Four studies examined the effect of an incidental similarity on compliance to a request. Undergraduates who believed they shared a birthday (Study 1), a first name (Study 2), or fingerprint similarities (Study 3) with a requester were more likely to comply with a request than participants who did not perceive an incidental similarity with the requester. The findings are consistent with past research demonstrating that people often rely on heuristic processing when responding to requests and with Heider’s description of unit relationships in which perceived similarities lead to positive affect. Consistent with the unit relation interpretation, participants did not increase compliance when hearing about an incidental similarity with someone other than the requester or when they believed the feature they shared with the requester was common.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arkin, R. M., & Burger, J. M. (1980). Effects of unit relation tendencies on interpersonal attraction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 380-391.
2.
Aune, R. K., & Basil, M. D. (1994). A relational obligations approach to the foot-in-the-mouth effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 546-556.
3.
Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230-244.
4.
Burger, J. M. (1985). Temporal effects on attributions for academic performances and reflected-glory basking. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 330-336.
5.
Burger, J. M., Horita, M., Kinoshita, L., Roberts, K., & Vera, C. (1997). The effects of time on the norm of reciprocity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 91-100.
6.
Burger, J. M., Soroka, S., Gonzago, K., Murphy, E., & Somervell, E. (2001). The effect of fleeting attraction on compliance to requests. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1578-1586.
7.
Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford.
8.
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
9.
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375.
10.
Cialdini, R. B., & Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two indirect tactics of image management: Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 406-415.
11.
Clark, M. S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M. C., & Milberg, S. (1987). Recipient’s mood, relationship type, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 94-103.
12.
Dolinski, D., Nawrat, N., & Rudak, I. (2001). Dialogue involvement as a social influence technique. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1395-1406.
13.
Emswiller, T., Deaux, K., & Willits, J. E. (1971). Similarity, sex, and requests for small favors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1, 284-291.
14.
Finch, J. F., & Cialdini, R. B. (1989). Another indirect tactic of (self-) image management: Boosting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 222-232.
15.
Garrity, K., & Degelman, D. (1990). Effect of server introduction on restaurant tipping. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 168-172.
16.
Greenwald, A. G., Pickrell, J. E., & Farnham, S. D. (2002). Implicit partisanship: Taking sides for no reason. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 367-379.
17.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.
18.
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.
19.
Insko, C. A., & Wilson, M. (1977). Interpersonal attraction as a function of social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 903-911.
20.
Isen, A. M., Shalker, T. E., Clark, M., & Karp, L. (1978). Affect, accessibility of material in memory, and behavior: A cognitive loop? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1-12.
21.
Kitayama, S., & Karasawa, M. (1997). Implicit self-esteem in Japan: Name letters and birthday numbers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 736-742.
22.
Koole, S. L., Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (2001). What’s in a name: Implicit self-esteem and the automatic self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 669-685.
23.
Macrae, C. N., & Johnston, L. (1998). Help, I need somebody: Automatic action and inaction. Social Cognition, 16, 400-417.
24.
Nuttin, M. J. (1987). Affective consequences of mere ownership: The name letter effect in twelve European languages. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 381-402.
25.
Pelham, B. W., Mirenberg, M. C., & Jones, J. T. (2002). Why Susie sells seashells by the seashore: Implicit egotism and major life decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 469-487.
26.
Pollock, C. L., Smith, S. D., Knowles, E. S., & Bruce, H. J. (1998). Mindfulness limits compliance with the that’s-not-all technique. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1153-1157.
27.
Reingen, P. H., & Kernan, J. B. (1993). Social perception and interpersonal influence: Some consequences of the physical attractiveness stereotype in a personal selling setting. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2, 25-38.
28.
Santos, M. D., Leve, C., & 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.
29.
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102.
30.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
31.
Ungar, S., & Sev’er, A. (1989). “Say it ain’t so, Ben”: Attributions for a fallen hero. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 207-212.
32.
Williamson, G. M., & Clark, M. S. (1992). Impact of desired relationship type on affective reactions to choosing and being required to help. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 10-18.
