PREDESTINATION OR CONSIDERATION? A LIFE HISTORY THEORY PERSPECTIVE ON THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCITY ON
COMPLIANCE
Words: 5730
Master’s thesis, MSc Marketing, specialization Marketing Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
January 11, 2018
MATHILDE VAN DER SCHORS Studentnumber: 1869019 Schuitemakersstraat 2-28
9711 HW Groningen tel.: +31 (0)6-48082927
email: m.a.h.van.der.schors@student.rug.nl
First supervisor:
prof. dr. B. M. (Bob) Fennis Second supervisor:
S. A. E. G. (Sumaya) Albalooshi, PhD
Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Bob for his supervision: your structured schedule, helpful comments and incredible patience had a calming effect on me, which I can assure you is rare. This has made it possible for me to write this thesis under barely any stress. A special thanks goes to my Dad who has told me since I was little “there are no free gifts”: it seems I have proven you wrong, Dad. Also, I could not have done this without you. Not only are you the best teacher, you are the best father a girl could wish for.
ABSTRACT
That nonconscious processes influence people in decision-making is why people are induced to comply more when approached with a social influence technique. Life history theory can be used to explain that why people behave differently depends on their childhood history, but this study is the first one to test the link between this theory and the effectiveness of
reciprocity on compliance. Present study proposes the hypotheses that compliance increases when a principle of reciprocity heuristic is active, specifically when someone’s life history strategy (childhood history) is fast compared to a slow LHS. The results of an ANOVA analysis based on data from a conducted field experiment using a 2x2 between subjects factorial design failed to reach significance. However, the trend found showing an opposite direction as from the proposed hypothesis can function as a starting point for future research.
Overall, the norm of reciprocity may not be as integrated in human societies as was suggested in previous research.
Keywords: reciprocity, life history theory, compliance, decision-making, social influence
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ... 4
1.1. Reciprocity ... 4
1.2. Life History Strategy ... 6
1.3. Conceptual Model ... 8
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY ... 9
2.1. Participants and Design ... 9
2.2. Procedure ... 9
2.3. Independent variables ... 10
2.3.1. Reciprocity ... 10
2.3.2. Life history strategy (LHS) ... 11
2.4. Dependent Variable ... 11
2.4.1. Compliance ... 11
2.5. Control Variables ... 12
2.5.1. Age and gender ... 12
2.5.2. Socioeconomic status (SES) ... 12
2.5.3. Dispositional attitudes measure (DAM) ... 12
2.5.4 Self-control scale (SCS) ... 13
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS ... 14
3.1. Moderation and Main Effect ... 14
3.2. Covariates ... 15
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION ... 16
4.1. Summary of Results ... 16
4.2. Theoretical Implications ... 16
4.3. Managerial Implications ... 17
4.4. Limitations and Areas for Future Research ... 18
4.5. Conclusion ... 19
REFERENCES ... 20
APPENDICES ... 23
Appendix A: Script ... 23
Appendix B: Questionnaires ... 25
Appendix C: Target Request ... 31
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
You may know that feeling: sales agents using their ‘tricks’ in order to persuade you into buying something you do not want or need. But even though you are aware of those tricks, you still catch yourself having a hard time resisting them. What makes it so hard to resist? Why do we end up buying products we are actually not interested in?
Fitzsimons et al. (2002) argue that a choice process of a consumer is more influenced by nonconscious processes than is believed. During recent years, there has been an increase in research that focuses on compliance-gaining procedures which are “subtle, indirect, and outside conscious awareness of the target consumer” (Fennis, Janssen and Vohs, 2009). In addition, research has demonstrated that behaviour can be influenced without people being aware of this through priming norms by someone’s social environment (Fennis and Stroebe, 2016). A theory that is of growing importance in explaining human behaviour is the life history theory (LHT) and has been used in research done by evolutionary biologists and behavioural ecologists (Griskevicius, Tybur, Delton and Robertson, 2011). However, in psychology and decision-making the theory has not been tested extensively yet.
The research to be conducted is aimed at contributing to a further insight into life history predictions regarding consumer behaviour. It is suggested that life history strategy, which is related to LHT, will have an influence on the relationship between reciprocity and compliance. Therefore, this study will be focusing on answering the following research question: How does consumers’ childhood history (Life History Strategy) determine how consumers are influenced by the marketing tactic: the principle of reciprocity?
The research is organized as follows: this first chapter will introduce the theoretical framework and hypotheses on which the research question is built. Secondly, the
methodology used for conducting the study will be described. Then, the results of the experiment will be discussed. The last chapter will be devoted to drawing conclusions, outlining theoretical and managerial implications, and presenting suggestions for future research.
1.1. Reciprocity
How come marketers can make consumers say yes to significant requests? Cialdini (1984) has identified some psychological principles of social influence: e.g. authority, commitment/consistency, reciprocity, scarcity, social proof. Professionals using these
influence techniques appeared to be more effective in compliance practices than those not employing them (Cialdini, Wosinska, Barrett and Gornik-Durose, 1999). In this study, compliance refers to the acquiescence to an explicit request (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004).
Here, the focus will be on the principle of reciprocity. You probably know the feeling that when someone does something for you, you also have to do something for that person.
The prevalent norm “do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31, New International Version) is widely recognized throughout the world (Fennis and Stroebe, 2016).
According to Goulder (1960), the rule of reciprocity, which obliges one to return for benefits received, is one of the strongest social norms that influences people across all cultures. It has been found by Regan (1971) that a favour affects compliance because the receiver feels obligated to reciprocate the favour. It has also been demonstrated that this principle operates in commercial exchanges (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). Especially when a favour is
uninvited and smaller than the request for compliance that follows, accepting the favour gives people a latent feeling of indebtedness (Cialdini, 2009; Boster, Fediuk and Kotowski, 2001;
Fennis and Stroebe, 2016). The rule demands a received benefit to be reciprocated with a return and not with an injury, meaning that it allows for flexibility (Gouldner, 1964; Cialdini, 2009). This results in people being more easily inclined to return something with more value than the benefit they have received (Fennis and Stroebe, 2016). From a marketing perspective, it is interesting to see that the things exchanged do not need to be equal in value. Think for example of a perfumery where a free sample of the newest perfume is offered to you. In that case, consumers may be prompt to reciprocate and this may even result in buying the product, which is something of way higher value than the sample received!
The influence techniques mentioned above are most effective when the consumer employs simple cognitive heuristics (Fennis and Stroebe, 2016). These are mental shortcuts that consumers use in a state of mindlessness, which can increase compliance rates.
Employing heuristics is a prevalent way of processing information, since it is very efficient for people to use simple decision cues in order to save cognitive resources when deciding on how to respond to a persuasive message (Chaiken, 1980; Chen and Chaiken, 1999). Marketers can use this to their advantage by applying a compliance technique such as reciprocity and making sure the consumer perceives a favour as a relevant heuristic cue, so consumers will respond to that with an applicable heuristic, namely: returning a favour. Fennis et al. (2009) found in their research that when a heuristic principle of reciprocity is activated, people tend to comply more easily with a request. By proposing that reciprocity increases compliance, Blanchard, Carlson and Hyodo (2016) support this finding. Thus, following these results, a
direct effect of reciprocity on compliance is justified and therefore the first hypothesis states:
H1: The principle of reciprocity has a positive and significant effect on compliance
Are we all inclined to fall back on these heuristics? An interesting question that arises from this is whether the influence principles, reciprocity in particular, have the same strong influence on everyone or are some of us less affected by the rule?
1.2. Life History Strategy
We all have a past, whether we like it or not. And our past determines our present, or as William Wordsworth (1807) put it “The Child is father of the Man”. But what exactly from our past influences us later in life? And to what extent does our past have an effect on us in deciding on buying or not?
According to the life history theory (LHT), all humans have the same problem of how to successfully allocate resources, energy, and time among the tasks needed to maximize fitness (Griskevicius, Delton, Robertson and Tybur, 2011). This framework helps to explain how and why people allocate those limited resources to different goals across their lifetime.
Due to the fact that resources are limited, all humans face trade-offs in allocating towards furthering one task or a different one, which means another life component is either delayed or given up (Griskevicius et al., 2011a). LHT makes the distinction between spending
resources on somatic versus reproductive effort (Hill, 1993). Somatic effort involves investing in growing and maintaining one’s body and mind (e.g. knowledge and skills), whereas
reproductive effort is devoted to enhancing the possible success of immediate reproduction (e.g. intrasexual competition and childcare) (Mittal and Griskevicius, 2014). Consequently, Griskevicius et al. (2011a) conceptualize those efforts as a trade-off between resources spent on current versus future reproduction.
How and when people make trade-offs varies per person, which is reflected in that individual’s life history strategy (LHS) (Griskevicius et al., 2013). The variation in LHS lies on a slow to fast continuum: some individuals follow a slower and others a faster strategy (Ellis, Figueredo, Brumbach and Schlomer, 2009). The LHS of a human is influenced by both genes and the developmental environment (Figueredo et al., 2014). Research indicates that the childhood environment sensitizes LHS (Griskevicius et al., 2011a; 2011b). These
environmental factors include unpredictability, harshness, and resource scarcity, where a harsh and unpredictable environment is characterized by cues as for example the higher
likelihood of death or disease, or because resources are scarce. Because the future is uncertain and individuals have a shorter life expectancy in a harsh and unpredictable environment, they therefore tend to invest less in somatic effort and start immediate reproduction, which is linked to a faster LHS. Conversely, a slower LHS is associated with a more predictable environment where delaying reproduction and investing in future outcomes is favoured (Ellis et al., 2009). Conclusively, individuals with a different strategy decide and act differently too.
Griskevicius et al. (2011b) found that LHS is important for behavioural decision- making and the preference for immediate or delayed rewards: people with a slower LHS rather invest and wait for possible higher payoffs in the future than to gamble away today’s resources, while individuals having a faster LHS prefer any kind of a sure benefit today rather than a potentially better reward tomorrow. Another finding that suggests that people tend to invest now and wait for the benefits expected later on is presented in the research of Trivers (1971). According to him, people who help others reduce their own fitness to increase that of the other because he/she expects the other will reciprocate help at a later moment. The “Tit- for-tat strategy” (Axelrod and Hamilton, 1981) embodied in reciprocity will continue to operate as long as both persons cooperate. Therefore, it could also apply in the long term, since the process basically could go on as long as both partners live (Takezawa and Price, 2010). This could be linked to LHT, which means that Trivers’ (1971) observation would particularly apply to individuals with a slower LHS rather than a faster LHS due to the future focus of these people. However, because immediate rewards are associated with a faster LHS, having a faster LHS could be why people reciprocate relatively more easily than those with a slower LHS, since reciprocating leads to some reward. This reward could be feeling “good”
about oneself when returning a favour (Perugnini, Gallucci, Presaghi and Ercolani, 2003) or getting a good bargain, for example.
Additionally, Griskevicius et al. (2013) found that individuals who grew up in a wealthy environment show less risky and impulsive behaviour, and are more likely to resist temptations. This behaviour is consistent with a slower LHS. When growing up poorer, people tend to be more impulsive and risky, and less able to deal with temptations, which results from a faster LHS. Deriving from this, it can be said that an individual with a faster LHS has more self-control than someone with a slower LHS. Fennis et al. (2009) showed that when people have lower self-control, this promotes increasing reliance on salient reciprocity heuristics in decision-making. This in turn leads to compliance as an efficient behavioural response. Based on these earlier studies, it is expected when an individuals’ self-control is
affected during childhood, it also will in adulthood, which gives the following hypothesis:
H2: A faster LHS amplifies the positive effect of reciprocity on compliance in comparison to a slower LHS
1.3. Conceptual Model
Combining the aforementioned hypotheses leads to the proposed relationships conceptualized in a conceptual framework, shown in figure 1.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model
The main purpose of this research is to find out what influence LHS has on the consumer’s susceptibility to social influence techniques, particularly to the principle of reciprocity. Doing research into both the principle of reciprocity and LHS is not new.
Consequently, the novelty of this research is coming from the moderator effect that will be tested, since it will be the first time the link between LHS and the effectiveness of reciprocity on compliance is tested.
The added value of this study is twofold. The research is aimed at addressing the gap in existing literature. Therefore, it can create valuable contributions to literature on consumer behaviour and may function as a stepping stone for further research. Furthermore, several practical implications of this research could be identified. Knowledge about the effect of LHS on a consumer’s reaction to marketing techniques can help marketers in approaching and responding to consumers more effectively. Moreover, that same knowledge can create more awareness among consumers of their own possible vulnerability.
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
In order to test the hypotheses introduced in the previous chapter, an experiment was conducted. In this section, the research method will be discussed, starting with the design and participants. Then, it will be explained how the procedure was done and after that the relevant variables will be elaborated upon and how they were measured.
2.1. Participants and Design
For this research, a field experiment was conducted using a 2 (LHS: fast vs. slow) x 2 (Heuristic activation: reciprocity vs. no reciprocity) between-subjects factorial design. In total, one hundred randomly selected Dutch participants (40 females, 60 males; mean age 29.74 years, SD = 12.24) volunteered to take part in this study.
2.2. Procedure
I personally carried out the experiment. Participants were recruited at different times in different areas (e.g. university, library, gym) of both the city of Groningen and the town of Emmen in The Netherlands. The experimenter approached the first person that she came across, this to not select the participant. If a child, an elderly person, or a group of people was passing by, the experimenter would wait until a person corresponding to the profile (Dutch speaking men or women of roughly 16 to 70) came along. Furthermore, the personal network of the experimenter was used for recruiting participants. The experimenter aimed to avoid participants who had seen or heard about the experiment to guarantee the greatest measure of objectivity. More male participants were tested because more males than females were present in the areas where the experiment was conducted. The experiment was done in a timespan of one week.
Participants were assigned to one of the four conditions. For two of the four
conditions, fast LHS and slow LHS, the assigning was done after collecting the data when the results were analyzed. For the other two conditions, the reciprocity condition and the no- reciprocity condition, participants were randomly assigned to one of the two after they had complied to volunteer in this study without any constraint taken into account. As a cover story, participants were told that the study consisted of several unrelated tasks concerning consumers’ views and convictions. The experimenter handed every participant typewritten sheets of paper, which were a series of filler questionnaires to be completed. These filler questionnaires were the same for both conditions and meant to measure participants’ LHS,
socioeconomic status, their general attitude towards stimuli, and their self-control. The last part of the survey contained some questions about the participants’ demographics.
The next step involved manipulating the salience of the reciprocity heuristic. In the reciprocity condition, when the participant was finished with filling in the questionnaire, the experimenter offered the participant a bar of chocolate and explained that it was a gift meant to thank the participant for taking part in the study. The chocolate bars were saved in a plastic bag inside a handbag, so that participants could not see the bars. This was done to make sure the favour given was something unexpected. Whether the participant accepted the chocolate offered yes or no, immediately after that, the experimenter pretended to have forgotten one last question to be asked to the participant. The experimenter handed over a single sheet of typewritten paper to seek the participants’ compliance with a request to voluntarily participate in future studies. In the no-reciprocity condition, the experimenter hid the plastic bag
containing the chocolate bars as was done in the reciprocity condition and did not offer a bar of chocolate to the participant, but handed over the paper with the request directly after the participant was done with the questionnaire. At this point, the participant was fully debriefed, thanked for their participation and dismissed by the experimenter. The experiment lasted between 5-7 minutes in total and was repeated until the experimenter confederates had recruited 50 participants in both conditions. A person was counted as a participant when he/she had completed the full experiment.
The experimenter was acting normally and in a similar way in each condition. All written material was translated into Dutch by a bilingual, native Dutch speaker and were reviewed and validated by a second bilingual, native Dutch speaker.
2.3. Independent Variables
2.3.1. Reciprocity. In the reciprocity condition, participants were given a small bar of the well-known Dutch brand Tony’s Chocolonely chocolate (milk caramel seasalt) worth €1,30 as a thank-you gift for participating in the experiment. The experimenter gave this to the
participant after he/she had completed the filler questionnaires and said, “As a way of saying thanks for participating in my research, I would like to give you this” (see Appendix A).
Participants in the no-reciprocity condition did not receive any thank-you gift after completing the questionnaires. The chocolate bar given by the experimenter was aimed at inducing a repayment of the gift on the part of the participant (Cialdini, 2009) in the form of increased compliance with the volunteering request. To assure that the participant considered the gift as an unexpected favour, the chocolate bars were hidden in a bag and participants
knowing (something) beforehand about the chocolate were avoided.
2.3.2. Life history strategy (LHS). In order to assess human LHS the Mini-K was used, which is a 20-item short form of the Arizona Life History Battery (Figueredo et al., 2014). To
measure these constructs, participants responded to the statements on a 7-point Likert scale anchored at 3 (disagree strongly) to 3 (agree strongly). Examples of the items are: “I often make plans in advance” and “I would rather have one than several sexual relationships at a time” (see Appendix B for all items). When the results were analysed, every participant was assigned to one condition: slow or fast LHS. This was done by first determining the reliability of this scale by using Cronbach’s Alpha. Because the value was higher than 0.7 (α = 0.73), it is considered to be reliable (Nunnally, 1978), and therefore a new scale could be created based on the mean of all LHS scores for each participant. Then, again a new (dummy) variable was made based on a median split of 5.20: every mean with that number and below was given a 0, which assigned that participant to a fast LHS and mean scores higher than 5.20 were transformed into a 1, which was translated to a slow LHS. The higher the value of the K- factor, the slower the LHS (M = 5.14, SD = 0.54).
2.4. Dependent Variable
2.4.1. Compliance. As stated by Cialdini and Goldstein (2004), compliance refers to
someone’s response to any kind of request. In all conditions, the target request was whether participants would be willing to volunteer as a future research participant for studies
conducted on behalf of the Department of Marketing of the University of Groningen. At the ostensible end of the experiment, the experimenter remarked to the participant, “Oh! I almost forgot that I have one more question for you. Could you please fill this in?” On a single sheet of paper the following request was asked to the participant: ‘When the Department of
Marketing needs respondents for research in the future, in how many studies are you willing to participate?’ Compliance was measured by number of studies for which participants volunteered (possible range 0-10). The choices were presented in a sequence from low (0) to high (10) (see Appendix C). Participants do not actually have to serve as research participants, but this was not mentioned beforehand to make sure the participants were giving a sincere answer.
2.5. Control Variables
There is a chance that there are other factors affecting the dependent variable,
compliance, besides the independent variables, which may bias the results of the main and/or moderation effect(s). In order to account for possible confounding effects on the results, different scales listed below were measured by asking participants several questions.
2.5.1. Age and gender. This was measured by simply asking respondents to indicate their age and gender (see Appendix B).
2.5.2. Socioeconomic status (SES). Research has shown that childhood environment is important for shaping LHS (Griskevicius et al., 2011a; 2011b). One of the environmental factors is resource scarcity. In order to measure individual differences in perceived resource availability, two types of socioeconomic standing were used assessed by Griskevicius et al.
(2011a; 2011b): To what extent did people feel resource-deprived in their childhood, and to what extent do people feel resource-deprived in the present and foreseeable future? These constructs were measured by asking participants to indicate their agreement with six
statements on a 9-point Likert scale with anchors from 1 (totally disagree) to 9 (totally agree).
An example of a childhood SES item is “My family usually had enough money for things when I was growing up” and current/future SES was measured with items like “I have enough money to buy things I want” and “I don’t think I’ll have to worry about money too much in the future”. A seventh statement, “I speak fluently Czechoslovak language”, was included in the scale as a control question to check whether people are paying attention (see Appendix B for all items). The reliability of the scale was determined by using Cronbach’s Alpha. Because the value was higher than 0.7 (α = 0.76), it is considered to be reliable (Nunnally, 1978), and therefore a new scale could be created based on the mean. The higher the mean score of this scale, the better socioeconomic status it represents (M = 6.01, SD = 1.05).
2.5.3. Dispositional attitudes measure (DAM). The dispositional attitude measure of Hepler and Albarracín (2013) was used in this study to show that people tend to differ in liking or disliking stimuli. This was done by letting participants respond to the 16 items of this measure on a 7-point Likert scale anchored at 1 (extremely unfavourable) to 7 (extremely favourable).
Item examples are: “Architecture” and “Taxes” (see Appendix B for all items). The reliability of this scale was determined by using Cronbach’s Alpha. Because the value was higher than 0.7 (α = 0.71), it is considered to be reliable (Nunnally, 1978), and therefore a new scale
could be created based on the mean. The higher the mean score of all items, the more positive general attitude that person has towards stimuli (M = 4.03, SD = 0.71).
2.5.4 Self-control scale (SCS). In order to assess differences in self-control of the participants participants of this study, the brief self-control measure by Tangney, Baumeister and Boone (2004) was used. Participants responded to the 13-item version of this measure on a 5-point Likert scale with anchors ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Examples of the items are: “I am lazy” and “Sometimes I cannot resist myself to do something of which I know it is wrong” (see Appendix B for all items). 9 of these items are reversed ones, which is why those items were recoded into new variables in SPSS before performing any tests with SCS. The reliability of this scale was determined by using Cronbach’s Alpha. Because the value was higher than 0.7 (α = 0.82), it is considered to be reliable (Nunnally, 1978), and therefore a new scale could be created based on the mean. The higher the score of this mean, the more self-control someone has (M = 3.25, SD = 0.62).
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS
After the experiment was conducted, the data from the questionnaires and the answers to the target request were manually imported in SPSS. The tests run and the accompanying results will be described in this chapter. A significance level of 10% is used throughout this chapter.
3.1. Moderation and Main Effect
Overall, 58% of participants agreed to act as volunteers in response to the target
request. A two-way full factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed on degree of compliance with the target request as a function of life history strategy (slow LHS vs. fast LHS) and heuristic activation (reciprocity vs. no reciprocity). This analysis showed that the interaction between LHS condition and heuristic activation failed to reach significance (F(1, 96) = 0.19, p = .66), so hypothesis 2 is not supported by the results. In fact, the means of the amount of studies participants wanted to volunteer for showed a trend in the opposite direction as from the proposed hypothesis. Participants being given the reciprocity cue after completing the questionnaire and who were in the fast LHS condition, showed lower
compliance (M = 1.33, SD = 1.55) by volunteering for fewer studies than did participants in a slow LHS condition (M = 1.38, SD = 1.72). When the reciprocity principle was not made salient, however, compliance of a fast LHS was higher (M = 1.28, SD = 1.73) compared to compliance rates in the slow LHS condition (M = 1.05, SD = 1.12). Thus, this non-significant trend showed that when people have a slow LHS they might be susceptible to comply more when a reciprocity cue is available in comparison to the control condition, whereas when people are in a fast LHS condition this difference seems to be way smaller (see figure 2).
The statistical model also showed that there is no significant main effect of reciprocity on volunteering behaviour (F(1, 96) = 0.39, p = .54), which is against predictions and
therefore no evidence for hypothesis 1 was found. However, inspection of the means showed that participants complied more when the heuristic principle of reciprocity was made salient (M = 1.36, SD = 1.63) compared to compliance rates in the no-reciprocity condition (M = 1.18, SD = 1.49). This is in line with hypothesis 1 and previous findings, which stated that reciprocity has a positive effect on compliance.
FIGURE 2
Average compliance (amount of studies volunteered for) as a function of LHS and reciprocity
3.2. Covariates
Three scales were included in the analysis to rule out possible confounding effects on the results. The mean scores of SES, DAM, and SCS were included as covariates in a series of full factorial Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVA’s). Additionally, there was tested whether both gender and age had an effect on the results. These tests did not show a significant effect of the three covariates on the results. Besides, when taking these covariates into account, the moderation effect of LHS on the effect of reciprocity on volunteering willingness remained non-significant, as did the main effect of reciprocity on compliance.
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION
In this last chapter, first a review of the hypotheses and a summary of the results presented in the previous chapter will be given. Secondly, there will be a discussion of how the results may inform marketing management practice. After that, future research avenues and limitations of the study will be provided and the chapter will end with a conclusion.
4.1. Summary of Results
The present research developed and tested the hypotheses that proposed that compliance increases when a reciprocity heuristic is active, specifically when LHS is fast compared to a slow LHS. Despite the fact that the findings of the experiment did not support the hypotheses, it was interesting to see that the opposite might be true: meaning that instead of a faster LHS, a slower LHS might amplify the positive effect of reciprocity on compliance.
Because the results did not replicate earlier findings about the reciprocity principle (Cialdini, 1975; Gouldner, 1960; Regan, 1971), this study does demonstrate that the effect of the principle is not always and in every condition as strong.
Since the effect is non-significant there can only be speculated as to the underlying processes, but one possibility is that people with a slow LHS value the future more, whereas individuals with a fast LHS prefer immediate benefits (Griskevicius et al., 2011b). The target request is asking participants to cooperate, but it specifically states that this will be ‘in the future’. Because people with slow LHS are more future-oriented, this request might be more appealing to them than to the short-term focused, fast LHS people. Furthermore, it is
suspected that wealthier individuals follow a slower LHS, whereas poorer people follow a faster LHS (Griskevicius et al, 2011b). Therefore, people with a slow LHS might have a wider educational background since they have more money to spend on education than those with a fast LHS. This in turn might result in individuals with a slow LHS having a better understanding of and/or value scientific research more, which could be reflected in their answer to the target request of this study.
4.2. Theoretical Implications
LHT has become more and more useful in explaining human behaviour. However, life history predictions with regard to psychology and decision-making have barely been tested experimentally (Griskevicius et al., 2011b). Combining LHT, a component within
evolutionary biology, with a marketing technique, the principle of reciprocity, is an approach
this research offers, which is relatively new in this field. By suggesting that marketing techniques might play a role in the psychology of behaviour associated with fast and slow LHS, this current study contributes to the increasing amount of literature on LHT and human behaviour as well as to the literature on consumer behaviour in general. This present study extended previous research by setting out using experimental methods to assess the role of LHT in consumer behaviour. Furthermore, it demonstrated that LHS are not only valuable for directing decisions on reproduction, but might also be relevant for behaviours such as
consumer decision-making.
Although no significant effect was found, the trends found in this study show that LHT might help to explain the effectiveness of reciprocity on compliance, but probably in the opposite direction of the hypothesis in this study. In order to find evidence for the hypothesis proposed here, or whether people with a slow LHS tend to reciprocate more easily compared to individuals having a fast LHS, because he/she expects the other will reciprocate help at a later moment (Trivers, 1971) for example, there is a need for examining this furthermore, also since this research does not provide evidence that the principle of reciprocity has a positive effect on compliance, which is not in line with previous research. In order to find out the underlying reasons for this, the principle remains an interesting subject to pay attention to in future research. One reason why reciprocity differs in effectiveness in different situations may be depending on the person who is doing someone a favour, for example.
Summarizing, this research can function as a basis for further research to explore whether consumers’ LHS really does influence their behaviour towards marketing tactics, which may or may not be the principle of reciprocity, and/or whether support can be found that points towards an effect in a certain direction.
4.3. Managerial Implications
Because the experiment was done in the field, and therefore generalizable for influence techniques in practice, this is a highly ecologically valid study. This study will contribute to social and personality psychology in relation to consumer behaviour and marketing techniques. The results are valuable for both marketers and consumers. When the consumer is aware of the compliance techniques, like reciprocity, used by marketers and the factors influencing the way they respond to these tactics, consumers may be better able to resist them. This research informs consumers that their childhood history might have an influence on their buying behaviour. Therefore, consumers may want to keep themselves posted on research on this topic to obtain information about their own possible vulnerability.
Companies giving presents to consumers is a common phenomenon. From shoes to iPads: marketers pull out all the stops in order to keep and attract customers. This study can be used to point out to marketers that this dealing out does not always result in the expected outcome, since it was demonstrated in present research that the principle of reciprocity might not always work. So before pretending to be Santa Claus and spending outrageous budgets on these emotion lotions, marketers may want to conduct research into their segments/target groups in order to find out how they behave, because different groups and types of people, also may behave differently. When there is more knowledge available on which factors influence people’s response to reciprocity, marketers can take that into consideration and in that way, they are better able to take advantage of those differences and get the best result out of them.
4.4. Limitations and Areas for Future Research
Obviously, this current study presented several limitations which call for future research. Firstly, only one experimenter has recruited participants in this study and so there may be an experimenter effect. This means that the experimenter may have given different, unintentional cues or signals, like a smile, to people in the control and experimental condition.
These slight differences in communication to participants can affect the outcome of an experiment (Rosenthal, 2002). In order to exclude these effects, future studies should make use of more experimenters conducting the experiment, for example.
Moreover, another venue of research might address a larger and more varied sample.
By approaching potential participants on different locations and moments in this study, the aim was to acquire a diversity in people when it comes to age and gender. However, the experiment being carried out within the personal network of the experimenter and at places closely related to the experimenter led to mostly young and male participants. In addition, the places where the recruitment took place were all in one same city of The Netherlands. Those are reasons that resulted in the sample being from a population with a relatively small range of SES. Since SES is probably linked to LHS, having a sample at extremes of SES might detect a difference in LHS in a control condition (Griskevicius et al, 2011b). To extend the present results, future research might focus on a larger sample within different
neighbourhoods, different cities or even different countries in order to collect more varied data.
Thirdly, the target request used to measure compliance asked participants in how many studies they were prepared to volunteer as a future research participant. However, those
studies were supposed to be conducted on behalf of the Department of Marketing of a
university, while the participants took part in a research done by an individual student. Hence, people may have felt they would do someone else a favour instead of the experimenter
herself. Additionally, it may be more interesting for people to volunteer for studies when it would benefit themselves in a way too. These could be reasons why many participants did not want to volunteer for any study, which affected the results. Accordingly, future endeavours should test different target requests to measure compliance.
4.5. Conclusion
In conclusion, the results reported that the norm of reciprocity should not be taken for granted in human societies. How LHS determines how consumers are influenced by
marketing tactics like reciprocity remains an interesting, unanswered question, which will hopefully get more attention in future research.
REFERENCES
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390-1396.
Blanchard, S. J., Carlson, K. A., & Hyodo, J. D. (2016). The favor request effect: Requesting a favor from consumers to seal the deal. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(6), 985 1001.
Boster, F. J., Fediuk, T. A., & Kotowski, M. R. (2001). The effectiveness of an altruistic appeal in the presence and absence of favors. Communication Monographs, 68(4), 340 346.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-766.
Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S.
Chaiken & Y. Trope (Ed.), Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 73-97.).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: The New Psychology of Modern Persuasion. New York, NY: Quill.
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th edn). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social Influence: Compliance and conformity.
Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 591-621.
Cialdini, R.B., Vincent, J.E., Lewis, S.K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B.L. (1975).
Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(2), 206-215.
Cialdini, R. B., Wosinska, W., Barrett, D. W., Butner, J., & Gornik-Durose, M. (1999).
Compliance with a request in two cultures: The differential influence of social proof and commitment/consistency on collectivists and individualists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1242-1253.
Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H., & Schlomer, G. L. (2009). Fundamental dimensions of environmental risk: The impact of harsh versus unpredictable environments on the evolution and development of life history strategies. Human Nature, 20(2), 204-268.
Fennis, B. M., Janssen, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2009). Acts of benevolence: A limited-resource account of compliance with charitable requests. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 906-924.
Fennis, B. M., & Stroebe, W. (2016). The psychology of advertising (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Figueredo, A. J., Wolf, P. S. A., Olderbak, S. G., Gladden, P. R., Fernandes, H. B. F., Wenner, C. Hill, D. Andrzejczak, D. J., Sisco, M. M., Jacobs, W. J., Hohman, Z. J., Sefcek, J. A., Kruger, D., Howrigan, D. P., MacDonald, K., & Rushton, J. P. (2014).
The psychometric assessment of human life history strategy: A meta-analytic construct validation. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8(3), 148-185.
Fitzsimons, G. J., Hutchinson, J. W., Williams, P., Alba, J. W., Chartrand, T. L., Huber, J., Kardes, F. R., Menon, G., Raghubir, P., Russo, J. E., Shiv, B., & Tavassoli, N. T.
(2002). Non-conscious influence on consumer choice. Marketing Letters, 13(3), 269 279.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178.
Griskevicius, V., Ackerman, J. M., Cantú, S. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., Simpson, J.
A., Thompson, M. E., & Tybur, J. M. (2013). When the economy falters, do people spend or save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on childhood environments.
Psychological Science, 24(2), 197-205.
Griskevicius, V., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & Tybur, J. M. (2011a). Environmental contingency in life history strategies: The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on reproductive timing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 241-254.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Delton, A. W., & Robertson T. E. (2011b). The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on risk and delayed rewards: A life history theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 1015-1026.
Hepler, J., & Albarracín, D. (2013). Attitudes without objects: Evidence for a dispositional attitude, its measurement, and its consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(6), 1060-1076.
Hill, K. (1993). Life history theory and evolutionary anthropology. Evolutionary Anthropology, 2(3), 78-88.
Mittal, C., & Griskevicius, V. (2014). Sense of control under uncertainty depends on people’s childhood environment: A life history theory approach. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 107(4), 621-637.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., Presaghi, F., & Ercolani, A. P. (2003). The personal norm of reciprocity. European Journal of Personality, 17(4), 251-283.
Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(6), 627-639.
Rosenthal, R. (2002). Covert communication in classrooms, clinics, courtrooms, and cubicles.
American Psychologist, 57(11), 839-849.
The Holy Bible, new international version. (1984). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
Takezawa, M., & Price, M. E. (2010). Revisiting “The evolution of reciprocity in sizable groups”: Continuous reciprocity in the repeated n-person prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 264(2), 188-196.
Taugney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271-324.
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35-57.
Wordsworth, W. (1807). My heart leaps up. In Poems, in Two Volumes (Volume 2, pp. 44.).
London, UK: Longman, Hurst, Rees, and Orme.
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Script
De schuingedrukte tekst is om aan te geven wat er gezegd wordt tegen de proefpersoon en de rechte tekst is wat er gedaan moet worden door de experimenter.
Vooraf worden alle 100 enquêtes en de 100 losse papieren met de belangrijkste onderzoeksvraag genummerd van 1 t/m 100. Alle oneven nummers horen bij de
reciprociteitsconditie en de geen-reciprociteitsconditie wordt weergegeven door de even nummers.
Meneer/mevrouw, mag ik u wat vragen? Wilt u misschien meewerken aan een kort onderzoek?
Het onderzoek betreft een onderdeel van mijn Master-afstudeerproject aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Het duurt 5 a 7 minuten.
Als de persoon wil deelnemen wordt de enquête overhandigd. Indien u vragen heeft, laat het me maar weten!
De enquête terug nemen zodra de deelnemer klaar is met het invullen ervan
--- Reciprociteitsconditie
Als dank dat u aan mijn onderzoek heeft deelgenomen, wil ik u deze geven.
Overhandigen van Tony’s Chocolonely aan proefpersoon
--- Oh! Ik vergeet bijna dat ik nog één vraag voor u heb. Zou u dit papiertje nog even willen invullen? Losse papier met hetzelfde nummer als de enquête overhandigen aan deelnemer.
Wanneer de deelnemer het losse papier heeft ingevuld, wordt deze in beide condities aan de
enquête geniet met het corresponderende nummer.
Ik wil u hartelijk bedanken voor uw medewerking en wens u nog een fijne dag toe!
Appendix B: Questionnaires
Beste deelne(e)m(st)er,
Hartelijk dank dat je wilt meewerken aan dit onderzoek door middel van het invullen van een korte vragenlijst. Deze lijst bestaat uit vier gedeeltes genomen uit korte, op zichzelf staande studies, gedaan door verschillende onderzoekers.
Deze vragenlijst wordt afgenomen in het kader van een onderzoeksproject van de afdeling Marketing, die onderdeel is van de Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde van de
Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen.
Deelname aan dit onderzoek is vrijwillig en volledige anonimiteit wordt gegarandeerd. Het onderzoek betreft een aantal vragen over de persoonlijke levenssfeer en duurt 7 à 10 minuten.
Ik wil je vragen de instructies zorgvuldig door te lezen.
Voor verdere inlichtingen of informatie over de resultaten van het onderzoek kun je contact opnemen met de onderzoeksverantwoordelijke: m.a.h.van.der.schors@student.rug.nl.
Namens de afdeling Marketing, Mathilde van der Schors
Geef aan in hoeverre je het eens of oneens bent met de volgende beweringen. Gebruik de onderstaande schaal en omcirkel het cijfer dat bij jou antwoord hoort Wanneer een bewering niet op jou van toepassing is, noteer dan “0”. Vul alles in en geef maar één antwoord per vraag.
Volledig mee oneens
-3
Mee oneens
-2
Enigszins mee oneens
-1
Weet het niet/Niet
van toepassing
0
Enigszins mee eens
1
Mee eens 2
Volledig mee eens
3 Vaak weet ik hoe dingen
aflopen -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Ik probeer te begrijpen hoe ik in een situatie terecht ben gekomen om uit te vinden hoe daarmee om te gaan.
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Ik zie vaak wel een positieve kant in een
moeilijke situatie. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Ik geef niet eerder op dan dat ik mijn problemen heb
opgelost. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Ik maak vaak vooraf een
plan. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Ik vermijd het nemen van
risico’s. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Toen ik opgroeide had ik een nauwe en warme band met mijn biologische moeder.
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Toen ik opgroeide had ik een nauwe en warme band met mijn biologische vader.
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Ik heb een nauwe en warme relatie met mijn
eigen kinderen. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Volledig mee oneens
-3
Mee oneens
-2
Enigszins mee oneens
-1
Weet het niet/Niet
van toepassing
0
Enigszins mee eens
1
Mee eens 2
Volledig mee eens
3 Ik heb een nauwe en
warme romantische relatie
met mijn sekspartner. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Ik heb liever één dan meerdere seksuele relaties
op hetzelfde moment. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Ik moet eerst een hele goede relatie met iemand hebben alvorens daarmee seks te hebben.
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Ik heb vaak sociaal contact
met mijn familieleden. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Ik krijg vaak emotionele steun en praktische hulp
van mijn familieleden. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Ik geef vaak emotionele steun en praktische hulp
aan mijn familieleden. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Ik heb vaak sociaal contact
met mijn vrienden. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Ik krijg vaak emotionele steun en praktische hulp
van mijn vrienden. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Ik geef vaak emotionele steun en praktische hulp
aan mijn vrienden. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Ik ben nauw verbonden met en betrokken bij mijn
leefgemeenschap. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Ik ben nauw verbonden met en betrokken bij mijn
geloof. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
De volgende uitspraken gaan over jezelf als persoon. Geef aan of ze op jou van toepassing zijn (of ze kloppen), waarbij 1 betekent „volledig mee oneens“ en 9 betekent „volledig mee eens“. Omcirkel het cijfer dat bij jou antwoord hoort. Vul alles in en geef maar één antwoord per vraag.
Volledig mee oneens
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Volledig
mee eens 9 Er was in ons gezin gewoonlijk
genoeg geld voor dingen toen ik
opgroeide 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Ik ben opgegroeid in een relatief
welvarende buurt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Ik voelde mij relatief rijk vergeleken bij andere kinderen
op school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Ik heb genoeg geld om de dingen die ik wil hebben te
kopen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Ik hoef me niet heel veel zorgen te maken over het betalen van
de rekeningen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Ik spreek de Tsjechische taal
vloeiend 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Ik denk niet dat ik me in de toekomst veel zorgen hoef te
maken over geld 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Wij zijn geïnteresseerd in jouw houding ten opzichte van een breed scala aan zaken.
Beoordeel elke zaak op de aangegeven schaal. Er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden en ook geen strikvragen. Wij zijn alleen maar geïnteresseerd in wat JIJ vindt van deze zaken. Gebruik de schaal van 7, waarbij 1 staat voor “buitengewoon negatief” en 7 voor
“buitengewoon positief”.
Buitengewoon negatief
1 2 3 4 5 6
Buitengewoon positief
7
Architectuur 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rijwielen/Fietsen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Kamperen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Kano’s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Koude douches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Buitengewoon negatief
1 2 3 4 5 6
Buitengewoon positief
7 Kruiswoordpuzzels
maken
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Schaken 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Politiek 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Spreken in het openbaar
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Kritiek krijgen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rugby 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Voetbal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Statistieken 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Japan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Belastingen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Opzetten van dieren
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
De volgende uitspraken gaan over jezelf als persoon. Jij moet kijken of ze op jou van toepassing zijn (of ze kloppen). Omcirkel het cijfer dat bij jou antwoord hoort. Vul alles in en geef maar één antwoord per vraag.
Helemaal niet op mij van toepassing 1
Een beetje op mij van toepassing 2
Nogal op mij van toepassing 3
Tamelijk goed op mij van toepassing 4
Helemaal op mij van
toepassing 5
Ik vind het moeilijk om slechte gewoonten af te leren. 1 2 3 4 5
Ik ben lui. 1 2 3 4 5
Ik zeg ongepaste dingen. 1 2 3 4 5
Ik doe bepaalde dingen die slecht voor me zijn, als ze leuk zijn.
1 2 3 4 5
Ik weiger dingen die slecht voor me zijn. 1 2 3 4 5
Ik had graag meer zelfdiscipline gehad. 1 2 3 4 5
Ik kan goed weerstand bieden tegen verleidingen. 1 2 3 4 5
Dit is het eind van het onderzoek. Hartelijk dank dat je mee hebt willen doen. Je kunt hieronder aangeven of je al dan niet via e- mail geïnformeerd wilt worden over de
eindresultaten van dit onderzoek. Jouw e-mailadres wordt alleen hiervoor en vertrouwelijk gebruikt.
0 Nee, dank je.
0 Ja, graag. Mijn e-mailadres is ___________________________________________
Helemaal niet op mij van toepassing 1
Een beetje op mij van toepassing 2
Nogal op mij van toepassing 3
Tamelijk goed op mij van toepassing 4
Helemaal op mij van toepassing 5 Mensen zeggen dat ik een ijzersterke zelfdiscipline
heb.
1 2 3 4 5
Plezier en gezelligheid weerhouden me er soms van om m’n werk gedaan te krijgen.
1 2 3 4 5
Ik heb moeite met concentreren. 1 2 3 4 5
Ik kan gestructureerd toewerken naar lange termijn doelen.
1 2 3 4 5
Soms kan ik mezelf er niet van weerhouden iets te doen waarvan ik weer dat het fout is.
1 2 3 4 5
Ik doe vaak dingen zonder eerst alle moge-lijkheden vantevoren overwogen te hebben.
1 2 3 4 5
Wat is je geslacht? Man/Vrouw
Wat is je leeftijd? _______ jaar
Appendix C: Target Request
Wanneer de afdeling Marketing in de toekomst respondenten nodig heeft voor onderzoek, in welke mate ben je bereid hieraan mee te willen werken?
o Geen onderzoek
o 1 onderzoek (± 10 min) o 2 onderzoeken (± 20 min) o 3 onderzoeken (± 30 min) o 4 onderzoeken (± 40 min) o 5 onderzoeken (± 50 min) o 6 of meer onderzoeken
Voor het geval dat wij gebruik willen maken kunnen we contact opnemen met jou via ______________________________________________________________ (emailadres)
