Cross-Cultural Investigation of Compliance Without Pressure

Abstract

Compliance-without-pressure techniques have been widely studied in North America and West Europe. Among these techniques, the “but you are free” (BYAF) is a verbal compliance procedure that solicits someone to comply with a request by simply telling a person that he or she is free to accept or refuse the request. This technique is interpreted with the commitment theory and the psychological reactance theory which are more relevant in individualistic cultures than in collectivist cultures. So, four studies compared the efficiency of the BYAF technique in collectivist cultures (Ivory Coast, Russia, and China) and in individualist cultures (France and Romania). As suggested in the hypothesis, our analysis indicated that the BYAF technique will be much less successful in more collectivist cultures. Such results underline the importance of considering specific cultural contexts in social influence studies.

Keywords

induction of a feeling of freedom compliance with a request individualism collectivism culture

The term compliance without pressure first appeared in 1966 under the pen of Freedman and Fraser within the framework of their research on the foot-in-the-door technique. For many decades, numerous compliance-without-pressure studies have been carried out (for review, see Cialdini, 1993; Guéguen, 2011; Joule & Beauvois, 2002; Pratkanis, 2007). This is a set of techniques that may lead people to willingly do what is expected of them (Joule & Beauvois, 1998). It is through these procedures that individuals submit to diverse types of requests while believing that they have acted out of their own free will, thus, the term compliance without pressure. More precisely, these techniques concern behaviors qualified as nonproblematic, that is to say not in opposition to the attitudes and opinions of the participants. This is contrary to the forced compliance paradigm (or induced) which studies the impact of the realization of an action which is problematic for the subject on the change in attitude (Wicklund & Brehm, 1976).

The “but you are free” technique (BYAF) proposed by Guéguen and Pascual (2000) is one of the most recent compliance-without-pressure paradigms. Its concept is simple: By embellishing a request made to another person with the proposal “you are free to. . .” one can significantly increase the possibility of acceptance. In their first study, Guéguen and Pascual (2000) asked passersby in a street to give them money. In the experimental condition, their request ended with the phrase “but you are free to accept or refuse” whereas this phrase was not used in the control condition. They found that 10% of the solicited participants complied with the request in the control condition, whereas 47.5% accepted in the experimental condition. This technique not only leads to increasing compliance with a request, but also to increasing subject involvement. These authors also found in their experiment that the average amount of donations granted by the participants was higher in the experimental condition than in the control condition. The simple induction of a feeling of freedom can therefore facilitate individual compliance to various types of requests such as donating money, filling out a questionnaire, visiting a website, or even purchasing a calendar (Guéguen & Pascual, 2000; Guéguen et al., in press; Guéguen, Pascual & Dagot, 2004; Guéguen, Pascual, Jacob & Morineau, 2002; Pascual & Guéguen, 2002).

To explain this effect, two theories can be put forward: The commitment theory (Kiesler, 1971; Kiesler & Sakumura, 1966) and the theory of psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966; Miron & Brehm, 2006).

According to Kiesler (1971), several factors can raise the degree of commitment that individuals have to their actions. Among these factors, the feeling of freedom, according to the author, is one of the most powerful. Accordingly, the more an individual is placed in a context of freedom while acting out a particular behavior, the more he or she is committed to this behavior. Yet

Nothing is easier than creating a context of freedom. It is enough to accompany the request made to the subject with a phrase affirming that he is free to do or not to do what is expected of him. We consider this phrase to be one of the most fascinating in scientific literature. Fifty years of research shows us that it is a powerful factor for committing people to their acts, even certainly the most powerful. (Joule & Beauvois, 1998, p. 71)

Thus, in the context of asking strangers for money in the street, participants who were declared free not only complied more often with the request but they also displayed greater generosity by giving larger donations than the participants in the control condition (Guéguen & Pascual, 2000; Pascual & Guéguen, 2002; Experiments 1, 2, 3, and 4). In fact, everything here seems to be happening as if the context of freedom generated by the proposal “you are free to . . .” brought the participants to be more committed to the altruistic behavior expected of them, bringing about higher average donations.

But the theory of psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966) could also help interpret the effects produced by the BYAF technique. Reactance is characterized by a state of negative motivation followed by a threat (perceived as real) of a restriction of individual freedom and leads one to resist its influence. This theory therefore postulates that a threat or loss of freedom will motivate an individual to reconstruct that very freedom. Thereby, when individual X asks for help from individual Y, it is probable that in most cases, Y will be susceptible to feeling reactance as X is trying to “dictate” to Y what behavior to carry out. There would be a supposed restriction of freedom for Y. At this point, to recuperate his or her freedom, Y is likely to reject X’s request. However, if X accompanies his or her request with the proposal, “You are free to. . .,” it is possible that Y’s rate of reactance will decline noticeably, which would result in Y being more likely to accept the request.

Actually, the theories of commitment and psychological reactance are not really different because the first focuses on the induction of a feeling of freedom and the second on the threat of getting deprived of this feeling of freedom. Both theories can help in understanding the effects of BYAF and are not alternatives to each other. Within the framework of BYAF, we will back up our reflection by taking into account the two explicative processes suggested by the theory of commitment, and of reactance, which we will examine through the cultural dimension of individualism and collectivism. In effect, the BYAF technique has only been studied in an “individualist” culture (France) and certain elements will lead us to consider BYAF to be less efficient in “collectivist” cultures. In reference to literature coming from cultural and intercultural psychology, in individualist cultures “people are autonomous and independent from their in-groups; they give priority to their personal goals over the goals of their in-groups, they behave primarily on the basis of their attitudes rather than the norms of their in-groups” (Triandis, 2001, p. 909). In collectivist cultures, “people are interdependent within their in-groups (family, tribe, nation, etc.), give priority to the goals of their in-groups, shape their behavior primarily on the basis of in-group norms, and behave in a communal way” (Triandis, 2001, p. 909). In reality, this distinction had already been made by Hofstede (1980) within the framework of organizational psychology. For this author, “individualism refers to a society in which the links between individuals are loose; an individual is only expected to take care of himself and his relatives” (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, p. 601). Inversely, “a collectivist society is one in which an individual is assimilated from birth into a strong and cohesive in-group which in exchange for his unfailing loyalty, makes sure of his protection” (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, p. 599). Based on these definitions, the meaning of “individual” liberty can be considered relative and to vary according to cultural context. As such, on the basis of the annual rankings published by Freedom House, the freest countries in the world are in vast majority individualist countries. These rankings are notably based on a civil liberties index measured for each country. As a consequence of these considerations, the BYAF technique may turn out not to be very pertinent in collectivist cultures. This hypothesis makes sense from a theoretical point of view if we focus on the works studying the theory of commitment, and of reactance within individualist and collectivist cultures.

Commitment Theory and Individualism/Collectivism

According to Joule and Beauvois (1998), commitment, in a given situation, corresponds to conditions in which the realization of an action can only be attributable to the person who did it. This definition is essentially founded on the basis of studies done on individualist cultures. In collectivist cultures however, because of the interdependence among individuals, conditions in which the realization of an action is only attributable to the individual who did the action may be difficult to assess. Although few studies have been done to explain the effects of commitment within collectivist cultures, certain data suggest contrasting results contingent on cultural context. Kim and Sherman (2007) showed that offering a choice led American students (individualist culture) to be subsequently more committed to their choice than students coming from East Asia (collectivist culture). This observation suggests that the theory of commitment and therefore, the BYAF technique, may be less efficient in collectivist cultures as compared to individualist cultures.

Another way to arrive to this conclusion would be to consider the fact that the explanations individuals give regarding their behavior differ depending on the type of culture they come from. In fact, individualists are more likely to see themselves as being at the origin of their behavior as compared to collectivists. The results of certain works having studied the concept of locus of control (Rotter, 1966) within these two types of cultures are along these lines. Thus, collectivist cultures have been found to be characterized by a belief in external control whereas individualist cultures are characterized by a belief in internal control (Ng & Zhu, 2001; Norenzayan, Choi, & Nisbett, 1999). For this purpose, a vast intercultural study conducted in 24 countries allowed a strong positive correlation between individualism/collectivism and internality/externality to be put forward (Spector et al., 2001). The individuals favoring a belief in internal control seemed to be more susceptible to compliance-without-pressure techniques (Channouf, 1990; Desrumaux, 1996). This reasoning leads us to suggest that the BYAF technique may be more efficient in individualist cultures than in collectivist cultures.

Psychological Reactance Theory and Individualism/Collectivism

Psychological reactance theory is generally presented as universal within the field of social psychology. However, the importance of individual freedom in this theory suggests that it may be limited to individualist values. Although few studies have been conducted on the matter, Savani, Markus, and Conner (2008, Experiment 5) observed more reactance from American students (individualists) compared to Indian students (collectivists) while using a classic reactance theory method (Brehm, 1966). In the same way, Jonas et al. (2009, Experiment 1) showed that participants coming from an individualist culture (students from Western Europe) felt more reactance when their individual freedom was threatened, compared to students coming from a collectivist culture (students from East Asia). If as we have previously seen, the induction of a feeling of freedom generated by the BYAF technique decreases reactance in individuals. It is possible that this is not the case in collectivist cultures where reactance is a much more difficult state to observe. Thus BYAF would not be efficient in collectivist cultures whereas it would be in individualist cultures where people are more susceptible to feeling reactance in their daily lives.¹

To test this general hypothesis, we used the BYAF technique in a series of four studies in countries characterized as having either an individualist or collectivist cultural orientation. According to Triandis (1989), individualist cultures include Northern and Western Europe as well as North America; whereas collectivist cultures would be characteristic of Asia, Africa, and South America.

Study 1

In our first study, we tested the BYAF technique in France and in the Ivory Coast. Works on collectivist countries have mostly been done on Asian cultures and as far as Africa is concerned, studies done there are still rare. Some countries in this continent have nonetheless been identified as “collectivist” such as Kenya (Vaunne & Schoeneman, 1997), Congo-Zaire (Westerhof, Dittmann-Kohli, & Katzko, 2000), Congo-Brazzaville (Louakima, 2004), Cameroon (Pirttilä-Backman, Kassea, & Ikonen, 2004), and South Africa (Eaton & Louw, 2000). Furthermore, according to Hofstede classification, the value of individualism is scored 71 for France and 20 for West Africa (including Ghana, Nigeria, and Sierra-Leone). To our knowledge, the only measure allowing the Ivory Coast to be classified among collectivist countries was taken by Bourgoin (1984) using Hofstede (1980) indicators.

Hypothesis

The Ivory Coast being considered a country of a collectivist cultural orientation and France of an individualist one, we will formulate the hypothesis that the BYAF technique is only effective in France.

Method

Participants

A total of 609 men and women passersby (387 Ivorians and 222 French people) between 25 to 50 years of age participated in the study.

Procedure

Eight Ivorian students (7 males and 1 female) and eight French students (7 males and 1 female) who were unaware of the hypothesis of the study were the experimenters in their respective countries. They were instructed to approach passersby that were alone in pedestrian streets in the cities of Abidjan, Ivory Coast, and Bordeaux, France (two urban cities) to ask them to fill out a questionnaire composed of 17 items (target request). The experimenters formulated their request in one of the following two ways:

Control formulation: “Hello, sorry to bother you, but I’m a student and for my studies I’m required to have people in the street fill out questionnaires, would you help me by filling one out?”

BYAF formulation: “Hello, sorry to bother you, but I’m a student and for my studies I’m required to have people in the street fill out questionnaires, would you help me by filling one out? Of course, you are free to accept or refuse.”

If the subject accepted, the experimenter had him or her fill out the questionnaire, the subject was thanked and then the experimenter indicated at the bottom of the questionnaire whether the control formulation or the BYAF formulation had been used. The participants who went on their way before the experimenter finished reciting the formulation where not accounted for in the study.

Results

We used separate one-way Chi Square tests on compliance rates for each country. The results presented in Figure 1 show that the BYAF technique had a significant effect in France, χ²(1, 222) = 3.78, p < .05, φ = .13, but not in the Ivory Coast, χ²(1, 387) = 2.90, p > .09, ns, φ = .09. However, there was more compliance in the control condition in the Ivory Coast than in France, χ²(1, 357) = 1.96, p < .002, φ = .25.

Figure 1.

Rate of acceptance of the target request (filling out a questionnaire) contingent on the country and the formulation used

Discussion

Our hypothesis is supported as the BYAF technique was associated with more acquiescence in France and was not significant in the Ivory Coast. However, this is to be considered with caution because the results obtained in the Ivory Coast can possibly be attributed to a high level of compliance in the control condition (60.1%). This is a frequently observed phenomenon in the field of social influence that is to say that although the level of compliance in the control condition is high, the efficiency in the experimental group is found to be reduced. This had already been observed in France with BYAF by Pascual (2002, Experiment 5). So the request used in this study may not have been considered demanding enough for the Ivorian participants. To avoid this potential bias, we will have recourse to studies following a more demanding request which will therefore be more difficult to comply with.

Study 2

In our second study, we tested the BYAF technique in France, Russia, and Romania. In the literature, France has always been characterized as being an individualist country (Hofstede et al., 2010) and Russia as a collectivist country (Hofstede et al., 2010; Matsumoto, Takeuchi, Andayani, Kouznetsova, & Krupp, 1998). Recently, Grossmann and Varnum (2011) found that Russians endorse more interdependent self-views than Americans. In the case of Romania, even if the Hofstede (1980) classification clearly identified it as being a collectivist country, it seems that is no longer the situation today (Ciochină & Faria, 2009; Heintz, 2002; Shulruf et al., 2011). For example, using Hofstede’s measure of individualism, Romania scored 30 in past time (Hofstede, 1980) but 65 nowadays (Van den Berg, 2011). Therefore, the degree of individualism in a given country can vary throughout the course of time (Spector, Cooper, & Sparks, 2001). For example, Mexico which was initially classified among collectivist countries by Hofstede (1980) was later classified among individualist cultures by Fernandez, Carlson, Stepina, and Nicholson (1997). The authors attributed this change to the economic development that took place in this country between the two evaluations. Since the classification of Romania among collectivist countries (Hofstede, 1980), this country has seen at least two important social events: (a) the end of a communist dictatorship in 1989 with the advent of democracy and (b) accession to the European Union in 2007. Individualism is most notably present in countries that are considered to be democratic and the European Union is essentially composed of individualist cultures. Romania has therefore most likely gone from a collectivist orientation to an individualist orientation (Ciochină & Faria, 2009). The analysis of the annual Freedom House reports since 1972 indicate that Romania was classified among nonfree countries from 1972 until 1990, then among partially free countries until 1995 and finally as a free country up until today.2

Hypothesis

Russia being a country of a collectivist orientation, Romania, heading toward an individualist orientation and France being a country of an individualist orientation, we will formulate the hypothesis that the BYAF technique will only have a significant effect in France and Romania.

Method

Participants

A total of 360 adult men and women (120 French people [60 males and 60 females], 120 Romanians [60 males and 60 females], and 120 Russians [60 males and 60 females]) participated in the study.

Procedure

In all three countries, the same trilingual female experimenter³ approached people that were alone in public places. The exchanges took place in the cities of Aix-en-Provence and Marseille in France, in Iassi and Piatra-Neamt in Romania, and in Puskina and Moscow in Russia (6 urban cities). While wearing a smile and maintaining eye contact, the experimenter asked the participants to fill out a questionnaire and alternated the formulation of her request between the two following manners:

Control formulation (30 male and 30 female participants in each country): “Hello, excuse me for bothering you. I have something to ask you. I’m doing a survey on political opinions to know what people think of politicians: their personalities, their actions. Would you have 10 minutes to respond to this questionnaire?” (The experimenter held the questionnaire in her hand.).

BYAF formulation (30 male and 30 female participants in each country): “Hello, excuse me for bothering you. I have something to ask you. I’m doing a survey on political opinions to know what people think of politicians: their personalities, their actions. Would you have 10 minutes to respond to this questionnaire? (The experimenter held the questionnaire in her hand.). But of course, you are free to accept or refuse.”

Results

We used separate one-way chi square tests on compliance rates for each country. The results presented in Figure 2 indicate that the BYAF technique had a significant effect in France, χ²(1, 120) = 4.88, p < .03, φ = .20, and in Romania, χ²(1, 120) = 6.13, p < .02, φ = .23, but not in Russia, χ²(1, 120) = 0.79, p > .37, ns, φ = .08. Furthermore, the comparison of the control conditions indicate that the target request was accepted in the same proportions in France as in Romania, χ²(1, 120) = 0.43, p > .51, ns, φ = .06, in France as in Russia, χ²(1, 120) = 0.05, p > .81, ns, φ = .02, as well as in Romania as in Russia, χ²(1, 120) = 0.79, p > .37, ns, φ = .08. Furthermore, we found no effect of the gender of the participants per condition or country on compliance rate.

Figure 2.

Rate of acceptance of the target request (filling out a questionnaire) contingent on the country and the formulation used

Discussion

Our hypothesis is supported as the BYAF technique had a significant effect in the countries that we had considered to be individualist (France and Romania) whereas no significant effect was found in the collectivist country (Russia). These results appear more reliable than those found in Study 1 because the control conditions in all three countries present similar compliance rates (between 18.3% and 25%).

Study 3

In the two previous studies the target request was asking participants to fill out a questionnaire. In Study 3, we tried to replicate the results obtained in Study 2 in France, Romania, and Russia while changing the target request. In this case, passerby will be asked for money, a classic request in the field of compliance without pressure (Abrahams & Bell, 1994; Burger & Cornelius, 2003; Cialdini & Schroeder, 1976; Harris, 1972; Howard, 1990; Kleinke, 1977; Pascual & Guéguen, 2002; Santos, Leve, & Pratkanis, 1994).

Hypothesis

In line with the results from Study 2, Russia being a country of a collectivist orientation, Romania, a country heading toward an individualist orientation and France a country of an individualist orientation, we will formulate the hypothesis that the BYAF technique will only have a significant effect in France and Romania.

Method

Participants

A total of 360 adult men and women (120 French people [60 males and 60 females], 120 Romanians [60 males and 60 females], and 120 Russians [60 males and 60 females]) participated in the study.

Procedure

In all three countries, the same trilingual female experimenter⁴ approached people that were waiting alone at bus stops. The exchanges took place in the cities of Aix-en-Provence and Marseille in France, in Iassi and Piatra-Neamt in Romania, and in Puskina and Moscow in Russia (6 urban cities).

The experimenter asked the participants for the favor of giving her some change (60 cents of a Euro in France, 60 Bani in Romania, and 15 Rubli in Russia; these amounts are the approximate equivalent of half the price of a bus ticket in each country). She alternated the formulation of her request between the following two manners:

Control formulation (30 male and 30 female participants in each country): “Hello, excuse me for bothering you. I have something to ask you. I forgot my change purse at home and I need 60 cents/60 Bani/15 Rubli to take the bus (the experimenter was already holding 50 cents/60 Bani/15 Rubli in her hand). Could you please help me out? I absolutely need to take the bus.”

BYAF formulation (30 male and 30 female participants in each country): “Hello, excuse me for bothering you. I have something to ask you. I forgot my change purse at home and I need 60 cents/60 Bani/15 Rubli to take the bus (the experimenter was already holding 50 cents/60 Bani/15 Rubli in her hand). Could you please help me out? I absolutely need to take the bus. But of course, you are free to accept or refuse.”

Results

We used separate one-way chi-square tests on compliance rates for each country. Similarly to the results in Study 2, The results presented in Figure 3 indicate that the BYAF technique had a significant effect in France, χ²(1, 120) = 4.73, p < .03, φ = .20, and in Romania, χ²(1, 120) = 5.91, p < .02, φ = .22, but not in Russia, χ²(1, 120) = 1.26, p > .26, ns, φ = .10. In addition, the comparison of the control conditions indicates that the target request was accepted in the same proportions in France as in Romania, χ²(1, 120) = 0,21, p > .64, ns, φ = .04, in France as in Russia, χ²(1, 120) = 0,48, p > .48, ns, φ = .06, as well as in Romania as in Russia, χ²(1, 120) = 0,06, p > .81, ns, φ = 02. Furthermore, no effect of the gender of participants per condition or country on compliance rate was observed. However, even if the hypothesis in studies 2 and 3 has been supported, this is to be considered with caution. Indeed, we don’t know if speaking with a foreign rather than a national accent in asking a small favor may not create a bias in the two studies.

Figure 3.

Rate of acceptance of the request (accepting to give some money) contingent on the country and the formulation used

Discussion

Similarly to Study 2, our hypothesis is supported as the BYAF technique had a significant effect in France and Romania but not in Russia. Furthermore, these results seem reliable as the target request seems to have been perceived the same way in all three countries. In fact, the control conditions in France, Romania, and Russia had very comparable rates of compliance (between 16.7% and 21.7%).

Study 4

In the three previous studies, we tested the BYAF technique in cultures classified as individualist or collectivist based on elements found in literature. However, we did not directly measure the individualism/collectivism scores of the populations studied. Study 4 does not present this drawback. In fact, we did a pretest to measure the individual/collectivist scores of French and Chinese students before testing the BYAF techniques in this segment of the population of both countries.

Westerners define themselves by their personality traits, values, and personal attributes: as independent individuals. Asians define themselves by their group memberships: as interdependent. According to Markus and Kitayama (1991), cultural differences are a product of cultural norms which favor an independent or interdependent conception of oneself. So, because the construal of the self is linked with cultural context, on average, relatively more individuals in individualistic cultures have an independent self and inversely an interdependent self in collectivist cultures.

Hypothesis

According to Markus and Kitayama (1991), cultural differences are a product of cultural norms which favor an independent or interdependent conception of oneself. Westerners define themselves by their personality traits, values, and personal attributes: as independent individuals, whereas Asians define themselves by their group memberships: as interdependent. Thus, Chinese students should have higher collectivism scores than French students. China being considered a country of a collectivist cultural orientation and France of an individualist one, we will formulate the hypothesis that the BYAF technique will only have a significant effect in France.

Method

Pretest

Two hundred Chinese students (89 males and 111 females) and 200 French students (87 males and 113 females) filled out The Cultural Orientation Scale (COS) by Bierbrauer, Meyer, and Wolfradt (1994). The COS was translated from English into French and Chinese and was validated by iterative forward- and back-translation to reach an optimal level of translation. This tool allows collectivism to be measured on two dimensions: the normative dimension of collectivism and the evaluative dimension of collectivism. Each of these dimensions is measured by 13 items on a scale of 1 to 7. The higher the score, the more a subject is collectivist.

Regarding the normative dimension of the COS, Chinese students obtained an average score of 4.24 (σ = 0.48) compared to 4.12 (σ = 0.37) for the French students, t(398) = 2.80, p < .01.

Regarding the evaluative dimension of the COS, Chinese students were also found to be more collectivist with an average score of 4.69 (σ = 0.47) compared to 4.57 (σ = 0.42) for the French students, t(398) = 2.55, p < .01.

In light of our pretest, Chinese students are more collectivist than French students. This result is consistent with the literature that classifies China among countries of a collectivist orientation (Fernandez et al., 1997; Spector et al., 2001).

Participants

A total of 128 students (64 French [32 males and 32 females] and 64 Chinese [32 males and 32 females]) participated in the study. None of these students were majoring in psychology; this was to avoid having students with knowledge of works done on compliance without pressure.

Procedure

In France, the study took place at the University of Burgundy in the library. In China, the study was conducted at the University of Economics and Business of Shijiazhuang (approximately 9 million inhabitants) located around 350 km southwest of Beijing. The participants were approached in university classrooms where no classes were taking place because that is generally where students work, the library being only for checking out documents.

In both countries, an experimenter approached students working alone and asked them to fill out a questionnaire (which would take around 30 min). She alternated the formulation of her request between the two following manners:

Control formulation (16 male and 16 female participants in each country): “Hello, I’m a student in social sciences and I’m doing a survey on environmental protection. Do you have a half an hour to respond to an anonymous questionnaire of a hundred questions?” If the subject accepted, the experimenter gave him or her the questionnaire adding, “Thank you. Take your time and respond as sincerely as possible.” Once the questionnaire was filled out, the experimenter thanked the subject.

BYAF formulation (16 male and 16 female participants in each country): “Hello, I’m a student in social sciences and I’m doing a survey on environmental protection. Do you have a half an hour to respond to an anonymous questionnaire of a hundred questions? Of course, you’re free to accept or not.” If the subject accepted, the experimenter gave him or her, the questionnaire adding, “Thank you. Take your time and respond as sincerely as possible.” Once the questionnaire was filled out, the experimenter thanked the subject.

The questionnaire response time (a half an hour) was chosen to avoid, as was the case in Study 1, that the request be too easily accepted in the control condition. It consists of a hundred items related to attitudes, motivations as well as the level of satisfaction of the students toward the protection of the environment.

Results

We used separate one-way chi-square tests on compliance rates for each country. The results presented in Figure 4 indicate that the BYAF technique had a significant effect in France, χ²(1, 64) = 5.50, p < .02, φ = .29, but not in China, χ²(1, 64) = 0.11, p > .74, ns, φ = .04. A complementary analysis of the control conditions indicates that the target request was accepted in the same proportions in France as in China, χ²(1, 64) = 0.41, p > .52, ns, φ = .08.

Figure 4.

Rate of acceptance of the target request (filling out a questionnaire) contingent on the country and the formulation used

Discussion

After verifying with the help of the COS that the Chinese were more collectivist than the French, the results in Study 4 confirm those obtained in studies 1, 2, and 3. In fact, the BYAF technique only had a significant effect in France. Furthermore, the rates of compliance in the control conditions of both countries were very close (21.9% vs. 15.6%), our results cannot be attributable to a difference in perception of the difficulty of the target request, as could be the case in Study 1.

Summary Results and Discussion

If we look into the cultural origin of compliance-without-pressure strategies, we will find that they are mostly from North America and it is there, where they have been studied in greatest numbers. For example, nearly all the references cited in Cialdini (1993), Guéguen (2011), Joule and Beauvois (2002) or Pratkanis (2007) are North American. We have asked whether all these techniques remain valid in other cultural contexts (Cialdini, Wosinska, Barrett, Butner, & Gornik-Durose, 1999). We have seen that the theories of commitment and of psychological reactance, which are more relevant in individualistic cultures than in collectivist cultures, are cited by the researchers to explain the effects of the BYAF technique (Guéguen et al., 2004). Therefore, we hypothesized that it was only in “individualist” cultural contexts (France and Romania) that the BYAF technique would have a significant effect. Indeed, it is in this type of cultural context where people are more likely to aspire a feeling of individual freedom. As such, let’s remember that France’s state motto is Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and the word liberty is placed first. Inversely, in collectivist cultures where people are more interdependent, the concept of individual liberty has little social value or even meaning, likely rendering the BYAF technique ineffective. In any case, that is what is implied by the results obtained in the three collectivist countries we considered: the Ivory Coast, Russia and China. Table 1 shows the average BYAF effect size obtained in individualist cultures (φ = .21) to be clearly superior to this average in collectivist cultures (φ = .08), t(8) = 4.71, p < .002. These results were expected as collectivist individuals aren’t as easily convinced to partake in an action and are less susceptible to reactance than individualists.

Table 1.

Effect Size of the BYAF Technique Among Countries

Study	Country	Effect size (φ)	Cultural orientation	Mean effect size (φ)
1	France	.13	Individualist	.21
2	France	.20
2	Romania	.23
3	France	.20
3	Romania	.22
4	France	.29

1	Ivory Coast	.09	Collectivist	.08
2	Russia	.08
3	Russia	.10
4	China	.04

If we acknowledge that individualist societies are characterized by a much greater level of individual freedom, it should be noted that it was in the countries of our study classified as being free (France and Romania) by the Freedom House, that the BYAF technique had a significant effect. Inversely, the Ivory Coast, Russia, and China are among the countries classified as nonfree according to the Freedom House and no significant effect from the BYAF technique could be observed in any of them. In conclusion, we would like to emphasize that in the literature on compliance-without-pressure techniques, there are few intercultural studies (Cialdini et al., 1999; Kilbourne, 1989; Petrova, Cialdini, & Sills, 2007). This field of research offers many prospects for understanding the underlying processes of diverse techniques. Our four studies allowed us to demonstrate that as we had hypothesized, the BYAF technique would be effective in the two individualist cultures (France and Romania), whereas it wouldn’t be in the three collectivist cultures (Ivory Coast, Russia, and China). Future studies will allow us to see, as it can be supposed, whether this hypothesis is equally valid in other countries composed of both individualist and collectivist cultures. However, individualism is strongly correlated with the free statute of a country,⁵ a limit in our studies is that we don’t know whether it’s the type of culture (individualist vs. collectivist) or the statute of this country which reinforces the effectiveness of the BYAF. So, although there does not exist not free country having an individualistic culture, future research could thus be carried out in the few free countries with collectivist cultures such as Costa Rica, Chile, Brazil, Ghana, Cape Verde, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Bios

Alexandre Pascual is an assistant professor of social psychology at the University of Bordeaux Segalen in France. His research focuses on behavioral influence process.

Christophe Oteme is an assistant professor of social psychology at the University of Cocody in Ivory Coast.

Luminita Samson is a doctor of social psychology at the Alecu State University of Bãlþi in Moldova.

Qiong Wang is currently a doctoral dissertation student at the Aix-Marseille University in France.

Séverine Halimi-Falkowicz is an assistant professor of information and communication sciences at the Aix-Marseille University in France. His research interests focus principally on forced compliance and compliance without pressure.

Lionel Souchet is an assistant professor of information and communication sciences at the Aix-Marseille University in France. His research interests focus principally on communication, social influence, and social representation.

Fabien Girandola is a professor of social psychology at the Aix-Marseille University in France. He conducts research on social influence, cognitive dissonance, and communication.

Nicolas Guéguen is a professor of social behavior at the University of Bretagne-Sud in France. His research interests focus on atmospherics and consumer behavior and compliance-gaining procedures.

Robert-Vincent Joule is a professor of social psychology at the Aix-Marseille University in France. He conducts research on social influence, cognitive dissonance, and communication.

References

Abrahams

M. F.

Bell

R. A.

(1994). Encouraging charitable contributions: An examination of three models of door-in-the-face compliance. Communication Research, 21, 131-153.

Bierbrauer

Meyer

Wolfradt

(1994). Measurement of normative and evaluative aspects in individualistic and collectivistic orientations: The Cultural Orientation Scale (COS). In Kim

Triandis

Kagitcibasi

Choi

S. C.

Yoon

(Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 189-194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bourgoin

(1984). L’Afrique malade du management [The African patient management]. Paris, France: Editions Jean Picollec.

Brehm

J. W.

(1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Burger

J. M.

Cornelius

(2003). Raising the price of agreement: Public commitment and the lowball compliance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 923-934.

Channouf

(1990). Antécédents et effets cognitifs et comportementaux des conduits [History and cognitive and behavioral effects of behavior: Internality to the consistency] (Doctoral dissertation). Université de Sciences Sociales de Grenoble, Grenoble, France.

Cialdini

R. B.

(1993). Influence : Science and practice. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Cialdini

R. B.

Schroeder

D. A.

(1976). Increasing compliance by legitimizing paltry contributions: When Even a Penny Helps. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 599-604.

Cialdini

R. B.

Wosinska

Barrett

D. W.

Butner

Gornik-Durose

(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, 1242-1253.

10.

Ciochină

Faria

(2009). Individualism and collectivism: What differences between Portuguese and Romanian adolescents? Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12, 555-564.

11.

Desrumaux

(1996). Explications causales et engagement contre ou pro-attitudinal: De l’internalité aux conduites pro-attitudinales [Causal explanations and commitment against or pro-attitudinal behavior of internality to pro-attitudinal] (Doctoral dissertation). Université de Lille 3-Charles-de-Gaulle, Lille, France.

12.

Eaton

Louw

(2000). Culture and self in South Africa: Individualism-collectivism predictions. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 210-217.

13.

Fernandez

D. R.

Carlson

D. S.

Stepina

L. P.

Nicholson

J. D.

(1997). Hofstede’s country classification 25 years later. Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1), 43-54.

14.

Freedman

J. L.

Fraser

S. C.

(1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195-202.

15.

Grossmann

Varnum

M. E. W.

(2011). Social class, culture, and cognition. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(1), 81-89.

16.

Guéguen

(2011). Psychologie de la manipulation et de la soumission [Psychology of manipulation and submission]. Paris, France: Dunod.

17.

Guéguen

Joule

R. V.

Halimi

Pascual

Fischer-Lokou

Dufourcq-Brana

(in press). I’m free but I’ll comply with your request: Generalization and multidimensional effects of the evoking freedom technique. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.

18.

Guéguen

Pascual

Jacob

Morineau

(2002). Request sollicitation and semantic evocation of freedom: an evaluation in a computer-mediated communication context. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 208-212.

19.

Guéguen

Pascual

Dagot

(2004). Se soumettre en toute liberté : La technique du vous êtes libre de. . . .[Submit freely: The technique of “you are free . . .”]. Perspectives Cognitives et Conduites Sociales, 9, 365-384.

20.

Guéguen

Pascual

(2000). Evocation of freedom and compliance: The but you are free of. . . technique. Current Research in Social Psychology, 5, 264-270.

21.

Harris

M. B.

(1972). The effects of performing one altruistic act on the likehood of performing another. Journal of Social Psychology, 88, 65-73.

22.

Heintz

(2002). Changes in work ethic in postsocialist Romania (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

23.

Hofstede

(1980). Cultures’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

24.

Hofstede

G. J.

Minkov

(2010). Cultures et organisations: Comprendre nos programmations mentales [Cultures and organizations: Understanding our mental programming]. Paris, France: Pearson Education.

25.

Howard

D. J.

(1990). The influence of verbal responses to common greetings on compliance behavior: The foot-in-the-mouth effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1185-1196.

26.

Jonas

Graupmann

Kayser

D. N.

Zanna

Traut-Mattausch

Frey

(2009). Culture, self, and the emergence of reactance: Is there a universal freedom? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1068-1080.

27.

Joule

R. V.

Beauvois

J. L.

(1998). La soumission librement consentie [The voluntary submission]. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.

28.

Joule

R. V.

Beauvois

J. L.

(2002). Petit traité de manipulation à l’usage des honnêtes gens [Short treatise on the use of manipulation of honest men]. Grenoble, France: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.

29.

Kiesler

C. A.

(1971). The psychology of commitment. New York, NY: Academic Press.

30.

Kiesler

C. A.

Sakumura

(1966). A test of a model for commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 349-353.

31.

Kilbourne

(1989). A cross-cultural investigation of foot-in-the-door compliance induction procedure. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20(1), 3-38.

32.

Kim

H. S.

Sherman

D. K.

(2007). Express yourself: Culture and the effect of self-expression on choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 1-11.

33.

Kleinke

(1977). Compliance to requests made by gazing and touching experimenters in field settings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 218-223.

34.

Louakima

(2004, September 1-4). L’individualisme et le collectivisme en Afrique versus Europe. L’exemple du Congo-Brazzaville versus France [Individualism and collectivism in Africa versus Europe. The example of Congo–Brazzaville vs. France]. Paper presented at 5th International Congress of French Language and Social Psychology. Organized by ADRIPS and the University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Western Switzerland.

35.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

36.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 420-430.

37.

Matsumoto

Takeuchi

Andayani

Kouznetsova

Krupp

(1998). The contribution of individualism—collectivism to cross-national differences in display rules. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 147-165.

38.

Miron

A. M.

Brehm

J. W.

(2006). Reactance theory—40 years later. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37, 9-18.

39.

S. H.

Zhy

(2001). Attributing causality and remembering events in individual- and group-acting situations: A Beijing, Hong Kong, and Wellington comparison. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 39-52.

40.

Norenzayan

Choi

Nisbett

R. E.

(1999). Eastern and Western perceptions of causality for social behavior: Lay theories about personalities and situations. In Prentice

D. A.

Miller

D. T.

(Eds.), Cultural Divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict (pp. 239-272). New York, NY: Russel Sage.

41.

Pascual

(2002). Soumission sans pression et technique du vous êtes libre de. . . [Submission of technical and non-pressure “you are free . . .”] (Doctoral dissertation). Université Bordeaux 2, Bordeaux, France.

42.

Pascual

Guéguen

(2002). La technique du vous êtes libre de. . .: Induction d’un sentiment de liberté et soumission à une requête ou le paradoxe d’une liberté manipulatrice [The technique of “you are free . . .”: Induction of a sense of freedom and submission to a request or the paradox of freedom manipulator.]. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 15(1), 51-80.

43.

Petrova

P. K.

Cialdini

R. B.

Sills

S. J.

(2007). Consistency-based compliance across cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 104-111.

44.

Pirttilä-Backman

A. M.

Kassea

B. R.

Ikonen

(2004). Cameroonian forms of collectivism and individualism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 481-498.

45.

Pratkanis

A. R.

(2007). The science of social influence: Advances and future progress. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

46.

Rotter

J. B.

(1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1-28.

47.

Santos

M. D.

Leve

Pratkanis

A. R.

(1994). Hey buddy, can you spare seventeen cents? Mindful persuasion and the pique technique. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 755-764.

48.

Savani

Markus

H. R.

Conner

A. L.

(2008). Let your preference be your guide ? Preferences and choices are more tightly linked for North Americans than for Indians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 861-876.

49.

Shulruf

Alesi

Ciochina

Faria

Hattie

Watkins

(2011). Measuring collectivism and individualism in the third millenium. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 39, 173-187.

50.

Spector

P. E.

Cooper

C. L.

Sanchez

J. I.

O’Driscol

Sparks

Bernin

. . . Yu

(2001). Do national levels of individualism and internal locus of control relate to well-being: And ecological level international study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 815-832.

51.

Spector

P. E.

Cooper

C. L.

Sparks

(2001). An international study of the psychometric properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: A comparison of individual and country/province level results. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 269-281.

52.

Triandis

H. C.

(1989). The self and social behavior in different cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 269-289.

53.

Triandis

H. C.

(2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69, 907-924.

54.

Triandis

H. C.

McCusker

Hui

C. H.

(1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020.

55.

Van den Berg

P. T.

(2010). Comparing the cultures of Romania and the Netherlands: When East meets West. Psihologia Resurselor Umane, 10, 30-41.

56.

Vaunne

Schoeneman

T. J.

(1997). Individualism versus collectivism: A comparison of Kenyan and American self-concepts. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 261-273.

57.

Westerhof

G. J.

Dittman-Kohli

Katzko

M. W.

(2000). Individualism and collectivism in the personal meaning system of elderly adults. The United States and Congo/Zaire as an example. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 649-676.

58.

Wicklund

R. A.

Brehm

J. W.

(1976). Perspectives on cognitive dissonance. New York, NY: Wiley.