Social Labeling and Compliance: An Evaluation of the Link between the Label and the Request

By Gueguen, Nicolas | Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, January 1, 2001 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Social Labeling and Compliance: An Evaluation of the Link between the Label and the Request


Gueguen, Nicolas, Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal


Research on the effect of a negative social labeling on compliance has shown divergent results. Sometimes, a negative labeling made after a first request leads to decreased compliance with a further request, while, in other cases, this labeling leads to increased compliance. These contradictory results could come from the presence or absence of a link between the label and the nature of the further request. An experiment was carried out in which subjects were the target of an initial negative label (unpleasant remark on the fact they ate horse meat presented on top of a shopping bag they had agreed to keep an eye on). Then, a few seconds later, they had the opportunity to carry out a prosocial behavior linked with the label (a petition in favor of animals) or without a link with it (a petition for the diminution of pollution). Results showed that compliance with the later request was affected by the initial labeling only when there was congruence between the request and the label.

Previous studies on the effect of a negative label on compliance have shown discrepancies in results. Steele (1975) was the first to point out that a negative label increased helping behavior. During an initial phone contact, the experimenter insinuated that the subject was individualistic and certainly did not care about what was taking place in the community. Two days after this phase of labeling, another experimenter phoned the same person and offered the possibility to give some time to a charity in the district. The figures reveal that this negative label led to an increase in the compliance rate: 93% in this experimental condition against 46% in a control group. For Steele the negative label decreased the subject's self-esteem. So, when the possibility of restoring it was given a little while later, it, quite naturally, led the subject to comply with the request made. This explanation in terms of restoration of self-esteem seems plausible but, regrettably, a negative label does not necessarily imply this positive effect on compliance with the request. For instance, Goldman, Seever, and Seever (1982) showed an inhibition of helping behavior following a negative label. These authors asked a first confederate to step up to students entering a library, and ask the way to such and such a place on the campus. In one of the conditions, the confederate thanked the subject warmly (positive label) whereas, in another one, the confederate behaved in a rude offensive way, questioning the helpfulness of the subject and his ability to give a direction correctly (negative label). In a third group, "thank you" was said just to be polite. The subject went into the library and was approached a few minutes later by a second confederate who asked if the subject would agree to give 2 hours', time for the benefit of a telethon which was taking place the month after. Finally, in a fourth group, the second request was made without any peliminaries. The results showed that in the positive label condition, the compliance rate with the last request was significantly higher than in the condition without labeling (67% against 40%) whereas these two groups distinguished themselves statistically from the group with a negative label (20%) and from the control group (17%). Thus, for Goldman et al. these results confirmed the self-perception theory explaining the "foot-in-the-door" effect (Freedman & Fraser, 1966) used here. The first request led the subject to perceive himself as a helpful person in the positive label condition and as a rather unhelpful person in the negative one. Once this self-perception had been activated, the subject behaved in a way congruent with this self-perception: the "helpful" line quite logically led the subject to comply with the request whereas the "non-helpful" line led to refusal of the second request. These results seem surprising because they are in sharp contrast with Steele's theory which stressed the fact that the negative label favored subsequent helping behavior.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Social Labeling and Compliance: An Evaluation of the Link between the Label and the Request
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?