FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W61698393> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W61698393 abstract "Previous research in social psychology shows that people’s willingness to comply with a request depends on variables such as how the request is phrased and a number of other situational factors. One of the situational factors is whether there is an existing relationship between the person making the request and the person who is being asked. In an existing relationship, rapport between the individuals has already been established, and it is more likely that one person will comply with a request made by the other person in the relationship. Through a study of compliance, we measured to see if there was a difference between presenting a questionnaire in written format or as an interview in order to establish rapport. We presented our participants with four levels of compliance. We analyzed the compliance data using an independent samples t test, which showed no significant difference in compliance between the two groups. Establishing Rapport to Increase Compliance Compliance is an important and prevalent aspect that is present in a variety of social situations and contexts. The American Psychological Association defines compliance as “a change in behavior consistent with a communication source's direct requests” (“Compliance”, n.d.). Many studies have been done on compliance and the factors that affect compliance. Multiple techniques have been found to be effective in increasing compliance along with many other situational factors. The foot-in-the-door technique and the door-in-the-face technique are two widely known techniques that are generally effective in increasing compliance and are used in a wide variety of situations. The door-in-the-face technique has been found to be potentially more effective in increasing compliance. It works to achieve compliance by asking a large request first, which people will most likely reject, then follow up with a smaller request ESTABLISHING RAPPORT TO INCREASE COMPLIANCE 3 (Rodafinos, Vucevic, & Sideridis, 2005). Many other factors also influence compliance. Even physical touch has been shown to be effective in increasing a person’s compliance (Vaidis & Halimi-Falkowicz, 2008). Findings from other research on physical touch and compliance have shown touch be very influential, and have even shown touch to have a positive influence on a person’s compliance to much larger requests as well (Gueguen & Fischer-Lokou, 2002). Many social factors affect compliance. Research that has been done to look at the effects of the foot-in-the-door technique and the door-in-the-face technique have also looked at the social influences explaining why a person is more likely to comply when these techniques are applied, which often deals with self-perception or a person’s thoughts about what others think of themself in regards to helpfulness (Goldman, 1986). In regards to social factors and compliance, rapport or relationship is a widely used concept that is thought to have a positive influence on a person’s compliance to a request. When there is a personal relationship established or a person likes the other, compliance with a request is more likely to occur (Cialdini, 1993, as cited in Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, Einarsson, & Einarsson, 2008). Several studies have been done regarding different factors associated with building a relationship or rapport with a person in which compliance was positively affected. A study by Howard and Gengler (1995) measured the effect of remembering someone’s name on compliance. They collected participants who were students in a class in which introductions had previously been established and the professor either remembered the student’s name or did not. The students were asked to complete a math questionnaire and the researchers measured the time that the participant took to begin the task and the time it took participants to bring the questionnaire back to the professor as dependent variables used to measure compliance. They found that students whose name had been remembered began the task in less time and ESTABLISHING RAPPORT TO INCREASE COMPLIANCE 4 returned the questionnaire in less time than the participants whose names had not been remembered, indicating greater motivation for compliance in the group whose names were remembered (Howard & Gengler, 1995). Howard, Gengler, and Jain (1997) completed a second similar study of compliance to a second request, which was measured after manipulating whether the participant’s name was remembered or not. In this experiment, they took students from a class who had previously introduced themselves and volunteered to participate in a study that dealt with a class evaluation. During their meeting, the professor either remembered the participant’s full name or did not remember. After the initial request, the professor then asked the students if they wanted to purchase cookies, which was the measured variable. The researchers also manipulated whether the cookie sale was in another room or in the same room the participant and professor were in. The results of this study showed that the participants whose names were remembered had a greater probability of purchasing cookies and purchased significantly more cookies than the participants whose names were not remembered. Their results supported the hypothesis that there would be greater compliance in those whose names were remembered (Howard et al., 1997). Both of the studies on remembering names and compliance support the idea that developing a more personal relationship, by remembering a person’s name, compliance can be increased. Other studies have been done on the effects of relational aspects on compliance. Millar (2002 conducted a study of compliance in friends versus strangers and their concerns of selfpresentation. In this study, participants were gathered to form a group who would be on the receiving end of a request and the other participants were instructed to make requests to the other group of participants. The requests were made to both strangers and friends of the requestors. The requests were also made in two forms, one where the participants received one simple ESTABLISHING RAPPORT TO INCREASE COMPLIANCE 5 request and the other that was designed to test the door-in-the-face phenomenon by asking participants one large request and a smaller, simpler request after the initial request. All participants were asked to fill out a health questionnaire, then the request in either form was made which included forms of recording eating habits and after the request, another questionnaire was given to participants asking about their concern for self-presentation. In both compliance measures, the verbal agreement and the actual completion of the request, friends and strangers who received only the initial simple request exhibited nearly the same amount of compliance, but in the door-in-the-face condition, friends of the requestor were significantly more likely to comply than strangers were. Friends in the door-in-the-face condition were also significantly more concerned about self-presentation than strangers in this condition were. This suggests that compliance is affected by concern for self-presentation when there is a relationship established (Millar, 2002). In a similar study, Kilbourne (1988) compared compliance of friends and strangers and the effect of the foot-in-the-door technique. In this study, the researchers requested various forms of a phone interview, which friends either were asked to complete a simple request, a larger request, or were asked to complete a simple request followed by the large request, or strangers were asked to complete only the larger request. Compliance was measured simply by the verbal agreement to complete the phone interview. The results of this study showed high compliance from friends in all conditions and less compliance from strangers. The results also showed that friends of women were more likely to comply than friends of men were in the large request. Their findings imply that compliance is more likely when there is a relationship established (Kilbourne, 1988). ESTABLISHING RAPPORT TO INCREASE COMPLIANCE 6 The present study was designed to determine whether compliance to a request could be increased by establishing rapport. Participants were put into two groups; one group was given a questionnaire in written form and the other was given the same questionnaire as an interview. The interview was given in order to establish rapport between the participant and the researcher. Rapport was not established with participants who received the questionnaire in written form. We then made a second request to all participants, which asked if the participant would be willing to participate in future research, which included varying levels of compliance. The second request was used to measure compliance and the level of compliance. Based on the findings from Kilbourne (1988) and Millar (2002) suggesting that compliance is greater when there is an established relationship between the requestor and the person receiving the request, we predicted that compliance would be greater in those that we established rapport with through an oral interview. The results from Howard and Gengler (1995) and Howard, Gengler, and Jain (1997) also suggested that more personal encounters, for example, remembering a person’s name, increased a person’s compliance to a request. Based on the findings from those studies, we believe that establishing rapport through the oral interview would create personal encounters with participants and lead to greater compliance to our later request." @default.
• W61698393 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W61698393 creator A5001527423 @default.
• W61698393 date "2013-01-01" @default.
• W61698393 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W61698393 title "Establishing Rapport to Increase Compliance" @default.
• W61698393 cites W1981946861 @default.
• W61698393 cites W1996792641 @default.
• W61698393 cites W1999378010 @default.
• W61698393 cites W2029207126 @default.
• W61698393 cites W2040167560 @default.
• W61698393 cites W2040842263 @default.
• W61698393 cites W2056769916 @default.
• W61698393 cites W2072657247 @default.
• W61698393 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W61698393 type Work @default.
• W61698393 sameAs 61698393 @default.
• W61698393 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W61698393 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W61698393 hasAuthorship W61698393A5001527423 @default.
• W61698393 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W61698393 hasConcept C2781460075 @default.
• W61698393 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W61698393 hasConceptScore W61698393C15744967 @default.
• W61698393 hasConceptScore W61698393C2781460075 @default.
• W61698393 hasConceptScore W61698393C77805123 @default.
• W61698393 hasLocation W616983931 @default.
• W61698393 hasOpenAccess W61698393 @default.
• W61698393 hasPrimaryLocation W616983931 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W12946734 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W164819562 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W1904999285 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W1983139041 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W1985473884 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W1988994266 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W1993599711 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W1997940955 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W2004682544 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W2020190362 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W2028168466 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W2032799966 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W2037572433 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W2055360393 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W2064191623 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W2109630906 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W2133367185 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W2143282577 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W2170851528 @default.
• W61698393 hasRelatedWork W2469557420 @default.
• W61698393 isParatext "false" @default.
• W61698393 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W61698393 magId "61698393" @default.
• W61698393 workType "article" @default.