Chapter 1 - Universiteit Twente

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Results and discussion Stage Two: The Path of Least Resistance A fairly high percentage of participants (78%) complied with the volunteering request, which was likely a result of the volunteering being described as fun to do. Given the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable, the data were analyzed using logistical regression. As predicted, and in line with the results of Experiments 3.1 and 3.2, there was a significant interaction between depletion induction and heuristic activation on compliance (Wald(1) = 5.36, p < .05). No other effects were observed. Chi-square tests confirmed that self-regulatory resource depletion encouraged heuristic decision making: when the heuristic principle of likeability was activated, 88.5% of the participants who were depleted of their self-regulatory resources complied with the request as compared to 65.4% of participants in the no depletion condition (χ²(1) = 3.90, p < .05). When the heuristic was absent from the influence setting, the percentage of depleted participants that complied was statistically equivalent to the percentage of non-depleted participants (70.8% vs. 87.5%, χ²(1) = 2.02, ns, see Figure 3.3). Compliance 100 80 60 40 20 0 Likeability No Likeability Depletion No Depletion Figure 3.3. Percentage of participants willing to volunteer, as a function of depletion-induction and heuristic-activation (adapted from Janssen, Fennis, & Pruyn, 2008). 74
Stage Two: The Path of Least Resistance These results suggest that a state of self-regulatory resource depletion renders people susceptible to the likeability heuristic, thereby increasing the odds they will comply with a request. Importantly, the chi-square tests indicate that the interaction effect between self-regulatory resource depletion and likeability is ordinal, rather than disordinal, and thus parallels the findings of the previous experiments. Nevertheless, the pattern of results in the no-heuristic condition appears to suggest that depleted participants tended to comply less than non-depleted participants. Since the effect is nonsignificant we can only speculate as to the underlying processes, but one possibility is that the absence of a heuristic robbed depleted participants (but not their non-depleted counterparts) of a basis for making a decision, thus resulting in reduced compliance compared to non-depleted participants. That is, decision making requires self-regulatory resources (Vohs et al., 2008) and when people are temporarily weak in self-regulation they consequently become worse at making decisions (Pocheptsova, Amir, Dhar, & Baumeister, 2009). Hence, it is possible that depleted participants who were left without a cue for making a decision did not have a salient guide to behavior. Conversely, for no depletion participants, their behavior may have served as a cue to subsequent compliance. That is, no depletion participants were given a fairly straightforward task (i.e., tracing figures without a mirror using their dominant hand). In the no likeability condition, no feedback on their performance was given and therefore these participants had to infer for themselves whether they had done a good job (again, the task was so easy that it was clear that they had). Given the easiness of the task, their performance may have prompted increased willingness to comply with the target request to volunteer in future studies, compared to no depletion participants in the likeability condition (who may have perceived the heuristic as redundant). In sum, these findings extend the results of Experiments 3.1 and 3.2 to other types of heuristic principles, other manipulations of self-regulatory resource depletion, and other forms of compliance. Moreover, these results demonstrated that the impact of selfregulatory resource depletion on compliance is not restricted to the laboratory but can be elicited and observed in naturalistic dyadic influence settings as well. 75
Page 1 and 2:
SELF-REGULATION AND SOCIAL INFLUENC
Page 3 and 4:
SELF-REGULATION AND SOCIAL INFLUENC
Page 5:
Samenstelling promotiecommissie Pro
Page 9:
Chapter 1 General introduction: Tow
Page 12 and 13:
General Introduction bank account a
Page 14 and 15:
General Introduction Social influen
Page 16 and 17:
General Introduction include the lo
Page 18 and 19:
General Introduction action pattern
Page 20 and 21:
General Introduction resource. As a
Page 22 and 23:
General Introduction performance li
Page 24 and 25: General Introduction demonstrated t
Page 26 and 27: General Introduction efficient beha
Page 28 and 29: General Introduction influence proc
Page 30 and 31: General Introduction request (the t
Page 33: 1 This chapter is adapted from two
Page 36 and 37: Stage One: Weakening the Ramparts I
Page 38 and 39: Stage One: Weakening the Ramparts r
Page 40 and 41: Design and procedure Stage One: Wea
Page 42 and 43: Stage One: Weakening the Ramparts a
Page 44 and 45: Results and discussion Stage One: W
Page 46 and 47: Design and procedure Stage One: Wea
Page 48 and 49: Stage One: Weakening the Ramparts a
Page 50 and 51: Stage One: Weakening the Ramparts I
Page 52 and 53: Stage One: Weakening the Ramparts C
Page 54 and 55: Stage One: Weakening the Ramparts -
Page 56: Stage One: Weakening the Ramparts I
Page 61 and 62: Stage Two: The Path of Least Resist
Page 65 and 66: Design and procedure Stage Two: The
Page 67 and 68: Compliance 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 St
Page 73: Design and procedure Stage Two: The
Page 79 and 80: Compliance Stage Two: The Path of L
Page 83: Stage Two: The Path of Least Resist
Page 87 and 88: Extending the Model: Forewarned is
Page 91 and 92: The present research Extending the
Page 93 and 94: Experiment 4.1 Design and procedure
Page 105 and 106: Experiment 4.3 Design and procedure
Page 107 and 108: Results and discussion Extending th
Page 109 and 110: General discussion Extending the Mo
Page 117: Chapter 5 General discussion
Page 120 and 121: Summary of the empirical findings G
Page 122 and 123: General Discussion Chapter 2. Stage
Page 124 and 125:
General Discussion resource depleti
Page 126 and 127:
General Discussion the heuristic pr
Page 128 and 129:
General Discussion on the intermedi
Page 130 and 131:
General Discussion Furthermore, by
Page 132 and 133:
General Discussion result of impuls
Page 134 and 135:
General Discussion Third, it is cru
Page 136 and 137:
General Discussion (e.g., Cialdini,
Page 138 and 139:
General Discussion interactions, re
Page 140 and 141:
General Discussion A final note ref
Page 142:
General Discussion immediate ‘ret
Page 147 and 148:
References Aiken, L. S., & West, S.
Page 149 and 150:
References Burger, J. M., & Corneli
Page 151 and 152:
References Ferreira, M. B., Garcia-
Page 153 and 154:
References Martijn, C., Alberts, H.
Page 155 and 156:
References Sherif, M. (1936). The p
Page 157:
References Wheeler, S. C., Briñol,
Page 161 and 162:
State Ego Depletion Scale (Ciarocco
Page 165:
Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch)
Page 168 and 169:
Samenvatting verzoek wordt gedaan z
Page 170 and 171:
Hoofdstuk 2 Samenvatting In het eer
Page 172 and 173:
Samenvatting ook Baumeister et al.,
Page 174 and 175:
Samenvatting even succesvol te zijn
Page 177:
Dankwoord (Acknowledgements in Dutc
Page 180 and 181:
Dankwoord Kathleen, thank you so mu
Page 182:
Dankwoord Lieve paps en mams. Even
show all

Chapter 1 - Universiteit Twente

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?