Disrupt-Then-Reframe is in the Air: A French Replication and Refinement

• Authors: Roxane Saint-Bauzel , Audrey Pelt , Laura Barbier , Valérie Fointiat
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Initiated by Davis and Knowles (1999), the-disrupt-then-reframe technique is based on the linking of two moments in time. First of all, slipping an unexpected element into a communication situation that is likely to provoke a disruption in communication. Once this disruption has been achieved, proposing a target behaviour by insisting on the benefit that the individual could derive from it. We wanted to verify that this technique, effective in American, Dutch, and Polish contexts and naturally dependent on the culture of individuals and the communication norms which prevail there, could be effective in a French context. In accordance with the literature, our results show that when the two phases of the technique are linked, a greater persuasive effect is observed. A theoretically interesting way to interpret the effectiveness of the technique is proposed.

Keywords

EN

disrupt-then-reframe; compliance; communication; cross cultural differences; construal-level theory

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Psychology of Language and Communication
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 19
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 162-173

Dates

published

2015-10-01

online

2015-10-29

Contributors

author

Roxane Saint-Bauzel

• University of Lorraine, PErSEUs, UFR SHS, Ile du Saulcy, BP 30309, 57 000 Metz, France

author

Audrey Pelt

• University of Lorraine

author

Laura Barbier

• University of Lorraine

author

Valérie Fointiat

• University of Lorraine

References

• Aaker, J.L. (2000). Accessibility or diagnosticity? Disentangling the infl uence of culture on persuasion processes and att itudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (4), 340-357.
• Aaker, J.L. & Williams, P. (1998). Empathy versus pride: Th e infl uence of emotional appeals across cultures. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 241-261.
• Carpenter, C.J. & Boster, F.J. (2009). Meta-analysis of the eff ectiveness of the disrupt-then-reframe compliance gaining technique. Communication Reports, 22 (2), 55-62.
• Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (5), 752-766.
• Cialdini, R., Wosinska, W., Barrett , D., Butner, J., & Gornik-Durose, M. (1999). Compliance with a request in two cultures: Th e differential influence of social proof and commitment/consistency on collectivists and individualists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 (10), 1242-1253.
• Courbet, D. & Marchioli, A. (in press). Risques et communication de sante publique en contexte mediterraneen. Deux experimentations en region PACA. In F. Bernard & M. Durampart (Eds.), Savoirs en action, cultures et réseaux méditerranéens. Paris: CNRS editions.
• Davis, B.P. & Knowles, E.S. (1999). A disrupt-then-reframe technique of social infl uence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (2), 192-199.
• Dolinski, D. & Szczucka, K. (2012). Fear-then-relief-then argument: How to sell goods using the EDTR technique of social infl uence. Social Infl uence, 7 (3), 251-267.
• Dolinski, D. & Szczucka, K. (2013). Emotional disrupt-then-reframe technique of social infl uence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43 (10), 2031-2041.
• Fayol, M. & Monteil, J.-M. (1988). Th e notion of script: From general to developmental and social psychology. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition, 8 (4), 335-361.
• Fennis, B.M., Das, E.H.H.J., & Pruyn, A.T.H. (2004). “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffl e them with nonsense”: Extending the impact of the disruptthen- reframe technique of social infl uence. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (3), 280-290.
• Fennis, B.M., Das, E.H.H.J., & Pruyn, A.T.H. (2006). Interpersonal communication and compliance: The disrupt-then-reframe technique in dyadic infl uence settings. Communication Research, 33 (2), 136-151.
• Freedman, J.L. & Fraser, S.C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: Th e foot-inthe- door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 (2), 196-202.
• Guéguen, N. & Pascual, A. (2000). Evocation of freedom and compliance: Th e “but you are free of… ” technique. Current Research in Social Psychology, 5 (18), 264-270.
• Han, S. & Shavitt , S. (1994). Persuasion and culture: Advertising appeals in individualistic and collectivistic societies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30 (4), 326-350.
• Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International diff erences in work-related values (Abridged). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Howell, D.C. (2008). Donnees categorielles et khi-carre. In D.C. Howell (Ed.), Méthodes statistiques en sciences humaines (pp. 139-172). Brussels: DeBoeck.
• Kardes, F.R., Fennis, B.M., Hirt, E.R., Tormala, Z.L., & Bullington, B. (2007). The role of the need for cognitive closure in the eff ectiveness of the disrupt-thenreframe influence technique. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 377-385.
• Kleinke, C. (1977). Compliance to requests made by gazing and touching experimenters in fi eld sett ings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13 (3), 218-223.
• Kraut, R.E. (1973). Eff ects of social labelling on giving to charity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9 (6), 551-562.
• Lee, A.Y. & Labroo, A.A. (2004). Th e eff ect of conceptual and perceptual fl uency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (2), 151-165.
• Liberman, N. & Trope, Y. (1998). Th e role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (1), 5-18.
• Meng, H. (2008). Social script theory and cross-cultural communication. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12 (1), 132-138.
• Mitchell, A. & Valenzuela, A. (2005). How banner ads aff ect brand choice without click-through. In C.P. Haugtveldt, K.A. Machleit, & R.F. Yalch (Eds.), Online consumer psychology: understanding and influencing consumer behaviour in the virtual world (pp. 125-142). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
• Morling, B. & Lamoreaux, M. (2008). Measuring culture outside the head: A metaanalysis of individualism-collectivism in cultural products. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 199-221.
• Pascual, A. & Guéguen, N. (2004). Cultural differences in altruistic behaviour: Quasi-replication of Uranowitz’ foot-in-the-door with implicit demand. Psychological Reports, 94 (3), 767-770.
• Pascual, A., Oteme, C., Samson, L., Wang, Q., Halimi-Falkowicz, S., Souchet, L., Girandola, F., Gueguen, N., & Joule, R.-V. (2012). Cross cultural investigation of compliance without pressure: the “you are free to… ” technique in France, Ivory Coast, Romania, Russia and China. Cross-Cultural Research: Th e Journal of Comparative Social Science, 46 (4), 394-416.
• Petrova, P.K., Cialdini, R.B., & Sills, S.J. (2007). Consistency-based compliance across cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43 (1), 104-111.
• Ranney, S. (1992). Learning a new script: An explanation of sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 13 (1), 25-50.
• Schank, R.C. & Abelson, R.P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An Inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
• Schwarz, N. & Clore, G.L. (1983). Mood, misatt ribution, and judgements of wellbeing: informative and directive functions of aff ective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (3), 513-523.
• St Clair, R.N., Th ome-Williams, A.C., & Su, L. (2005). Th e role of social script theory in cognitive blending. Intercultural Communication Studies, 15 (2), 58-76.
• St. Clair, R.N. (2006). Th e framing of culture: Interdisciplinary essays on culture theory. Course available through Blackboard for Beijing Foreign Studies University students, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.
• Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal Construal. Psychological Review, 110 (3), 403-421. Vallacher, R.R. & Selz, K. (1991). Who’s to blame? Action identification in allocating responsibility for alleged rape. Social Cognition, 9 (2), 194-219.
• Vallacher, R.R., & Wegner, D.M. (1985). A theory of action identifi cation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
• Vallacher, R.R. & Wegner, D.M. (2012). Action identifi cation theory. In P.A.M.
• Van Lange, A.W. Kruglanski, & E.T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Th eories of Social Psychology (pp. 327-348). Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Wegner, D.M., Vallacher, R.R., Kiersted, G.W., & Dizadji, D. (1986). Action identifi cation in the emergence of social behaviour. Social Cognition, 4 (1), 18-38.
• Wegner, D.M., Vallacher, R.R., Macomber, G., Wood, R., & Arps, K. (1984). Th e emergence of action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (2), 269-279.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/plc-2015-0010