The Disrupt-Then-Reframe Technique 1 Running head: THE DISRUPT-THEN-REFRAME TECHNIQUE Interpersonal Communication and Compliance: The Disrupt-Then-Reframe Technique in Dyadic Selling Situations

Two experiments tested the impact of the Disrupt-Then-Reframe (DTR) technique on compliance. This technique is comprised of a subtle, odd element in a typical scripted request, the “disruption”, followed by a persuasive phrase, the “reframing”. Based on the thought-disruption hypothesis (Petty & Wegener, 1999), we argued that its impact is generalizable across interpersonal selling situations and that disrupting a conventional sales script not only increases the impact of the new reframing, but also increases susceptibility to influence resulting from other persuasion techniques embedded in the influence setting. Two experiments provided support for our expectations. Exp. 1 (N = 80) showed that the DTR technique fostered compliance with both commercial and non-profit sales scripts. The results of Exp. 2 (N = 75) replicated this finding and supported the thought-disruption hypothesis: the impact of brand familiarity was larger under DTR as opposed to control conditions. The theoretical and practical implications will be discussed. The Disrupt-Then-Reframe Technique 3 Interpersonal Communication and Compliance: The Disrupt-Then-Reframe Technique in Dyadic Selling Situations Have you ever tried to get someone to comply with a simple request, such as letting you cut in to use the Xerox machine or agreeing to act as a participant in a study you designed? Did you feel awkward and embarrassed to ask? Then you’re not alone. The reluctance to ask someone even a simple favor is almost universal and stands testimony to the aversion felt by many to approach and try to persuade a target (e.g., Cialdini, 2001). Interpersonal social influence is often perceived as a game of hurdles in which the target’s rejection response appears almost inevitable. Wouldn’t it be convenient if there was such a thing as a “magic formula” that circumvents this rejection response and induces compliance on the part of a target recipient, without much effort on the part of the agent? According to Davis & Knowles (1999) such a formula may well exist. These authors have recently identified and tested a rather subtle social influence tactic, which they termed the Disrupt-Then-Reframe (DTR) technique. This technique operates by gently “destabilizing” a target and, hence, makes use of what Kardes (2002) terms “the confusion principle” of social influence. The DTR technique is characterized by a small “twist”, or odd element, in a typical scripted sales request, the “disruption” (e.g. stating the price of the offer in pennies first, then in dollars: “They’re 200 pennies,... that’s $2”), followed by a persuasive phrase which concludes the script, the “reframing” (e.g. “It’s a really good deal”). Thus formulated, a request is posited to be more than 1.5 times as “powerful” in gaining compliance, than its conventionally stated counterpart (Davis & Knowles, 1999; Knowles, Butler & Linn, 2001). Notwithstanding the persuasive potential, research on this technique is still in its infancy. To date, only one study apart from the two publications by the original authors has examined the generalizability of the phenomenon and the factors that mediate and moderate it (Fennis, The Disrupt-Then-Reframe Technique 4 Das, & Pruyn, in press). Still, there is a clear need for further study. The present research extended previous research by examining the processes underlying the effectiveness of the DTR technique and its generalizability across various types of compliance behaviors and across differing types of persuasion settings. In the following section, we briefly review the limited empirical evidence on the DTR procedure and the theoretical assumptions underlying it. Next, we discuss related theory and research in the fields of compliance and persuasion that is relevant to the object under study. Finally, we report two studies that test the generalizability of the DTR construct and its implications for the persuasiveness of other influence techniques. Research on the Disrupt-Then-Reframe Technique In a series of four studies, Davis and Knowles (1999) demonstrated that disrupting a sales script, followed by a reframing significantly enhanced purchase rates. In all studies, sets of note cards were sold door-to-door by confederates who claimed to be associated with a non-profit organization for disabled children and adults, the “Richardson Center”. Each study followed the same scenario. The note cards were presented and it was said they had been made by clients of the center. After a general introduction of the sales person, the Richardson Center and the note cards, the prospective buyer was asked whether he or she wanted to know the price. Then, in some conditions, a disrupting phrase was inserted. This phrase consisted of a small but unexpected element, stating the price in pennies rather than dollars. After presenting this odd element, the confederate paused for two seconds before stating the price in dollars and the reframing. The DTR condition would thus read: “This package of cards sells for 300 pennies... That’s $3. It’s a bargain!” The original studies found purchasing rates to be more than 1.5 times and in several instances twice as high in DTR as opposed to control conditions. The Disrupt-Then-Reframe Technique 5 The authors provided evidence that both the disruption and the reframing were necessary conditions to increase compliance. The DTR technique was tested against various control conditions, such as price only (“They’re $3”), reframe then disrupt (“It’s a bargain... . They’re 300 pennies. That’s $3”), disruption only (“They’re 300 pennies... . That’s $3”), and reframe only (“They’re $3. It’s a bargain”). In all these instances, DTR conditions yielded significantly higher purchase rates than any of these control conditions. Note, however, that the effectiveness of the technique has only been demonstrated in a non-profit setting. Hence, one of the main objectives of the current studies is to extent the generalizability of these findings to other types of compliance settings. In addition, an important objective of the present research is to examine why the technique is so effective. The original authors (Davis & Knowles, 1999) forwarded two frameworks to explain the phenomenon: Ericksonian confusion techniques (Erickson, 1964) and action identification theory (Vallacher & Wegner, 1985, 1987). Erickson, pioneer in the field of clinical hypnosis, used unexpected elements in his interaction with clients to reduce resistance in order to foster hypnosis. He proposed that his techniques engaged the mind of the client, thus diverting it from maintaining resistance to the hypnotic attempt. He found that confusion increased compliance with any of the hypnotic suggestions that immediately followed. On a more theoretical level, action identification theory (Wegner et al., 1984) was used to explain the DTR effect. It states that any form of behavior can and will be constructed at different hierarchical levels by a perceiver, ranging from low-level characterizations that pertain to specific details of the behavior to high-level qualifications that include the goals and broader implications of the actions. Action identification theory would predict that a disruption in an on-going sales-script would shift the recipient’s focus from the higher level The Disrupt-Then-Reframe Technique 6 meanings ascribed to the behavior and indeed the entire dyadic encounter, to a more concrete lower-level focus. This attention to the details of the action brought about by the disruption, would then make the recipient susceptible to influence presented by the reframe. In this paper, we present a more comprehensive theoretical framework to understand the DTR effect that will yield additional hypotheses not necessarily following from Ericksonian confusion principles or action identification theory. Alternative Perspectives Davis and Knowles (1999) have suggested that their findings might well be the result of peripheral or heuristic processing on the part of the target individual, but they have not explicitly tested this notion, nor considered a dual-process framework (Chaiken, 1980; Chaiken & Trope, 1999; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) as an explanatory construct for their findings. Nevertheless, based on dual-process reasoning, we argue that the disruption in the DTR-technique may well function as a distracter, fostering mindlessness by reducing the ability of the target individual to produce counterarguments to the sales script (cf. Harkins & Petty, 1981; Petty & Wegener, 1999; Petty, Wells & Brock, 1976). Hence, based on this thought-disruption hypothesis, the disruption in the DTR may induce lower levels of processing and the reframe could have an impact on compliance to the extent that it functions as a heuristic or peripheral cue. Thus, we propose that the reframe in the Disrupt-ThenReframe technique affects persuasion only when accompanied by the disruption, not when the disruption is absent. In addition, the thought-disruption concept yields predictions that are not directly implied by either Ericksonian confusion techniques or action identification theory. That is, if the disruption reduces the recipients’ ability to counterargue and consequently fosters mindless acceptance through heuristic processing of the reframe, this implies that any peripheral cue present in the influence situation will be more effective under DTR conditions The Disrupt-Then-Reframe Technique 7 than it will be when the DTR technique is absent. This would imply that the type of influence technique used (DTR versus control) would moderate the impact of additional persuasive elements on consumer compliance. In a recent study, evidence was reported that supported both postulates. In a series of three experiments, Fennis et al. (in press) demonstrated that the disruption in the DTRtechnique distracts individuals and, consequently, lowers the extent of couterargumentation. This reduced counterargumentation, in turn, affected compliance rates. Moreover, two additional experiments found evidence that the disruption in the DTR-technique not only boosts the persuasive impact of the reframe, but also of other persuasive elements present in the influence setting (Fennis et al., in press). Nevertheless, in these studies, the type of organization that the confederate claimed to be associated with, was held constant (either commercial or non-profit). Consequently, the objective of study 1 is to assess whether the type of organisation (profit or non profit) moderates the impact of the DTR-technique on compliance. In addition, the evidence that the DTR boosts the effectiveness of other persuasive elements, pertained to two different persuasive strategies, both based on the principle of congruence (Mandler, 1982). Thus, there is a need to generalize these findings to include other types of persuasive elements. This will be the main objective of study 2. Study 1 The first study was designed to test the generalizability of the disrupt-then-reframe technique to requests made on behalf of other than not-for-profit sources. More specifically, the question underlying the present study is: is the DTR technique is also effective in gaining compliance when used by a commercial sales representative as opposed to the typical noncommercial sales persons that solicited in the interest of the charity organizations in the original DTR studies (Davis & Knowles, 1999; Knowles, Butler & Linn, 2001)? Hence, we The Disrupt-Then-Reframe Technique 8 wanted to examine whether the effectiveness of the DTR technique was contingent on the nature of the organization that the sales representative claimed to be associated with.