Compliance in Influence Techniques

Mutual requests and their fulfillment are among the most common forms of social interaction, as no one can get by without asking others for favors, whether personal or general. Compliance, like conformity, is explained by the action of social norms. However, it differs from conformity. Compliance refers to behavior that occurs in response to a direct, directive demand or request to act in a specific way.

The Situation of Making a Request

The situation in which a requester and the recipient of a request find themselves is fraught with psychological costs for both parties, but the requester’s position is usually more vulnerable.

Of course, this is unless a person is used to being a perpetual requester and has made asking for things their main or even only behavioral strategy. In such cases, the individual may even enjoy demonstrating helplessness and dependence, taking pleasure in showing weakness and lack of independence, portraying themselves as a victim of circumstances who always needs care, supervision, and help.

Such people do not feel discomfort when making requests. On the contrary, they feel satisfaction from playing the role of the requester well, especially if it brings the results they hoped for.

However, for many people, being in the position of a requester is unpleasant for several reasons:

• It may be incompatible with their self-image. Most people see themselves as independent, self-sufficient individuals, so it is difficult for them to see themselves as requesters.
• People dislike showing their dependence on others, revealing helplessness, inability, or the impossibility of solving their own problems.
• When making a request, a person always fears being refused. Someone already uncomfortable in the role of requester feels humiliated if refused, adding frustration and negative emotions.

Erving Goffman wrote that in any social interaction, people primarily strive to “save face” (Goffman, 1984). To achieve this, they try to behave in ways that make a good impression. For many, even a trivial request is a big problem, and they are willing to endure inconvenience or financial loss rather than ask someone for help.

An implicitly stated request is an attempt to influence a person, to change their behavior, intentions, goals, or plans. Essentially, the requester is saying, “Drop what you’re doing and take care of my needs.” This implies, “Your concerns don’t matter, but mine are truly important.”

Thus, trying to get someone to fulfill a request or demand—seeking compliance—implies a certain right or authority to impose one’s concerns on others.

Additionally, a request assumes that the recipient is by nature soft, pliable, ready to yield and agree, someone who can be easily influenced. After all, people don’t make requests of those they don’t expect to be accommodating.

As we can see, the situation of making a request is psychologically challenging for both the requester and the recipient.

Compliance and Politeness

Nevertheless, mutual requests and their fulfillment are among the most widespread forms of social interaction. No one can avoid making requests of others. Most people, as they develop communication skills, learn—some better, some worse—rules and methods of interaction that largely neutralize or at least soften the negative effects of making requests.

The most effective and reliable way to reduce psychological discomfort and “save face” in a request situation is politeness.

According to the “politeness theory” developed by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson, a politely phrased request does not threaten the self-image of either the requester or the recipient. Moreover, polite requests and demands are the most effective way to achieve compliance and agreement (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

Of course, when trying to get what they want, people do not always follow the rules and norms of politeness. Threats, bribery, lies, reproaches, criticism, appeals to duty, conscience, or justice are often used. Psychologically, these are less effective than a simple polite request that does not threaten a person’s self-image.

A refusal expressed politely is also less painful for the requester than a rude rejection. Thus, as comical as the phrase “Asked politely—refused politely” may sound, it is still preferable to a rude request and an equally rude refusal.

Manipulative Influence Techniques

Manipulative influence techniques are based on exploiting existing social norms, that is, using normative influence.

People begin to learn norms of duty and responsibility from early childhood. Everyone knows they should be kind, honest, responsive, hardworking, neat, polite, disciplined, etc. The extent to which these norms are internalized varies. For many, social norms remain external influences rather than internal convictions.

If norms are internalized, they begin to influence behavior through various psychological mechanisms. Accumulated norms of duty affect a person’s emotional state and motivate socially approved behavior.

Main Techniques Exploiting Duty and Responsibility Norms

1. “Foot-in-the-Door” Technique
   This technique gets its name from traveling salespeople or less reputable “network marketers.” Salespeople claim that if they can get their foot in the door, selling the product is easy. The psychological principle is that if a person agrees to a small request (opens the door), they are more likely to agree to a larger request later. The manipulator acts according to the saying, “Give a finger, and they’ll take your whole hand.”
   • The initial small request must be significant enough for the recipient to see themselves as a good, helpful person after agreeing.
   • The person must feel they agreed voluntarily, not under pressure. If the request feels like coercion, the person won’t see their compliance as helping someone else.

   This technique is ineffective with people who see themselves as unyielding, cautious, or pragmatic. Such individuals will likely reject even the first request, making a second, larger request pointless. For them, refusal is an automatic reaction, reinforcing their self-image.

2. “Low Ball” Technique
   Literally meaning “low ball,” this manipulative technique was identified by Robert Cialdini among car salespeople (Cialdini, 1999). The idea is to entice a buyer with a car at a slightly lower price than competitors. After the buyer agrees, the terms change, and the final price is higher than initially promised. The seller justifies the change with various excuses—manager disapproval, market changes, calculation errors, etc.The effectiveness of the “low ball” technique is explained by the commitments the person has already made. They then create justifications to themselves to support their decision. When the initial justification (the low price) disappears, they look for new reasons to stick to their commitment, wanting to maintain their image as a person of their word.

   Another important factor is that the person has already mentally identified with the item, seeing it as their own, making it harder to back out.

3. Bait-and-Switch
   This is a variation of the “low ball” technique. Its effectiveness relies on the same psychological mechanisms, exploiting the sense of responsibility.Imagine you enter a store and see a great shirt at an unexpectedly low price. You know similar shirts elsewhere cost two or three times more. Naturally, you decide to buy it. Suddenly, you find out your size or preferred color is unavailable. The salesperson, seeing your disappointment, offers a similar shirt that fits, but at a much higher price, explaining it’s from a different batch and hasn’t been discounted yet. What do you do?

   Many people will walk away, but manipulative techniques are never universal “keys” that work on everyone. The manipulator is interested in those who feel uncomfortable backing out, especially when the salesperson is polite and attentive. The “bait-and-switch” is aimed at such people.

   It’s important to note that the sense of responsibility only arises when a person voluntarily commits. If obligations are imposed from outside, they are perceived as external pressure and have little effect.

4. “Door-in-the-Face” Technique
   This technique works as follows: first, a person is asked to fulfill an extremely burdensome request. After they refuse, they are asked for a much smaller favor, which they usually agree to. This is the goal of “compliance professionals.”Compliance after a reduced request is explained by the person perceiving the reduction as a concession to them, prompting them to reciprocate and not appear ungrateful or cold-hearted. In other words, they respond to a concession with a concession.

   Another reason for compliance is the “contrast principle.” The much smaller request seems trivial compared to the initial, exaggerated one. The effectiveness of the “door-in-the-face” technique depends on the noticeable difference between the requests. The first request should be high but still realistic, not fantastical, or it will be dismissed outright.

   For this technique to work, both requests must come from the same person and concern the same issue (Cialdini, 1999).