The Rise of Veganism

In May of 2016, a study conducted by research company Ipsos MORI hit the headlines: “Number of vegans in Britain rises by 360% in 10 years” (The Telegraph - 18th May). This study found that there are now over half a million people over 15 years old following a vegan lifestyle in Britain, compared to a mere 150,000 people in 2006. Thats more than 1% of the population; thats the same amount of people who were born in Britain last year, how many people were diagnosed with cancer in 2015, or as the SomersetLive website pointed out - Britain now has more vegans than it does Sikhs. 

It is this large and sudden increase which is so interesting. These people weren't raised vegan, they made that choice, so what happened to change peoples attitudes to consuming and using animal products so dramatically? 

One model which can be used to try to explain this rapid expansion is the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen). This model has three components which, theoretically, come together to form our intentions and thus the behaviours we perform. These three aspects are attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control, and one or all may have been changed in people who decide to go vegan: 

Figure 1. Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour 

Attitude

Attitude is the opinion you have toward a behaviour. In the case of veganism, this is where animal welfare and environmental impacts come in. Netflix documentaries such as “Cowspiracy” and “Live and Let Live” are often what people cite as exposing them to the factors of welfare and 'turning' them vegan. They use shock tactics and graphic images, grabbing peoples attention with system 1 processing (the quick, automatic processing - Kahneman, 2011) and making them want to know more. When they have their attention they then provide viewers with “alarming facts at a fast and furious rate” (as stated by Alison Homewood, a writer on the ‘New Internationalist' blog), designed convince you through system 2's (careful,  evaluative and effortful) processing that this is something that must change. 

But you dont have to be an animal lover to have your attitude changed - personal health is a big attitude changing factor. The film “Change your Food, Change your Life” features a ‘nutrition expert’ explaining reduced risks of diseases such as cancer and diabetes, alongside generally higher energy levels. Although there is minimal research on this, there does seem to be protection against cardiovascular disease, some cancers and type-2 diabetes (Tai Le & Sabaté, 2014) when compared to non-vegetarians. The symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis also seem to be reduced when on a vegan diet (Ringertz et al 2001). If people are truly feeling the ‘high energy levels’ claimed by these programmes, it is a simple case of operant conditioning (eating vegan food is reinforced by higher energy (a pleasant feeling) so they are more likely to eat more vegan food). 

Weight loss is a huge motivating factor for many people (Mintel found 65% of women tried to lose weight in 2013), and is another well advertised claim of a vegan diet. Studies have shown that vegans tend to have a low BMI and lower cholesterol (Key et al, 2006). They also have lower blood pressure and so a reduced risk of heart disease (Craig, 2009). Figure 2 is a photo posted by Teri Leventhal of her before and after a high calorie, low-fat vegan diet. It is easy to see how someone may see this and want to emulate her changes.

Figure 2. Teri Leventhal: Claims this photo shows the difference in her appearance after starting a vegan diet

If you aren't persuaded by animals or yourself there is a third factor - the climate in general. Beef, cheese and pork production have the highest greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram, while legumes (such as beans and lentils) are a low-emission, high protein food (Carlsson-Kanyama & Gonzalez, 2009). 

There are other factors such as agricultural pollution and human rights which may change other peoples attitudes, but it is likely that at least one of the 3 mentioned above is likely to be important to each person, and if this is targeted there is capacity for attitude change. 

Subjective Norms 

Subjective norms are our perception of a behaviour, influenced by the opinions friends, family and role-models significant to the person. Celebrity influence which has a huge impact on opinion, even influencing political standings (Jackson & Darrow, 2005), so whats to say it doesn't effect opinion on veganism? It does seem as though the perception of vegans recently has changed from a slightly suspect tree-hugger, to something desirable and healthy. There are two things I suspect may have had an impact on this: 

1) Celebrity endorsement: 

If you search the internet for ‘vegan celebrities’, household names such as Ariana Grande, Ellen DeGeneres and Stevie Wonder appear. Miley Cyrus even has a pet pig which is vegan (alongside her and Liam Hemsworth). The huge celebrity following is certainly helping in changing peoples subjective norms, as if a celebrity says that that is the thing to do, their own opinion is influenced and as such, are more likely to change their intentions.The Vegan Society seem to be very aware of the power of celebrity in persuasion, it lists 32 ‘Famous Vegan Athletes’ on its website. The documentary “Conspiracy”  was executively produced by Leonardo DiCaprio, this combination of celebrity, shock tactics and information is a killer combination - no wonder so many people are influenced by it.

2) Instagram and social media:

The Ipsos MORI report found nearly half (42%) of all vegans are in Britain are 15-34 years old, an age range particularly focussed on social media (90% of all Instagram users are under 35, Han et al. 2015). The Guardian ran a vegan related headline on 27th May of this year; “the rise of vegan teenager: 'More people are into it because of Instagram'”. This article interviewed young vegans as to why they had made the choice to become vegan. One said “they always show pictures of vegan people looking beautiful and healthy.” - this again makes it a more desirable as people, whether consciously or not, want to be 'beautiful and healthy' too. The high frequency at which adolescents view pictures with this kind of message can be high, increasing the availability of veganism. This may make them more likely to be receptive to it, as they can recall it easily and assume it is more prevalent than it is. This is no doubt one way in which people could have been influenced, as the online community changes subjective norms. 

Perceived Behavioural Control (self-efficacy) 

This is the degree to which you believe that you can control a behaviour. This is vital, as if you don't think you'll be able to do something then it is unlikely you'll try to do it. In the past veganism has been seen as difficult and unattainable, but according to Keith Coomber (writer for ‘Vegan Life’), attitudes have changed due to presentation in the media, stating “It’s no longer an extreme lifestyle, it’s easy and accessible”. This accessibility makes people’s perceived behavioural control increase, thus changing their intentions. People who likely have had an impact on the ease of a vegan diet are vegan YouTubers, two of the more well known ones being “Freelee the Banana Girl” (721,000 subscribers) and “Bonnierebecca” (187,000 subscribers). They post videos such as ‘Vegan school lunch ideas’ and ‘my quick/lazy pasta - vegan’. These are all carefully shot, with appetising and ‘instagrammable’ food, but most importantly focus heavily on the “easy” aspect. 

A statistic suggesting that perceived behavioural control really does impact on decisions, is 88% of vegans in Britain live in urban areas, with a huge 22% of all British vegans living in London (from the same Ipsos MORI study). The accessibility of foods in cities, especially London, may be a factor in this massive growth of the vegan population.

With people having attitudes changed with shocking evidence of the treatment of animals, their subjective norms affected by celebrity endorsements and social media, and their perceived behavioural control increased with people informing them of how ‘easy’ it can be - it is perhaps no wonder so many peoples intentions have changed, and thus their behaviour.  

In case you were wondering, no, I am not a vegan and never have been. Having said this - some of the videos out there however 'exposing' the meat industry have not been fun to research at all, and now I know how many people are embracing a vegan lifestyle, maybe I’ll consider it more seriously… 

References: 

Carlsson-Kanyama, A., & González, A. D. (2009). Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 89, 1704-1709.

Craig, W. J. (2009). Health effects of vegan diets. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 89(5), 1627-1633.

Hafström, I., Ringertz, B., Spångberg, A., Von Zweigbergk, L., Brannemark, S., Nylander, I., & Klareskog, L. (2001). A vegan diet free of gluten improves the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis: the effects on arthritis correlate with a reduction in antibodies to food antigens. Rheumatology, 40, 1175-1179.

Jackson, D. J., & Darrow, T. I. (2005). The influence of celebrity endorsements on young adults’ political opinions. The Harvard international journal of press/politics, 10, 80-98.

Jang, J. Y., Han, K., Shih, P. C., & Lee, D. (2015). Generation like: Comparative characteristics in instagram. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 4039-4042.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.

Key, T. J., Appleby, P. N., & Rosell, M. S. (2006). Health effects of vegetarian and vegan diets. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 65, 35-41.

Le, L. T., & Sabaté, J. (2014). Beyond meatless, the health effects of vegan diets: findings from the Adventist cohorts. Nutrients, 6, 2131-2147.

NEARLY ALL GONE

The scarcity principle suggests that when opportunities are in short supply, they become more desirable. We are more motivated by the thought of losing items compared to gaining items of equal worth (Tversky and Kahneman, 1981). Scarcity leads us to believe that items have more value than items in abundance and therefore become more desirable. This is due to social norms. 

Social norms are the rules written by society on how to behave, and govern our lives. We want to fit in with society and as a result become sheep. Scarcity is one way of highlighting popularity and therefore increases appeal. We subconsciously make the assumption that items are scarce due to it being popular, and by the rules of social norms if other people want it, we want it too. Therefore scarcity is proof of an items worth.

A study that cleverly demonstrates this principle was created by Worchel, Lee and Adewole (1975). In this experiment 200 undergraduate students were required to rate the value and attractiveness of cookies in two identical jars. In one jar the cookies were in an abundant supply (10), whereas in the other jar the cookies were in scarce supply (2). The results revealed that participants preferred the cookies that were scarce, supporting the scarcity principle. In a follow up study, cookies were either constantly scare or began in abundance then became scarce. Participants were also told that this change in availability was either due to an accident in which the cookies were spilt or due to high demand for the cookies. The results indicated that cookies are rated more favourably when they go from being abundant to being scarce compared to constantly being scarce. Cookies were also rated higher if the scarcity was due to high demand. This is proof that scarcity is a signal about the product. We believe that others must know something that we do not, so place more value in their judgement. We automatically assume that the cookies in the almost empty jar must be better for some reason, as scarcity is a form of social proof. The fact that cookies in scarce supply were only preferred when told it was due to popularity emphasises this point.

Overall the scarcity technique is good at inducing social proof, and is cleverly used by marketeers to increase sales. The technique suggests that people are motivated by what others have, and has been demonstrated in studies such as that by Worchel, Lee and Adewole (1975).

REFERENCES:

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.

Worchel, S., Lee, J., & Adewole, A. (1975). Effects of supply and demand on ratings of object value. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 906.

#NoMakeUpSelfie

Selfies themselves have exploded in popularity alongside the ever-expanding world of social media. Ellen DeGeneres’ Oscars selfie in 2014 became the most retweeted post in history at 2,070,132 retweets by the end of the Oscars ceremony ("Ellen’s Oscar selfie most retweeted ever – and more of us are taking them", 2014). Tom Hanks congratulated a newly-wed couple by sharing a selfie on Instagram, whilst the UK’s Prime Minister posed for selfies on the red carpet on Monday evening ("Theresa Manyia", 2016), all captured in figure one. Figures from 2014 state over 1,000,000 #selfies are taken each day, with 50% of men and 52% of woman having taken a selfie ("The year of the selfie- statistics, facts & figures", 2014). Perhaps it is no surprise then that the selfie phenomena provided an opportunity for the charity Cancer Research UK to raise over £8,000,000 for their charity ("#nomakeupselfie – why it worked", 2014).

Figure One. Left to right: Ellen's Oscar selfie, Tom Hanks wedding congratulations selfie, Theresa May posing for red carpet selfies with the public 

The #nomakeupselfie was initiated by Laura Lipmann- with a different hashtag. But, before long the internet had worked its magic and the no make-up selfie was generating tens of thousands of tweets a day. Cancer Research UK noticed the hashtag gaining momentum and attached a donation text number to the posts, raising £2,000,000 in the first 48 hours ("#nomakeupselfie – why it worked", 2014). It is safe to say the no make-up selfies are a perfect example of ‘going viral’.

How was it then that a simple selfie influenced so many people to donate? How was a viral phenomenon influencing people’s behaviour a) getting them to upload a post they would not usually post, and b) getting them to donate money they would not have considered doing before-hand? Below are various influence techniques that appear to have been at play throughout the #nomakeupselfie phenomena. 

Availability Heuristic and Agenda Setting Theory

The availability heuristic suggests the easier something comes to mind, the higher we estimate the frequency of an event (Schwarz et al, 1991). Agenda setting theory extends this and suggests the media can manipulate what we think about through the frequency of which it shares a story (Walgrave & Aelst, 2006). With tens of thousands of woman engaging, it is not surprising the posts filled our timelines and reached mainstream media (Deller & Tilton, 2015). The no-make up selfie was then at the forefront of our minds, and we very quickly believed that everyone was doing it.

Social Norms and Social Proof

Sherif and Sherif (1953) first defined social norms as our standards formed through our group interactions, that we will follow as individuals. Through the surge of no make-up selfie posts, the media ensured we perceived the no-make selfies as the latest norm. In the interest of fitting in and wanting to part of the 'in-group' of our online friendship networks, we soon are likely to have taken the selfie ourselves and are contributing to the mass selfie uploads, adding to the growing donations.

Social proof works in a similar way. Cialdini (2007) explains social proof as a weapon of influence; we view a behaviour as more correct and more appropriate in a given situation if others are doing it. The phenomena of social proof has filled social media in the past as it it simply astounding watching unsuspecting targets conform to others behaviour. Take for example, learning to stand at the sound of a bell because everyone else is doing it:

A similar technique has been used here in the #nomakeupselfie; we were seeing everyone else uploading a selfie and donating money. Therefore, we should conform and do the same. 

Celebrity Endorsement

Figure Two: Celebrity endorsement portfolios (Keating & Rice, 2013)

Celebrity endorsement ties into the influence of both availability heuristic and social norms, with multiple brands using celebrities to advertise their goods, as outlined in figure two (Keating & Rice, 2013). Research by  Keating and Rice (2013) measured recall of products when they were presented with a celebrity (celebrity cue) or with no cue. When looking at their results (displayed in figure three), it is understandable why such a vast majority of brands invest in celebrity marketing techniques, with moderate levels of celebrity cues significantly increasing recall of the products. Note the importance of having a moderate level of celebrity endorsement: too much or too little creates no improvement in recall at all. In the case of the no make up selfie, it seems the volume of celebrity endorsement was just right.

Figure Three: Percentage of consumers who recalled the product with and without celebrity cues (Keating & Rice,  2013)

If we extend this outside of purchasing environments, individuals are likely to have higher chances of recalling a given ‘thing’ if a celebrity has been associated with it. When recall is higher, the more likely the 'thing' is to be at the forefront of our minds. Again, the availability heuristic is at play; if the celebrities are taking part (as demonstrated by Holly Willoughby and Jodie Marsh in figure three), we are more likely to believe everyone must be doing it.  Thus, we are more likely to upload a no make-up selfie ourselves and make a donation to cancer research in order to fit in with the ever growing social norms.

Figure Three. Left to right: Holly Willoughby's and Jodie Marsh's #nomakeupselfie

Role Models

In addition, celebrities are traditionally seen as attractive and likeable individuals who are considered to be highly influential (Kamins et al, 1989), and therefore can be important influencers of behaviour (Bush, Martin & Bush, 2004). Celebrity endorsement allows the celebrities attractiveness, likability, knowledge and expertise to be associated with the 'thing' they are endorsing. If individuals are aspiring to be like a celebrity role model, they could be more likely to model their behaviours (Singh, Vinnicombe & James, 2006). In this case, individuals also upload a no make-up selfie and make the donation to Cancer Research UK.

Just Ask

One of the key ‘weapons’ Cialdini (2007) identifies for influencing behaviour is simply asking for what you want. Research has shown for example that 56% of females asked by a male stranger would agree to go on a date with him if he simply asked them too (Clark & Hatfield, 1989). As the #nomakeupselfie posts continued to grow, girls began to nominate three friends within their posts to  do the selfie next (Deller & Tilton, 2015). Captions to the selfies because  chain of names getting more and more people involved - "Thank you for the nomination (insert name here)... I nominate (friend one, friend two and friend three) to upload their #nomakeupselfie!". Like asking strangers on dates, people are more likely to perform a behaviour when they are asked to do so directly. In this case, posting a no make-up selfies and donating.

Attitudes

The British culture is one very heavily influenced by what others think of us. It is no secret we want to be viewed positively by our peers; a view that can be created through giving generously and selflessly (Li, Pickles & Savage, 2005). Compassion and generosity have been rated as two of the most important factors when rating how much we like other peers (Hartley et al, 2016). With these pre-conceived attitudes within the British culture, it is easy to see how so many were influenced to donate to Cancer Research UK; fast to be perceived as generous, selfless and therefore likeable to others. The no-make up selfies were considered both selfless through the donations and brave in uploading a photo in which they were not comfortable uploading, and as stated by Deller and Tilton (2015), selflessness and bravery is rewarded. The halo effect suggests we attribute our whole global evaluation of a person based on individual attributes we observe (Nisbett & Decamp Wilson, 1977); if we see others as selfless and brave, we are more likely to attribute more positive behaviours and traits to them. In turn, if people perceive us as selfless and brave, they will attribute more positive behaviours to us. The #nomakeupselfie has not only managed to raise over £8,000,000 for Cancer Research UK, but increase peoples perceptions of us. Win-win! 

Consistency

Cialdini (2007) also identifies consistency as one of the techniques in influencing behaviour. This is a phenomenon that states once we have made a stand, particularly in public, we are more likely to act consistently with this behaviour. For example, students were significantly more likely to stick to the estimates they had given for the length of a line when they declared the length publicly, as opposed to keeping it private (Deutch & Gerard, 1955). Once individuals have taken their no-make up selfie and shared it on social media, they have made a public stand for their support for Cancer Research UK. They are therefore more likely to donate to the charity alongside their selfie in order to be consistent with their stand, hence the £8,000,000 raised alongside the tens of thousands of selfies uploaded ("#nomakeupselfie – why it worked", 2014).

Above are just a select few of the techniques that may have encouraged people to participate in the #nomakeupselfie's themselves. There is likely to have been many more influences at play, but whatever it was that got people involved has got charities and marketers hunting it down in in order to become the next fund-raising phenomenon. If we are to take anything away from these viral selfies, realise and remember that behavioural influences can be used for the greater good. Thanks to the posts and donations of bare-faced woman, 10 new clinical trials could be funded, amongst other streams of research ("#nomakeupselfie- some questions answered", 2014). A step closer to a cure for cancer has got to be making the world a better place. 

References

#nomakeupselfie – why it worked. (2014, March 25).  Retrieved November 1, 2016 from  https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2014/mar/25/nomakeupselfie-viral-campaign-cancer-research

#nomakeupselfie- some questions answered. (2014, March 25).  Retrieved November 1, 2016 from http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/03/25/nomakeupselfie-some-questions-answered/

Bush, A. J., Martin, C. A., & Bush, V. D. (2004). Sports celebrity influence on the behavioral intentions of generation Y. Journal of Advertising Research, 44(01), 108-118.

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

Clark, R. D. & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of psychology and human sexuality, 2, 39-55.

Deller, R. A. & Tilton, S. (2015). Selfies as charitable meme: charity and national identity in the #nomakeupselfie and the #thumbsupforstephen campaigns. International journal of communication, 9, 1788-1805.

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The journal of abnormal and social psychology, 51(3), 629.

Ellen’s Oscar selfie most retweeted ever – and more of us are taking them. (2014, March 7). Retrieved November 1, 2016 from https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/07/oscars-selfie-most-retweeted-ever

Hartley, A. G., Furr, R. M., Helzer, E. G., Jayawickreme, E., Velasquez, K. R., & Fleeson, W. (2016). Morality’s centrality to liking, respecting, and understanding others. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1948550616655359.

Kelting, K., & Rice, D. H. (2013). Should we hire David Beckham to endorse our brand? Contextual interference and consumer memory for brands in a celebrity's endorsement portfolio. Psychology & Marketing, 30(7), 602-613.

Li, Y., Pickles, A., & Savage, M. (2005). Social capital and social trust in Britain. European Sociological Review, 21(2), 109-123.

Michael, A. K., Brand, M. J., Hoeke, S. A., Moe, J. C. (1989). Two-sided versus one-sided celebrity endorsements: the impact on advertising effectiveness and credibility. Journal of advertising, 18, 4-10.

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: evidence for unconscious alteration of judgements. Journal of personality and social psychology, 35(4), 250-256.

Radha, G. & Jija, P. (2013). Influence of celebrity endorsement on the consumer’s purchase decision. International journal of scientific and research publications, 3, 1-28.

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(2), 195.

Sherif, M. & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension. New York: Harper.

Singh, V., Vinnicombe, S., & James, K. (2006). Constructing a professional identity: how young female managers use role models. Women in Management Review, 21(1), 67-81.

The year of the selfie- statistics, facts & figures. (2014, March 19). Retrieved November 1, 2016 from http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/selfie-statistics-2014/497309

Theresa Maynia! (2016, October 31). Retrieved November 1, 2016 from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3891738/Theresa-Maynia-Selfies-autographs-red-carpet-PM-works-crowd-like-true-lister-Pride-Britain-awards.html

Walgrave, S., & Van Aelst, P. (2006). The contingency of the mass media's political agenda setting power: toward a preliminary theory. Journal of communication, 56, 88-109.

The Hierarchy of Effects Model in Advertising

Understanding and employing skills of influence and persuasion are fundamental to successful advertising in the corporate world. The Hierarchy of Effects is a marketing communication model by Lavidge and Steiner (1961) which aims to explain the processes involved from the moment we view a product advertisement to purchasing the product. This article will consist of a very brief description of the model with reference to Always’ advertising efforts as examples of the model.

There are 6 stages in the model which then further be divided into 3 categories of consumer behaviour:

Figure 1. Hierarchy of Effects Model with descriptions of corresponding marketing objectives. 

Example of Cognitive focused communication:

The cognitive stage of the model involves information processing on behalf of the consumer. In the example below Always clearly addresses the cognitive components of awareness and knowledge by introducing the product and successfully conveying the information customers will need to know about the product - in this case how comfortable and fresh the product feels for the women who chose to use Always' pads. 

Example of Affective focused communication:

The second Always advertisement is from one from their #LikeAGirl campaign and is an example of affective focused communication. This content is not about any of their products, rather it is focused on the emotions and meaningful message Always would like customers to associate with their brand. In this case, the message is to challenge some of the narrow and stifling stereotypes that have been associated with the female gender and to offer in its place a broader, healthier, more democratic view of what girls are capable of doing when they are empowered. The advertisement successfully places focus on the brand and subsequently leads to a positive valence associated with the brands products. This would aim to progress through the 'liking' and 'preference' stage of the model. (Very moving ad - do watch!)

Thus, according to the Hierarchy of Effects model, the aim of successful advertising would be to promote progression through the cognitive and affective stages so that the consumer proceeds to the cognitive stage and subsequently is influenced to purchase the product. 

Lavidge, R. J., & Steiner, G. A. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness. The Journal of Marketing, 59-62.

Who Can Say No To Cake? - The Norm Of Reciprocity

Everyone loves cake. It’s just a well known fact. But who would have ever thought that cake could be used as a tool as part of a powerful force of subtle persuasion? Certainly not me, until recently. It was not long ago that I was approached by my flatmate asking if I was free at 10pm that evening. I had made no plans, and responded that I would be. Later, it can be seen that this was Step 1 in Operation Party Persuasion; the classic ‘foot in the door technique’. My flatmate then preceded to ask if I would attend his birthday party that evening, quickly followed by the fact that there would be cake (not just any cake, but an array that the birthday boy had bought himself, especially for the occasion), and that our other flatmates would also be coming. At this stage, there was an overwhelming obligation to say yes, that I would attend, but what had led me to feel this deep sense of commitment? Maybe psychology has some answers at hand.

The ‘foot in the door technique’ (Freedman & Fraser, 1966) proposes that an individual can gain someone’s commitment by firstly asking them to comply to a small request, which later compels them to comply to a larger request. This piecemeal approach (or graduated commitment) creates a bond between the requester and requestee, which once established can be difficult to break. This has been demonstrated in research by Freedman & Fraser (1966) who found that in comparison to those who had just been asked to perform the larger request (i.e: if they would be willing to let a research team explore their home to classify their household products), subjects who were asked to perform a smaller task first, (i.e: completing a telephone survey regarding their use of household products) followed by the larger request, were significantly more likely to comply with the larger demand. The fact that I had told my flatmate that I was available that evening provided a prerequisite for accepting his invitation that followed.

The norm of reciprocity can also be used to explain the success of my flatmate’s request. This norm suggests that we, as social beings, feel a sense of indebtedness to return a favour to someone if they first provide something to us, be it a gift, money, or just being there for us in times of need (Gouldner, 1960). It is considered to be a universal phenomenon and has been highlighted in many studies. For instance, Regan (1971) conducted an experiment whereby participants received a free soft drink from a confederate, and were more likely than the control group (who received nothing) to purchase raffle tickets that the confederate was later selling.  So what was it that my flatmate did which triggered this obligation? Step 2 in Operation Party Persuasion- just add cake. Although unconsciously unaware of the social contract I was entering at the time, it is clear to see now that the inclusion of cake was used as bait to activate this norm of reciprocity; he would give me cake in return for my presence at his party.

Finally, Step 3 in Operation Party Persuasion can be attributed to social norms. Social norms outline ways of behaving that conform to the majority’s view of what is acceptable in society or in particular social contexts. Those who deviate from social norms risk being ostracised from the group, or face being negatively evaluated. Research that has outlined this concept includes Asch’s study (1951; as cited in Deutsch & Gerard, 1964), whereby participants were asked to match the length of a line (target line) relative to three other comparison lines of varying length (see Figure 1). It was found that the participant was likely to go against their own instinct at least once, and provide an incorrect answer if the rest of the group (in this instance, confederates) gave a wrong answer, in 76% of trials. This can be explained in terms of the subject feeling pressured to comply with group norms in order to feel a sense of belonging (normative social influence), which outweighs the need to be right (informational social influence). Thus, this idea can help to enlighten why I was compelled to accept my flatmate’s invitation; I was aware that everyone else was attending and that declining this offer, especially for no good reason, could impact on how I would be perceived by the group in the future, and affect the social dynamics.

Figure 1 - Stimuli used in Asch's conformity experiment (1951).
Target line (left), to be matched with comparison line 'A', 'B', or 'C' (right).

So, what was the outcome? Of course, I accepted the invitation and had a wonderful evening, but it was not until deeper reflection that I was able to fully understand why I took this course of action. It is clear to see that each of the persuasive techniques outlined above played a unique and powerful role in manipulating my behaviour, and that each and every one of us will be susceptible to their influence at some point in time!

Catherine Turvey

References:

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1964). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629- 636.

Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966).  Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195-202.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161- 178.

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

JUST ASK

‘I find you very attractive, will you go to bed with me?’ Elaine Hatfield carried out a revolutionary experiment in 1989, showing that 75% of men would go to bed with an averagely attractive woman if they just asked (Hatfield, 1989). 

Other research has confirmed the power of asking, by demonstrating that if you want something you should simply ask for it. Santos, Leve and Pratkanis (1994) suggested we have pre-set answers to questions. Therefore, an usual request is more likely to be completed as we will need to think about the answer. To demonstrate this, Santos, Leve and Pratkanis got confederates to ask a participant to borrow either a low or high amount of money, that was either strange e.g 17 cent or typical e.g a quarter. The results firstly showed that if you want to borrow money you should just ask as it is likely to get results. Secondly, people are more likely to give you money if you ask an usual request compared to a typical request as seen in Figure 1.

From the research done on the ‘just ask’ principle, I wanted to see how effective this technique would be in real life situations. I had bought a pair of jeans a couple of months ago, with the intention of giving them back to the shop. However, life got busy and I had missed the deadline for a refund. Seen as I had nothing to lose from the situation but money to gain, I decided to go into the shop and ask for a refund anyway. 

To my surprise, the shop assistant did not even bat an eyelid and completed the request without a seconds hesitation. Due to being astonished that I was about to get money for something I should not be, I even doubled checked that the shop assistant was aware of my lack of receipt. The request was still made. All I did was ask, and ended up getting money back in return.

This is further proof of the ‘just ask’ principle. In the majority of situations, if you want something just ask! People drastically underestimate the power of asking, due to not believing it will be effective. However, as previous research such as Hatfield (1989) has shown, as well as my real life example illustrates, asking gets results!

REFERNCES:

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

Santos, M. D., Leve, C., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994). Hey buddy, can you spare seventeen cents? Mindful persuasion and the pique technique1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 755-764.