Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
http://psp.sagepub.com
Compliance with a Request in Two Cultures: The Differential Influence of Social Proof and
Commitment/Consistency on Collectivists and Individualists
Robert B. Cialdini, Wilhelmina Wosinska, Daniel W. Barrett, Jonathan Butner and Malgorzata Gornik-Durose
Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1999; 25; 1242
DOI: 10.1177/0146167299258006
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/25/10/1242
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/25/10/1242
1242
Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on January 26, 2010
1988), self-concept (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), selfenhancement tendencies (Heine & Lehman, 1995,
1997), workplace values (Hofstede, 1980), workplace
conformity (Hamilton & Sanders, 1995), self-disclosure
(Derlega & Stepien, 1977; Won-Doornink, 1985), and
numerous other social psychological variables.
Similarly, the individualism/collectivism (I/C)
dimension, the most studied cross-cultural variable in
social psychological research in the last decade (e.g.,
Hofstede, 1980; Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, &
Yoon, 1994; Triandis, 1995), has been little examined for
its effects on persuasion (Han & Shavitt, 1994). Bond
and Smiths (1996) meta-analysis of conformity studies
using the Asch line judgment task in 17 countries,
although providing insight into the relationship
between conformity and I/C, had to introduce I/C as a
mediator in a post facto manner because the original
researchers did not include this variable in their
analyses.
The main purpose of the present research was to
investigate the effect of individualistic versus collectivistic tendencies on the effectiveness of selected principles
of social influence. We begin by briefly describing some
of the defining attributes of the I/C dimension. We then
introduce two principles of social influence (social proof
and commitment/consistency) that we hypothesize will
be differentially affected by I/C orientation.
I/C as a Cultural
and Personal Dimension
I/C is considered a core dimension of cultural variability (Han & Shavitt, 1994; Hofstede, 1980; Kim et al.,
1994; Smith & Bond, 1994). Members of individualistic
societies tend to define the self as autonomous and independent from groups, whereas in collectivistic societies,
the self is defined more in terms of group membership
(Kim, 1994). Differences also are found in the relationship between personal goals and in-group goals. Personal goals tend to be distinct from and prioritized above
in-group goals in an individualistic society. In a collectivistic culture, on the other hand, personal goals and communal goals are more closely related and, when discrepant, the former are subordinated to the latter (Triandis,
1995, 1996). In individualistic nations, attitudes typically
take precedence over norms as determinants of social
behavior, whereas the opposite is true in collectivistic
nations. Furthermore, in an individualistic society, interpersonal relationships are established and maintained
primarily on the basis of their individual costs and benefits, whereas relationships are judged primarily on their
value to the group and only secondarily with respect to
their value to the individual in a collectivistic culture
(Triandis, 1995, 1996). In total, as collectivistic orientation increasingly characterizes a society, the focus of
1243
1244
Participants
Participants consisted of 505 undergraduates in several psychology classes at Arizona State University in the
United States and at the University of Silesia in Poland.
They participated in a study described as a two-fold investigation into factors affecting (a) willingness to participate in a survey and (b) perceptions of social relationships. In Poland, the sample included 109 males and 161
females; the U.S. sample included 63 males and 172
females. A preliminary data analysis revealed no significant differences due to gender, F(1, 503) = .04, ns. Consequently, this factor is not treated further.
Design
A 2 2 3 factorial design with one continuous variable was used in this study. Two categories of national
culture (United States, Poland), two categories of social
1245
influence principle (social proof, commitment/consistency), and three levels of each social influence variable
(high, moderate, low intensity) were included. In addition, personal I/C orientation was incorporated as a continuous fourth factor. Participants were randomly
assigned to the two social influence principles and participated in each of the three levels of influence intensity
within that principle.
Procedure
After the study was introduced in class, each participant read the following scenario in his or her native
language:
Imagine that you are walking out of the student union at
your university and that an individual approaches you.
This person is a representative from the Coca-Cola Company and asks you to participate in a survey. The representative explains that Coca-Cola is studying consumer
preferences for a particular brand of soft drink. You will
be asked to answer a few questions about the product,
taste a small amount of it, and answer more questions
such as How familiar are you with this brand of soft
drink? Have you heard or seen advertisements for it?
When was the last time you saw this brand at the store?
and a variety of similar questions. The representative
asks you to participate in the survey today, which will take
approximately 40 minutes.
1246
questions designed to assess both the perceived presence of individualistic/collectivistic tendencies in a culture and their evaluation. The first question of each pair
measures the participants perception of the frequency
of specific behaviors in the participants native country,
such as consulting ones family before making an important decision. Responses are made on a 7-point scale
ranging from 0 (not at all) to 6 (always). The second question in each pair assesses the individuals evaluation of
this behavior using a 7-point scale ranging from 0 (very
bad) to 6 (very good). For the current study, the COS was
used without modification (see Bierbrauer et al., 1994)
and the overall measure of I/C orientation, which averages responses to all 26 items, was used.
Type of social influence principle. Approximately half of
the participants were instructed to rate their willingness
to comply with the survey request while taking into
account information about their peers (SP) prior compliance with such survey requests and about half while
considering information about their own (C/C) prior
compliance with such survey requests.
Intensity of the social influence principle. Participants in
the SP condition indicated their willingness to comply
with the survey request three times: once when considering that in the past all their classmates had complied with
similar requests (high intensity), once when considering
that about half had complied (moderate intensity), and
once when considering that none had complied (low
intensity). Similarly, participants in the C/C condition
indicated their willingness to comply when considering
that in the past they themselves had always complied,
had complied about half of the time, and had never complied with similar requests. Thus, the intensity variable
was manipulated as a within-subjects factor.1
Dependent Variables
Willingness to comply. Participants indicated their willingness to comply with the marketing survey request first
on 9-point scales ranging from 0 (no likelihood) to 8 (very
high likelihood). They did so three times, once for each
level of the intensity factor.
Willingness to collaborate. Participants then indicated
the extent to which their willingness to comply would
change if the marketing survey required collaborative
group answers to its questions. They did so on a second
9-point scale ranging from 0 (much less likely) to 8 (much
more likely).
RESULTS
Figure 1a
1247
Effect of social proof on likelihood of compliance in Poland and the United States.
Figure 2a
Figure 1b
Figure 2b
1248
Figure 3a
Figure 3b
Figure 3c
Figure 3d
this was the case in both the United States and Poland. In
contrast, compared to collectivists, individualists compliance decisions were more affected by their own compliance histories; unexpectedly, however, this was only
the case in the United States.
Figure 4
1249
1250
Figure 5b
1251
1252
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting
social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Anderson, M. C., & Spellman, B. A. (1995). On the status of inhibitory
mechanisms in cognition: Memory retrieval as a model case. Psychological Review, 102, 68-100.
Aronson, E. (1992). The return of the repressed: Dissonance theory
makes a comeback. Psychological Inquiry, 3, 303-311.
Bandura, A., Grusec, J. E., & Menlove, F. L. (1967). Vicarious extinction of avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
5, 16-23.
Bargh, J. A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life. In R. S. Wyer, Jr.
(Ed.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 10, pp. 1-61). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berkowitz, L. (1972). Social norms, feelings, and other factors affecting helping behavior and altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 66-108). New York: Academic Press.
Bierbrauer, G., Meyer, H., & Wolfradt, U. (1994). Measurement of normative and evaluative aspects in individualistic and collectivistic orientations: The Cultural Orientation Scale (COS). In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism
and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 189-194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A metaanalysis of studies using Aschs (1952b, 1956) line judgment task.
Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111-137.
Bontempo, R., Lobel, S., & Triandis, H. (1990). Compliance and value
internalization in Brazil and the United States: Effects of allocentrism and anonymity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 200-213.
Buunk, B. P., & Baker, A. B. (1995). Extradyadic sex: The role of
descriptive and injunctive norms. Journal of Sex Research, 32,
313-318.
Cialdini, R. B. (1987). Compliance principles of compliance professionals: Psychologists of necessity. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P.
Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 165184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: Science and practice (3rd ed.). New York:
HarperCollins.
Cialdini, R. B., & Baumann, D. J. (1981). Littering: A new unobtrusive
measure of attitude. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 254-259.
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of
normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,
1015-1026.
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94,
369-389.
Derlega, V. J., & Stepien, E. G. (1977). Norms regulating self-disclosure
among Polish university students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
8, 369-376.
Diener, E., Larson, R. J., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). Person by situation
interactions: Choice of situations and congruence response models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 580-592.
Dillard, J. P. (1991). The current status of research on sequentialrequest compliance techniques. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 283-288.
Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of
the United States and the Peoples Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 565-581.
Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial
attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013-1027.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations, 7, 117-140.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
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.
Furnham, A. (1984). Studies of cross-cultural conformity: A brief and
critical review. Psychologia, 27, 65-72.
Gabrenya, W. K., Wang, Y. E., & Latane, B. (1985). Social loafing on an
optimizing task: Cross-cultural differences among Chinese and
Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 223-242.
Garland, A. F., & Zigler, E. (1993). Adolescent suicide prevention: Current research and social policy implications [Special issue: Adolescence]. American Psychologist, 48, 169-182.
Goethals, G. R., & Darley, J. M. (1977). Social comparison theory: An
attributional approach. In J. M. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Washington,
DC: Hemisphere/Halsted.
Hamilton, V. L., & Sanders, J. (1995). Crimes of obedience and conformity in the workplace: Surveys of Americans, Russians, & Japanese.
Journal of Social Issues, 51, 67-88.
Han, S., & Shavitt, S. (1994). Persuasion and culture: advertising
appeals in individualistic and collectivistic societies. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 326-350.
Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107-112.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John
Wiley.
Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1995). Cultural variation in unrealistic
optimism: Does the West feel more invulnerable than the East? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 595-607.
Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1997). Culture, dissonance, and selfaffirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 389-400.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in
work-related values (Abridged). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hornstein, H. A., Fisch, E., & Holmes, M. (1968). Influence of a models feeling about his behavior and his relevance as a comparison
other on observers helping behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 10, 222-226.
Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43,
23-34.
Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Conceptual clarification and elaboration. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C.
Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory,
method, and applications (pp. 189-194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.-C., & Yoon, G. (Eds.).
(1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Levine, R. V. (1988). The pace of life across cultures. In J. E. McGrath
(Ed.), The social psychology of time (pp. 39-60). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Milne, A. B. (1995). The dissection of selection in person perception: Inhibitory processes in
social stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,
397-407.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications
for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98,
224-253.
Mayer, S. F., & Sutton, K. (1996). Personality: An integrative approach.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Miller, J. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social
explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961-978.
Newcomb, T. M. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative
acts. Psychological Review, 60, 393-404.
1253