Compliance as a Function of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior 1 Running head : Compliance as a Function of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior Action

Content Provider	Semantic Scholar
Author	Than, Speaks Louder Wiebenga, Jacob H.
Copyright Year	2006
Abstract	In the present study, the moderating effect of verbal behavior was examined on the mediated relation between nonverbal behavioral cues and compliance via perceived credibility. In contrast with previous research, the gaining of compliance is considered an interaction process, i.e., the impact of a verbal social influence technique is considered in concordance with nonverbal behavior. The results indicate that the effect of nonverbal cues (i.e., duping delight vs. distressed deception (Ekman, 2001)) on compliance was mediated by credibility when a sequential request technique was used (vs. only the target request). This study also examined the role of individual differences on part of the recipient, more specifically the role of personal need for structure (Neuberg & Newsom, 1993). When individuals were low in their need for structure, the effect of nonverbal behavior and verbal influence technique on compliance and credibility was more pronounced. Compliance as a Function of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior 3 Action Speaks Louder Than Words: The Moderating Effect of Verbal Behavior on the Mediated Relation Between Nonverbal Behavior and Compliance via Credibility We may not be aware of it, but we are continually exposed to sources who try to influence our behavior in order to gain compliance for their cause. Think about salesmen and advertisers. Often these are professionals who are equipped with knowledge of scripts that are presented to their targets that enhance compliance. Less often they are equipped with knowledge about how to present that scripted behavior, simply because not much is known about it. This research will therefore focus on the nonverbal behavior that is presented in social influence settings. That is, the current study investigates the relationship between verbal and nonverbal behavior of an agent and the perceived credibility of that agent, and also its effect on compliance. More specifically, it is argued that deception cues affect compliance via credibility as a function of the verbal influence technique that is used by the agent. Furthermore, the influence of the recipient on this process is considered as a function of the personal need for structure. In the following section a model of moderated mediation is described. Verbal influence techniques will be discussed as well as nonverbal behavioral patterns that arise because of emotions aroused by deception. Also the role of recipients' individual differences is considered. Next, the experiment is reported in which a model of moderated mediation is tested as well as the influence of personal need for structure on its functioning. Influence and Verbal Behavior Former studies on social influence mainly focused on the verbal techniques that are used to explain responses of targets on a request. Examples of those techniques are the FootIn-The-Door technique (Freedman & Fraser, 1966), the Door-In-The-Face technique (Cialdini, Vincent, Lewis, Catalan, Wheeler & Darby, 1975), the Disrupt-Then-Reframe Compliance as a Function of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior 4 technique (Davis & Knowles, 1999; Fennis, Das & Pruyn, 2004) and the Continued Question Procedure (Burger, 1999; Cialdini, Trost & Newsom, 1995). In the Foot-In-The-Door technique consistency for an issue is acquired by doing a small request that almost everyone grants. After this small request a larger request is done, the actual target request. Because of the pressure felt by the target to be consistent in behavior (see Burger, 1999), the target request is more often granted than when the target request is done immediately. Cialdini et al. (1995) found that compliance became even higher if the agent made more requests. This Continued Questions Procedure uses the same process as the foot-in-the-door technique, but tries to acquire more consistency and as a result compliance by asking more initial questions. A condition for the functioning is that the initial target request is a logical continuation of the questions before. What these techniques have in common is that they 'misuse' our automatic behavior that plays a vital role in handling the world in an efficient manner. It is simply impossible to continuously process all the available information and situations and so we are dependent on our automatic behavior (Cialdini, 2001). These automatic behavioral patterns are called heuristics and are activated by one aspect of relevant information with respect to the context and situation the information is given in. These aspects can be seen as structural cues that trigger the use of heuristics. Examples of important heuristics are the rule of reciprocity (the rule that forces us to give someone else a proportional compensation for what that person has given to us) and the rule of consistency (the rule that forces us to act in accordance with a choice or a belief and to persist in that behavior). What the techniques further have in common is that they make use of a sequence of request moments, the heuristic is mostly activated by carrying out multiple steps and questions before the final target request is done. In these sequences structural cues are given. They are thought to work because of the process of mindlessness/mindfulness (Langer, 1992). When a target presumes there is no reason to Compliance as a Function of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior 5 process the available information critically (i.e., mindless), often the individual does not consider the context in which the information is given. The target trusts the given structural cues and as a result activates scripted behavior, what especially with a sequential request technique leads to compliance. Compliance is a particular response on a certain kind of communication, i.e., a request. The request can be done implicit or explicit, but in both cases the target knows the preferred way of responding (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Influence And Nonverbal behavior What could be deduced from this is that when an individual is mindless and structural cues are given, the recipient always responds in accordance with the scripted behavior. Fortunately this is not the case. But why? A large number of studies found no increase or even a decrease in compliance when using a sequential request technique. Also size of effect of the sequential request techniques is relatively small. Ultimately, no one s쳮ded in giving a satisfactory explanation for these mixed conclusions (Burger, 1999). It looks like there is some missing link that can account for these effects. A lot of research has focused on the procedure that was used, on the way the technique was delivered and on the behavior of the target. However in a communication process in which a sequential request is used most often an interaction takes place, i.e., between an agent and a target. Previous research analyzed this interaction mainly from a monologuous perspective, i.e., without interaction moments. However interaction moments shape possibilities to give feedback. The kind of feedback can ultimately influence compliance (Fennis, 2006). Furthermore, little research is done on the role of nonverbal behavior during the performing of a sequential request technique. This is despite the fact that much communication is realized by nonverbal behavior and this nonverbal behavior can not be eliminated. The most important role of nonverbal behavior is meta-communication. Repeatedly it has been demonstrated that when verbal communication contradicts nonverbal communication, observers rely more on Compliance as a Function of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior 6 the nonverbal behavior when they have to form an opinion (Hale & Stiff, 1990). So nonverbal behavior is an important source for feedback in a target request setting, but especially in a sequential request condition when people are mindless and react stronger to nonverbal behavior (Smith & Shaffer, 1991). During the act of social influencing it is important for an agent to control this nonverbal behavior. This is called the process of self-presentation, a matter of regulating one's own behavior to create a particular impression on others (DePaulo, 1992). Regulating one's nonverbal behavior plays a role in the communication of especially a social influence technique, because the nonverbal behaviour has to be congruent with the verbal behaviour of an agent. Deception. It is important to notice that the automatic behavior makes us vulnerable for people who know how to activate those behavioral scripts in order to gain compliance on a target request. In extreme cases the deliberate activation of automatic behavior by an agent can lead a target to grant a request that would be refused if no influence technique was used (Paese & Gilin, 2000). This has all the characteristics of deception. According to Ekman (2001) deception takes place when one person intends to mislead another, doing so deliberately, without prior notification of this purpose and without having been explicitly asked to do so by the target. In other words, when someone uses a social influence technique that agent could be blamed for deceit. With deception someone tries to appear honest while someone is not. Out of this discrepancy between what liars claim and what they believe to be true evolve cues to deceit. These cues arise because with deception three processes occur, namely cognitive, controlling and emotional processes (Ekman, 2001; Vrij, 2000; DePaulo, Lindsay, Malone, Muhlenbruck, Charlton & Cooper, 2003). Cognitive processes influence behavior because it's difficult to come up with a lie that is credible. Control processes influence behavior because often a liar tries too hard to make an honest impression. Cognitive and control processes mainly account for deception cues when the preparation for the lying Compliance as a Function of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior 7 was bad and liars are more busy with the content of the lie then with lying itself. Emotional processes influence behavior b
File Format	PDF HTM / HTML
Alternate Webpage(s)	http://essay.utwente.nl/57576/1/scriptie_Wiebenga.pdf
Language	English
Access Restriction	Open
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article