Lectures Week 4-6
Week 4: Lecture 10 - Interpersonal influence ..................................................................................... 1
Burger, JM (1986). Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that's not-all technique.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 277-283. Available: UBVU ................................. 6
Week 4: Lecture 11 – Advertising: persuasion principles in practice .................................................. 7
Gorn, G. J. (1982). The Effects of Music in Advertising on Choice Behavior: A Classical
Conditioning Approach. Journal of Marketing, 46(1), 94. ............................................................. 17
Week 4: Lecture 12 – (Subliminal) priming and social cognition ...................................................... 19
Strahan, Erin J, Steven J Spencer, Mark P Zanna. “Subliminal priming and persusion: Striking
while the iron is hot.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38, no. 6 (2002): 556-568....... 29
Week 5: Lecture 13 – consumer memory and attention................................................................... 30
Week 5: Lecture 14 - Brands and Brand extensions .......................................................................... 39
Breves, P. L., Liebers, N., Abt, M., & Kunze, A. (2019). The perceived fit between instagram
influencers and the endorsed brand: How influencer–brand fit affects source credibility and
persuasive effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 59(4), 440-454.................................. 53
Week 5: Lecture 15 – Targeting, Positioning and Segmentation ....................................................... 54
Week 6: Lecture 16 – Advertising and Affect .................................................................................... 64
Das, E., Galekh, M., & Vonkeman, C. (2015). Is sexy better than funny? Disentangling the
persuasive effects of pleasure and arousal across sex and humour appeals. International Journal
of Advertising, 34(3), 406-420 ....................................................................................................... 72
Week 6: Lecture 17 - Resisting (harmful) persuasion ........................................................................ 74
van Huijstee, D., Vermeulen, I., Kerkhof, P., & Droog, E. (2022). Continued influence of
misinformation in times of COVID‐19. International Journal of Psychology, 57(1), 136-145. .... 111
Week 6: Lecture 18 - Last things + Mock exam .............................................................................. 113
Week 6: Lecture 19 Q&A ................................................................................................................. 115
2 hrs video ....................................................................................................................................... 117
Part I: Central route ..................................................................................................................... 117
Part II: The peripheral route and the rest .................................................................................... 129
Week 4: Lecture 10 - Interpersonal influence
Literature: Perloff Chapter 12
Burger, JM (1986). Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that's not-all technique.
YouTube
Interview with Robert Cialdini about the principles
- Learned about persuasion:
, o Expectation: best persuaders would spend more time structuring how to
persuade (logic, features, arrangements,…)
o Top performers: spent more time noticing what they said immediately before
their request/ persuasion attempt (this changed how people perceived their
position)
▪ Preparing the ground for their case
o What are the hobbies and interests of the audience? (golf ball example)
Interpersonal influence
Cialdini - 6 principles of persuasion
(https://worldofwork.io/2019/07/cialdinis-6-principles-of-persuasion/ > explanation of 6
principles)
(1) Reciprocity
a. Equality/ balance: be the first to act and give someone a personalized and
unexpected gift
b. Examples: waiter gives mints with the bill, workshop facilitators provide
cookies
(2) Commitment and consistency
a. If I convince you to act in a way and you will think of yourself as that type of
(good) person, you will be more likely to act in the way again in the future
b. Inconsistency is an aversive state (Festinger, Heider)
c. Example: me saying to my boss that “generally speaking some flexibility in
working patterns is a good thing”, then the boss is much more likely to agree
with a proposed 4 day working week
(3) Social proof/ consensus
a. Conforming to the norms of a social group seems important
b. Example: 8 out of 10 hotel guests choose to reuse their towels is very effective
(4) Authority
a. Individuals who have more authority, are more credible and knowledgeable in
their fields are more influential and persuasive
b. Examples: dentists in white coats selling us toothpaste, airline staff wearing
uniforms,…
(5) Liking
a. people are more likely to be persuaded by those that they like, similarities are
brought to surface, people feel more comfortable with the exchange
b. example: making compliments in the work place, before trying to influence
(6) Scarcity
a. the less there is of something, the more people seem to want it
b. examples: limited editions, selling something in one specific time frame only,
only… left at this price
,1. Commitment and consistency
- Inconsistency is an aversive state (Festinger, Heider)
• Foot-in-the-Door technique (Freedman & Fraser, 1966; Dillard, 1990; Rittle, 1981)
irst
o Ask something small initially to get a person to later agree to a bigger
request
• Alternative explanation:
– self-perception theory (Bem)
• Low-balling (Cialdini et al, 1978)
o Showing low price first and adding expenses along the way (Ryanair
luggage, Airbnb service costs,…), a technique designed to gain compliance
by making a very attractive initial offer to induce a person to accept the
offer and then making the term less favourable (e.g. reveal hidden costs)
• Continued questions procedure (“can I ask you sth?”)
2. Disruption / confusion
- (Slightly) confusing someone reduces resistance to influence
• Pique-Technique (Santos et al., 1994): piquing interest & disrupting refusal script
(request in itself is confusing: asking for specific amount of money)
o make an unusual request that leads people to wonder why you are making
that particular request and hence pay attention to you
• Fear-then-Relief technique (Dolinski et al., 1998; 2002) : shortly scare someone
like blowing a whistle to cause attention
o evoking fear, seeking a solution, providing solution that leads them in the
direction you choose
• Disrupt-Then-Reframe-Technique (Davis & Knowles, 1999; Fennis, Das, & Pruyn,
2004, 2005):
o Make a statement that goes off the normal track of how the other person
thinks. Then make a rational-sounding statement that makes apparent
sense and leads the other person to agree to your request.
o Experiment: Davis and Knowles told customers that a package of eight
cards sold for $3.00, and subsequently made sales to approximately 40%
of customers. When they told customers that "the price of eight cards is
300 pennies, which is a bargain", then sales doubled to 80% of customers
, Fennis, Das & Pruyn, 2004 - Selling postcards for an NGO
• Disrupt-then-Reframe: “The cards are 350 Euro cents… that's 3 and a half Euros.
It's a bargain!”
• Price only: "They are 3 and a half Euros."
• Reframe only: It's a bargain! ”
• Disruption only: "They are 350 Euro cents ... that's 3 and a half Euros."
• Reframe-then-Disrupt: “It's a bargain…. They are 350 Euro cents… that's 3 and a
half Euros. ”
Results
• DTR leads to fewer counterarguments
• DTR leads to more consent
• DTR increases the effectiveness of other 'mindless' techniques
Conclusion
• Supports Thought-Disruption Hypothesis (Fennis, Das, & Pruyn, 2004):
• confusion leads to mindlessness
o mindlessness: in the supermarket: “Can I go first? I need to pay…”
(3) Reciprocity
“If I do something for you, you have to give something in return”
•
Booklets, gifts (religious groups, newspaper subscriptions)
•
Door-in-the-face technique (Cialdini & Ascani, 1976; O’ Keefe & Figge, 1999;
Mowen & Cialdini, 1980)
o Making a large, unreasonable request first, followed by a smaller, more
acceptable one. The idea is that the contrast between the two requests
makes the second one seem more reasonable and appealing, increasing
the likelihood of compliance
• Alternative explanations:
o Guilt
o Anchoring (SJT, Sherif & Sherif, 1967)
➢ You are asked for something and if you reject you feel like you own them something
(if they asked for something big and then small, you are more likelky with giving them
something small instead)
o Example: helping for a week vs for an hour
