Exploring the Efficacy of Compliments as a Tactic for Securing Compliance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two studies were conducted to test the efficacy of compliments as a compliance tactic and to explore whether liking could account for their effectiveness. Both studies provided evidence that compliments increased compliance relative to a control condition. Although receiving a compliment did tend to increase liking of the requestor, this increased liking was not responsible for enhanced levels of compliance. This research provides some of the first direct evidence of the effectiveness of compliments as a means of securing compliance and provides data challenging the mechanism most commonly assumed to be responsible for its effects. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Our sponsor was Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Grants 410-2004-1255, 410-2007-1844. Notes 1Initially we planned to test individual differences in reciprocity as a potential moderator of the compliment effect. Participants were thus those who had scored in the upper or lower thirds on the Personal Norm of Reciprocity Scale (PNRS; Perugini, Gallucci, Presaghi, & Ercolani, Citation2003). Because the PNRS did not result in any theoretically meaningful effects, it was dropped from the analysis. Results were similar regardless of whether the PNRS was included. 2The authors will provide the full confederate script upon request. 3The five other adjectives were intelligent, competent, ambitious, sincere, and honest. 4Two female undergraduates took turns playing the role of the confederate. Chi-square tests confirmed that confederate was unconfounded with compliment condition, χ2(1) = 1.65, p = .20. 5To explore the idea that liking interacted with the compliment manipulation, a logistic regression was conducted including a centerd liking measure as an independent variable. Results revealed that liking did not interact with the compliment condition. 6Our original intent was to include males in this experiment. However, post-experimental interviews with initial male participants who went through the experimental procedure indicated that they did not find the computer-mediated conversation to be plausible and thus reported high levels of suspicion regarding the authenticity of the interaction. 7Initially we planned to test an experimental manipulation of the salience of the reciprocity norm as a potential moderator of the compliment effect. Thus a priming manipulation was included prior to the experiment wherein participants responded to items from the PNRS (Perugini et al., Citation2003) or responded to neutral questions. This manipulation proved unsuccessful and was thus dropped from analysis. Results were similar regardless of whether reciprocity was included.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it