Daniel W. Barrett

Compliance with a Request in Two Cultures: The Differential Influence of Social Proof and Commitment/Consistency on Collectivists and Individualists

University students in Poland and the United States, two countries that differ in individualistic-collectivistic orientation, indicated their willingness to comply with a request to participate without pay in a marketing survey. Half were asked to do so after considering information regarding their own history of compliance with such requests, whereas the other half were asked to do so after considering information regarding their peers’ history of such compliance. This was designed to assess the impact of two social influence principles (commitment/consistency and social proof, respectively) on participants’ decisions. As expected, although both principles were influential across cultures, the commitment/consistency principle had greater impact on Americans, whereas the social proof principle had greater impact on Poles. Additional analyses indicated that this effect was due principally, but not entirely, to participants’ personal individualistic-collectivistic orientations rather than to the dominant individualistic-collectivistic orientation of their cultures.

The Practice of Social influence in Multiple Cultures

Contents: W. Wosinska, R.B. Cialdini, D.W. Barrett, Preface. Part I:Principles of Social Influence Across Cultures. J. Reykowski, Overview and Commentary. S.S. Iyengar, J. Brockner, Cultural Differences in Self and the Impact of Personal and Social Influence. R.B. Cialdini, W. Wosinska, D.W. Barrett, J. Butner, M. Gornik-Durose, The Differential Impact of Two Social Influence Principles on Individualists and Collectivists in Poland and the United States. E.R. Spangenberg, A.G. Greenwald, Self-Prophecy as a Behavior Modification Technique in the United States. P.A. Miller, J. Kozu, A.C. Davis, Social Influence, Empathy, and Prosocial Behavior in Cross-Cultural Perspective. M. Pietras, Social Influence Principles in Polish Advertising and Consumer Decision Making. M.W. Morris, J.M. Podolny, S. Ariel, Culture, Norms, and Obligations: Cross-National Differences in Patterns of Interpersonal Norms and Felt Obligations Toward Coworkers. S.E. Gutierres, C.M. Van Puymbroeck, Social Influence Factors in Euro-American and Mexican-American Womens Vulnerability to Misuse of Illicit Substances. Part II:Social Influence and Social Change Across Cultures. J. Reykowski, Overview and Commentary. A. Nowak, R.R. Vallacher, Societal Transition: Toward a Dynamical Model of Social Change. B. Wojciszke, The Consequences of Being an Influential Minority in the Context of Social Controversies in the Emerging Polish Democracy. E.W. Klinger, G. Bierbrauer, Acculturation and Conflict Regulation of Turkish Immigrants in Germany: A Social Influence Perspective. M. Kopp, A. Skrabski, S. SzedmAk, Socioeconomic Influences on Depression and Morbidity in the Hungarian Population in the Context of Postcommunist Modernization. M. Gornik-Durose, Mass-Mediated Influences on Patterns of Consumption in Polish Youth. Part III:Culture and Moral Perspective in the Social Influence Process. J. Reykowski, Overview and Commentary. D. Dolinski, M. Kofta, Stay Tuned: The Role of the Break in the Message on Attribution of Culpability. A.R. Pratkanis, Propaganda and Deliberative Persuasion: The Implications of Americanized Mass Media for Established and Emerging Democracies. M. Snyder, A.M. Omoto, Basic Research and Practical Problems: Volunteerism and the Psychology of Individual and Collective Action. R.K. Ohme, Social Influence in Media: Culture and Antismoking Advertising. M.J. Cody, J.S. Seiter, Compliance Principles in Retail Sales in the United States.

Evaluating the risk and attractiveness of romantic partners when confronted with contradictory cues.

Research shows that people engage in “risky” sex with “safe” partners and in “safer” sex with “riskier” partners. How is the determination of “risky” or “safe” status made? Factorial survey methodology was used to randomly construct descriptions of romantic partners based on attractive and/or risky characteristics. Respondents evaluated 20 descriptions for attractiveness, health risk, likelihood of going on a date, likelihood of unprotected sex, and likelihood of STD/HIV infection. Respondents were most attracted to and perceived the least risk from attractive descriptions and were least attracted to and perceived the most risk from the risky descriptions. The differences between the “conflicting information” descriptions are attributable to a primacy effect: descriptions that began with attractiveness information but end with risk information were evaluated more positively than those that began with risk and ended with attractive information.