would experience fear of not being included, conforming by doing the same. This shows normative social influence. Suki, Suki, Mohtar and Ahmad (2015) conducted an experiment looking at the effects of normative and informational social influence in online activity, showing people use social networking sites and electronic word of mouth to make opinions. Our experiment, therefore, used social proofing in social media to influence others towards organ donation through trying to be similar to and accepted by their peers.

Consequence template:
Our video demonstrates the ‘consequence’ of organ donation in a simplified and exaggerated way. The video suggests that when you donate an organ, that part of you ‘lives on’. This is persuasive according to the work of Goldenburg, Mazursky and Solomon (1999) who identified the consequence template as one of the six fundamental templates for quality advertisement. They suggest that a successful advert can feature either the positive consequence of doing something (as in our video), or the negative consequence of not doing it. They suggest that successful adverts using this template include two key elements. The first is that the consequences in the advert must be based on true fact, something which our video fulfills. The idea that a part of you will continue to function elsewhere when you die is true of organ donation. The second element says that the consequences must be easily identified as exaggerated or irrational. This is also true of our video.

System 1 and 2 
System 1 and 2 refer to two different channels of processing, one implicit and unconscious (system 1) and the other effortful and conscious (system 2) (Kahneman, 2011). Different techniques can be used to appeal to these two systems and cause a change in behavior, though when information is processes using system 2, the behavior change tends to be more meaningful and long term.
The video appeals to both systems of processing, which means that it has the best chance of changing behavior. We appealed to the instinctive System 1 by using a cute, uncomplicated video, with attractive music and drawings. This helped to draw in the audience and keep their attention. However, at the end of the video, we appealed to system 2, using facts about the number of organ donations per year versus the number waiting for a donation.

References:

Abadie, A., & Gay, S. (2006). The impact of presumed consent legislation on cadaveric organ donation: a cross-country study. Journal of health economics, 25, 599-620.

Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in experimental social psychology, 6, 1-62.

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Science and practice.

Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2, 39-55.

Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., & Solomon, S. (1999). The fundamental templates of quality ads. Marketing science, 18, 333-351.

Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion; psychological studies of opinion change.

Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public opinion quarterly, 15, 635-650.

Kahneman, Daniel, 1934-. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York :Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Malloy, L. C., & Pearson-Merkowitz, S. (2016). Going positive: The effects of negative and positive advertising on candidate success and voter turnout. Research & Politics, 3, 2053168015625078.

Manninen, D. L., & Evans, R. W. (1985). Public attitudes and behavior regarding organ donation. Jama, 253, 3111-3115.

Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 61, 195.

Suki, N. M., Suki, N. M., Mokhtar, A. H. A., & Ahmad, R. (2016). Assessing normative and informational influences on students’ opinion in engaging electronic word of mouth via social networking sites. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37, 190-195.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive psychology, 5, 207-232.

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of personality and social    psychology, 9, 1. 

Emma Horton, Sofia Rodriguez, Emily Townsend, Sarah Tarran 

#TimeToEvolve: Use of Sustainable Cups at the University of Warwick

The Problem:

Coffee cups are not recyclable due to the outer cardboard shell being lined with polyethylene (KeepCup, 2017). Despite these materials being recyclable separately, they cannot be recycled when combined.  With over 500 billion disposable cups being manufactured globally each year, and one million disposable coffee cups being sent to landfill each minute, it is safe to say this is a global problem. Although there are facilities that can offer the separation process and recycle the cups, there are fewer than 1 in 400 coffee chains using this service (KeepCup, 2017). Alternatively, compostable cups are a step closer to being sustainable as they are biodegradable if disposed of correctly, so would not be contributing to landfill.

This problem extends much closer to home as the coffee cups being used at the University of Warwick are neither recyclable nor compostable. This is particularly problematic due to the high volume of cups being used and disposed of on campus, with the University and the Students Union purchasing approximately 1,075,000 per annum, making a significant contribution to preventable landfill waste. Although the University had existing incentives in place, with students receiving a 10p discount when using a reusable cup, we believed this was not largely being utilised by students and could be taken further.

As if this wasn’t a big enough problem, the majority of students believed the coffee cups that were being used on campus were recyclable, as shown in figure one below. This highlighted that not only were cups on campus non-recyclable, they were also being treated like they were and contaminating the current recyclable waste.

Figure One: Pie-chart showing split of 118 students who believe coffee cups are/are not recyclable.

As a result of the previously discussed, we identified three problems to target at the University of Warwick:

1. Coffee cups being used across the SU were not recyclable or compostable
2. Coffee cups being used across the University were not recyclable or compostable
3. The majority of students are currently using non-sustainable cups

The Solution:

In order to address these problems, we took both a top-down and bottom-up approach targeting both the University outlets and the students themselves. Over 75% of adolescents and adults consume caffeine at least daily (James, 1998), so it is safe to say it is considered a part of people's everyday lives. Previous research has associated food choice with the use of system I, acting as a response to stimulus driven incentives (Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999). Thus, when students make the decision to purchase a coffee, they are likely to already be in a relaxed, automatic state and thus are not thinking through each aspect of the process, using their system I thinking. Therefore, by getting the University to make the change, we would be improving the student’s behaviour without them needing to engage their effortful, system II thinking. With this in mind, each of the identified problems above will be discussed separately.

1. Coffee cups being used across the SU were not recyclable or compostable.

In order to address the problem of cups within the Students Union, we approached it in a top-down fashion, speaking to the sabbatical officers, SU staff and Sustainability Champions throughout the meetings listed below:

• 4th November: Meeting with SU President
• 17th November: Meeting with Sustainability Champions and Environmental Ethics Officer
• 7th December: Applied for SU Funding Grant
• 25th January: Meeting with Sustainability Champions for All Student Meeting Motion
• 6th February: Proposed motion at All Student Meeting
• 10th February: Motion passed at All Student Meeting

We applied for an SU Funding Grant of £3,000, using the door-in-the-face technique. First proposed by Cialdini et al (1975), the door-in-the-face technique suggests that compliance with a smaller request is more likely if a bigger, more extreme request is proposed first. We applied for the full £3,000 expecting it to get rejected, but hoping that a smaller proportion would be offered to us in compensation. This was successful, and we were offered £200 for the use of promotional materials of our campaign in promoting the use of reusable cups. How we spent this £200 is outlined under problem three below.

We proposed a motion at the All Student Meeting (ASM) stating that the SU should use compostable cups by the end of this term. The ASM is an opportunity for students to propose something they believe should be changed across campus, which is proposed and discussed at the meeting, prior to being opened to students to vote on the motion. This motion was initially rejected, as it was of a high cost to the SU (£2,200 per year) for them to replace their current cups with compostable ones, within a short time frame. As a result we negotiated, and readjusted the motion, mandating the SU to do the following:

1.     To mandate the Democracy and Development Officer (DDO) and Environment and Ethics (EE) Officer to work with SU commercial services to explore the feasibility of introducing compostable cups in all of its outlets as soon as practically possible.

2.     To mandate the DDO & EE Officer to lobby the university for the introduction of compostable bins across campus, simultaneously with the compostable cup introduction.

With this motion being accepted, we proposed it at the ASM as seen in Figure Two. This was then opened to the student vote across the week, in which the majority voted in favour of the motion and it passed (see figure three).

Figure Two: Photo of us proposing the motion at the ASM

Figure Three: Screenshot of ASM motion results

As a result of the motion passing, it is now SU policy that the sabbatical officers will lobby the student union to use compostable cups in its outlets, and to lobby both the SU and the University to introduce compostable bins so the compostable cups can be disposed of correctly. Although this has not been an instantaneous success, we feel confident that this is something the SU will be offering in the close future as a result of our motion.

2)  Coffee cups being used across the university were not recyclable or compostable.

In order to work with the University, again using a top-down approach, we organised a stream of meetings in which we articulated the problem, and began working towards a solution:

• 3rd November: Meeting with head of Global Sustainable Development (GSD) Degree
• 18th November: Meeting with GSD Society
• 30th November: Meeting with Director of University Food and Retail Strategy
• 7th December: First contact with KeepCup, reusable cup company
• 2nd February: Meeting with Director of University Food and Retail Strategy
• 16th February: Meeting with Head of Retail Services, Head of Marketing and Rootes Grocery Store Manager

Having multiple meetings with people in authority across the university campus, we mainly employed the technique of ‘Just Ask’, a strategy Cialdini (2007) identifies as a key ‘weapon’ for influencing behaviour. Just ask has shown to be beneficial in multiple contexts, from more people agreeing to go on a date (Clark & Hatfield, 1989) to being given money when asking for it (Santos, Leve & Pratkanis, 1994).

Using this, we simply asked the various people we met whether they would be willing to replace the current disposable cups on campus with something more sustainable. We quickly learnt through our meetings with the GSD team that recyclable cups were not efficiently in production yet, so began pushing for the use of compostable cups as the next best thing.

We learnt that the University were planning on transitioning to the use of compostable cups and lids eventually but were in no rush to do this. Yet, through our consistent, persistent and informed proposals, the University have now made the transition to the use of compostable cups and lids. Figure Four shows the cups currently now being used across campus.

Figure Four: Compostable Cups now used across Campus

In addition to this, we proposed that the University should introduce and promote the use of reusable cups more than they already do. After conversations with the University, it was agreed between us and the head of retail services that the fund from the 5p charge on carrier bags would be spent on 3,000 University branded mugs for us to give out in Go Green week. The giving out of the mugs marked the introduction of our #TimeToEvolve campaign, and the opportunity to gain a free reusable cup was advertised across campus, as seen for example in Figure Five. We were successful in this and 3,000 University of Warwick travel mugs (pictured in Figure Six) were given out to students on the 6th March 2017.

Figure Five: Sign advertising the free reusable mugs outside Rootes Grocery Store

Figure Six: First day of #TimeToEvolve Campaign, giving out the free mugs!

Additionally, we proposed the sale of KeepCup reusable mugs, a brand which has created the World’s first barista standard reusable cup, with a mission to eradicate the use of disposable cups worldwide (Keepcup, 2017). We picked this brand as they offer a contemporary and stylish design, something which the Director had made it clear he wanted within his products. We are proud to say that from the result of our meetings, the KeepCups were on sale from 7th March across campus’ outlets, and we promoted the sale of the cups in Rootes Grocery store again, as a part of the #TimeToEvolve campaign, pictured in Figure Seven. Please see below, under problem three, how these promotions were used to push the use of sustainable cups on campus.

Figure Seven: the launch of the Keepcups

The sale and the push of the Keepcups has continued beyond our campaign, as the University have created a webpage to continue to promote and sell the Keepcups, as seen in Figure Eight, or by clicking here. This link was emailed to us with the contents of the email stating: 'great evidence for you and the team, of the genuine change made!'.

Figure Eight: The universities webpage promoting Keepcups.

The Director offered us the following quote for this blog:

“Throughout the first meeting I had with Olivia, Izzy, Charlotte and Hannah, I expressed that changing the coffee-cups on campus to be compostable was not something I was opposed to, but was something that had never been asked of me nor had a solution ever been presented.

Over a series of meetings, the students completed research around the subject and presented statistics, including that the majority of current students at Warwick believed that the cups being used were recyclable.

A variety of ideas have been explored between us, from using a collection service to recycle the cups we already use, to swapping to compostable cups, to encouraging the use of reusable cups.

As a result of the input from the students, I am pleased to say that the both the coffee cups and their lids being used across the University Outlets are now compostable. In addition to this there will be an introduction of ‘KeepCup’ reusable coffee cups on sale across the outlets in line with ‘Go Green’ week and the finale of the students campaign. I know they are now working with the Students Union in order to get them to follow the universities lead in introducing compostable cups into their outlets, and to push for compostable bins in line with this introduction.”

3. The majority of students are currently using non-sustainable cups

The fact that the majority of students believed the coffee cups were recyclable could explain why they were making little attempt to use reusable cups. In order to target the high volume of students using disposable cups, we decided to encourage the use of reusable mugs. Thus students would not be required to consider how to dispose of the coffee cups offered on campus. To do this, we used the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) to attempt to change their behaviour, as illustrated in figure nine.

Figure Nine: Theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991)

In order to change the student’s overall intention to being more likely to use a reusable cup, we first addressed their perceived behavioural control. Perceived behavioural control refers to how much an individual believes they are able to perform the behaviour (Ajzen, 1991).  We targeted this by offering students a free reusable travel mug, so they had the resources to use a sustainable cup in future at no cost to themselves. Secondly, by giving out such a large number of the mugs (3,000) we hope to have induced a sense of subjective norms. Subjective norms refers to the perceived social pressure for an individual to perform a behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). So, by 3,000 students receiving and using a reusable mug others are likely to feel they should do the same. In turn, this should reduce the number of disposable cups used. We were not disappointed when news of our free reusable mugs spread across campus, students were queueing throughout the Rootes grocery store to receive a mug. Finally, we addressed their attitudes. Attitudes refers to the favorability of an individual performing a behaviour, which can be influenced by the knowledge they have of the subject and its perceived consequences (Eagry & Chailen, 1993). In giving them the free mug we conversed with them regarding the fact current cups on campus needed to go into landfill bins, and hence it was overall more beneficial and sustainable for them to be using these re-usable mugs. We also got students’ receiving a mug to sign a written contract committing to use the mug as much as possible, as outlined below. These three components combined should work to positively affect the students behavioural intentions, and encourage them to use more sustainable cups in the future.

By giving students a free mug, we used the behaviour change technique of reciprocation, whereby people are obligated to repay what another person has provided them.   As shown by Regan (1971), people are more likely to perform a behaviour if they have been given a favour beforehand. Therefore, by giving students a free mug, they should be more likely to use the mug in the future.

In addition to using the theory of planned behaviour, we also implemented some further behaviour change techniques using our £200 SU grant we mentioned above. We first purchased 2,000 business cards with a design that can be seen in figure ten.

Figure Ten: Business card design

Firstly, the design on the front of the business card in figure ten, has been designed by an artist to incorporate both dimensionality alteration and pictorial analogy. These are two of Goldenberg, Mazursky and Solomons (1999) creativity templates. The dimensional alteration template shows the impact of a product across time. We did this by showing the coffee cup evolving throughout time, so it can be seen from original non-transportable cups, to the use of polystyrene cups, to the frequently seen today disposable cups to where people should be - the use of reusable cups. A pictorial analogy template uses symbols alongside the advertised product. We did this with the use of the evolving figures which is a well known symbol, alongside images of coffee cups. We are hoping to imply that people should evolve their use of coffee cups in a similar way to how humans have evolved throughout time: for the better. The hashtag has been created to incorporate the use of social media as an advertising element. Hence, the #TimeToEvolve being our catchphrase, implying people should have caught up with the times in using a reusable mug. We were pleased to find students' did find the hashtag, in figure Eleven.

Figure Eleven: An example of a tweet tweeted during our campaign.

These business cards were given out with a free tea-bag, also purchased through our SU grant. This incorporated the technique of reciprocation, with the intention that by us giving students a free gift, they are more likely to purchase a KeepCup in store and again, use the reusable mug. Similarly, students who purchased a Keepcup were offered a free drinks voucher for use in retail outlets, and those who use a reusable mug in the outlets will receive 10p off a hot drink, as an incentive to purchase. The use of incentives has been found to be successful in influencing individuals behaviour in the past, with the gift of a free lottery ticket significantly increasing the number of people willing to donate blood (Gotte & Stutzer, 2008). Therefore, we hoped, and research would suggest, the free drink would encourage people to use their reusable mugs in the future.

In a final attempt to change students behaviour, upon receiving a free gift (either a mug or a tea-bag), we asked them to sign a contract with the following statement, as mentioned above:

“I commit to using my reusable mug as frequently as possible, and am therefore helping to save the planet.”

Asking students to sign this contract upon receiving a free mug was enforcing the use of written commitment. As shown by Katzev and Wang, (1994), people are more likely to perform a behaviour if they have verbally and publicly committed to it. We had over 1,500 students sign the contract, pictured in Figure Twelve, and thus they are more likely to use their reusable mug in the future. The following day, we commented on the people we saw using the mugs, and one of the responses we received was “Of course I am using it, I signed to say I would!”

Figure Twelve: The signed contracts

In addition, we also used the foot-in-the-door technique. As demonstrated in research by Freedman and Fraser (1966), people have a desire to be consistent with their previous behaviour, and thus are more likely to comply with a bigger request if it follows a smaller, related request. During the Keepcup launch, we asked people first if they were willing to sign the contract, the smaller request, before asking if they would like to purchase a Keepcup, the bigger request.  We can confirm that 60% of people who signed the contract, also bought a keepcup on the 7th March.

Figure Thirteen: Our advertising campaign on the big screen

Figure Fourteen: Our posters used to advertise

In order to promote our campaign for Go Green week, we advertised on the Big Screen in the piazza (see figure thirteen), and stuck posters around campus to advertise the cups people could claim. These designs can be seen in figure fourteen, whereby the #TimeToEvolve design is consistent across all of them. Tellis (2003) has shown advertising to be successful in encouraging people to do what is advertised and these effects can be long lasting. Therefore, we can hope that the effects will be long-lasting and people will continue to use their reusable mugs now our campaign has ended.

Conclusions

We are proud to summarise our achievements as the following:

• The University of Warwick outlets are now using compostable cups and lids
• There is now policy that the SU are to work towards an introduction of compostable cups and bins in their outlets and across campus
• 3,000 students and staff now have a University of Warwick travel mug
• 60% of those who committed to using a reusable mug, bought a KeepCup
• Over 1,500 have written to commit to using their reusable mug as frequently as possible

We can now confidently say that the current University of Warwick student population is more aware of the problem of disposable cups, and will be working towards reducing the 2.5 billion disposable cups used in Britain each year. Although there is a long way to go before University of Warwick can say it is sustainable in this respect, it is definitely one step closer.

Charlotte Cartwright, Hannah Freeman, Olivia Gillard & Isabel Nelson

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50, 179-211.

Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: Collins

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, 31, 206.

Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2, 39-55.

Eagry, A. H., & Chailen, S. (1993). Psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcour Brace Jovanovich.

Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: the foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4,196-202.

Goldenberg,J. Mazursky, D., & Solomon, S. (1999). The fundamental templates of quality ads. Marketing Science, 18, 333-351.

Gotte, L. & Stutzer, A. (2008). Blood donations and incentives: Evidence from a field experiment. IZA Discussion, 3580, 1-31.

James, J. E. (1998). Acute and chronic effects of caffeine on performance, mood, headache and sleep. Neuropsychobiology, 38, 32-41.

Katzev, R., & Wang, T. (1994). Can commitment change behaviour? A case study of environmental actions. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 13-26.

KeepCup (2017). Fast Facts, Retrieved on March 7th from http://www.keepcup.com/impact/fast-facts

Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7, 627-639.

Shiv, B, and Fedorikhin, A. (1999), Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 278–92

Santos, M. D., Leve, C., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994). Hey buddy, can you spare seventeen cents? Mindful persuasion and the pique technique. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 755-764.

Tellis, G. J. (2003). Effective advertising: Understanding when, how, and why advertising works. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.